The latest twist in the debate over a pro-union bill now before Congress is a TV ad that is being aired by The Coalition for a Democratic Workplace.

The ad pokes fun at proposed, more lenient voting procedures on whether to join a union. It suggests that under the bill, a tough-guy type will watch and harass workers as they vote.

The coalition says that under the proposed “card-check” approach, as part of the Employee Free Choice Act (H.R. 800, S. 1041), a union is organized if a majority of workers sign a card, with the workers’ signatures made public to their employer, the union organizers and their co-workers. This is quite different from secret ballots.

Recent polls in Colorado, Minnesota and Maine conducted by the coalition report that about two-thirds of voters in Colorado (68 percent), Maine (72 percent) and Minnesota (65 percent) oppose the EFCA. Conversely, at least 80 percent of voters in all three states believe that secret ballot elections are the cornerstone of democracy and should be kept for union elections, according to the coalition.

On the other hand, the AFL-CIO says that the EFCA is supported by a bipartisan coalition in Congress and would help the middle class.

In a recent letter to The Wall Street Journal, U.S. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) defended the legislation saying that the Employee Free Choice Act does not abolish board elections. That process would still be available. Instead, it gives workers – not employers – the choice about how to choose union representation: either by having an election or by using employee-signed cards.

Under the current system, Kennedy claims that workers are forced to accept their employer's unilateral decision to invoke a process, in which workers and unions have no right to express support for the union, but employers can, and often do, intimidate, harass, and discriminate against union supporters. Majority sign-up is a fair and simple alternative that's been used lawfully, Kennedy adds.

In addition, the legislation would also set up stronger penalties for violation of employee rights and it would provide mediation and arbitration for first-contract disputes, according to the AFL-CIO.

It’s clear that the proposed legislation would help workers in some ways. However, safeguards do need to be put into place so that an employee’s rights to privacy are protected when deciding whether to join a union.

It’s unfortunate that the coalition chose to use a mobster character in their ad. The coalition says the character is supposed to be a “boss”. It’s much more likely they were thinking of a stereotypical old-fashioned, tough union leader. Union leaders should not have to tolerate this. They are professionals trying to help workers.

As the legislation proceeds in Congress, the government’s goal should be enacting laws that allow employees to make an informed choice on whether to bring in a union at their workplace. The choice belongs to them; not to business and not to unions.