James Sherk of Heritage challenges the endlessly repeated contention that the current rules on union representation elections are unfairly biased toward management:
In fact, as I have written before, labor law heavily tilts the scales in favor of unions during organizing drives:
* Unions control the election timing, so workers do not vote until union support peaks.
* Employers rarely learn of the organizing drive until unions ask for an election, so unions have months to build support while employers have just one month to present the other side.
* Employers may not ask employees if they support the union. Unions may ask employees how they will vote and focus their efforts on persuading undecided workers.
* The law severely restricts employer speech while allowing unions to say almost anything they want. Employers may not promise to improve working conditions if workers vote down the union. The union may promise anything it wants, even if it knows it cannot keep those promises.
* Employers may not even ask workers what problems they have in the workplace and why they want a union. Unions can ask workers about anything they want.
* Unions may not campaign while workers are on company property and on company time. However the company must give unions the addresses of every worker and unions can visit workers at their homes. Employers are legally prohibited from visiting workers homes to campaign.
No wonder unions have a 2-1 win rate under the current rules.