<table> </table> The union card-check bill was introduced in Congress last week, and backers are making another big push in a bid to win passage.</p><p>The measure, still bearing the grossly misleading title &#8220;Employee Free Choice Act,&#8221; passed the House in 2007 and failed in the Senate. Here&#8217;s hoping it dies again.</p><p>Organized labor&#8217;s efforts to mislead people about this legislation go well beyond the semantic games played in the title.</p><p>In recent months, supporters have accused critics of wrongly saying the measure would effectively do away with the secret ballot in elections to create unions. A group called American Rights at Work says opponents of the bill are engaging in &#8220;lies and distortions.&#8221;</p><p>&#8220;Greedy CEOs and their front groups have pushed a deceptive campaign to divert attention away from the actual substance of the bill and what it seeks to accomplish,&#8221; the group says. &#8220;Contrary to their assertions, the Employee Free Choice Act does <em>not</em> take away the secret ballot in union elections.&#8221;</p><p>But in practice, that&#8217;s exactly what it would do.</p><p>The bill would allow union bargaining units to be formed once organizers collect cards signed by a majority of employees in a workplace.</p><p>Backers say the measure simply gives workers a choice between organizing by card-check, or by a secret-ballot election, which is the practice under current law. If at least 30 percent of workers want an election, they could still get one.</p><p>This assertion is based on a provision in current law, under which an election could be called if organizers collect signed cards from at least 30 percent of the workers.</p><p>But the card-check bill gives workers no authority over the organizing tactics used by unions. Why would a union ever go the election route &#8212; and run the risk of losing &#8212; when its organizers could quietly gather cards, confronting workers and exerting pressure if need be.</p><p>Once the required majority is obtained, the National Labor Relations Board would be required to certify the bargaining unit, and the union would be formed.</p><p>The AFL-CIO&#8217;s own summary of the bill says flatly that the measure &#8220;Requires that when a majority of employees has signed authorizations designating the union as its bargaining representative, the union will be certified by the National Labor Relations Board.&#8221;</p><p>I don&#8217;t see anything about an election in that language. The way I read it, an election wouldn&#8217;t even be permitted. Collect a majority of cards and you have a union. Period.</p><p>Union organizers know that signatures on cards don&#8217;t necessarily represent the real sentiments of workers. Many employees sign cards and then &#8212; in the privacy of the voting booth &#8212; vote against forming a union.</p><p>That&#8217;s why organizers usually make sure to collect cards from a supermajority of workers before calling for an election.</p><p>And that&#8217;s why the secret ballot must be maintained, so that the organizing process reflects the real preferences of workers.</p><p>Another provision in the bill is equally bad. If a union is formed, union and management have a negotiating deadline of 90 days, after which federal mediators will be called in. If mediation fails, the dispute goes to arbitration.</p><p>That means issues such as working conditions and pay will be imposed by third-party arbitrators, who may saddle the company with onerous terms that impede its competitiveness and push it toward bankruptcy.</p><p>Supporters, naturally, argue the contrary. According to a statement from the House Committee on Education and Labor, &#8220;No reasonable arbitrator would force conditions onto businesses that would force them out of business.&#8221;</p><p>That&#8217;s an astonishing degree of faith in the competence of arbitrators, who would be completely unaccountable.</p><p>Critics of the card-check bill are not engaging in &#8220;lies and distortions&#8221; when they point out the considerable flaws in this legislation. The measure deserves to die, as it did in 2007.