Stacked Decks

Economic stimulus has largely consumed congressional attention to this point. But sooner or later Congress is bound to get to other matters, including the No. 1 priority of unions and the Democratic majority: the card check bill. Already, movement is afoot to bring the bill back to the front burner.

The other day California Rep. George Miller wrote a letter to his colleagues in the House seeking co-sponsors. In addition to repeating the usual talking points about the bill's advantages, Miller added a new wrinkle:

"The Employee Free Choice Act still provides for an NLRB election process, triggered when 30 percent of the workers petition for one -- same as current law. But a majority of workers could opt for the less divisive majority sign-up process, and the employer would not be able to veto that choice."

Got that? Secret-ballot elections are "divisive" -- whereas a confrontational, sign-this-card-right-now system presumably would not be. Miller also writes that "Every American deserves the right to freely decide whether to form or join a union." Yet a system in which union organizers can buttonhole co-workers in the parking lot seems considerably less free than one in which the decision whether to form a union is made in a voting booth.

Miller also fudges the truth about card check's effect on the secret ballot. The language of the bill stipulates that if 50 percent of a company work force signs pledge cards, "the [NLRB] shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual organization as the labor representative." In short, card check short-circuits the secret-ballot process.

Up to now proponents of card check have been careful not to disparage the secret-ballot election, since they understand that Americans appreciate the central role it plays in any democracy. That has left open the question as to why a different process is needed. If Miller's letter is any indication, the unions' allies may be finding it necessary to imply that secret-ballot elections really are inferior.

That might seem like a deplorably cynical tactic, but this is worse: What if they mean it?