FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                            
August 10, 2019
CONTACT: Ryan Williams


PRO Act’s Stealth ‘Card Check’ Option Gives Unions Unfair Advantage

F. Vincent Vernuccio and Morgan Shields
August 9, 2019
The Hill

Here they go again, attempting to take away the secret ballot in union elections.

In 2009, Democrats tried to pass the Employee Free Choice Act, which would have taken away workers’ rights to use the secret ballot in unionization elections. Even though they controlled the House and Senate, and Barack Obama was in the White House, their attempt failed.

Still, bad ideas die hard, and the worst provisions of that legislation are back a decade later — in the Protecting the Right to Organize Act of 2019, or PRO Act. Its sponsors, having learned a lesson from the 2009 effort, are trying to do an end run to get the same result.

The PRO Act would give more power to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which conducts certification elections. The act says, in part, that when a union loses an election, the board can declare that the employer interfered. It can then negate the election, cite union petitions or authorization cards (the so-called “card check option”) and determine that the union succeeded in organizing the work site.

The act creates a burden of proof for the employer, who must show that it did not interfere in the election. If it can’t do that, and the union certifies that it received signed authorization cards from a majority of workers, the NLRB can step in. That is, “the board shall, without ordering a new election, certify the labor organization as the representative of the employees in such unit and issue an order requiring the employer to bargain with the labor organization.”

Under the PRO Act, an employer is guilty until proven innocent and the penalty is to take away the secret ballot from its employees. It’s not a stretch to think that when the NLRB and a U.S. president are union-friendly, the board will force unionization on workers through card check, regardless of what happens in a certification election.

Card check takes away the rights of employees to use the secret ballot, in a free and fair election, to decide whether they will be represented by a union. Collecting signatures on cards is not the same as winning an election through a secret ballot.

The right to be free from intimidation and to vote one’s conscience in a voting booth is a bedrock principle of this country. The fact that Congress is considering a bill that flies in the face of this idea is telling.

The recent United Auto Workers (UAW) election in Chattanooga, Tenn., is a great example of how the PRO Act could force unionization upon employees. In this case, workers voted not once but twice to reject the UAW. In 2014 and again in 2019, the UAW sought to unionize a Volkswagen plant. Both times, a majority of employees decided, via a secret ballot, that they did not want to be represented by that union. If the PRO Act were in place, there would be a presumption that Volkswagen somehow acted in bad faith to interfere with the election. The NLRB would have certified the union and forced workers who said “no” into the UAW.

Under the PRO Act, a union seeking to organize a workplace must certify that it has received signed authorization cards from a majority of employees. The cards must have come at “any time during the period beginning one year preceding the date of the commencement of the election and ending on the date upon which the board makes the determination of a violation or other interference.” But the act does not specify what the cards must say.

To add insult to injury, the PRO Act would repeal right-to-work laws in 27 states that prohibit unions from forcing workers to pay them. So not only could unions force unionization through backdoor card check, but they could then get workers fired for not paying them dues.

There have been cases in which a union misuses the card-check process. A union tells employees that signing a card means only that there will be a certification election, or that they will receive information about the union, and then uses those cards to force itself on workers. In the 2014 UAW election in Chattanooga, the UAW claimed it had enough authorization cards to unionize the plant. Employees, though, filed an unfair labor practice charge with the NLRB. They said the UAW had gotten employees to sign a card that simply called for a secret ballot election, not for authorizing the union.

Despite the circuitous process prescribed in the PRO Act, its goal is to take away the secret ballot from workers and make it easier for unions to organize workplaces over the objections of employees.

F. Vincent Vernuccio is a senior fellow at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a research and educational institute located in Midland, Mich. Follow him on Twitter @vinnievernuccio.

Morgan Shields is legal counsel and director of Workers for Opportunity at the Mackinac Center.

To access the op-ed, click here.

The Workforce Fairness Institute is an organization committed to educating voters, employers, employees and citizens about issues affecting the workplace.  To learn more, please visit:

 To schedule an interview with a Workforce Fairness Institute representative, please contact Ryan Williams at (202) 677-7060.


Featured Blog

AZ Daily Sun--Coconino Voices: PRO Act legislation would hurt local businesses

— 05.13.2021 —
By: Julie Pastrik Arizona businesses and workers have had an incredibly challenging year given the economic slowdown that followed in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic. However, local businesses and industries across the state are resilient and on the road to a strong recovery that will mean more jobs for Arizona workers and increased economic development to strengthen our communities. That is, as long as Congress does not move forward with potentially devastating legislation that would hurt local employers and employees alike while impeding our state’s economic recovery. Unfortunately, some members of Congress seem determined to do just that by pushing through the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act. As harmless as the name may sound, the PRO Act would have serious repercussions for local businesses, particularly smaller ones, while undermining long-standing rights for employees and threatening the growing gig economy that has helped provide much-needed income for so many during this time. Arizona is fortunate to have leaders like Senators Mark Kelly and Kyrsten Sinema, who have both refrained from joining the vast majority of their Democratic colleagues in cosponsoring the PRO Act. In a slap in the face to Arizona workers, the PRO Act removes one of the most fundamental rights a worker has when it comes to voting in elections to determine whether to unionize: the secret ballot. Instead, workers could be forced to sign union authorization cards in front of other employees, their employer, or union organizers. This bill would also destroy workers’ right to privacy by allowing unions access to personal information, including their home address and personal phone number. If that doesn’t open the door to union intimidation and harassment, I don’t know what does. As if that was not bad enough, the PRO Act would create major new challenges for Arizona businesses, making it harder for them to create jobs, expand in their communities, and even keep their doors open. It would redefine what it means to be a “joint employer” under national labor law, greatly complicating existing relationships between franchisors and franchisees as well as between business owners, contractors, subcontractors, and vendors and suppliers. At the same time, it would interfere with attorney-client confidentiality and make it much more difficult for small businesses to secure a legal advice on labor issues. Particularly harmful during these times, the PRO Act would apply a failed policy from California to national labor law by using the “ABC” test to determine whether a worker is an independent contractor or employee. This makes it much harder to qualify as an independent contractor, threatening the freedom and flexibility that tens of thousands of Arizonans find in independent contracting and gig economy work. Ultimately, the PRO Act is bad public policy that only works for union leaders to inflate their falling ranks while threatening workers’ rights, undermining small businesses, and jeopardizing a growing part of our economy. This is not a good solution for Arizona, and Senators Sinema and Kelly should stay firm and not cosponsor this misguided legislation.
Read More