Dr. Roy J. Adams, emeritus professor of industrial relations at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada was an early proponent of the right to organize as a "fundamental human right."  In a recently-published article entitled The Employee Free Choice Act: A Skeptical View and Alternative ( Labor Studies Journal, Volume 32, #1, Spring, 2007), Dr. Adams opines that the Employee Free Choice Act would not dramatically revitalize the U.S. labor movement.  He observes that in Canada, "union density and bargaining coverage are falling even in provinces such as Saskatchewan and Quebec that have card-check and first contract arbitration clauses in effect."  (p. 2). 

The problem, according to Dr. Adams, is that the EFCA still concedes "legitimacy to the choice of no representation."  (p. 4).

The Employee Free Choice Act purports to secure, apparently, the choice between collective and individual bargaining, thus legitimizing individual representation as a reasonable alternative to collective representation. That proposition affirms rather than denies the union-free paradigm’s legitimacy, thus enhancing its credibility and power to shape behavior. So long as that paradigm continues to dominate, the continuing decline of the American labor movement is all but inevitable.

(p.7).

As an alternative, Dr. Adams proposes what he terms a "Dignity at Work Act," which would have the following objectives:

1. Establishing the principle that unionizing is, fundamentally, the exercise of an individual human right, albeit one that may only be invoked in concert with one’s coworkers.

2. Just as discrimination and child exploitation are morally wrong, so too is it morally wrong for anyone to oppose employees’ exercise of their human right to organize and bargain collectively.

3. It is contrary to basic principles of democracy and human dignity for employers to change significantly terms and conditions of employment without first seeking the collective advice and consent of those to whom the changes apply.

4. Government has a moral responsibility to act not as a neutral referee in a battle between established unions and employers but rather to promote knowledge and understanding of the right to organize and bargain collectively, with a view toward making the practice and procedure of collective bargaining in a variety of formats consistent with international standards the norm across the economy.

(pp. 7-8).