« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

GOP Introduces Secret Ballot Protection Act

Now, the question becomes: Will Democrats oppose Americans voting by secret ballot?

There was BIG news in Washington yesterday:

Senate Republicans, led by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), have introduced the Secret Ballot Protection Act.

Today, U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) introduced the Secret Ballot Protection Act (SBPA), legislation that will guarantee the right of every American worker to have a secret ballot election on whether to unionize. The bill would guarantee workers the opportunity to cast a secret ballot before a union can be organized.

Seventeen cosponsors have joined DeMint to introduce the bill including Senators Lamar Alexander (R-Tennessee), John Barrasso (R-Wyoming), Richard Burr (R-North Carolina), Saxby Chambliss (R-Georgia), Thad Cochran (R-Mississippi), Mike Enzi (R-Wyoming), Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina), James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma), Jon Kyl (R-Arizona), John McCain (R-Arizona), Jerry Moran (R-Kansas), Rand Paul (R-Kentucky), James Risch (R-Idaho), Richard Shelby (R-Alabama), John Thune (R-South Dakota), David Vitter (R-Louisiana), and Roger Wicker (R-Mississippi).

“Last Congress, union bosses and their Democrat allies tried their best to deny workers their basic American right to a guaranteed secret ballot election,” said Senator DeMint. “Secret ballot voting is a basic American value that we must protect. This bill ensures every American worker gets to cast a secret ballot vote without pressure and fear of retribution from union organizers and coworkers looking over their shoulder. No American should be forced to join or pay dues to a union just to have the opportunity to work and provide for their family.”

Why the Secret Ballot Protection Act?

For the last five years, unions have spent hundreds of millions of dollars, taken from their members’ dues, to pass a bill that effectively eliminates employees’ right to a secret-ballot election on the question of unionization. Through the delusionally-dubbed Employee Free Choice Act‘s ’card check’ provision, unions have sought to mandate that employees would automatically become unionized once a union secured 50% + 1 of employees’ signatures on authorization cards (or other form). However, after the Employee Free ANTI Choice Act passed the House in 2007 (it was later stalled in the Senate), more people began to take notice of the union threat to their right to choose (or not choose) unionization in the workplace.

Secret Ballot Protection Act Ends Labor-Management Collusion

Although card check has always been legal, the denial of employees’ right to vote on unionization has been (and remains) subject to an employer’s cooperation with a union over the issue. While some employers willingly agree to card check (usually after a union conducts a sometimes-job killingcorporate campaign“), most employers (if they have to deal with a union) would rather have employees choose by secret-ballot, as opposed to signatures garnered through union pressure tactics.

Leading the charge. With the threat of card check ever present in Washington, voters in four states (AZ, SC, SD and Utah) took it upon themselves to vote to preserve the right to a secret ballot by passing measures in November. However, on January 14th, the NLRB, citing that the federal law trumps the states in this matter, threatened to sue the four states in federal court if they acted to enforce their voter-approved laws protecting the secret ballot. This has led the states to vow to fight the federal agency in order to protect their states’ constitutions.

While the card check issue was being played out at the state level, the NLRB’s Dana decision also brought card check to the forefront in early December. The NLRB’s decision in Dana affirmed the right of unscrupulous unions and companies to sell out employees’ rights by engaging in pre-recognitional bargaining even before a union is certified as the employees’ agent, in exchange for the employer handing employees over to the union via card check. This legitimizes labor-management collusion through what are known as sweetheart unions—which are good for the unscrupulous unions and companies, but bad for employees.

The Secret Ballot Protection Act: A Beginning…

With President Obama re-nominating recess-appointed SEIU activist attorney Craig Becker to the NLRB, as well as the NLRB’s General Counsel writing rules to give unions access to employees while stripping employers’ of their property rights, the Secret Ballot protection act is not an ends—it is only a beginning. In order to reign in the terror that is being unleashed on job-creating companies and their employees, much more will have to be done in the future ( and, likely, through the new Congress).

As a starting point, though, the Secret Ballot Protection Act will go a long way to ensure that Americans cannot get hoodwinked into unionization through card check.

_________________

“I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as ABC, hold up truth to your eyes.” Thomas Paine, December 23, 1776

X-posted.

Follow laborunionrpt on Twitter

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • powertothepeople

    by way of resolution. As soon as it passed, the union has moved to sue the state.

    What are the chances Labor, should this pass, that it stands up to court challenges from the union. I ask because it would be interesting to know how much of a chance the one passed here stands.

    • http://www.laborunionreport.com LaborUnionReport

      but should be okay.

      The reason the states have been challenged is because federal law does pre-empt state law.

      The real question is whether Democrats, including the President, will support the SBPA.

      • powertothepeople

        since I understand federal law usually trumps state law, is there federal law prohibiting states from enacting secret ballot laws such as what was done in SC.

