Washington Post Supports Union Access During Organizing Campaigns

I have noted before what I see as the hypocrisy of those who advocate for mandatory certification ballots as the only ‘fair’ way to test employee wishes about whether they wish to move from the individual employment contract model to the collective bargaining model.  They argue that the alternative model, of certifying unions when a majority of employees have signed a document claiming the wish the union to represent them, is ‘unfair’ because it does not ensure that the employees hear the ‘other side’ of the argument from the employer, and therefore may be mislead by the union and its supporters.
The hypocrisy lies in the fact that these supporters of a ‘fair election’ process usually also go ballistic whenever anyone suggests that the union’s organizers should be entitled to speak to the workers at the workplace. The sort of ‘fair’ election they want is one in which employers have unfettered access to the workers all day long to explain why unions are bad, and the simultaneous property right to prevent unions from even entering upon company property to explain the union’s side of the argument.
If we want an open and frank discussion about the pros and cons of collective bargaining–which seems like good policy to me–why doesn’t the state simply encourage that by ensuring that union organizers have access to the workers in non-working areas of the workplace (like lunchrooms, etc).  That’s what the British laws require, where the state aims to ensure ‘equality of access’ to workers in the period preceding a unionization ballot.
Can you come up with a strong public policy reason why employers should be able to both speak to employees at work about why they should not choose collective bargaining and prevent union organizers from doing the same?  I know employers don’t want their employees speaking to union organizers, but the public policy in both Canada and the U.S. is to encourage employees to hear both sides of the argument for and against collective bargaining.  So what reason(s) justifies our laws’ preferential treatment of employers when it comes to access to workers to discuss the option of collective bargaining?
Now the Americans are considering some form of union access provisions as a possible compromise on the Employee Free Choice Act.  Senator Arlene Spector has proposed a quick vote system (like what we have in Ontario), plus a union access provision that would ensure unions have “equal time under identical circumstances’ to address the workplaces at the workplace.  If employers hold a ‘captive audience meeting’ then the union must be entitled too do so also.  This proposal has the support of the Washington Post.

If you are interested, I have written a longer piece on union access laws in Canada, where I trace the history of access laws and considered whether the recent Supreme Court decision in B.C. Health Services decision might require a rethinking of how we approach this issue.