Card Check Neutrality Agreement

The fact that authorization cards are not a reliable indicator of employee mood, several studies show that unions lose the largest number of elections, even though a narrow majority of workers sign authorization cards. Under today`s law, employees have the opportunity to vote for or against the union in a federally supervised private election. If more than 50% of workers in an establishment sign a card, the government would have to certify the union and private choice would be prohibited, even if the workers want one. By forcing workers to publicly sign a card instead of voting privately, card control opens the door to intimidation and coercion. More than 70% of voters agree that a private election is better than a card check. [9] Unions argue that card-checking elections are necessary because employers use threats and intimidation to influence the results of government-supervised secret elections. Those who oppose the control of the cards argue that it deprives workers of their right to a secret ballot. They also argue that while the assembly of a majority of card signatories may mean that a secret ballot would not be necessary, signatories could be forced to sign through intimidation and pressure; The same could be true for employers between registration and a secret ballot. Many economic organizations, including the American Chamber of Commerce, oppose the introduction of card control. From its website: In addition, the EMS of neutrality notes that the wording of certain neutrality agreements may be unlawfully imposed and applies the same standard “more than ministerial support” to analyse the legality of certain provisions relating to neutrality agreements. Therefore, neutrality agreement provisions that allow or require an employer to provide “more than ministerial assistance” to a union are illegal.