I am not, on the most basic level, anti-union. I believe that any worker who wants to join a union has that right under the First Amendment. WhatÂ’s more, IÂ’m even tolerant of the notion that a majority vote by secret ballot can make a union the sole bargaining agent for employees in a particular business.

That said, IÂ’m opposed to any law that will take away that secret ballot.

What’s the Employee Free Choice Act? If you aren’t a lobbyist in Washington, a union worker, or an employer nervously trying to prevent your staff from organizing, you might not have followed the twisty history of the latest attempt to increase private-sector unionization. “Card check,” as it is usually known, would allow employees at a company to bypass secret-ballot elections and declare their intent to unionize by simply signing cards. If adopted, it could portend the most revolutionary change to labor law since the 1940s.

Unfortunately, as anyone who has followed the union movement for any length of time knows, the card check is subject to serious abuse. Indeed, there is plenty of evidence of union thugs (I won’t dignify them with the title of “organizers”) harassing employees until they give up their resistance – sometimes using implicit (or explicit) threats against the employees and their families. Only the secret ballot has enabled such workers to truly vote their conscience free from fear – and now Democrats in Congress are prepared to take that protection away in order to curry favor with union bosses who direct large sums of money to aid Democrats seeking election and reelection to office.

But as bad as that is, there is the possibility that certain public sector employees will have even less freedom when Congress gets done.

Unions keep losing membership as a share of the national workforce, which explains why organized labor's main political focus is changing the rules to force more workers into unions. Witness a bill that Senate Democrats are pushing this week to require that hundreds of thousands of local police and firemen submit to collective bargaining.

Under current law, every state has the ability to set policies that govern its public workforce. In some states, police, firefighters and paramedics belong to unions that collectively bargain for their contracts. In others, unions representing public-security workers can bargain over pay, but not over benefits or work rules. And in some others, these workers can choose not to belong to a union.

Democrats want to change this for the entire country. A bill that passed the House last year would make the top officials at local unions the exclusive bargaining agents for public safety officers in every town or city with more than 5,000 people. They would also have the authority to bargain for everything -- pay, benefits and work rules. The goal is to give labor the whip hand with local governments, and further coerce nonunion members to join the dues-paying ranks.

Set aside the fact that 16 states have voted down such legislation in the last 12 years. Set aside the fact that the legislation would effectively strip these public safety employees – those doing the most dangerous jobs outside the military – of the protection of right-to-work laws on the books in many states. This legislation would deny them the right to reject such representation as not in their best interest, giving them fewer rights than private sector employees. While many raise the 10th Amendment question of Congress exceeding its authority by trampling the rights of the state, I want to raise the First Amendment question that exists in forcing public employees into association with these corrupt organizations!

There is, of course, only one legitimate position for Americans to take on unions, especially those that purport to represent the interests of public employees. That position is that they must be voluntary – not only in terms of membership, but also in terms of paying union “bargaining fees” for services that employees do not want. After all, unions are private organizations, and government has no more legitimate interest in forcing employees into the union fold than it does in requiring all public school students to join the Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts.

But then again, does government have any legitimate interest in making it easier for unions to coerce the membership of any employee – public or private sector?

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT McCain Blogs, Right Truth, DragonLady's World, The World According to Carl, Kodera's Korner, Pirate's Cove, Celebrity Smack, The Pink Flamingo, Big Dog's Weblog, Cao's Blog, , Conservative Cat, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 09:27 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 781 words, total size 6 kb.