Card Check Lies
February 9, 2009
By Herman Cain
When someone takes the time to actually read the proposed "Card Check" legislation (H.R. 800), and cut through the intentionally confusing legalese, you will discover that many of the proponents of this legislation have lied. Review the following side-by-side comparison of the rules for unionizing a workplace now versus what the rules would look like if the legislation passes, and you make the call.
| RULES NOW |
RULES IF H.R. 800 Passes |
| 1. 30 percent cards signed to get a vote for certification election |
1. 50 percent +1 card signed get a union |
| 2. 45 days until secret ballot vote |
2. Union can demand recognition |
| 3. Campaign discussions pros and cons |
3. No chance for discussions; union views only |
| 4. Secret Ballot Vote |
4. 90 days of negotiations, if no deal, then 30 days of Federal Mediation |
| 5. If employees vote to be represented by union, then parties bargain in good faith |
5. If no agreement after 120 days, then negotiations go to arbitration |
| 6. Federal Mediation Service available to aid the parties |
6. Arbitrator decides contract terms for automatic two-year term |
| 7. Contract voted on by bargaining unit |
7. Employees not allowed to vote on contract |
Currently, the employees vote directly twice, one of which is the secret ballot, and a third time through their bargaining representatives. Under the proposed rules, the employees would sign a card and then they are totally out of the process from that point on. Proponents think that's "free choice," and one spokesman appearing on Fox News said flatly that employees do not lose the secret ballot. Where is it on the right side of the comparison?
The next most often used ridiculous argument for support of the legislation is that "employers have become too powerful". Yes, I actually heard Sen. Chuck Schumer say this when asked directly by a reporter. His evidence of this was the number of workers who have chosen to not unionize over the last 20 years. Maybe employers are doing something right, but that's an impossibility in the minds of die-hard liberals.
Proponents have also alleged that employers intimidate employees into not joining a union. That's ridiculous, because most employers work at trying to keep their workers happy for competitive reasons and because it enhances employee morale.
I personally know of many more stories of union intimidation of employees than instances of employer intimidation.
Proponents of this legislation are in denial of businesses that have left this country or been forced to shut down because of unreasonable union demands. The union bosses do well, because they move on to the next business to put the squeeze on and collect union dues, while thousands of workers are unemployed. Ask the people who used to work for Eastern Airlines, or the workers who have been the casualties of closed automobile plants.
Workers have every right to unionize if they choose to do so, but it is not right to establish rules that expand opportunities for union intimidation, take away their right to a secret ballot and eliminate workers' right to even vote on the final contract.
Employers have some rights also. They have the right to simply shut the doors and let the union bosses figure out how to feed people's families.
Published by North Star Writers
Newspaper editors, if you would like to publish this column, click here.
|
