The Employee Suppression of Choice Act
By David Henderson
Under current law, workers, to be represented, must vote in a secret ballot. The EFCA would give unions another way to monopolize a workplace: get a majority of workers to sign a card authorizing a union to represent them. This would make it easier for unions to organize workplaces because the unions could intimidate workers one by one. The virtue of a secret ballot, on the other hand, is that it lets workers vote the way they wish without fear of retribution.
Government grants of monopoly (except, possibly, patents, which are problematic) are wrong whether they are granted to taxicab companies (as they are in almost all U.S. cities), TV cable companies, or groups of workers. Government-created monopoly in the taxi business violates the right of consumers to deal with taxis of their choice and the right of potential taxi owners who are not allowed to enter the business. Government-granted monopoly in cable violates the right of consumers to deal with the cable company of their choice and the right of potential cable companies to enter the business. So, too, government grants of monopoly to workers violate the right of employers to choose workers they want to deal with and of workers who would like to work for an employer and not be represented by a union.
From David R. Henderson, “The Employee Suppression of Choice Act,” Forbes.com, November 3, 2008