Eugene Scalia writes in the Wall Street Journal today on the card-check provision of the Employee Free Choice Act. Specifically, he addresses the unions’ argument that federally supervised, secret-ballot workplace elections are somehow unfair:

Even if employer illegality were spoiling elections, the answer would be better enforcement of existing law. The National Labor Relations Board budget, for example, could be increased. But unions don’t want to eliminate voter intimidation — they want a monopoly on it. If secret-ballot elections aren’t required, then employers won’t get automatic notice that an organizing campaign is underway. They will have less opportunity to exercise their constitutional right to speak to employees about the legitimate reasons that many workers choose not to unionize.
Union organizers, on the other hand, could visit employees at their homes or stop them in the parking lot and “encourage” them to choose to unionize on the spot. Employees are still voting — their authorization cards are binding — but now their vote is supervised by union organizers, not the federal government.
EFCA’s supporters argue that when a worker attends a company meeting and hears how his managers dislike unions, days later when he casts a secret vote in an election overseen by federal authorities, he’ll be afraid to vote his conscience. Well if that’s true, imagine how much “free choice” this gentle soul will feel when four of his co-workers surround him at the hardware store, stick an authorization card and pen in his hand, and ask if he’s for them or against them.