The Practical Case Against the “PRO Act” — Quickie Elections/Mandatory Meetings

In order to make a good decision about whether your workplace would benefit from a union, employees must be allowed the time to research and absorb information from a variety of sources.  Unions often have weeks or months of access to employees, providing them a one sided outlook on what unions can provide to their workplace.  A Quickie election seriously impedes employees' opportunity to research and get a more balanced education on their decision.

To understand the importance for employers having meetings with employees during an organizational drive, you need to understand the strategic advantages unions have during these campaigns.  First, campaigns begin entirely in secret, sometimes lasting for weeks or months before management has a chance to inform employees on the reasons for their positions on unions.  During this secret campaign, employees are deluged by one-sided and inaccurate information by the union and its supporters. Often there are internal organizers who exert overt pressure or even intimidation by coworkers who constantly talk to fellow workers about the union.  

In addition to the pressure exerted by union supporters, the law places no limits on what the union and its supporters can say.  Employees are often told bald-faced lies about what unions can bring to the workplace and are never informed about the possible negative consequences of being unionized.  Consequently, by the time employers get started with meetings to provide a more balanced set of information, they face a workforce already believing many of the “big lies” they have been told by the union.  Remember, the union only tells them what they want to hear, and the law allows them to not be tethered to the truth.

Consequently, if the time for meetings is shortened  or limited, it makes for a disinformed workforce that is prone to making poor decisions about the union and the impact that representation by the union may have on them. Unions want a process that limits the information that employees receive to ensure an outcome that is in the union’s best interests.  The union does not want fair and balanced information distribution, they want to remove the employer’s ability to provide accurate facts. 

Currently, employees  have a short amount of time to educate employees.  For years employers were given 42 days to educate and inform their employees about the pros and cons of unionization, but that educating window has been shortened over the years.  In reality, the time frame is too short as it is now, but the union wants to shorten it even further, from weeks to days.  Again, this is being done to ensure that an ill-informed electorate votes, and that they only know the propaganda the union has provided them.