The Employee Rights Act of 2023 was introduced in Congress as a pathway for lawmakers to bring our outdated labor laws into the 21st century.
The last time our country saw meaningful labor law reform, workers dealt with Pinkerton-style violence, where the boss roughed up workers who wanted a voice on the job. But today, union officials and members are often engaged in intimidating and aggressive behavior. For employees just entering the workforce, there’s little to protect them from these unsavory tactics, especially when deciding whether they want to be part of a union.
Consider the recent city worker strike in Portland, Oregon. Known not too long ago for its quirky and vibrant culture, today Portland is seen as a cautionary tale of what happens when a city prioritizes social justice signaling over quality-of-life concerns. The City Laborers’ union seems to have absorbed this new radical approach; the strike tactics of some members were so extreme that the progressive mayor was forced to condemn “aggressive behavior and intimidation.”
This behavior isn’t limited to the left coast. Last year, in a strike at Catholic Health System in Buffalo, New York, workers represented by the Communications Workers of America screamed, “Go home, you don’t belong here” at workers of color. One was allegedly told, “I hope you die in there.”
The company said it was collecting evidence of potential violations of federal, state and local hate crimes.
Elsewhere, CWA-represented workers have allegedly damaged property and threatened the well-being of non-union replacement workers.
I’ve personally been subject to coercive and intimidating actions. As a 26-year UAW-represented Ford autoworker, a supporter of worker freedom, and an open critic of the UAW, I received more intimidation and abuse than my family was comfortable experiencing. A former union plant-chair would frequently shout at me while on the job and try to belittle my beliefs. I’ve often drawn the scorn of co-workers and union officials as a consequence of my fight for worker freedom.
A decade ago, at a rally for right-to-work legislation in Michigan, union workers — worked into a frenzy by union executives — shoved the crowd, called names, threatened violence and even damaged the property of the legislation’s supporters. (In a notable contrast, right-to-work supporters offered no such threats or physical violence when the now-Democratic-controlled state House voted to repeal the right-to-work law.)
We have fortunately made some progress since the bad old days of mob control of the unions, where disagreement with union leaders meant someone might slash your tires, damage your home, or even make you “disappear.” But workers still need more protection.
The Employee Rights Act would ensure that workers are protected from coercion, or even plain old peer pressure when voting on whether or not they want their workplace to be represented by a union.
Right now, workers have no guarantee of a secret ballot vote when electing a union. Instead, unions prefer to use what’s known as a “card check” method. By signing their names on the union authorization card, workers are signing a legally binding document declaring their support for the union. The union doesn’t have to make this fact clear to workers. And once it’s got an employee’s signature, it’s very hard to undo. Card check, at its core, is coercive and intimidating, while a secret ballot is a great equalizer.
There’s also no privacy involved, meaning workers are often subjected to many coercive or even violent tactics — sometimes at their front door. In addition to guaranteeing all workers a secret ballot vote in union elections, the Employee Rights Act would limit the amount of personal information an employer had to provide a union during an organizing drive. That means fewer home visits from irate union organizers.
Workers deserve to have their voices heard — not drowned out by union organizers. It’s time to remove the partisan politics and let workers go home after a day at work, knowing they mattered to someone.