Home > Opinion > Employee Free Choice Act Means Union Intimidation in Plain English

Employee Free Choice Act Means Union Intimidation in Plain English

Reader Comments
Back to article

Union intimidation and violence is well documented throughout history. To suggest that requiring an individual to publicly announce his vote by signature or any other means would not target that individual is naive. The people that support the EFCA are the unions wanting to see who they need to convince to see things their way. And if you don't believe there is violence in the Unions, tell me where is Jimmy Hoffa

Dexter of TX 9:05AM September 04, 2011

The opponents of the EFCA do not diminish the importance of an individual's signature as IZAAK VELEZ of CA suggests. They actually desire to protect the sanctity of that signature. For IZAAK VELEZ of CA to suggest that no one can force a person to sign his name is naive. Union and employer intimidation is well documented throughout history. The only way to protect the free choice of workers is to have a system which does not allow either side to see the individual's vote.

Dexter of TX 8:59AM September 04, 2011

If 74 percent of the country holds a favorable view of unions, how is it that only 9 percent of nonunion workers would like to join a union, and what stops them? I would like to see a poll showing how many union workers would like to be non union but can't because the law requires them to join.

Dexter of TX 8:52AM September 04, 2011

Why is it that opponents of EFCA want to diminish the importance of an individual’s signature? You have to put your signature on a marriage license, military enlistment, home or car purchase, yet, somehow it is not good enough to decide if you choose to unionize. Who are they kidding? Their thinly veiled attempt at keeping employers in charge of the unionization process is plain to see. The simple fact is, you as an individual must give your signature freely, and no one can force you to sign any document that you choose not to.
Perhaps the argument presented, by those against EFCA; anyone who signed a document under supposed pressure can get out of any contract. Are they in favor me being able to get out of my marriage because I was pressured and signed that document, or maybe I can just get rid of my car because the auto dealer salesman pressured me! Of course we all recognize that will never happen, and this is just a small example of how ridiculous the argument against EFCA is.

Izaak Velez of CA 2:48PM June 08, 2009

A basic concept and right in this country is the secret ballot. Whether a union advocate or opponent, the vast majority of Americans recognize the secret ballot as a fundamental right; something considered an integral part of a democratic government. When a basic individual right is taken away for the supposed "greater good" one should carefully consider the potential consequences and the agenda of those pushing for it.
The right to a secret ballot should not be a bargaining chip for any legistlation. Who would disagree with that point? Who indeed.

David Balkan of NY 1:11PM June 07, 2009

Sabrina L. Schaeffer is the Managing Partner of Evolving Strategies (i.e. paid union busters)
Prior to launching Evolving Strategies, Sabrina worked in numerous communications positions. She served as the speechwriter for Senator George Voinovich of Ohio, the Director of Media Relations and Public Affairs at the Republican Jewish Coalition in Washington, DC, where she frequently served as a spokeswoman for the organization, and a member of the communications team for Bob McEwen's primary campaign in Ohio's second district.
Sabrina was also a Communications Associate at the White House Writers Group, where she worked extensively on designing and orchestrating communications projects for a range of intellectual, government, and corporate clients on a variety of issues including energy policy, transportation policy, and telecommunication deregulation. While working for the White House Writers Group, she also acted as a liaison at the U.S. Department of Labor, where she helped launch "The Skilled Trades Initiative."
Sabrina began her career in Washington as an assistant to former United Nations Ambassador Jeane J. Kirkpatrick at the American Enterprise Institute.
Sabrina has commented on politics and political culture in publications such as the Weekly Standard, The Washington Times, Philanthropy Magazine, Doublethink, Policy Review, Tech Central Station, American Enterprise Online, and National Review Online, as well as on Press TV. She received her B.A. from Middlebury College, her M.A. in American History from the University of Virginia, and her M.A. in Politics also from UVa. She currently lives in Arlington, VA with her husband Adam and their daughter Findley.

Julius Snow of NY 2:10PM June 06, 2009

In other words people will be able to bully others into signing a union cards. Once they get 50 + 1 cards signed who do you think will ask for a secret ballet? I know the unions will, so they wont be considered a bully. People who beleive the Employee Free Choice Act is for any one other then the union is full of it.

Joan Huntley of MI 1:24PM June 05, 2009

It's amazing how opponents of the EFCA seem to completely disregard what the bill actually states when making their complaints. It does not deny anyone the right to a secret ballot election. Rather, it takes the choice about whether or not to have such an election away from employers, and gives it to employees.
Under current law, when presented with union request cards, an employer may accept the results immediately, causing the union to be formed, or they may require a secret ballot election. You could be unionized without a secret ballot election under current law, if your employer does not demand one.
The EFCA takes this choice out of the employer's hands, and instead holds a secret ballot election only if 30% of the employees request one.

eep of OR 3:45PM June 04, 2009