• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • What Employer Advantage?

    The Washington Post editorialized today in favor of a compromise on card-check, including snap elections or mandatory union access to company premises, because – they argue – the current process too heavily favors management. They also criticized the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace for refusing to admit this.

    So here is a question for the Washington Post: If the current process heavily favors management, why did unions win over two-thirds of organizing elections last year?

    In fact, as I have written before, labor law heavily tilts the scales in favor of unions during organizing drives:

    • Unions control the election timing, so workers do not vote until union support peaks.
    • Employers rarely learn of the organizing drive until unions ask for an election, so unions have months to build support while employers have just one month to present the other side.
    • Employers may not ask employees if they support the union. Unions may ask employees how they will vote and focus their efforts on persuading undecided workers.
    • The law severely restricts employer speech while allowing unions to say almost anything they want. Employers may not promise to improve working conditions if workers vote down the union. The union may promise anything it wants, even if it knows it cannot keep those promises.
    • Employers may not even ask workers what problems they have in the workplace and why they want a union. Unions can ask workers about anything they want.
    • Unions may not campaign while workers are on company property and on company time. However the company must give unions the addresses of every worker and unions can visit workers at their homes. Employers are legally prohibited from visiting workers homes to campaign.

    The law stacks the deck against employers in union drives. And – contrary to union assertions – the overwhelming majority of employers obey the law. Which is why unions rack up that impressive 2-1 win rate. The Coalition for a Democratic Workplace is right to say that the government should not tilt the playing field even more heavily in union organizer’s favor. That would hurt workers ability to make a free choice.

    The economy has changed and made unions less relevant. General representation does not make much sense in an economy that rewards individual skills and abilities. Most non-union workers do not want a union: one recent survey found that only 9 percent of nonunion workers want to join a union. Unions have not changed to adapt to the modern economy and they are selling a product that most workers do not want to buy.

    The only way for unions to organize most companies is if workers never get the chance to hear the other side and learn that, empty union promises aside, organizing won’t actually do much to help them. The goal of the misnamed “Employee Free Choice Act” is to force workers to publicly commit to a union before ever getting to hear the other side. That’s great for union organizing, but not for workers.

    These card-check “compromises” have the same goal. Snap elections are intended to deprive workers of an informed choice. They would force workers to vote after months of campaigning by the union but with only a few weeks to hear the management side. How is that fair, and how does that help workers? Mandatory union access to company premises at staff meetings is intended to deter companies from discussing the downsides of organizing. If an employer doesn’t want the union disrupting their workplace they cannot talk to their employees about why unionizing might not be everything the organizers have promised.

    Individual employers do violate the law, and bosses who fire pro-union workers should be punished. But these are the rare exceptions. Labor law heavily stacks the deck in favor of union organizers, which is why unions win two-thirds of organizing elections. The law should not further tilt the playing field to press workers into a commitment that most of them do not want to make.

    Posted in Economics [slideshow_deploy]

    7 Responses to What Employer Advantage?

    1. MAS1916 - Denver, CO says:

      The post fancies itself as a great moderator of problems. Only this conflict was between one leftist position (card check) and another leftist position (a different type of card check). Both allow for significant worker intimidation by union thugs.

    2. Ozzy6900, CT says:

      The "law" is a joke and so are unions! This is all leftover garbage from the days of yore to which unions have taken the major responsibility of PROTECTION to the point of the ridiculous.

    3. Gerry, Virginia says:

      To anyone who is paying even the slightest attention it should be obvious that Washington is now awash in money from trial lawyers and unions. If one keeps this fact in mind, it is simple to understand the driving force behind most post-1/20/09 policies by the new Administration and legislation from the new Congress (assuming it makes any sense at all to refer to anything in Washington as "new" — or, for that matter, "change" — that panders to unions and trial lawyers).

    4. Pingback: Shopfloor » Blog Archive » Card Check: The System is Biased in Favor of the Unions

    5. Pingback: » Financial News Update - 05/11/09 NoisyRoom.net: “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the face of tyranny is no virtue.” Barry Goldwater

    6. Pingback: Rich Peopl Are Bad, Unless They're Rich Union People - AIP Blog - American Issues Project

    7. Pingback: Shopfloor » Blog Archive » Card Check: Specterography

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.