Ever since the National Labor Relations Board ruled in the Dana/Metaldyne case exactly one year ago yesterday, pro-forced-unionism "scholars" have rushed to decry the decision as "revolutionary." Apparently giving workers more freedom of choice is deeply disturbing to union bosses.

A paper by Anne Marie Lofaso, of the University of West Virginia is a perfect example of hyperbole trumping facts, while posing as academic scholarship. In over-the-top style, Lofaso titles her paper: "September Massacre: The Latest Battle in the War on Workers’ Rights Under the National Labor Relations Act." (Despite being published in May, as of August the paper was still the most downloaded Labor/Employment/Benefit paper off the Social Sciences Research Network site, according to the Workplace Prof Blog.)

Here’s an excerpt from the paper’s section on the Board’s Dana Corp decision, a ruling she calls "The ‘Massacre’ in the September Massacre":

In keeping with a hard-in theme, the Bush Board most notably changed its rules governing voluntary recognition…

In recent years, voluntary recognition has served as an alternative for unions frustrated with the Board’s election rules, which have given employer advantages such as captive-audience speeches. The Board’s modified approach diminishes the value of that alternative and assaults
the principle of majority rule: a decertification petition supported by thirty percent of the employees trumps a card-check agreement supported by seventy percent of the employees,thereby forcing an election.

The problems with her biased analysis are plenty, but the most glaring is that contrary to her claims, unions are actually easy-in and hard-out.

The truth is that even with the Foundation-won protections afforded employees under Dana/Metaldyne, employees face a system drastically skewed to get unions in power and keep them in power. And under "card check," these systemic biases are multiplied exponentially.

First – and most obviously missing from Lofaso’s discussion – is the fact that under a card check "voluntary recognition" both the union organizers and the employer favor instituting the union (otherwise the employer would demand a secret-ballot vote).

Similarly, her complaint about "captive-audience speeches" rings hollow because under the current so-called "voluntary recognition" process captive audience speeches are most likely to be used to aid organizers in imposing the union on employees. Take the case of the Johnson Controls, for example.

Finally, Lofaso completely ducks the issue of the deep problems with card check compared to less coercive methods. There have been numerous employee reports of intimidation, half truths, lies and harassment of employees by union organizers during card check drives, where organizers corner workers one on one to pressure them into signing cards that are later counted as "votes" but Lofaso never addresses, or even references, those obvious problems that help provide the basis for the Dana/Metaldyne decision.

Ultimately despite what Lofaso and other pro-Big Labor "academics" say, Dana-Mataldyne does only one thing… give workers an additional right to challenge a union’s claim of majority support via a secret ballot election. This important yet modest check represents only a small rebuke against the ability of union organizers to gain monopoly control over a workplace without even the support of a majority of employees.

Only in pro-Big Labor academic la-la land could the granting of that small check to employees be part of a "Massacre on Workers’ Rights."