House Committee on Education and Labor
U.S. House of Representatives

Moments ago, the 111th Congress was officially gaveled into session and workers’ right to a secret ballot was officially put in jeopardy. Congressional Democrats have made clear that they intend to move forward on the controversial “card check” scheme, which would replace federally-monitored secret ballot unionizing elections with a public sign-up process that opens workers to intimidation and coercion.

The timeline for the unpopular plan – cynically referred to as the Employee Free Choice Act by its supporters – remains unclear, but one thing is certain: Powerful union leaders consider card check to be political payback for their support in the last election, and they won’t wait long to call in the favors they believe they are due. Gerald W. McEntee, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), recently told editors and reporters at The Washington Times that “unions paid their dues by supporting Democrats and President-elect Barack Obama in this year's election. He said they expect that effort to be rewarded with action.

“‘The payback would be Employee Free Choice Act – that would be a vehicle to strengthen and build the American labor movement and the middle class,’ he said.”

But the truth about card check’s impact on workers is far less rosy than the picture union bosses paint. Consider the following testimony delivered to the U.S. House Education and Labor Committee during the 110th Congress:

“I began my career with UNITE with a strong belief in worker’s rights and democracy in the workplace,” said Jen Jason, a former organizer for UNITE-HERE, a union that represents nearly a million workers and retirees in the textile, lodging, foodservice, and manufacturing industries. “During the course of my employment with the union, I began to understand the reality behind the rhetoric.  I took in the ways that organizers were manipulating workers just to get a majority on ‘the cards’ and the various strategies that they employed.  I began to appreciate that promises made by organizers at a worker’s house had little to do with how the union actually functions as a ‘service’ organization.”

Tactics detailed by Jason included:

•    A “blitz,” in which union organizers go directly to the homes of workers; the workers’ personal information and home addresses used during the blitz are obtained from license plates and other sources that were used to create a master list.  According to Jason, “The workers usually have no idea that there is a union campaign underway. Organizers are taught to play upon this element of surprise to get ‘into the door.’”

•    Rarely showing workers an actual union contract, which often does not reflect what a worker would want to see.  Jason noted, “We were trained to avoid topics such as dues increases, strike histories, etc. and to constantly move the worker back to what the organizer identified as his or her ‘issues’ during the first part of the housecall.”

•    Manipulating unit size, in which organizers would change the size of the group of workers they were going to organize after the drive was finished.  According to Jason, “During the blitz, workers in every department would be ‘housecalled,’ but if need be, certain groups of workers would be removed from the final unit, regardless of their level of union support.  In doing so, the union reduced the number of cards needed to reach a majority.”

Card check remains unpopular with the American public, with nearly 80 percent of the American people opposing the bill when it was brought to a vote in the U.S. House of Representatives in 2007. Perhaps that’s why Democrats are plotting a spin campaign to mislead workers and families and hide the truth about this undemocratic measure. It’s hardly a promising start to the 111th Congress.

# # #