Politics of card check

We have noted multiple times on this blog EFCA, with card check, is a dead issue. There will be labor reform, but removing the secret ballot election from the representation process is not going to be a part of the final law. Opponents of card check are beating a dead horse. Not only is this wasteful of resources, it makes "quickie" secret ballot elections an increasingly viable alternative. By continuing to rally against card check, opponents of labor reform make it easier for politicians seeking cover to say "I did not support card check, I stood up for secret ballot elections." Elections five or ten days after a petition is filed seem reasonable to the public. Having won the card check battle, opponents of reform should confront the real problem of an uninformed workforce voting on an issue deserving serious debate. Union allegations of worker intimidation and unlawful conduct during traditional election campaigns are correctly addressed by stiffer penalties for existing unlawful conduct, not quick elections. Labor ties employer intimidation to the length of time between petition and election. There really is no direct correlation except the duration of opportunity. Labor muddles lawful effective employer persuasion with unlawful threats. The former educates, the latter intimidates. Both can persuade employees to reject union representation, but lawful persuasion with legitimate facts and argument has a place in the debate. Labor's goal is to shut the employer out of the debate on selection of a representative. Only those who believe Labor's interests are congruent with all employees' interests can, with intellectual honesty, but still incorrectly believe shutting down employers' side of the debate is a good idea. Even mandated union access to company property and employees is less of an actual threat than elections being conducted so quickly as to preclude robust discussion of the adverse consequences of unionization.