Should U.S. Law-Makers Grant Unions Access to Employer Property?

Debates continue in the U.S. over labour law reform.  The chances of the Employee Free Choice Act passing in the U.S. in its current form diminished substantially recently when a prominent Republican Senator announced he had changed his mind, and would now vote against the Bill.  But, as this story in the National Post indicated, the Bill is far from dead.  The newest thinking is that it may be amended in some way to make the Bill more palatable to Big Business and the anti-union Republicans.  The story reports that 60 percent of Americans support the Bill, which would allow unions to be certified by a ‘card-check’ rather than a vote, and would introduce a form of first contract arbitration to deal with collective bargaining deadlocks.
One way that the Bill may be amended is to remove the ‘card-check’ model of certification, and introduce a form of ‘fast vote’ like we have in most places in Canada.  For example, in Ontario, certification votes are held 5 business days after the union applies to represent the workers.  The union must obtain a majority of votes to become the representative of the workers. Under the current U.S. model, it may be weeks or even months before the National Labor Relations Board conducts a vote.  This gives the employers a long time to bombard employees with information about how awful life will be if they are unionized, whereas in Ontario, there is only a week or so for employers to engage in this sort of anti-union campaigning. U.S. employers complain even about the idea of a fast vote, because they argue they need lots of time to persuade employees not to support the union.
Another possible reform would be to grant unions more equal access to workers during the organizing campaigns.  I have written about this before.  The law in both Canada and the U.S. grants employers a significant advantage in terms of access to the workers during the organizing campaign.  For example, employers are permitted to hold ‘captive audience meetings’ in which workers are ordered during working hours to attend meetings to listen to the employer’s message, while union organizers are not even permitted on employer property.  In the U.S., unions are provided with the addresses of workers so the union can contract workers at home.  Canadian unions are not provided with this information.
In contrast, the British model of union certification requires employers to allow unions to hold their own captive audience meetings at the workplace prior to votes, and to communicate with the workers at their homes.  Check out the Code of Conduct that explains the rules of union access here.  If an employer refuses the union the right to communicate with workers during working hours, and the union then loses a vote, the results of the ballot will likely be overturned, because British lawmakers believe that a fair vote requires parity of access to the workers (read para. 30 of this decision, for an example).  Now there’s a revolutionary idea that has not crossed the ocean.
Do you think that union organizers should be given the right to address workers about the benefits of unionization at the workplace in the same way that employers usually do?  Or do you think that employers should have the right to exclude unions organizers altogether from employer property (the current law in Canada and the U.S.)?