No More Stacked Deck: Evaluating the Case Against Card-Check Union Recognition

Abstract

Much of the management community has long argued against union recognition via “card check,” the presentation to an employer of signed cards authorizing union representation for a majority of employees in a unit. Their core argument, that workers deserve the right to a secret-ballot election, has remained unchanged. But the campaign to oppose these arrangements has recently intensified, perhaps due to the increased forcefulness and success of union efforts to secure card-check and neutrality agreements (whereby an employer agrees to remain neutral during an organizing drive).The Labor Policy Association (LPA), which published Employee Free Choice: It’s Not in the Cards in 1998, has been a leader in this effort.1 This past summer, a House subcommittee held hearings on a bill that would prohibit card-check recognition. Among those testifying in favor of the prohibition were LPA senior vice president Daniel Yager, coauthor of Employee Free Choice, and Jarol Manheim, a George Washington University professor.As scholars who have conducted research for several years on neutrality and card-check agreements (N/CC), we offer an empirical evaluation of the arguments against card check. Whether free choice is “in the cards” is a decision for policy makers. But if policy makers are to deal workers a fair hand on this issue—and many workers would argue that the current situation is far from fair—then they have an obligation to draw from a deck that isn’t stacked. The goal of our research is to bring some empirically grounded, clear thinking to the discussion.2