Talk:Card check

Employee Free Choice Act

I've removed some content that discusses this act. Since there is a separate article about the act, we don't need to duplicate that in the Card check article - we just need to make clear what the proposed act is all about, so that interested readers can follow the link to the article about the act, and read further there, if desired. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

This article is heavily slanted in an anti-EFCA direction.

Was it really a filibuster?

I take issue with the statement that a "Republican-led filibuster" caused the card check bill to fail in the Senate in 2007. The Democrats recently have given in to the Republican minority, and they will accept defeat without actually requiring a Republican filibuster. To me, a filibuster would occur when the Democrats are trying to pass a bill, and the Republicans would be forced to hold the floor for hours and days on end to prevent the vote from taking place. But the Democrats don't make the Republicans actually filibuster. Rather, they hold a "cloture vote" and then meekly back down when they do not get 60 votes. So I changed the text to reflect this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sghalltn (talk • contribs) 03:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

3/7/09 This entire article should be removed. It reads as if it was written by the unions. There is no balance to this article at all.

Rich

Bias

This is the most laughably biased article I've ever seen on wikipedia. Bcostley (talk) 03:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Which "way"? --Tom 13:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

For the union side. Though the current revision is much better. Bcostley (talk) 03:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

ITS BETTER NOW

simpler, factual, non biased, letting each side have their say, without leading the reader astray. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.88.254 (talk) 22:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

NEEDS MORE ANALYSIS

History section needs more factual information in 3 categories - 1.Incidences of inhumane abuse of employees where a union became necessary. 2. Positive economic impact for the cost of living of the employee class. 3. Negative economic impact tothe cost of living, if any, to the employee class The reason for this is that the Card Check entry in Wiki. may be the only research into the subject of unions an employee has time to make before making a decision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.146.136.29 (talk) 23:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Commentary: Card Check: Just Plain Undemocratic

• Bernard, Michelle (2009, March 13). Card Check: Just Plain Undemocratic. RealClearPolitics.com. Retrieved 03/01/2009. Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 10:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Krugman is being creatively quoted

Krugman doesn't mention Card Check, he mentions "laying the groundwork" for the EFCA. What is quoted is extremely misleading. To say he is in favor of unions or parts of the EFCA doesn't in the slightest mean he is in favor of Card Check. 76.166.204.89 (talk) 04:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to do about that, but his comments are under "Support" for Card Check, and there is nothing he said in his article that is cited that states that. 76.166.204.89 (talk) 04:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Balance

I'm new to this topic, but as a student, I see both defenders of Card Check and defenders of the current system claiming that the Wiki article is biased against their viewpoint. This is clear evidence that the article has the right balance. Ringo Reed (talk) 14:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)Ringo Reed

So both sides claiming bias is clear evidence the article is balanced? What if one side claims it is biased even if they are happy with it as is just to make you think that? 76.166.204.89 (talk) 07:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I know basically nothing about union history and card checks, but right now the article reads as if the card check opposition are making distraction arguments that are not based in fact. This seems pretty straightforward to me and can be drawn in a table:

Level of card signings	Current Law	EFCRA
< 30%	Union cannot be formed	Union cannot be formed
30% - 50%	NLRB sets up secret ballot	NLRB sets up secret ballot
> 50%	NLRB sets up secret ballot, OR employer agrees to union and secret ballot is skipped	Union is formed, and secret ballot is skipped

