Union membership in America has been on the decline for several decades. In the 1950s, nearly 35 percent of all private-sector employees were union members. Today, fewer than 8 percent belong to unions. There are various reasons for the decline in union membership, including significant changes in employment patterns. A few decades ago when workers stayed employed at the same factory for their entire work lives, union membership and the job protection it provided made sense. Today, employees can expect to change jobs several times during their work careers, so unionization provides little benefit.

Additionally, many workers believe that unions, which once worked to secure valuable services, including workplace safety rules and reasonable benefits, have become obsolete. Unions' unreasonable demands and threats of work stoppages have made many American businesses less competitive in the global marketplace, forcing layoffs and sending jobs overseas. Many employees have come to realize that unionization may in the long run put their jobs at risk by making their employers less competitive.

In recent years, union bosses have been desperate to find a way to artificially prop up membership, and they may have found their tool to do so in legislation passed by the U.S. House of Representatives earlier this spring. The misnamed Employee Free Choice Act, which is pending in the U.S. Senate, has several objectionable provisions, but the most egregious is a mandate to change the manner in which a union is certified in a workplace.

Under the current system, if 30 percent or more of the employees indicate interest in unionizing by signing an authorization card, union organizers may go to the employer and demand voluntary so-called card-check recognition. The employer may then either recognize the union or demand an election, which would be overseen by the National Labor Relations Board. The legislation would end the ability of the employer to seek an election if a labor organizer presents the employer with the signatures of a majority of employees supporting unionization.

This proposed mandatory card-check system, with no recourse for an election, would have a significant negative impact on employers and employees. Under the current system, the election process allows both sides -- the union organizers and the employer -- to educate workers on the pros and cons of unionizing.

The NLRB has strict guidelines for conducting the campaigns to ensure workers are not unduly pressured by either side. The goal of the NLRB in conducting the elections is to ensure that employees have the ability to exercise free choice. An employer may not fire or threaten to fire any employee for his or her actions to promote unionization. While both sides may present their cases prior to the election, there is a cooling-off period of 24 hours just prior to the election whereby organized presentations during work hours are prohibited and no campaign activity is permitted within the polling vicinity.

The union bosses and their advocates object to the election process, alleging that it is somehow unfair because employers illegally threaten employees' jobs during the unionization campaign. The facts, however, do not support the allegation. According to James Sherk of the Heritage Foundation, a review of NLRB data reveals that only about 1.5 percent of unionization campaigns involved an employee being illegally fired, and unions actually win more certifying elections than they lose.

Charles I. Cohen, a former NLRB member appointed by then President Clinton in 1994, points out that in the "overwhelming majority of cases where employees choose not to be represented by a union, they do so based on information that is presented by both sides during the election process."

Under the current system, businesses have the ability to educate their employees on their vision for the future and the potential impact of unionization. And, of course, the union has the ability to present its side. This is the type of free speech that should be preserved to ensure employees are making informed decisions on unionization.

The act is even more threatening for employees, who under the current system are protected from coercion by either side. The private ballot allows employees to vote their conscience, free from having a union boss looking over their shoulders.

U.S. Rep. Pat Tiberi, R-Genoa Township, who voted against the act, points out that the legislation "not only deprives employers of their ability to share their side of the story about the impact of unionization but also places employees at risk of undue pressure from union organizers and takes away their right to cast a secret ballot."

Both the NLRB and the U.S. Supreme Court have recognized that "secret elections are generally the most satisfactory -- indeed the preferred -- method of ascertaining whether a union has majority support." That election process should be preserved.