And The Award For Most Deceptively Named Legislation Of The Year Goes To....

... AB 2386, the legislation sponsored by former Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez and called "The Secret Ballot For Farmworkers" bill. The legislation passed the Senate Monday, 23-15. It's headed to the governor's desk, where it could face a veto. There is a strong argument for the legislation, but the bill's name is highly deceptive. Or to put it another way, the bill would do the opposite of what the legislation's name might suggest. 

California farmworkers already have the right to decide via secret ballot whether they want to be represented by a union or not. This has been true since the Agricultural Labor Relations Act passed in 1975. And while federally supervised secret ballot elections are the law for almost all workers, farmworkers in the Golden State have a better set-up for these elections than almost anyone else. Loose deadlines and language in the National Labor Relations Act have permitted companies in most industries to delay such elections for months if not years. Companies often use that time to fire workers who are leading the organizing or otherwise intimidate workers. In California, the ALRA guarantees farm workers -- once union cards are in and certified -- only a seven-day wait before the election is held. Farmworkers face sophisticated anti-union campaigns like other workers, but these campaigns are shorter because of ALRA. The law governing farmworkers is the envy of union organizers in other industries.

Nunez's legislation actually would move the law away from that secret ballot system. Here's how the new system would work. Unions seeking to organize farmworkers would have the power -- without workers even expressing interest in a union, via secret ballot or otherwise -- to request a list of all workers at a particular company, complete with contact info. Then the state would send out ballots -- which would not be secret ballots -- to farmworkers, who could choose either to join the union or to have the secret ballot election they currently have. By my reading, unions could even pick up the ballots themselves, fill them out for workers, and mail them for workers. (Employers wouldn't be able to do that). Such a system would give a boost to union organizers. But it also could make it easier for unions to intimidate workers. 

There are strong arguments for the Nunez legislation. There is considerable evidence that the secret ballot election regime is broken. And there is a whole industry of law firms and consultants to fight off union organizing and intimidate workers in secret ballot elections. One could say that Nunez's bill is necessary to counter that intimidation and give unions a better chance. One could argue that there's no better protection than representation in the workplace. But to call this is a "secret ballot" bill is just wrong. 

The need for a secret ballot should be the subject of debate, but in the case of this legislation, it's actually not the heart of the question. UFW, despite the special place it holds in the hearts of so many, has not proven particularly effective at organizing workers or representing them in recent years. The Nunez legislation is based on the belief that these failures are the result of the law not providing enough protections. But that assumption may be wrong. There's considerable evidence that the organizing failures are the result of poor stewardship of the union itself. That's an uncomfortable topic for many California legislators, for whom the support of the UFW is akin to loving your mother and apple pie.  But if UFW is going to receive special powers, the conduct of its leadership needs to be the subject of scrutiny and hearings.

Bottom line: before the governor signs this legislation, California needs more honest debate, free of dishonest labeling.