Imagine it's election day. You have an emergency. You or a family member falls suddenly ill or gets in an accident. You don't have time to go to the elections office to vote, so you end up not voting. But suppose your county elections division decides that since the majority of voters registered in your precinct are Republican, if you had voted, you would have voted Republican, so they go ahead and count you as a GOP vote, even though you didn't vote at all.
That's what could happen in union elections if a provision in the Federal Aviation reauthorization bill dealing with organizing elections in the aviation and railroad industries survives on the House floor. By just one vote, this provision passed out of the Transportation Committee, with some Republicans seeing the inherent unfairness of counting votes that were not cast. If the GOP has their way, any non-vote by an eligible worker will count as a vote against union representation. If you can't beat 'em, screw 'em.
That election scenario is a powerful one, however. And the Communications Workers of America are using it to turn the tables on the House Republicans this week.
To illustrate the unfairness of that structure, the Communication Workers of America will circulate a new report on the Hill Monday, making the point that none of the recently-elected members of Congress would have won if their constituents who didn't vote at all had been counted as votes against them.
"[L]et's take a look at what would happen to Rep. John Mica (R-FL), the Chair of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the lead driver behind the insertion of the NMB elections provision into the larger FAA Reauthorization bill," their report reads.
Rep. Mica received support from 69% of the voters in his district who cast a ballot in his successful 2010 re-election campaign, amounting to slightly over 185,000 actual votes tallied for him.
However, if you add the over 83,000 voters who voted against Rep. Mica to 312,000 eligible voters who did not participate, then Rep. Mica would only muster 32% of the overall total - falling far short of the majority needed for election.
Enough to convince Republicans? Probably a number of them, as those Republicans who voted against the provision in committee can't be all alone in seeing this as Rep. Candice Miller (R-MI) did in committee: "Each of us who has the honor to serve in this House does so with the consent of those we serve in free elections. All we have to do is win this privilege is receive more votes than our opponent. That is the fundamental caveat of our democracy, and how we conduct elections. Why should a union election be any different?"
The legislation is likely to come to the floor on Thursday. More Republicans could join Miller and vote against this amendment, but it seems likely that it will pass. However, it is not in the Senate's bill, so could be stripped out in conference committee. The more Republicans voting against it in the House, the easier it will be for the Senate to get it pulled.