EFCA Polls: Yet Again, It All Comes Down To The Question
Here's yet another object lesson in how much the phrasing of a poll can affect the results -- this time on the proposed Employee Free Choice Act, also known as card-check.
First, let's look at a new Gallup poll:
Generally speaking, would you favor or oppose a new law that would make it easier for labor unions to organize workers?
Favor 53%
Oppose 39%
This one suggests that people are certainly favorable to unions -- but on the other hand, it doesn't tell us anything about how the specifics of EFCA would play out. Indeed, the pollster's analysis points out that it should be troubling for labor that only 53% are supportive, before the specifics are debated.
Next up is the new Rasmussen poll, showing some serious antipathy to EFCA. Let's look at how they phrased not just one question -- but three of them.
Here's the first question:
2. Should Congress change the law to make it easier for workers to form or join a labor union?
33% Yes
40% No
27% Not sure
The phrasing here is different from Gallup's -- it doesn't ask what you think about a proposal, but about what Congress should do. And it focuses on a specific act -- Congress changing the law -- rather than the generality in Gallup. And thus we have a huge difference in the results.
That might normally be dismissed as a piece of natural variation between pollsters. But it gets more and more interesting from there:
3. Under current law, if enough workers express interest in forming a union, a secret ballot is held. Is it fair to require a secret ballot to determine if workers want to form a union?
61% Yes
18% No
22% Not sure
Of course, who doesn't like democracy? Some of those 18% who said no were probably pro-EFCA respondents who sensed, consciously or not, where this was going next:
4. Some people believe that a secret ballot vote is not necessary and that a union should be formed whenever a majority of workers sign a card saying they want one. If a majority of a company's workers sign a card saying they want to form a union, is it fair to form a union without having a vote?
32% Yes
52% No
16% Not sure
Having primed the pump with a question about secret ballots, we're now expressly presented with the idea of not getting to vote. And so starting from 61% saying they want a secret ballot, we get 52% opposing card-check.
Josh
Elana
Matt
Eric
Further evidence (as if any is needed) that Rasmussen is a bullshit operation.
It can even be argued that Gallup's wording is problematic: "make it easier for labor unions to organize workers"
I argue that better wording would be: "make it easier for workers to organize themselves into labor unions"
The point being that it's workers themselves who organize and decide their union status, not some outside entity.
The larger point, provided in the Gallup survey and others, is that a majority of workers are supportive of the idea of unionization. Which makes it imperative that Employee Free Choice Act messages focus how the bill will empower workers to decide for themselves whether to join a union -- and how it is the only way to produce sustainable, broadly shared prosperity and expand the middle class.
March 17, 2009 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Moose:
Actually, YOUR question is biased as well. Here is how it should be worded so as to remove as much prejudice as possible:
"Do you favor making it easier for employees to unionize?"
Pure and simple. No 'change the law' or 'LABOR union" (which could provoke bias in certain political groups.
Just a pure and simple question, worded neutrally.
March 17, 2009 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, your wording is fine. I just wanted to get to get the subject right -- that it's workers who do it.
March 17, 2009 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem here is neither of these polls ask about EFCA itself.
The first poll asks about a generic pro-labor bill-- not the EFCA. This is interesting but leaves us open to a situation where once the EFCA comes up for reals people go "well, I'd support some pro-labor efforts, but not this one."
The second poll asks about a right-wing caricature of the EFCA-- basically they're focus group testing the anti-EFCA forces' messaging. This is interesting but leaves us open to a situation where people would support the EFCA if it could be presented to the public in a more straightforward manner.
March 17, 2009 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Moose:
I figured.
Just wanted to make sure everyone knew that 'labor union' is a loaded phrase to some people. (Much like 'major corporation' is to some others. :)
All poll questions should refrain from using ANY terms (especially adjectives) that could carry 'loaded' meanings or interpretations.
Which would eliminate about 90% of all poll questions these days. :)
March 17, 2009 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
The bias in the questions aside, it would appear that there is no overwhelming public support for a bill to help unions and for this bill in particular. My prediction - this won't pass with the card check provision but has a decent chance of passing if the card check provision is eliminated and a secret ballot retained.
March 17, 2009 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you actually know what the bill says? Do you know how unionizing works right now?
I ask because you cite "eliminating" the "card check provision" and "retaining" the "secret ballot," but neither of these things makes any sense under the circumstances. The "card check provision" is already here; the unionizing process today starts with collecting at least 35% of workers' signatures on cards. And the secret ballot would remain just as viable an option under EFCA as it is right now. Currently once the cards have been checked, management then gets to decide whether to hold an election. Under EFCA the workers themselves decide. The secret ballot will still be just as available, and just as optional, as it is right now.
In other words, EFCA doesn't take away a secret ballot in any meaningful sense, and it doesn't add any new exposure to those who would be signing cards. All it really does is take away the strings that management habitually pulls during the organizing process. They will no longer be able to use the election process as a (sometimes years-long) delay while they intimidate employees and fire the organizers.
March 17, 2009 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, richard f
If only you had some idea what is actually in the EFCA legislation.
You see, EFCA contains both "card check" AND a secret ballot provision! Surprised? You wouldn't be if you were paying attention.
The secret goodness of EFCA is that it lets the employees decide whether they want to use one or the other. That's it. That's what it does.
The "oooh, those bad liberals are against democracy!" is just another deceitful, misleading right-wing meme.
March 17, 2009 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am paying attention. The bill says that if you present cards from 50% of the workers, then there is no secret election (unless 30% of the workers petition to request one) and the company has to recognize the union. Under current law, if you present cards from 30% of the workers, then the employer can either recognize the union or call for a secret election. Under the proposed bill, only the workers could petition for a secret ballot but I don't see how that would ever happen (You would have to have a situation where the union got 50% of the workers to sign cards and then the company got 30% of the other workers to request an election).
Here's how I see it. Under current law, the employers always ask for a secret ballot and put pressure on the workers, some legitimate, much illegitimate, to get the workers to vote against unionization. Under the proposed legislation, some unions - think Teamsters - would put pressure, some legitimate, some illegitimate to sign cards so that there wouldn't be a secret ballot. Neither scenario is perfect (and, of course, I'm not making the argument that the bill is anti-democratic or that liberals, of whom I am one, are against democracy). But despite the merits of each, I don't think the bill in its present form will succeed.
March 17, 2009 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
The real pressure on workers to sign cards comes not from the union but from peers. Having been through it I can tell you that it's significant. Organizing drives can be pretty hotly contested and workers who don't want to sign cards are often treated as scabs. I've seen fistfights break out.
March 17, 2009 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
This could well be an opportunity. If this is the polling you see with wording that's essentially neutral to heavily management-skewed, imagine what kind of numbers you'd get if someone polled with a few (perfectly truthful) labor talking points thrown into the introduction. "Companies faced with an organizing drive often threaten to shut down their operations rather than negotiate with a union. Do you favor a law that would prevent this?"
March 17, 2009 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, the union must present 50% + 1 in order for the employer to recognize the union as the collective bargaining agent. The 30% requirement is the minimum for an NLRB election. In practice very few organizers will go with so few cards signed.
Currently, AT&T and the CWA have agreed to card check for the wireless operation and the union has organized thousands of employees without any trouble. Under the proposed bill the employer would be required to show support for the "secret ballot" by getting 30% to agree.
March 18, 2009 3:19 AM | Reply | Permalink