Reader Rich sent a very interesting link the other day: a poll [pdf] conducted by Randy Kuhl's pollsters, McLaughlin and Associates. M&A asked a sample of likely voters whether union elections should be private ballots. By an 87% to 9% margin, those polled said that the elections should be private.
M&A also asked whether voters would be more or less likely to support a Member of Congress who voted for legislation that took away the right to have a private union ballot. By a 70% to 8% margin, those polled said that they would be less likely to support someone who voted for such a measure. (16% said it would make no difference.)
This poll is worth a closer look, because it's a good example of how a sophisticated political strategy group frames an issue.
Though M&A is a Republican polling firm, their methodology looks solid. They used a random sample that included members of both parties. Union supporters would probably consider the poll biased, because it doesn't ask about issues of wage growth or other claimed benefits of unions. But, unless M&A is concealing something (which I doubt), I don't see how anyone can read it without concluding that people don't like electing unions without secret ballots.
Partisans on both sides often argue over the framing of an issue, especially since frames usually include distortions. One common distortion is to concentrate on a small, subsidiary point from a large piece of legislation. In this case, H R 800 is a short bill, and certifying a union without a secret ballot is the most important change in the bill: there's no cherrypicking here. Another common frame is to use polarizing, oversimplifying language (e.g., "cut and run"). Again, that's not in evidence here.
In this case, I think that the Republican's frame fits. This issue is a loser, and that Democrats should prepare to be attacked over it.
Comments
Another frame of the issue, which seems to have been accepted by a lot of Democrats and some Republicans is available. I'm well aware of the faults of unions, and I don't love them unconditionally, but I have sympathy for the worker who has to stand up to an employer on his/her own.
To present the issue as one of a "secret vs. a public ballot" is in the same rhetorical class as the "death tax."
I agree that "secret ballot vs. public ballot" is misleading. That's not the way it was phrased in the poll. Check this out:
There is a bill in Congress called the Employee Free Choice Act which would replace a federally
supervised secret ballot election with a process that requires a majority of workers to simply sign a
card to authorize organizing a union and the workers’ signatures would be made public to their
employer, the union organizers and their co-workers. Do you support or oppose Congress passing
this legislation?
Isn't that a pretty honest statement of the situation? 79% of the respondents (including 78% of the Democrats) answered "opposed".
I'll bet that most people agree with a large percentage of the points on the page you linked to. It is hard to organize a union, and management generally engages in a lot of intimidation. My only point here is that this poll appears to show that most people don't think doing away with the election solves the problem.
The stranger on the phone has ten seconds to make his/her point.
First question: "Please tell me whether you agree or disagree with the following statement? 'Every worker should continue to have the right to a federally supervised secret ballot election when deciding whether to organize a union.'"
I'm amazed that ten percent of red-blooded American voters would disagree with that statement. The implication of "continue to have the right" is that someone is thinking of compromising a worker's right to vote in a "federally supervised secret ballot election." Take way that right and I, as a likely voter, may as well throw in the towel and accept tyranny.
The rest of the questions describe the kind of tyranny that is possible if this so-called "Employee Free Choice Act" were to become law. I know that I'm exaggerating there. But the key fact is that the interviewee has already committed to the concept of federally supervised secret ballot elections. To favor anything else would cause cognitive dissonance and demonstrate an inconsistency of thought. At this point the voter is wondering why all the questions are so redundant. The salient question has been answered. People don't want to appear stupid. Finally, the last question asks whether you would support a member of Congress who would want to take away one of your most fundamental rights.
As with most political polls of this sort, the interviewee is being manipulated. Those who don't like being manipulated in this way probably refused to take the poll, or voted in the minority. Having said all that, I'm sure that the unions' poll would be just as slanted and that both parties will find ways of subverting intent of the card/petition law, if it becomes one.
I guess what I don't understand is why the unions think this is the solution to the legitimate issues they have with the process. It seems like a step that's so easily characterized by their opposition as anti-democratic.
I wonder if it will pass the Senate?
Its the "federal government supervised" part that unions are having a problem with. Originally, back when the NLRB was created, it used the power of the federal government to take the disruption, emnity, coercion and violence out of labor relations. Like FEMA, OSHA, and the VA, the NLRB has changed its management, rules and procedures over the years and the unions' perception is that the advantage is now held by employers. Rather than attempting to change the rules and procedure, which would involve a lot of compromiose and even more complex rules, they want to cut to the chase. In their view, a simple petition would get right to the crux of the unionization issue in a workplace.
It will, as you suggest, be interesting to see what the law will look like if it ever comes to that. It could very well be that federal government supervised secret ballot procedures and timeline will simply be adjusted.