The agency's acting general counsel, Lafe Solomon, said the amendments conflict with federal law, which gives employers the option of recognizing a union if a majority of workers sign cards that support unionizing.
I don't see how there is a conflict. A majority of workers can still sign cards supporting unionization irrespective of the State's requirement of a secret ballot. Shirley the NLRB isn't this stupid???
Solomon is asking the attorneys general ... for official statements agreeing that their amendments are unconstitutional
To quote Johnny Mc... "you cannot be serious!"
The difference being that you don't get to 'sign a card' in private.
If a couple of union goons show up at your door with baseball bats and say "Me 'n the boys think youse outghta sign this here card" They can easily get "a majority of workers to sign cards"
And employers will not have "the option" of recognizing the union
It does seem a little odd, given that the sentence they quote isn’t about WORKERSs rights, it explicitly says company rights (”gives employers the option”).
The states are trying to stop employers from implementing a union based on signed cards, which are known to involve intimidation of workers.
Nationally, we’ve been fighting the “card check” legislation which would FORCE companies to accept a union based only on signed cards. But there are some companies that get in bed with unions against the workers, and the states are trying to prevent that to protect their workers from ending up in a union against their will.
It will be interesting to see the court fight — it is true after all that federal law trumps state law, so the outcome I guess will hinge on how a court interprets a state constitutional amendment giving workers additional rights, and a federal law which only offers employers an “optional” choice.
Don’t see the conflict either. If the states fight this right, they may be able to preempt card check before it ever gets passed into law though.