In The News

BY F. VINCENT VERNUCCIO, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR

What a difference a year makes for the Communications Workers of America (CWA). The union and more than a dozen allies wrote a letter to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) last winter, criticizing Microsoft over its proposed acquisition of the video game company Activision Blizzard.

Ten months later, the union’s concerns about potential “anticompetitive conduct” have disappeared. This month, Communications Workers of America, which claims more than 450,000 members, even signed a full-page ad in the Washington Post supporting the software company.

What caused the union’s change of heart? It dropped its opposition after Microsoft signed what is known as a neutrality agreement. In a letter to the FTC, the union was unashamed: “We now support approval of the transaction before you because Microsoft has entered an agreement with CWA… .”

This about-face might seem unusual to casual readers, but it’s “business as usual” for the CWA and other labor unions. When a union identifies a company it wants to organize, it launches what’s known as a corporate campaign to denigrate the company’s brand and business practices. (One labor author famously called this the “death by a thousand cuts.”)

Union smear campaigns get a boost from friendly government officials, who may bring regulatory or legislative pressure against a company. This might include blocking the opening of new stores, trying to kill mergers (such as Microsoft’s acquisition of Activision), and other tactics to make business difficult.

The only way to make the pain stop? Give in to the union’s demand for “neutrality” during a union organizing drive.

That might sound positive, but “neutrality” in a union organizing drive means the boss is anything but neutral. Typically, the employer promises not to talk to employees about the potential drawbacks of unionization. At the same time, the union can make all the promises it likes. More seriously, these “neutrality” agreements can destroy a bedrock principle of free and fair elections: the secret ballot vote.

In place of a private ballot, the union uses a method known as “card check” to collect votes. Employees publicly sign union authorization cards, a process that can be filled with deception and intimidation. Once the union collects cards from just over 50 percent of the workforce, it becomes the exclusive representative for all employees — whether they want a union or not.

Labor unions such as the Communications Workers of America prefer this method of organizing because they don’t have to take their chances with an employee privately choosing to vote against union representation.

Employees often vote differently when given a secret ballot than they do when pressured publicly. The CWA presented signed cards from two-thirds of eligible workers at the software company Mapbox in 2021. The company insisted on a private vote, so its employees could decide without intimidation. The union lost that vote, with nearly 60 percent of Mapbox employees voting against CWA representation.

Congress has the power to ensure that employees’ privacy rights are always protected. Legislation called the Employee Rights Act, sponsored by Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) and Rep. Rick Allen (R-Ga.), would ensure that all union organizing votes take place by secret ballot. The bill would also add new protections against union violence and workplace intimidation and protect employees’ personal information from being disclosed to union organizers.

The Employee Rights Act is a worker-centric bill that will make sure people considering unionization are able to do so without the intimidation and coercion associated with card check organizing. If the CWA is offering good value for potential members, it should not be afraid of a private vote.

F. Vincent Vernuccio is president of Institute for the American Worker and a senior fellow at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy in Midland, Mich. Follow him on Twitter @vinnievernuccio.