One would think that if an employee wants a union badly enough to publicly sign his name, he wouldn't care about the secret right to vote No. Unless the point is that people are fearful that pro-union people would intimidate other employees to sign cards when those employees might not actually want a union? Actually, this is a good point, but it only just now occurred to me and it wasn't explained as such in the article. Perhaps a clarifying line of, "Even though a majority of card signers might imply that a secret ballot would be unnecessary, critics contend that signers could be coerced to sign through intimidation, and that a secret ballot should remain necessary." would improve matters. (Please edit for clarity.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.203.58 (talk) 21:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, for those of us who live in the Real World, and not Fantasyland, it is pretty clear that if the local union enforcers Moose and Rocco are breathing down your neck, you're probably going to sign that card unless you want to end up with a few broken ribs and slashed tires. The nice thing about a secret ballot is that you can sign the card to avoid a beating, and then tell the union boys to go stuff themselves by voting No in the secret ballot. Open Card would get rid of this right, which is a major change. Effectively, it would allow union thugs to coerce employees into signing cards without the natural check and balance that a subsequent secret ballot would provide. In other words, the thugs win again. *This* is what the argument is about.Ndriley97 (talk) 00:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Card Check is basically a license for union intimidation and a payback from politicians. It's only purpose is to funnel billions into a dying union machine which will then be funneled straight into political coffers. Blatant intimidation will become rampant and the union "leadership", standing to get even richer off the backs of employees, isn't too shy about admitting this. Anyone who still thinks there is a difference between big union, big brother and big business is a fool. They all want the dollar and they all want it from you and no other consideration is relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.60.175.186 (talk) 20:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Reference missing

I plan to remove the last paragraph quoting a supposed zogby poll. If it really exists, it should be easy for whoever put it there to include a reference where people can check what the poll really asked and in what context. until then it doesn't belong in the article. Mwenyendoto (talk) 22:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, you're right - it was trivial, the top google hit. Please consider adding a {{Fact}} () template rather than deleting reasonable-sounding material, thanks. —EqualRights (talk) 22:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a poll, but it is a rigged, partisan poll of no evidentiary value. The key question was whether Congress should replace the current system "with another process that is less private." That is the totality of how they describe card check - they don't even use the phrase card check - they just say "less private." Actually, they ask the "card check" question three times in three different ways, one of which is relatively neutral and the other two clearly rigged - the "less private" question and a question about "special agreement[s] to bypass the normal secret-ballot process." All this after a series of highly leading questions about privacy, "stronger laws" to "protect" the secret ballot, etc etc. And on the honest card check question, which just asked which method was the fairest without leading adjectives, there was no clear majority! It was 41% saying card check is the fairest, 53% saying balloting is the fairest, and the poll has a 4% error margin.

This kind of crap doesn't belong in Wikipedia. All it tells us is that the Mackinac Center for Public Policy doesn't like card check and has the money to produce propaganda supporting its position. Well, good for them. <eleland/talkedits> 04:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Whatiscardcheck.com

Whatiscardcheck.com is an opposing viewpoint presented in interactive flash by a non-profit organization and is helpful in balancing the article and presenting information on the topic. Mbraynard (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Buffet Quote is Uncite

Warren Buffet is currently quoted referring to card-check in an interview on CNBC. However, that quote is not referenced in any way. Is that not an unverified source?

DaveFS (talk) 21:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

International perspective

I'm not sure if this is supposed to represent an American issue in particular, but I don't see why it should, because the concept exists basically everywhere this labour law (whether or not it's allowed). This is a major issue elsewhere.

I work as a union organizer in Canada and a lot of what is on this page is unrecognizeable. This is probably partly because business and their political representatives are either intentionally misrepresenting reality, or outright lying. But I think partly the laws and culture are different. So, for example, I would never tell someone that their coworker signed (or didn't sign) a card, and I think it might actually be illegal for me to do so. The idea that card signing is public is really foreign. In a lot of environments it mostly happens in private meetings away from the workplace.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Card check. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081127122146/http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/publications/general/neither-free-nor-fair.html to http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/publications/general/neither-free-nor-fair.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090305042451/http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/dmdocuments/OtherResources/JohnLogan12_2006UnionAvoidance.pdf to http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/dmdocuments/OtherResources/JohnLogan12_2006UnionAvoidance.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090305042438/http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/dmdocuments/OtherResources/Logan-Consultants.pdf to http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/dmdocuments/OtherResources/Logan-Consultants.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080706095146/http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/employee-free-choice-act/resource-library/majority-sign-up-qa.html to http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/employee-free-choice-act/resource-library/majority-sign-up-qa.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090106120927/http://freechoiceact.org/ to http://www.freechoiceact.org

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)