Since We Use Signing Cards for Shareholder Voting, Why Not Use It for Union Voting?
In comments on my last post, a number of folks keep arguing that secret ballots are an integral part of American democracy. It's a standard part of the current anti-Employee Free Choice Act propaganda line by management, but if secret ballots are so important, why is the equivalent of card check used for most important corporate decision making? Essentially the exact process proposed for establishing unions in the EFCA bill is exactly how corporate boards of directors are chosen by shareholders. To quote wikipedia on proxy voting by shareholders:
Proxies are essentially the corporate law equivalent of absentee balloting. Shareholders send in a card (called a proxy card) on which they mark their vote. The card authorizes a proxy agent to vote the shareholder's stock as directed on the card. The proxy card may specify how shares are to be voted or may simply give the proxy agent discretion to decide how the shares are to be voted.Substitute the word "union organizer" for "proxy agent" and you have how majority signup would work under the Employee Free Choice Act. So if it's good enough for shareholders running a corporation, why isn't it good enough for choosing a union to bargain with that corporation?
Advertisement
Simple. Because their is no history of shareholder voters being subjected to pressure tactics. Also, since it's done by mail from the individual's home address, not by personal meetings, the mail-in is effectively a secret ballot.
March 12, 2009 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
First-- where is there history of workers being subjected to intimidation during union organizing campaigns by those collecting cards? Nice to see a link to any such evidence.
As for no "pressure tactics", for the tiny number of shares I've owned in a few stocks, I've been repeatedly called on the phone to be pressured into sending in cards supporting the incumbent management's position. Not sure that counts as "intimidation" but then neither does anything usually alleged against unions.
As for corporations not being one person, one vote democracies, that's true but sort of irrelevent to the question of whether a secret ballot represents shareholder or employee voting intentions.
And are New England town meetings where people vote publicly violations of democracy?
And to add the key thing always worth emphasizing with the Employee Free Choice Act-- employees can always ask for a secret ballot. Since it only takes 30% of employees to get a secret ballot vote, the whole employer lobby argument is premised on the idea that unions are intimidating over 70% of the workplace against asking for a secret ballot vote, since even if 50% ask for card recognition of the union, those not signing the cards can always demand a regular election.
The only thing the Employee Free Choice Act removes is the ability of the EMPLOYER to demand a secret ballot election. The employees can always get one.
March 12, 2009 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where is the history of intimidation? Want a link? Fair enough.
http://republicans.edlabor.house.gov/archive/hearings/108th/eer/laborlaw042204/jacob.htm
One paragraph (among many): "Some employees, when solicited at their homes by union representatives, said, "No," to signing a card; yet, they reported repeated, frequent home visits by union representatives continuing to try to secure their signatures, and they complained to the company of this harassment. After 8 visits, one vessel officer in southern Louisiana had an arrest warrant issued against a union organizer. One employee reported that the union representatives exited their vehicle and approached his home with a video camera recording him, which he believed made him a marked man. A vessel captain reported that while he was stationed in Brazil, union representatives visited his home, knocked on his door, and when his wife, who was home, did not answer, proceeded to circle the home for an extended time looking into and knocking on the windows. In an unfortunate incident, a fight broke out between a vessel officer and a union organizer at the officer's home. In another unusual event, union organizers in a recreation boat trolled next to company vessels with a 6 foot blonde female passenger in a bikini, beckoning mariners like a siren to invite her boat over, at which point union authorization cards were solicited. Employees volunteered that they signed cards just to stop the pressure and harassment. One has to ask whether cards solicited under such conditions can, with confidence, be considered reliable indicators of employee sentiment on which to base union representation."
Obviously, when people are compensated based on the number of cards they collect, there will be abuses; that's human nature. With a secret ballot, everyone can vote exactly the way he wants to, and if management asks how he voted he can even lie (hopefully crossing his fingers when he does so).
My question to you: if a fair process is truly desired, and you had to pick between: (A) management collecting cards; (B) unions collecting cards; (C) a secret ballot; wouldn't it be obvious that the secret ballot is the fairest process?
