By Richard Hankins, Kilpatrick Stockton Labor Attorney

As can be observed by a quick perusal of the articles posted on our Media Roundup, the inflammatory rhetoric on both sides of the Employee Free Choice Act issue continues.

MyDD.com, a prominent Democratic blog, accuses columnist George Will of “whining” and of considering democracy to be “uncivilized.” In an article entitled, “Who Workers Really Fear,” another prominent liberal blog, dailykos.com, cites the misleading statistics directly from the AFL-CIO’s talking points. (Those statistics have been addressed in earlier postings on this site).

On the other side of the spectrum, Mr. Will asserts that “the act aims less to help workers than to herd them as dues-payers into unions.” Conservatives web logs refer to congressional supporters as being “ in bed with the Communist Party ” and contain articles such as: “More Big Labor Thuggery .”

Shouldn’t the real issue be whether or not the Employee Free Choice Act contains good labor policy?

As suggested earlier on this site, if Congress were really concerned about what is best for employees, it could ask the over 100,000 people who vote in union elections every year. A simple telephone survey might reveal if those workers fear coercion from management, from union organizers, or from both parties. As of now – on the eve of a vote by the full House, Congress has heard directly from only a few workers, and the experiences they described involved what  Rep. Robert Andrews  (D-NJ), chairman of the House Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions conceded were from the few employers who were “bad actors.” What about the vast majority of employees who work for decent, law-abiding companies who honestly believe that their employees do not need a union?

Of course, therein lies the rub. Sometimes it seems that labor activists do not consider honest disagreement to be possible.   In the eyes of the AFL-CIO and Change to Win, any employer who prefers to remain non-union is a “union buster” and lumped in with the “bad actors” that Rep. Andrews mentioned.

But that’s not all. Consider the rhetoric that labor has always used to advance its purposes. Cross a picket line – you’re a “scab.” Decline to pay union dues – you’re a “free rider.” Think unions no longer serve a purpose? – you need a "frontal lobotomy." And, God forbid, you decide to work for management – you are, in the words of one pro-labor blogger, a “Turncoat Organizer [who] Drowns in Corporate Cash .”  This type of rhetoric certainly gives one pause to consider whether an employee who declines to sign a card will be treated with respect by a union.

In 2005 alone, some 5,405 Charges were filed against unions alleging “illegal restraint and coercion of employees” and 594 Charges alleged “illegal union discrimination against employees.”  (2005 NLRB Annual Report, p. 15). Is this reflective of most union organizers? Probably not. But, as Rep. Andrews admits, the conduct currently being attributed across-the-board to management is also not typical. In those cases where “bad actors” from either side exist, a secret ballot is the only way to determine an employee’s “free choice.”