This piece at progressive site Firedoglake inconsistently and inaccurately describes the effect of old EFCA and its card check provisions. On the one hand he says EFCA allows prompt unionization, while on the other says it does not eliminate secret ballot determinations of majority status, which it does de facto. The interesting part is the guy does understand human resource management, at least the employee participation and motivation aspects. The thinking goes awry when he embraces quickie unionization as an appropriate counterpoint to unilateral management action, which the poster seems to assume, is always is detrimental to employees. But what occurs when an emotional, but insignificant issue sweeps through a workforce prompting card signing, resulting in unionization of a workplace under EFCA. Quickie determinations of majority status may not be enduring ones. Because EFCA provides no corresponding method for decertification on an expedited basis, employees cannot act immediately, in ways the poster suggests empowers them appropriately when dealing with management. The same check on union excesses is needed, but absent because unions are provided a period of irrebuttable presumption of continuing majority status.  To be intellectually honest, EFCA proponents must address this logical flaw.

Here is a pretty good review (pro-labor) of the case for permitting minority unionization which would circumvent any need to prove a union's majority status.