Many unions want authorization card counts - they don't want ballots of any kind. The article mentions this without further elaboration, because the columnist is biased... a Democrat labor leader, what a surprise.

I've been, as an 'employee' (not management) in the middle of a union drive and I have seen the abuses cards are used for. New hires, barely speaking a word of english, are ushered off by their seniors to just ... sign something... that they don't understand. They are told it will protect their rights - by someone they somewhat trust. They are told it won't cost them anything. And thus, union cards are born to be waved in front of the NLRB and the management as pretend data about what employees want.

Friends are told to get their friends to sign; spouses to arm twist spouses. People to spurn those who won't sign. Every barely legal trick in the book. Yes, 'collective bargaining' is allowed. But if this is allowed, then strike breaking should be allowed. Employees harrass non-signers and make it difficult for them to do their jobs in all the informal ways this can be done, as soon as they have a quorum and sufficient strength in some department.

Union authorization cards are worth the paper they are printed on, no more. We shouldn't let the corrupt union bosses try to spread their reach this way. Also, we need to guard against ballot stuffing and slow downs and various other interferences from other unions in an attempt to unionize a new place.

If we really want reform, we should eliminate the closed shop altogether, as well as the 'representation fees' which make non-members pay dues to an organization they don't support. Let the union members stand together - alone. If the company can afford to see them all go at once, collective bargaining has worked, and the union overplayed its hand.

Now I dare Obama to come out in favor of this...

Very well stated. Unions should have no powers of coercion. A bunch of people may get together and form an association. They may decide they require certain conditions, or they will strike. So far, OK. Unfortunately, our government gives this "club" extensive additional powers -- e.g., to prevent the company from hiring other workers on terms mutually agreeable to the company and those other workers.

The problems with these government-given powers are:

* They are immoral. Why does the union have the right to boss around third parties?

* They lead to severe economic inefficiencies.

The theory seems to be that evil corporations have a lot of goodies that they are withholding. Either management takes the goodies, or shareholders grab them. So, the government gives workers special powers to form an association and demand the goodies.

Unfortunately, corporations have no such goodies that they are hiding somewhere in a safe. The compensation of management doesn't amount to that much and it may really be needed to get quality people to do the job. Also, you can't steal from the shareholders. Well, you can steal from them one time, but eventually capital catches on and flees the company. Now, with less capital, the workers are even worse off than before.

Another possibility is for the unionization to cause price rises. This can actually increase worker compensation, depending on the industry. The increased costs are passed on to other people. It's a way in which a lucky monopoly can extract above-market gains from other less lucky people in the economy -- essentially immoral. This path also leads to lower GDP.

The whole thing is terribly misconceived and leads to tears. Even for workers, it's bad.

Obama has pledged to work for "Card Check". This alone makes him a profoundly immoral person.

I think the biggest problem is that Unions are these massive organizations ran by rich people who could care less about the poor, they should be organized on a case by case basis by employee's who feel they are being mistreated.

In you haste to bash unions you completely ignored the main recommendation of the article which was the holding of secret elections in a timely manner.

You are right that I didn't address it. I have nothing against timeliness. Anything worth doing is worth doing in a timely fashion. I was addressing a related, and mentioned, issue, but not the recommendation of timely secret ballots.