The Alabama state legislature passed a bill on April 23 that would discourage the use of card check during union certification elections. As this blog noted recently, a similar bill in Georgia was being considered saying that to be eligible to receive a state economic development incentive, an employer cannot recognize a union via card check in conjunction with any work or service for which the incentive is based. Lawmakers in Alabama likewise recently took up SB 231, which would place the same type of condition for incentives in that state.
By way of background, it helps to understand where this type of legislation placing conditions on economic development incentives originated. Several years ago, the U.S. Chamber issued a study highlighting the phenomenon of state and local governments’ requiring private sector employers to secure a “labor peace” agreement with a union as a condition of doing business at a facility or project in which the government asserts a “proprietary interest,” typically as a result of providing financial support of one variety or another.
These policies are often found where political allies of organized labor are in charge and want to make it easier for unions to organize. Requiring labor peace agreements pressures employers to make concessions, such as maintaining neutrality in union organizing efforts or recognizing a union without a secret ballot election. In short, these conditions are meant to promote union interests over those of the employer and its employees.
Using the same lever of state funds to a different end, Alabama lawmakers have now joined the effort to protect workers by stipulating that projects that receive public funding cannot bypass the secret election process. More specifically, SB 231 would prohibit such an employer from voluntarily recognizing a union by use of signed authorization cards, i.e., card check, in lieu of a secret ballot election. By promoting secret ballot elections, SB 231 will allow employees to decide for themselves whether they want union representation free of potential intimidation by union organizers.
SB 231 would demonstrate to potential employers that Alabama wants to foster a stable environment in which to do business by removing some of the union representation issues that can cause uncertainty. At the same time, it would protect employees from union pressure tactics.
Tennessee also passeda bill similar to SB 231 last year, and the Georgia House ultimately passed its own the day after this blog reported on it. While it would be presumptuous to take credit for that development, it was a nice coincidence. Now, Alabama’s legislature has done the same thing, and one hopes the two bodies reconcile their respective versions and the governor approves the final bill.
About the authors
Sean P. Redmond
Sean P. Redmond is Vice President, Labor Policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
