But --- like the legislation's title --- the accusation itself is a carefully-crafted misrepresentation.
Here's what moonbat Josh Chernilla, quoting MSNBC's vile lesbian commentator, had to say over at "Blue Commonwealth":
Corporate interests are bent on lying about the Employee Free Choice Act - they'd have you believe that the bill means the end of the secret ballot - but nothing could be further from the truth. The Employee Free Choice Act simply gives employees the choice to join unions - not the employers. Right now, workers can join unions through majority sign-up or a secret ballot election, and they can do so under the Employee Free Choice Act, too. The only difference is it will be the employees' choice, not the employers.Now, never mind that George McGovern has never been known as a champion of "corporate interests," even among the most pathetic of the moonbat Left. But EFCA proponents are advancing their cause by lying about the argument of their opponents.
No one says that "the bill means the end of the secret ballot" as a general proposition. Of course, secret-ballot elections can still be sought and conducted for decertification and deauthorization (prohibiting unions and employers from imposing or enforcing a forced-unionism agreement). And, of course, a union could still seek a secret-ballot election to organizing a bargaining unit, though why one would do so when it could conduct its campaign behind closed doors and pressure employees without allowing employers to conduct a campaign is a mystery.
But of course, "the bill means the end of the secret ballot" to put a union to its proofs when it presents a petition for union representation signed by a majority of employees. And therefore, also of course, it "means the end of the secret ballot" in the circumstances to which it applies.
The lie itself also demonstrates a singular ignorance of existing labor law, one which one might not expect from someone with Maddow's academic credentials, were it not for her political credentials.
But, as recent presidential history has demonstrated, no lie is too outrageous in pursuit of more power for the far Left.
The entire notion that "it will be the employees' choice" is false, since these advocates for more union-boss power --- like most labor statutes --- virtually ignore those employees who do not support union representation. Of course, what Maddow fails to recognize is that the notion that it is "the employers'" choice is true, but only to the extent that existing labor law doesn't recognize the right of even a substantial minority of employees --- say, 30% of a bargaining unit, the percentage necessary to seek a certification, decertification, or deauthorization election under existing law --- to demand a secret-ballot election when a union and employer agree to card-check recognition. Of course, what currently requires agreement of an employer --- recognition upon a showing of majority support with signed authorization cards --- would become mandated under EFCA, with no mechanism for either an employer or bargaining unit employees to demand an election.
Hence, the term "card check" is absolutely accurate. Union representation would be imposed upon all employees, even those who don't want it, upon a showing that a mere and perhaps ephemeral majority had, in full view of union organizers, signed authorization cards.
It is understandable that the far Left would want to cast EFCA opponents as liars, since the change they propose would permit imposition of monopoly bargaining upon employees based upon the unexaminable promises, misrepresentations, and --- yes --- lies of union organizers in collecting authorization cards. It would also then impose mandatory "arbitration" of first contracts upon a failure to reach agreement, but that's a pernicious element of EFCA which gets less attention than the more fundamental flaw in its extinguishing of the right to a secret-ballot election to prove union support.
Maddow and Chernilla: Liars for the far Left.