I doubt any of us would be satisfied with giving management the right to collect cards until they had a certain percentage, and then they could block a union - we would rightly say that to avoid pressure, the process has to be a secret ballot. Well, the same problems applies to union representatives collecting cards.
We progressives, in order to gain greater legitimacy and begin to succeed at attaining our goals, need to focus less on result and more on principle. We have good principles behind us; if we consistently apply them, the public will respect us, maybe even vote for us. If we ditch our principles, like respect for the secret ballot, when we can gain fleeting benefit, no one will respect us and we'll lose in the marketplace of ideas.
March 12, 2009 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Duh, shareholders don't get one person one vote so what's the point, corporations are not democracies. Who ever has the most money and thus the most shares makes the decisions.
March 12, 2009 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Card check is more subject to intimidation than is secret ballot.
I just don't get the problem with secret ballots. Is it that they are too formal? Or is the value in the card check idea somewhere else, in employer recourse for instance?
March 12, 2009 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
eds:
You're being a bit disingenuous here. People have explained countless times that the current system involves (among other things) a waiting period before the ostensibly secret ballot during which employers can fire union organizers and union sympathizers with impunity, hold mandatory meetings threatening to shut down the workplace if workers vote for a union, and reclassify employees between "management" and "labor" to gerrymander the vote. And, of course, nothing is wrong with a secret ballot if as many as 30% of workers actually want it.
Card check is good enough for voting corporate shares because the votes of most of the shareholders don't count, thanks to a presumption that someone not recorded as returning a proxy is presumed to vote with management.
March 12, 2009 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Every election has a waiting period - until election day. Does that invalidate all elections?
Employers can (illegally) fire union organizers whether it's a secret ballot process or a card check process, so I don't see the relevance of this fact to our discussion.
The point of having a secret ballot is that without it, the "percentage" wanting something is an illusion, since the card collection is subject to pressure. That seems simple enough.
Finally, I don't agree with you that eds is being disingenuous. Just because you have a different opinion doesn't make him disingenuous. I think his point was correct and on the mark.
March 12, 2009 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
A pile of bogus "explanations" is not any more rationally compelling than just one.
How big is a bit?
March 13, 2009 5:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm left of center and I have no problem with secret balloting for unions. If unions can't get people to vote their way, they need to try harder. The secret ballot is not the problem
March 12, 2009 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Coming from Oregon, I would suggest a mail-in ballot. There is way too much involvement by employers in the "secret ballot" process. If these employers were actually people of good will, their laborers would probably not favor a union. I've always been amazed at how a workers has to face several people when management wants to intimidate them, but the worker is always alone in his defense. Organized labor is the only way to ensure workers are treated fairly.
March 12, 2009 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
A mail-in ballot is a very reasonable idea. You do need to have some kind of safeguards in place that people aren't voting for other people - I imagine Oregon has figured that out already.
March 12, 2009 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is silly. You can't treat workers the same way you treat major shareholders! Society would collapse. Look here Mr. Newman, card check might be fine for the educated capitalists operating at the higher echelons but ordinary labor needs to be directed as to what choices to make in a secret ballot election controlled carefully by the engineers of capital creation and that can only be done if they vote in secret and we fire anybody who urges them to vote incorrectly.
Sincerely,
Thaddeus T. Destor XXIII
March 12, 2009 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nathan's "analogy" is not analagous at all. When I get my proxy to vote my 100 shares of Microsoft, I don't think Steve Ballmer has any clue how I voted. And I'm not in a union so not completely familiar with how it works. But under the EFCA wouldn't the union leaders know how I voted?
PS - I can't believe anybody is really calling Nathan to influence how he votes.
March 12, 2009 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Companies are compelled to use proxy solicitor services (offered usually by accounting firms) to encourage shareholders to vote, especially in big matters like mergers. Company managers do want high voter turnout for big decisions, especially M&A stuff.
Thing is... the board of directors makes recommendations as to how shareholders should vote. This does make some sense because the board should have an opinion. It just often tends to be management's opinion. That might be cronyism or it might be that managers aren't silly enough to try to put one past boards they know very well.
