There has been a great outpouring of anguish from several national business organizations at the prospect of employees losing their right to a secret ballot in deciding whether or not to form a union. I wouldn't suggest that the concern of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Independent Business or National Association of Manufacturers isn't heartfelt, but I believe it's misplaced.

Here's the issue: Under current law, when a majority of employees in a workplace have signed cards expressing their preference to be represented by a union, the employer decides whether or not to hold a secret ballot election in which employees vote yes or no. The law has always allowed the employer to accept the "card check" from a majority of employees and recognize a union as their bargaining agent, but very few do.

Two bills have been offered in the Hawai'i Legislature, House Bill 952 and Senate Bill 1621, and in Washington, Congress will soon consider the Employee Free Choice Act. Both the state and federal measures would allow employees, rather than the employer, to make the decision on holding a secret-ballot union election.

Many employers would rather not have union employees. Through the power of collective bargaining, union employees make an average of 28 percent more than nonunion employees. They're also 52 percent more likely to have company-paid health insurance and a retirement plan. Higher wages and benefits mean higher costs for the employer or business owner. It's hardly surprising that some would oppose making the formation of a union easier or simpler. But, it is another matter to actively inhibit such legal activity, and even harass or try to intimidate those who favor a union.

Consider these facts from research conducted by the University of Illinois at Chicago's Center for Urban Development:

• 46 percent of workers report being pressured by management during secret ballot election campaigns.

• 49 percent of employers illegally threaten to close a worksite during union organizing drives if workers choose to form a union.

• 30 percent of employers illegally fire pro-union workers during union organizing drives.

• 78 percent of employers require employees to talk to their supervisor about whether they want a union, and they're asked to reveal which coworkers are union supporters.

• 75 percent of employers hire anti-union consultants to advise them on effective anti-union campaigns.

The other major point of contention is that the Employees Free Choice Act would require binding arbitration to settle an initial union contract if the two sides can't reach agreement after 90 days of negotiation on their own, and with an additional 30 days working with a federal mediator. Binding arbitration is like an informal court process; arguments are heard, evidence is weighed and a decision reached that is binding on both sides, in this case for two years.

Why is some sort of deadline important? Because negotiating the first contract between management and a new union is especially tough. In fact, the records of the National Labor Relations Board, the federal agency created in 1935 to enforce the nation's collective bargaining laws, indicate that stalling the negotiations has been a commonly used tactic by employers for decades. That does not come as a surprise, but in recent years, this maneuver has become the rule. According to a study at MIT's Sloan School of Management, 44 percent of the time, America's newly unionized workers still lack a collective bargaining agreement a full year after voting for union representation.

The Employee Free Choice doesn't give management or unions an advantage in contract negotiations, and doesn't ensure that there will ever be a contract agreement. But it does provide a remedy when the employer simply tries to run out the clock to keep employees from forming a union.

I support this legislation for two reasons. First place, I believe that if individuals want to join a union, and a majority of employees want to form a union, they should be able to do so. What happens afterward in negotiations is up to ability of the negotiators.

Secondly, to have a strong, growing economy in this country, we have to have secure, decent-paying jobs; jobs with a future; jobs that allow workers to support their families. That is very unlikely without strong, vibrant employee unions, and that is hardly an anti-business sentiment.

Employee unions are largely responsible for creation of the American middle class; the 40-hour work week, paid vacations and employer-sponsored healthcare. Ultimately, unions are just as responsible as management for a business's ability to compete in today's economy. Hawai'i's unions have a legacy of working with management for their mutual benefit, with collective prosperity as the object and outcome of the relationship.

Neil Abercrombie is Hawai'i's U.S. representative for District 1. He wrote this commentary for The Advertiser.

Reach Neil Abercrombie at (Unknown address).