Lanny J. Davis, an attorney with the Washington D.C. office of the global law firm Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, pointed out that, contrary to assertions made by supporters of EFCA, the card-check bill would, in fact, permit the exclusion of the secret ballot option. “It defies logic to say that once 51% of eligible voters sign the cards, the union that is entitled to automatic certification under EFCA would then ask for a secret ballot. That deprives the 49%, and perhaps some who signed the cards under pressure, the right to demand a secret ballot.”

Yes, the EFCA as drafted mandates certification if a majority of employees sign up.

It “permits the exclusion.” This does not mean that it requires the exclusion of a secret ballot, even if a majority of employees want a union. Why? (1) to exercise this option, the employees would simply not sign more than 30% of the cards to ensure that they could preserve a vote*; or, (2) the organizers could simply stop collecting cards at 30.000001%.

I understand that the arguments going back and forth are getting heated and frustrated, but you are not arguing in good faith if you say that this abolishes the secret ballot. You’re also not arguing in good faith if you say that EFCA somehow guarantees a secret ballot no matter what.

It would deny management the right to election it and it would, perhaps, perhaps not, subject employees to more coercion. For obvious political reasons it’s easier to say the former and mean the latter.

But then again, the EFCA in its current form is probably as relevant to reality as the McNary-Haugen Farm Relief Bill of 1924. Maybe less relevant if 24 Republicans and Democrats are looking at the compromise proposal. There’s also the 70/50/30 proposal which is not inelegant. (ie recognition with 70% signup, or recognition after a 50% secret ballot with 30% signing cards to initiate the election).

I’m getting pretty tired of this topic. Maybe I should listen to my own advice and STFU about this until something has presidential ink on it. Yeah. Good idea.

* Perhaps a nifty amendment would be to require people to be notified if they sign up whether or not it would in fact kill the chances of a secret ballot.