A few weeks ago I wrote a column about what I see as the inevitable ratification of the Employee Free Choice Act, a legislative effort that has already been approved by the U.S. House of Representatives, and is pending approval in the U.S. Senate. Depending on the outcome of the presidential election, it will be enacted.

EFCA will “amend the National Labor Relations Act to establish an efficient system to enable employees to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to provide for mandatory injunctions for unfair labor practices during organizing efforts, and for other purposes.” Clearly stated, it will eliminate the rule that mandates secret-ballot voting for union affiliation. Unions will need only to present signed cards representing a simple majority of workers to force unionization of a plant or company.

Many opponents of EFCA have argued that it contradicts democratic principles because it exposes employees to intimidation from union organizers.

My argument in the column, and even still, is that this objection is insufficient: it’s true that EFCA upends democratic principles, but it’s not necessary for unions to operate according to democratic principles. Unions have no obligation to be democratic. They don’t exist to uphold or promote democracy; they exist to coalesce interests and to exert influence.

That exertion of influence is what has brought EFCA to the brink of ratification. And, exerting influence is exactly how unions intend to reverse many of the circumstances they object to most strenuously. In the column, I sought to describe how the unions’ expanded influence would change manufacturing once EFCA is enacted.

I got a few e-mails in response, most of which rapped me for writing too vaguely. That’s fair.

Then, more recently, I got a call from a retired foundry executive who wanted to change my mind. I must oppose EFCA, he stressed, and I must strenuously encourage readers to oppose it, because it will strip non-union foundries from the ability to work amicably with their workers. He offered as an example the company from which he’s now retired, where labor relations have been satisfactory for decades, contributing to long-term success for the foundry, and its workers, and a cooperative spirit all around.

Our conversation was entirely friendly. I rushed to point out that I agreed that enacting EFCA would be bad news for small manufacturers: I’d tried to make that clear in my column. But, apparently he missed my point, or I didn’t describe the bad effects in terms dire enough for his point of view.

It will be a death sentence for many non-union employers, he insisted. There will be no way for these employers to compete versus the organizing latitude and financial might of unions; and once their plants are unionized there will be no way for employers to keep up with the demands and strategies of unions.

He urged me to write again about all this, but I offered instead to print his letter if he’d put his arguments in print. True to his promise, his letter arrived by Fed Ex within a day or two. (It will appear in FM&T’s November issue.)

Late last week my correspondent called again. He asked me to identify him as “retired foundryman,” rather than to list any affiliation with his former employer. “They’d come down hard, and make us miserable,” he said, referring to the labor unions … which was the point I was making all along.