Subscribe Subscribe   Find us on Twitter Follow POL on Twitter  



Employee Free Choice Act roundup

This ominous piece of legislation, whose misleading name is not the least of its insults to the body politic, hasn't gone away, even if we've been tending to neglect it lately:

  • Friend of this site and perennial libertarian favorite lawprof Richard Epstein details "The Case Against EFCA" [SSRN]
  • Similar law already in effect in Ontario might foreshadow how card-check could work [Dolan Media] But would Americans be happy trading our current labor-management state of affairs for the very different and far more union-friendly climate that prevails in Canada, where a major university (York U.) has been enduring a staff strike that has shut classes for months? [Western Standard, Doorey]
  • Public polls, on this issue even more than most, are manipulable through the wording of questions; and why is Atlantic's Marc Ambinder taken in by union spin re: workers' "choosing" to dispense with secret ballots? [Michael Fox, Mickey Kaus, Jennifer Rubin]
  • Fourth Circuit opinion cited by SCOTUS in 1969: "It would be difficult to imagine a more unreliable method of ascertaining the real wishes of employees than a 'card check,' unless it were an employer's request for an open show of hands. The one is no more reliable than the other. No thoughtful person has attributed reliability to such card checks."
  • Unions claim workers can still obtain secret ballot if enough of them want it. Funny, cards themselves don't seem to inform them of that option [IBEW, Machinists courtesy Eric B. Meyer]
  • The Hill: "Wary of card-check bill, tech lobbying against it";
  • Some other recent commentaries [Gary Becker and Richard Posner at Becker-Posner Blog; George's Employment Blawg; Mary Rogers and Adin Goldberg of Day Pitney at Metro Corp. Counsel]
  • Finally, Georgetown's Michael Gottesman responds to an earlier Epstein piece (in the WSJ) arguing that EFCA is unconstitutional ("Epstein's imagined constitutional difficulties haven't the remotest chance of gaining judicial acceptance") and Epstein posts a rejoinder.




Published by the Manhattan Institute

The Manhattan Insitute's Center for Legal Policy.