Either way, Nathan probably experienced 2 things: a call (or likely repeated calls) from a solicitor hired to convince him to care and the receipt of a proxy wherein the board told him how he should vote on each issue.
I can see how Nathan would interpret all of that as pressure from the company. Heck, some of it IS pressure from the company, by design!
March 12, 2009 8:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Progressive Conscience":
I think it's ridiculous to compare employer pressure with union pressure. Employers pressure their workers by threatening to fire them. It seems to me that union organizers, even at their very worst, cannot exert anything remotely close to that sort of pressure. What sort of comparable pressure tactics are you envisioning unions using?
March 12, 2009 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
The arguments raised by big business on this issue are, as usual, not the issue. Then there's also pressure about binding arbitration, which some senators are getting cold feet about. It's really dead simple -- you have something like WMDs or balloting procedures in unions and you just put out a smokescreen of pure BS, back it up with megamillions of bucks and people who have never been near a union election or a WMD (ie most of us)can get confused.
Clearly the practices of intimidation described in LA (in the article above) are something we have an NLRB to take care of. Intimidation in unionizing drives in practice is an all-but-one-sided affair w/capital doing the intimidating. But most people aren't clearly aware of that.
Try a nice cold shower of reality on this issue in Ben Stein's analysis of the immense lobbying efforts underway against EFCA:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19774.html
One thing obvious in this article is that the pros on both sides understand that the whole bill is a capital v labor issue, and the lobbyists are fighting for management and against labor, not really for rank-and-file workers' rights. Here's something you WON'T find ANYWHERE (I'll wager at least $20) -- a bona fide group of workers, not spurred by outside forces, within ANY labor union, who are struggling against the leadership of that union for rank and file workers' rights (like SMART in SEIU) who oppose EFCA. If the issue really were about rank and file workers' rights, where is the organized (not individual interviews of people regurgitating megabux ads paid for by you-know-who) then why aren't any of those already FIGHTING the likes of Andrew Stern opposing EFCA?
Note also that at least SIX senators who cosponsored the bill last legislative session are getting cold feet now on EFCA. Must be all those PERSUASIVE arguments by all those swarms of lobbies ..........
March 12, 2009 9:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nathan, You can do better than this. I've been reading you for years, but this is my first comment here though. Here's some talking points that I've not seen utilized almost anywhere.
Let's start with some basic history here!
1.) Secret Ballots, the History: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_ballot]. They were not applied for general Western civic elections until the 1850's principally in 1 minor state in Australia, but then spreading to most of their states, hence it became known as 'the Australian ballot' system during the 19th century.
2.) It was part of a reform effort in England of the 1850's, but was not instituted there until later, (Ballot Act of 1872).
3.) In the US, it was not until the Close of the 19th century that the 'secret ballot' was regularly used in most American elections. The first President elected wholly with this 'new' balloting system was Grover Cleveland in 1892.
So in summation: As a putative Traditional Conservative 'strict constructionist', you will search the language of the Constitution & The Federalist Papers in Vain trying to search for the concept of a 'secret ballot'. It's just not there. The Founders in all their wisdom did not see fit to fool with it.
So again for all the crocodile tears shed on behalf of the 'sacred American secret ballot'? We spent the first 100+ years of our history almost in blissful ignorance of its widespread influence or use on our elections!
The 2nd argument is more practical and based upon the real evidence on the ground, rather than the mere supposition & airy legal/logical arguments & some RW propaganda repeated here. It's this; Every year 1000's of workers get laid off & fired for trying to organize their workplaces. They face massive, very well funded & well coordinated campaigns of intimidation, threats and sometimes outright violence to try and prevent Unions from forming in their workplaces. Those are the facts according to any objective labor law source you care to consult. Survey's tell us that better than 40% of all union organizers are fired for doing just that, trying to get workers their full rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights & the Constitution. They face campaigns of crass intimidation & constant harassment by private security firms that are now as ever empowered by employers to 'hunt & destroy' any such efforts happening in their plants & stores & shops.
