Business special interest groups have launched a $120 million campaign to derail reform of the nation's broken labor law system by lying about the Employee Free Choice Act.  Their only line of attack - that the bill somehow takes away so-called "secret ballot" elections for joining a union - is blatantly false.

The Employee Free Choice Act not only strengthens the current process for workers forming unions, but also provides for a more fair and democratic method for men and women to join unions.

Here are the facts to refute the opposition's fiction about the Employee Free Choice Act:

Opponents of the Employee Free Choice Act have a one-note strategy to derail reform of our broken labor law system.  The anti-union, right-wing, business lobby simply spins the same broken record of lies, over and over again.  Track 1 is the bogus assertion: "The bill does away with secret ballot elections, and, elections without secret ballots are undemocratic." Track 2 is the counterfeit claim: "Elections for union representation are just like elections for Congress."

Under the current labor law system, employers often use a combination of legal and illegal methods to silence employees who attempt to form unions and bargain for better wages and working conditions. When faced with organizing drives, 25 percent of employers fire at least one pro-union worker; 51 percent threaten to close a worksite if the union prevails; and, 91 percent force employees to attend one-on-one anti-union meetings with their supervisors. The solution: Labor law reform that gives workers a free choice and a fair chance to form a union.

Read why workers need majority sign-up—a fairer alternative to the way union elections are now run—which is a critical component of the Employee Free Choice Act. The Employee Free Choice Act provides for certification of a union if the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) finds that a majority of employees have signed written authorization forms designating the union as their collective bargaining representative.

The Employee Free Choice Act provides that either employers or employees may request mediation of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) if no agreement on a first contract has been reached after 90 days of bargaining.  If the FMCS is unable to bring the parties to agreement after 30 days of mediation, the dispute must be referred to binding arbitration.

Management routinely coerces employees not to choose union representation.  Freedom of association—the right of employees to join a union and bargain collectively—is theoretically guaranteed by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the U.S. Constitution, and several international human rights agreements.  However, as Human Rights Watch concluded in a 2000 report on U.S. compliance with international human rights standards, employees’ freedom of association in the United States is routinely violated through employer coercion.¹ 

More effective remedies against employer coercion—like injunctive relief and monetary penalties—in the Employee Free Choice Act will help restore workers' freedom to form unions.

Here are some frequently asked questions and answers about majority sign-up procedures.

The Employee Free Choice Act (S. 1041) was introduced for the 110th Congress in the Senate on March 29, 2007 by Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA), and in the House on February 5, 2006 by Reps. George Miller (D-CA), Robert Andrews (D-NJ), and Peter King (R-NY).  Here is a summary of the bill's core provisions.

If you’re looking for credible data, in-depth research, and comprehensive analyses to support the need for the Employee Free Choice Act, look no further.  Below you’ll find detailed reports, policy briefs, and studies from American Rights at Work, as well as a range of public policy organizations and academic institutions.

Fact Over Fiction:  Opposition to Card Check Doesn’t Add Up

Authors: Adrienne Eaton, Ph.D. of Rutgers University; Jill Kriesky, Ph.D. of Wheeling Jesuit University

Findings from this survey, commissioned by American Rights at Work, of workers’ opinions on union and employer coercion during card check campaigns and National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) elections reveal that claims of union pressure in card check campaigns are grossly exaggerated.  

March 2006 | Availability: Issue Brief (PDF: 4 pages, 204 KB) 

Undermining the Right to Organize: Employer Behavior During Union Representation Campaigns

Findings from this report, commissioned by American Rights at Work, reveal that a majority of employers aggressively use both legal and illegal anti-union tactics during union representation elections, which impedes workers’ ability to form unions.

December 2005 | Availability: Full Report (PDF: 35 pages, 688 KB); one-page fact sheet (PDF: 451 KB); half-page flyer (PDF: 503 KB) 

Free and Fair? How Labor Law Fails U.S. Democratic Election Standards

The report investigates how current union election procedures measure up to U.S. democratic standards.  In spite of the presence of secret ballots, the report concludes that union elections fall alarmingly short of living up to the most fundamental tenets of democracy.

June 2005 | Availability: Full Report (PDF: 38 pages, 409 KB); report summary (PDF or HTML) 

Some of Them are Brave: The Unfulfilled Promise of American Labor Law

This report provides an in-depth look at the obstacles faced by nursing home workers trying to form unions under U.S. labor law.

December 2003 | Availability: Full Report  (PDF: 24 pages, 316 KB)