Replies

It’s good that they focused on the signature cards. Unions routinely mischaracterize signature cards as being like petitions - indicating only a willingness to see a unionization effort go to a vote. They don’t want you to know that the signature card IS a vote and it they persuade enough to sign them (no matter how long it takes) the unionization is a done-deal.

This statement is both true and false.

It is a material misrepresentation for an organizer to tell a prospective signatory that his card represents only a desire to call an election, because the card actually does represent support for, and intent to join, the union seeking certification. If he does that, the certification card is void.

However, under current law, an employer always has the right to call for a secret ballot election, even if more than 50% of the people in the prospective bargaining unit have signed cards.

So while it is technically true that signing the card is a vote for the union, and it is technically true that a union can declare itself certified as a representative with 50% (+1 vote) of cards signed, no employer would ever waive his right to have the NLRB conduct a secret ballot election.

And as a matter of fact, while I am no longer a union organizer, I have personally never seen a case where the employer even accepted the signatures on union cards as belonging to people who were all valid members of the bargaining unit without a very lengthy review before the NLRB. Wrangling over who is permitted into the unit is a major source of delay in calling the election.

Here's the reason employers don't like the cards, even though in practical terms they don't have the effect that this video claims: There is a cascading effect against the company when people discover that a large majority of fellow employees have signed the cards. No employer wants to be seen as going against the wishes of a majority of his employees, even if he retains the right to force an election all the same.