Change?

Pro-labor poster Mike Elk gets it partly right in this post. The NLRB is willing to make incremental, mostly symbolic changes in the rules to aid unions in their organizing attempts. He correctly notes the absence of significant remedies for egregious violations. However he gets it plain wrong (like so many others) when he says shortening of time between a petition for an election and the conducting of the election is a cure for employer intimidation. It isn't.   A meaningful, civil, non-threatening dialogue is not only appropriate prior to an important vote, but necessary for an informed electorate. Card check recognition and instant elections hinder an informed vote. If the problem is employer intimidation, punish the employer's misconduct, don't stifle the discourse or impose a different sort of coercion by eliminating secret ballot elections.

Dead horse again

EFCA is a dead horse that keeps getting beaten. If anymore proof is necessary look at what these candidates in close senate races are saying. Truly labor has itself to blame here for insisting on card check as the cornerstone of labor law reform. All that insistence did is create a sound bite for the opposition. "We oppose getting rid of secret ballot elections." By its own insistence labor allowed itself to be portrayed as undemocratic and even unAmerican. There is zero chance EFCA will get passed in a lame duck session.

Why the secret ballot makes sense

This business owner's letter to the editor makes a strong case for preservation of the secret ballot for determining a union's majority status.