        I never thought SC would bring it up since we are a right to work state and a vast majority in this state do not approve of unions nor do we want them. We have seen them slip in here bit by bit so the resolution was written. But I was unaware that the union can demand, via fed law, open ballots instead of secret ballots.

        I ask, because while I lived in MI, this issue came up except it was the other way around. The unions got a resolution on the ballot that called for the end to the secret ballot and would make it to where all ballots for unionization would be done by vocal call. It was beaten and they laid down on the issue for awhile.

        This all worries me since the company my wife and I own just passes the threshold of employee count where this could affect us.

        • http://www.laborunionreport.com LaborUnionReport

          First, on SC vs. the National Labor Relations Act. The NLRA has always allowed card-check–and will, unless the SBPA is passed.

          Second, under federal law (NLRA), unions can ‘demand’ card check, BUT an employer does not have to agree, which then causes unions to file for a secret-ballot (NLRB-conducted) election. If the employer does not agree, there is no card check. Through EFCA (the Employee Free Choice Act), unions wanted to eliminate secret ballots by using card check as the standard once a majority had signed cards.

          Third, there have been several states that have passed the state version of card check, but all were knocked down through the same pre-emption standard. The only difference between then and now (with the four states) is that the Courts ruled in each of the cases where card check had been passed. Here, the NLRB made a pre-emptive strike (pun intended).

          Lastly, if you have two or more employees and you meet the minimum monetary threshold in interstate commerce, you can be unionized now. Most private sector business, regardless of how small, can be unionized…as long as there are two or more employees.

          • powertothepeople

            guess we need to hope the republicans are able to pass this bill.

      • http://charlemagne-the-hammer.blogspot.com/ DerKrieger

        Perhaps my understanding of preemption is and has been wrong for years but as I have understood it preemption, like all Constitutional clauses, is limited to the enumerated powers. Where the Constitution is silent there can be no preemption. How am I wrong?

        • http://www.laborunionreport.com LaborUnionReport

          But this article (from 2007) delves into the issue (as it pertains to labor law)…

          http://www.blankrome.com/index.cfm?contentID=37&itemID=1229

  • maindependent

    or do I really miss seeing democrat sponsors of the bill here? Even from the Senators from those states which passed state protection acts? So much for representative government.

    • http://www.laborunionreport.com LaborUnionReport

      Democrats Joe Manchin (WV), Michael Bennet (CO), and Mark Pryor (AR) are all (allegedly) anti card check. [There may be another, but I need more caffeine to help remember]. It should be able to get 51 votes…if it can make it past a Dem filibuster.

      The question will be whether this gets filibustered…and, if so, by whom ?

  • cringinghere

    Does anyone have a link to the actual bill on GovTrack or any other site for the actual bill?

    • http://www.laborunionreport.com LaborUnionReport

      http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-478

      As it was only announced yesterday, I couldn’t get a link to the 2011 version yet. I presume it contains the same language as it has over the last several times its been introduced though.

  • renny

    is actually the party of Wall Street, the party of academic and political elites, media moguls, and isolated special interests, but not the working guy who lives down the street.

  • Castor

    The Small Business Protection Act:
    In Per

  • lgbpop

    t only does so when it has a stronger protection of personal rights and/or liberties, or where the state law would inhibit federally-guaranteed protections such as found in the Bill of rights. Where a state law is seen as protecting the population to a stricter degree than federal law – i.e., California’s automobile pollution laws – state law previls. Similarly, whenever a state law goes further to guarantee individual rights or liberties than the federal laws, state law will prevail.

    In this instance, where a federal law could be construed as inhibiting the rights of individual workers to not join a union involuntarily, state law should prevail. Indeed, that explains the existence of right-to-work laws in many Southern states.

    • http://www.laborunionreport.com LaborUnionReport

      in the 1947 Taft-Hartley Amendments to the NLRA, passed over Turman’s veto. However, RTW took an “Act of Congress” to give states those rights.

      There have previously been federal court ruling on the pre-emption issue surrounding card check, so my assumption is that there has nothing changed in the view of the Courts.

  • drfredc

    I’d add an amendment that requires Unions to support the diversity of secret and reasonably balanced informed political opinions of its membership when it comes to supporting political causes or candidates. Or do nothing…

  • boxedquad

    Now hear this.. We the People in AZ. Have taken the challenges from the Federal Govt. and want none of their pap. In Court If required ( it is a stacked,almost court) AZ should prevail, along with all the rest of the states who want to keep the union thugs out,,, I have seen them in action in Michigan and it is not pretty nor petty, it is criminal, and if you fought them there you could get a mid-night cremation free.
    Keep the unions out and protect all the real workers who have mostly gotten every thing the unions say they will “give” them, for a large fee. When the fee is paid the big labor bosses and stafff spend it on whatever they want. Yeah I know it is for retirement and healthcare, but you see where that has lead.