Interesting blub from Matt Corley this am on Think Progress, where apparently no thinking or progress toward thinking occurs.
He's got his knickers in a twist, thinking that the WSJ has finally come clean on the “Employee Free Choice Act”:
“ I n a stunning reversal, the anti-labor Wall Street Journal editorial page admitted today that one of the key messages in Big Business’s fight against the Employee Free Choice Act is false. 'The bill doesn't remove the secret ballot option from the National Labor Relations Act,' wrote the WSJ editors today.”
Apparently, attention to detail isn't Mr. Corley's strong suit. Here's the paragraph in question:
“ The bill doesn't remove the secret-ballot option from the National Labor Relations Act but in practice makes it a dead letter. The bill allows a union to automatically organize a worksite if more than 50% of workers simply sign an authorization card, so pressure for employees to sign in public view would be enormous. The legislation also imposes a contract through binding arbitration if labor and management reach a stalemate.”
Not exactly the stunning revelation that Mr. Corley promised, now is it? What's the likelyhood of the union ever agreeing to a secret ballot if all they have to do is intimidate 50%+1?
It's a curious world Mr. Corley lives in; trembling workers are easily intimidated by being forced to vote in secret, but they are absolutely immune to being bullied by some thugs in the parking lot. And this is a member of the “reality based community”?
Or maybe he just doesn't get the whole “dead letter” thing. For all of the Left's vaunted claims of dealing with nuance, they're actually not very good at it.
Interestingly enough, the link he provides to another Think Progress page also admits that the point of the act is to render secret ballots a dead letter:
“ Just as the Senate began debate yesterday on the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), thousands of union members joined with progressives and key lawmakers to express their hopes of passing a bill that would make it easier for workers to organize. 'Under current law, an employer can insist on a secret-ballot election,' even after a majority of employees express their desire to organize. The proposed law 'would give employees at a workplace the right to unionize as soon as a majority signed cards saying they wanted to do so.' (emphasis. added)
Which is the only point – unions can't win fair, free, and secret elections. If they could, they wouldn't need to make this kind of bullying official, now would they?