Sometimes the posturing goes overboard, like here. The poster, a frequent source of pointed anti-EFCA, anti labor posts, does a disservice to the legitimate arguments against both. We have consistently written in favor of the NLRB's 2007 decision in Dana Corp, and its positive protections which avoid collusive imposition of a union on a workforce without a secret ballot election to determine majority status. We have argued Dana Corp would have been a better pattern for EFCA reform than EFCA. We still believe that to be true. But the reality is Dana Corp changed labor law, and the Obama Board's return to pre-Dana law of recognition (the old law was in place for 50 years) is less remarkable than the Dana decision itself. Posters who suggest otherwise are uninformed, or worse.

Earlier this month NLRB General Counsel Lafe Solomon urged threatened to sue four states unless they acknowledge their recently passed state laws requiring secret ballot elections are preempted by the NLRA. The four state's attorneys general have now responded. The point asserted is that the state laws are consistent with the NLRB's current law which also requires a secret ballot election when an employer refuses to recognize a union voluntarily. If that were the end of discussion, the AG's would be correct, but the head scratchers would ask what is the reason to pass such legislation. It is widely believed the legislation is a preemptive strike against the possibility the NLRB might change its rules, or Congress might pass something like EFCa. If such a conflict arose, it would be real and implicate federal preemption. Also, the state laws purport to regulate voluntary recognition, which likely will revert to pre-Dana law which guarantees no secret ballot election.