In another sign of labor’s political muscle outside of Washington, D.C., the Vermont House of Representatives last week passed a bill entitled: “ Employee Free Choice for Bargaining Representative (H. 353).” The measure would amend the State Labor Relations Act, which applies only to State employees, to require the Vermont Labor Relations Board to certify a union based on card-check. According to newspaper reports, the primary targets of the bill are employees at the University of Vermont and Vermont State Colleges. Gov. Jim Douglas has expressed opposition to the bill.

Relevant text:

(4) Notwithstanding subdivisions (1), (2), and (3) of this subsection, if the board determines that the petition filed bears the signatures of 50 percent plus one or more of the employees in the bargaining unit deemed appropriate by the board, it shall certify the petitioner as the bargaining representative. Certification under this subdivision applies only when no other individual or labor organization is currently certified or recognized as the exclusive representative of any of the employees in the unit. The board shall develop policies and procedures to implement this subdivision.

The bill can be tracked via the Vermont Legislative Bill Tracking System

Round-up of media on the Vermont Employee Free Choice for Bargaining Representative bill:

Editorial: Union bill hurts workers and business -- Burlington Free Press

It is bad enough to send a message to employers and potential employers that the Legislature is tilting the field in favor of organized labor, but the move actually takes away the right of all employees in a workplace to have their say about unionization.
Vermont law requires ballots in union elections for state employees to list two questions, first about the bargaining unit, and then whether that employee wants to be represented by the named union. If there is no election, employees are denied the opportunity to voice their preference about the makeup of the bargaining unit. Also, under the card-signing process, a union need approach only as many workers as it takes to reach 50 percent plus one, meaning that up to 49 percent of workers might never have their say about being unionized.
The bill is far from a done deal, having to pass muster before the Senate. In that regard, there's still time to protect workers' rights, but there's no recalling the message the Legislature sent to employers with the House passage of H.353.

My Turn: Union rule change good for workers – Burlington Free Press

What is missing from the Free Press' reckoning is an understanding of this inherent inequality in labor-management relationships. Union elections are different from other kinds of elections because of the inherent coercive power that management holds over employees, the power to deprive them of their livelihood and to control their pay, hours and working conditions.

Odd version of free choice -- Barre Montpelier Times Argus

Not only is the proposal unfair to many state employees, but its passage would send one more message to businesses everywhere that Vermont is still unfriendly to business.

Fightin' Bob and the secret ballot -- Rutland Herald

Labor worshiped [the late Wisconsin Governor and Senator Robert M.] LaFollette for his battle for the eight-hour law, for barring convict labor and child labor, and for "workingman's compensation" for injuries suffered on the job. Progressives, including Labor, applauded him for pushing through the first state party primary law in 1903.

Before that the parties nominated their candidates through an open caucus system. As LaFollette recounted it, "when the caucuses were held, division superintendents and other management officials often stood at the entrances to the voting places and handed specially prepared ballots to the railroad employees as they came up to vote."

But, he went on, "several times in the campaign which followed this desperate attempt to control the caucus have I had a conductor, as he was taking my ticket, lean down and whisper, 'It's all right, governor. They had us where we were obliged to take orders in the caucus, but they can't watch us in the election. The Australian ballot will give us a chance.'"

(No, that's not a typo. See Austrailian ballot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia or History of Vermont Voting Systems.)