Prop 113: Requires secret balloting for unionization

95% support, I encourage a YES vote. 

What it does
o Guarantees that all union votes would be by secret ballot
o Currently, if workers want to form a union they must collect signatures. If 30 percent of workers sign in favor of a union, then the National Labor Relations Board hosts a secret-ballot election. If the majority of workers vote in favor of a union, one can form.
o The secret-ballot election may be skipped when a majority of workers sign in favor of a union, and workers and their employer agree to no election.
For
o This is how we do other elections, why not here as well?
o Who could be against secret balloting, except those who want to bully and intimidate and punish after the fact?
o The most fair election is a secret one. Who can argue with that?
o Congress has introduced the “Employee Free Choice Act” (Card Check) which would mandate that the presentation of 50% of workers signed cards to organize would constitute ground to form a union without employer consent. Currently, the employer can consent to it but doesn’t have to. Instead, they can call for a true vote by secret ballot.
o From the National Restaurant Association
1. A card-check process increases the risk of coercion. When a union tries to organize a workplace, employees sometimes face intimidation and pressure about how they should vote, from the union, management, or both. The best way to protect employees from coercion is through the continued use of a federally supervised, private-ballot process.
2. Private ballots are a basic American right. The entire American system is based on respect for individual liberty and democracy. If Congress passes this proposal, they will strip away the protections that federally protected, democratic elections provide for American workers.
3. An employee’s decision to join a union should be made in private. Employees should not have to reveal to anyone -- employers or unions -- how they exercise their right to choose whether to organize with their co-workers in a union. Moving to a card-check process rather than a federally supervised election tramples on employee privacy. An employee’s decision to join a union should be made in private, protected from any coercion by unions, employers or co-workers.
o Secret balloting protects the weak against the powerful
--The worker against the employer
--The worker against the union
--The worker against his fellow workers.
o Under what set of conceivable circumstances would a union form under card check but not under secret balloting? Only one: when a majority of people shielded from publicity vote not to organize.
o This doesn’t make the process any more difficult than it already is.
o The best argument for this is the weak and contradictory arguments offered against it.
--It’s a publicity stunt with no real impact
--But it’s simultaneously the greatest threat against your unionization rights you can imagine, “silencing your vote at work”
o Supporters
--The Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry,
--National Federation of Independent Business-Arizona and
--Arizona Tourism Alliance.

Against
o This is a solution looking for a problem since it’s only a future development. (I like the idea that our Constitution comes before the infringements, especially if they seem imminent.)
o Opens to intimidation by employers
o Opens to delays by employers
o Makes it harder to organize because it doesn’t allow mere majority card check elections. (Notice they aren’t talking about anyone’s “right” to know how everyone else voted, nor the “right” to vote in secret)
o Opponents argue the measure could open Arizona to costly lawsuits because if approved, it may conflict with federal law if Congress passes the Employee Free Choice Act.
o Opponents
--The Arizona AFL-CIO,
--Arizona Education Association and
--Arizona Advocacy Network.