Calling the Employee Free Choice Act "misguided," the USA Today editorial board yesterday set forth considerable criticism of the bill:

Cajoled choice is more like it. The proposed change would give unions and
pro-union employees more incentive to use peer pressure, or worse, to persuade
reluctant workers to sign their cards. And without elections, workers who
weren't contacted by union organizers would have no say in the final
outcome.

Labor leaders, such as AFL-CIO President John Sweeney in the space below,
argue that the proposed law wouldn't prohibit private balloting. This is
accurate but misleading. Union organizers would have no reason to seek an
election if they had union cards signed by more than 50% of workers. And if they
had less than a majority, they'd be unlikely to call for a vote they'd probably
lose.

The legislation has other questionable provisions as well. For example, once
a union is formed, if labor and management can't agree on a contract, a federal
arbitration board would be called on to go beyond the normal role of
facilitating talks and actually dictate terms.

Labor has seen its role decline
since the 1950s, when about a third of all private sector employees belonged
to unions, compared with about 7.5%
today. So it's understandably eager to find ways to expand membership,
particularly at a time when workers are feeling economically vulnerable. But
undermining democratic principles is not the answer.

As is its norm, USA Today allowed space for the opposing view, wherein AFL-CIO President John Sweeney -- one of the men poised to personally benefit the most from EFCA's passage -- reiterates the same tired, misleading and factually untrue talking points that have seen the bill rejected in successive sessions of Congress.  Rather than approach labor law reform honestly and craft a less self-interested legislative alternative, however, it appears organized labor is content to let its campaign cash pave the way to a bailout package of its own.