On Tuesday the president of the Georgia AFL-CIO wrote that the Employee Free Choice Act, which is at the forefront of the Democratic agenda this election year, would "restore America's workers' freedom to choose to come together to bargain for a better life" ("Put unionizing power back in workers' hands," @issue).

Nothing could be further from the truth. The centerpiece of the act is the elimination of government-run secret-ballot union elections. And by stripping employees of the fundamental right to cast a private vote for or against union representation, the Employee Free Choice Act undermines the very principles of a free and democratic society, and only robs employees of their vital "freedom to choose."

(ENLARGE)

James Walters is an Atlanta labor lawyer.

(ENLARGE)

Matthew Simpson is an Atlanta labor lawyer.

Since its formation in 1935, the National Labor Relations Board has conducted approximately 500,000 secret-ballot elections. All told, more than 40 million employees have voted in these elections. The union election begins when an organizing labor union obtains signed "authorization cards" from at least 30 percent of the employees in an appropriate voting unit. This "showing of interest" leads to an election. A government agent sets up a voting booth (complete with privacy curtains) and watches over an official, sealed ballot box. Employees are given a ballot and then enter the booth. They mark either "yes" or "no" to union representation, fold the ballot, and then place the ballot into the sealed box.

At the end of the election, the government agent counts the ballots, free from possible interference by either the company or the union. If a majority votes "yes," the union wins. If a majority votes "no," the union loses.

Lately, however, unions have not been winning as many elections, or bringing in as many dues dollars, as they would like. Unions have responded by trying to eliminate elections altogether.

With the Employee Free Choice Act, the employee's process of selecting a union begins and ends when the employee signs an authorization card. There is no election. The employee cannot go into a private booth and vote "yes" or "no." And the employee certainly cannot return the card to a neutral government agent. Instead, the employee is forced to hand the very card stating that the employee is either in favor of or against union representation back to the very union he is accepting or rejecting.

The dangers are obvious. This law would leave employees vulnerable to threats and intimidation, and produce extraordinarily unreliable results. Even the U.S. Supreme Court has acknowledged that "the unreliability of [authorization] cards is inherent ... in the absence of secrecy and the natural inclination of most people to avoid stands which appear to be non-conformist and antagonistic to friends and fellow employees."

However, the unions justify their support for the Employee Free Choice Act by making completely baseless accusations of "corporate bullying." Again, nothing could be further from the truth. Under existing labor laws, any company that would "resist, prevent, impede or interfere" with a secret-ballot election would be subject to criminal prosecution. And any company that would "interfere with, restrain or coerce" employees in the exercise of their election rights would risk civil prosecution and the possibility of re-running an election the union may have lost.

Just as important, the "corporate bullying" that unions complain of is most often nothing more than protected free speech. Unions hurl accusations that large companies hold meetings "warning" their store managers of the dangers of unionization while ignoring the fact that corporations have long been free to share certain opinions on the effects of unionization, both with employees and managers.

Complaints that companies may direct their managers or employees to vote against certain candidates are similarly false. The unions' own political maneuvering underscores their hypocrisy. According to recent reports, unions will spend more than $300 million in support of Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign this year, and the AFL-CIO alone has budgeted more than $53 million to campaign on behalf of Obama. These enormous financial contributions are made almost entirely by utilizing member dues, without concern for the members' beliefs or political affiliations. The unions' hasty charges that companies direct the manner in which their employees vote are therefore absurd.

The effects of EFCA, and the underlying union support that drives the act, are clear. Very few American workers ever have the opportunity to vote in a union election. Most of the rest of us, however, have — and exercise — the right to vote in political elections. Imagine what you would think this November if you learned that the scheduled presidential election had been canceled — and one of the candidates certified — based only on voter opinion polls.