> People call the current National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) election system a secret ballot election—but in fact it's not like any democratic election held anywhere else in our society. It's really a management-controlled election process because corporations have all the power. They control the information workers can receive and routinely poison the process by intimidating, harassing, coercing and even firing people who try to organize unions.

(via https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Card_check)

Without reforming the secret ballot process, you’re just handing power to the companies by advocating against card-checks

There have indeed, historically, been cases where a union threw its weight around, bullied, and abused people.

However, a huge percentage of companies today are actively doing these things to their workers, and if you selected 10 companies at random where there were unionization efforts, I'd bet you money that in at least 9 of them, management was doing everything they could legally, and probably some things that are questionable or outright illegal, to try to prevent unionization.

Stop the "both sides"-ism. It's disingenuous and detrimental to genuine understanding of the situation.

The vast majority of union elections result in more votes for the union than cards signed. It is extremely rare for the number of cards signed to be a higher share than the vote.

Ah yes, let’s make a rule that makes a difficult process (unionization) for a vulnerable group (workers) more difficult, based on a vague theory about imagined pressure being applied. Sounds like solid reasoning to me.