Free Choice act needs some changes

For months now, businesses and labor have been battling over legislation misleadingly called "The Employee Free Choice Act," a bill that would change the rules under which workers could unionize. Versions of the legislation - also known as the card-check bill - have died and risen again in recent congressional sessions, and it now is poised for another big and very loud push.

What makes this different is that the current president is likely to sign the bill if the current Congress passes it. And that potential has both unions and businesses pulling out all the stops.

"This will be Armageddon," Randel Johnson, a vice president at the United States Chamber of Commerce, told The New York Times.

Businesses oppose the bill for two main reasons: Employees would effectively lose the right to a secret ballot when deciding whether to unionize; and, if contract negotiations fail, a federal arbitrator could impose one.

Anna Burger, chairwoman of the Change to Win labor coalition, sees it differently, of course: "The Employee Free Choice Act is a key part of a larger economic plan," she said in a statement. "It is vital to restoring our economy and putting workers back on a path of prosperity."

Opponents of the legislation make the better case, although provisions that strengthen penalties for unfair labor practices have merit.

Much of the clamor has focused on the provision that would prevent an employer from demanding a secret ballot before a union is certified. Workers could instead organize if a majority signed cards saying they wanted a union. Employers argue - rightly - that the absence of a secret ballot would allow unions to exert undue pressure.

Everyone agrees that the effect of the bill will be easier workplace organization by unions, which have lost members for decades. Membership peaked in 1953 when 35.7 percent of the American private work force was unionized, according to Georgia State professor Barry Hirsch. That number in 2004 was just 7.4 percent. The legislation aims to reverse that trend by providing labor what amounts to an unfair advantage.

But the whole debate obscures what should be the central premise: Any revision in U.S. labor rules must help ensure that union elections accurately reflect the desires of workers. Whether it makes organizing easier or harder is - or should be - immaterial.

One provision of the legislation, in particular, has both the potential to insert the federal government too far into the workplace and shows why trying to legislate results can be so dicey.

If the law passes in its current form, management and workers would have 120 days to negotiate a labor contract. After that, a federal arbitrator could impose one.

The provision is designed to keep management from stalling or negotiating in bad faith. Business argues that labor unions always have the ability to call a strike, and that weapon is sufficient. Forced arbitration by a federal official thoroughly unfamiliar with local circumstances is simply unnecessary and potentially dangerous.

Anyone who has negotiated a contract knows that 120 days is barely enough time for everyone at the table to clear their throats. The imposition of a contract by Washington is no solution, because it both insinuates government too deeply into private business and has the potential for unacceptable political abuse.

Under a labor-friendly administration like Obama's, such arbitration might be expected to return a contract favorable to a new union. But under a business-friendly administration like the one just ended, the reverse would be the case.

In either case, caprice and politics would play too big a role at the workplace, which should be devoted to serving customers and the community.