Nationwide, editorial commentary on Card Check has largely been in opposition to the legislation. Following are excerpts from a selection of more than 100 recent editorials about the potential impacts of Card Check.
- "Compulsory arbitration is a potentially destructive government intrusion into an employer's business model. Employees could find themselves subject to contract terms that they had no opportunity to change or vote on." The Columbus Dispatch, March 30, 2009
- "... to say that 'card check' would preserve secret-ballot elections is deeply dishonest." The Wall Street Journal, March 27, 2009
- "... card check is bad legislation that potentially could adversely affect business of all sizes. Beyond sacrificing individual workers' privacy, the bill threatens companies with imposed settlements, which for some could be back breaking." The Oklahoman, March 24, 2009
- "... the current form of the EFCA empowers unions, not the workers they represent. If approved, it would cripple business growth at a time when the United States can least afford it." New Orleans City Business
- "A large number of workers might not ever be able to voice their views or to express their desires in an election or any other manner. That's giving them no choice." News & Record (Greensboro, NC), March 20, 2009
- "... the legislation amounts to fixing something that's not broken and tilting a currently level playing field in favor of labor." Newark (OH) Advocate, March 17, 2009
- "Peer pressure from union supporters can be intimidating. So, for that matter, could pressure from union organizers themselves. Secret ballots are the only way to guarantee workers a genuinely free choice." The News Tribune (Tacoma, WA), March 15, 2009
- "It makes no sense to take away a worker's privacy, Face-to-face invitations to sign the [authorization] card sound ideal conditions for intimidation." Daily Herald (Chicago), March 7, 2009
- "... voting against card check is the right decision – for workers, for companies and for the country." The Tribune-Democrat (Las Vegas), March 4, 2009
- "This legislation is so problematic, even former Democratic presidential nominee George McGovern, a lifelong labor advocate, opposes it." South Florida Sun-Sentinel, March 1, 2009
- "The Employee Free Choice Act would take away the secret ballot in employee elections over whether to form unions. Employees would be put upon by union bosses to agree or disagree to the union to the union openly – and they would know who did and who didn't. The peer pressure would be immense – even intimidating." The Augusta (GA) Chronicle, Feb. 28, 2009
- "Not every business owner is a bully. Not every union official is a thug. But things can get hairy when talk turns to unionizing a work force, and it's important to have a balanced field. Above all, it's vital to preserve the secret ballot in this process, so employees may vote without being thumbed by one side or the other." The Express-Times (Lehigh Valley PA), Feb. 27, 2009
- "American workers have the right to organize, and no one should deny them that liberty. But there is a fair and proper way for that to happen, and it includes a secret-ballot vote away from potential coercion of both employer and union. The current system allows for that. The Senate should reject this bill." The Greenville (SC) News, Feb. 25, 2009
- "The EFCA's card-check provision would revoke that safeguard against worker intimidation, in effect allowing the establishment of unions everywhere without a vote." The Free Lance-Star (Fredericksburg (VA), Feb. 25, 2009
- "Taking away the right of workers to vote in secret is fundamentally unfair... as written, the Employee Free Choice Act doesn't live up to its name." Portland (ME) Press Herald, Feb. 20, 2009
- "In truth, it's anything but 'free choice' for workers. Under it's provisions, they could find themselves victims of peer pressure by union officials and fellow workers to forgo the secret ballot process and instead sign their intentions in full view of others. Whether you're or against unions, this is undemocratic." Waco (TX) Tribune-Herald, Feb. 14, 2009
- "The purposely misnamed Employee Free Choice Act would deny the free choice of secret ballots, and should be rejected." Chattanooga Times Free Press, Feb. 8, 2009
- "Workers need to be able to decide privately – without fear of retribution – whether they want to belong to as union. After all, unions are businesses, too. Their services aren't free." Charleston (WV) Daily Mail, Feb. 6, 2009
- "Unions want card check for obvious reasons of self-interest. But they have a much tougher time explaining why it's in the nation's interest to grant their wish. The last thing this economy needs is the drag of strikes, and the historical record shows that you get more strikes if you increase the size and power of unions." Investor's Business Daily, Feb. 6, 2009
- "The Employee Free Choice Act would diminish choice for millions." The San Diego Union-Tribune, Feb. 2, 2009
- "The act strikes a heart through a basic tenet of democratic elections – the guarantee that people can cast their ballots without fear of retribution or coercion... . workers deserve the right to weigh the momentous decisions about joining a union with only their own consciences and considerations as guides. Anything less than a protected secret ballot is simply anti-democratic." Grand Rapids (MI) Press, Feb. 2, 2009
- "Without the secret ballot, the chances for intimidation grow exponentially. That alone makes this proposal particularly noxious." The Washington Examiner, Jan. 28, 2009
- "Make no mistake: This bill is a dangerous assault on workers' freedom, both now and in the future... . Here's what it boils down to: Worker sentiment as measured by face-to-face card signings in the pressure cooker of a union certification drive should always – always – be confirmed by secret ballots. The ability to vote, free of external pressures in the privacy of a booth, is a precious gift that should never be relinquished." Daily Herald (Provo, UT), Jan. 25, 2009
- "Removing the provision allowing an employer to ask for a secret ballot is so wrongheaded that even union-leaning men and women should see it as a sham and a power grab by union leadership, not something designed with their interests in mind." The News Press (St. Joseph, MO), Jan. 3, 2009