The first thing that jumps out at you is Mr. Sherk's name.  Is that "Sherk" as in "shirk responsibility"?  Gee.. I hope I'm pronouncing that correctly.  James Sherk in an article at the Heritage Foundation wants to give employees "free choice in the workplace".  Mr Sherk must be a really nice guy.  According to Mr. Sherk:

"Private-sector union membership has fallen over the past generation as many workers have concluded that traditional unions do not meet their needs."

It must have been that revelation that employees had realizing that livable wages, good benefits and safe working conditions just weren't all they were cracked up to be.  So apparently "employees" decided to just scrap the superfulous "add ons".  And here I thought Reagan broke the unions during the air traffic controllers strike.  He then claims that:

"In response, the labor movement is pushing the Employee Free Choice Act. Instead of taking away workers' right to vote on joining a union by secret ballot, Congress should restore employers' and employees' right to explore innovative labor–management relations."

So I'm confused...  So the "employees" got rid of unions so that they could pursue the right to organize unions without retaliation by "pushing for the Employee Free Choice Act".  Do I have this right...?  That's what Mr. Sherk is claiming, is it not..?  He then asserts:

"Employee involvement (EI) programs enable workers to participate cooperatively in workplace decisions, but the NLRA prohibition on creating "company unions" is so broad that it bans any EI programs that give workers a real voice."

I know, I know... it's what you always hear on the slaughter house floor, the old "I'd prefer to "participate cooperatively" so that I have "a real voice",  sure... you hear it all the time.  Just ask anyone.  Then he says this:

"That economy no longer exists. Businesses today rely on feedback and communication from employees. Employers do not simply give top-down orders, but incorporate bottom-up communication and employee discretion. The line between workers and management has increasingly blurred, and most workers want cooperative—not adversarial—relations with their employers."

You can't argue the first assertion. Since it is precisely WHY labor is pursuing the Employee Free Choice Act.  Mr Sherk must've been out on his yacht the week they debated that part.  (We'll let that one go..you know how it is...endless days of sunshine out on the water... it can be tiring).  But there's one point Mr Sherk makes I'm finding hard to "see". It's that "blurred line" between workers and mgt.  Anyone know what he's talking about.  I haven't seen the "blurred line".  Where's the blurred line...?  Is this like one of those pictures where you have to stand back and cross your eyes until an image appears?  No matter how hard I try, I don't see the "blurred line".  He continues:

"Union membership is not declining because secret-ballot elections make it too difficult for workers to join. Union membership is declining because few workers want to join unions."

Remember Mr Sherk said "That "economy" doesn't exist anymore"  I'll translate. It goes like this. "If you even TALK union we'll kick your ass out of here.  So if you like food... STFU"  Hopefully my translation can be "understood" you know what I mean....  He's just the ol' energizer bunny, he keeps going:

"Congress passed this ban to prevent companies from creating and negotiating with employer-dominated "company unions" to fight off organizing drives. However, the employee involvement programs that modern employers want to create would not interfere with workers' ability to choose a union."

Imagine that!  That mean ol' congress is trying to prevent EI programs ("employee involvement programs").   Well...I never...  Calling EI Programs "company unions" and just like Mr Sherk says they "would not interfere" with workers' ability to choose a union.  Now why would anyone think they might "interfere".  With all the proof we have of the goodwill of corporate America, why would anyone think they would "interfere"?  It goes on and on.  If you feel the compulsion for a sadistic joke the hyperlink is above.