Most of this is wholly illegal, but the small fines levied on these corporations and the weak enforcement of all labor laws means that they get away with it. For many corporations, it's just a minor cost of doing business. Today, organizing is a process that can drag on for years or decades even, given the level of threats, intimidation, and immediate job losses. No workplace boss that fights using these well honed & practiced dirty, under handed tactics 'loses' an election. They're rigged by dint of sheer exhaustion & a pervasive climate of fear created by the employers. Time & time again. Such elections are indeed similar to petty tyrants being elected by fraud or mobs of goons in the 'banana republics' of yore, where 'the dear leader' always wins.
So the real thugs? If you're down on the working floors, you know who they are. They're the ones who'll dangerously lock you in at night to prevent you from 'escaping' your late night janitorial cleaning job. The ones hiring all the illegals to do the jobs more cheaply than the locals can afford to. The ones killing those same workers in increased workplace accidents due to 'language problems' and safety information never adequately being translated or transmitted into the many foreign tongues now seen on the job.
So Get real people. Talking points from Ben Stein? His dad, the late economist Herb Stein would roll over in his grave at some of his son's idiotic antics. And the vaunted 'sacred secret ballot'? Unknown to the Founders. Not Mentioned in the Constitution. Not exactly necessary for a robust Democracy. A Right Wing Red Herring. We may feel well & good about it, but me? I want my ballot & vote to be counted accurately too, and we're not there yet! It too waits for further reforms to our electoral system.
Thanks for listening. Cheers, 'VJ', ga.
March 13, 2009 2:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
VJ - We also spent the first 100 or so years of our history with limited separation between church and state, and with African-American slaves.
Progress is a good thing, and I'm surprised that a progressive would want to turn the clock back.
March 13, 2009 5:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nathan, I appreciate your column and trying. I find it unbelievable that "progressives" are against a system that takes away companies and anti-union consultants ability to fire, harass and intimidate employees for between 6-12 weeks who signed a petition or cards to join a union just because they want a "secret ballot."
The "secret ballot", in its current form only helps corporations and their anti-union thugs. When 70-80% of a workforce sign a petition or cards and want a union--they can't. They have to go through 6-12 weeks of corporate hell. After the closed door meetings, harassment, firings and threats of closing the business, these people would have to be crazy to join a union through the "secret ballot".
The strange thing for me is the "secret ballot" promoters fail to state that the secret ballot doesn't go away, if the employees still want one. But, it does give the workers another choice, that of majority sign-up (or often called card check).
If you want to have a secret ballot, go right ahead. I want card check. I want workers to have a level playing field, which they don't have.
Stop the lies about the sanctity of the "secret ballot" when it comes to unionizing. This isn't voting for a public office, this is voting for workers representation in corporate America. In which once you have stated your position, corporate America gets to terrorize you for 6-12 weeks, then you have your "secret ballot."
Is there any other system in the world, that allows this to happen? Besides, all you so-called promoters of the proletariat now (the secret ballot chanters), do you really support labor?
If so, what are you afraid of? If unions are so bad, even with EFCA no one will join them. No one will be forced to join, they can still request and receive a secret ballot. But, the secret ballot lie is the corporate/Republican one.
Majority sign-up or secret ballot, let the workers, not the companies, decide.
March 13, 2009 5:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you want lies to stop, start telling the whole truth yourself.
How does card check prevent harassment? How does secret ballot prevent secret organizing attempts?
March 13, 2009 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Progressive conscience" is not one, and lacks one.
March 13, 2009 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Corporate elections are one share, one vote. Buying the election is not only legal, but business as usual. Corporations need to trial a one person, one vote system for a year or twenty before anyone should give a damn what they think about democracy.
March 15, 2009 3:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Secret ballots wouldn't be so bad if the Labor Dept. would just staff up, enforce the existing laws aggressively and certify the union elections promptly.
The Bush Adminstration simply governed in bad faith. President Obama could unilaterally reverse a lot of damage by Executive order, defeat another Republican Senator or three in the mid terms, and then pass EFCA.
March 15, 2009 4:00 AM | Reply | Permalink