Union bosses seem to have forgotten the rule that you “never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel.” But editorial page writers from across the country continue to reject Big Labor’s lobbying gambit to take away the right to a personal, private ballot vote when employees are deciding whether to join a union.
Some recent additions:
- The Washington Post: “In addition, employees who are skeptical of or opposed to bringing a union into the workplace deserve the protections of a secret-ballot election rather than having to face pressures from colleagues pushing them to sign unionization cards.”
- Manchester Union Leader: “The right to the secret ballot is as close to sacred as it gets in our form of democracy. For New Hampshire’s two congressmen, who just got elected themselves, to take that away from America’s working men and women is incredible.”
- Orlando Sentinel: “It’s wrong for either management or unions to strong-arm workers during organizing campaigns. The best method of allowing workers to register their honest opinions, without either side breathing down their necks, is through a secret ballot. That’s the American way.”
- Janesville Gazette: “The Senate should reject the Employee Free Choice Act, which would replace free, anonymous choice with strong-arm tactics. And if this misguided measure somehow passes the Senate, President Bush should veto it.”
- San Antonio Express-News: “… it is regrettable that Big Labor and its congressional allies would cast aside the right of Americans to vote their consciences in private — whether electing a president or deciding to form a union — to promote union interests.”
- The Morning Call: “In place of a boss leaning on a worker not to vote for the union, it puts face-to-face peer pressure from a labor organizer to unionize. Pressure can work both ways, and without the protection of privacy, workers could subject themselves to harassment, or worse, from just another source.”