A conservative advocacy group is taking a stand against a bill under consideration in Congress that is backed by labor organizers.

“Americans for Prosperity” rallied Tuesday outside the General Assembly against the “Employee Free Choice Act,” often referred to as “card check.”

Labor unions say the bill would make it easier for workers to organize and pressure companies to negotiate wages and working conditions.

If passed, the measure would get rid of private ballot elections. Instead, employees would simply sign a card for or against.

Senator Richard Burr is against the measure. Burr spoke at the rally about the sanctity of voting rights to Americans. He didn’t talk about unions or about the legislation, and instead talked about voting in general.

Those rallying Tuesday, along with several state lawmakers, urged Senator Kay Hagan to vote against it.

“What the unions did to cripple the American automobile industry and what they did to Detroit, Michigan, we surely in North Carolina can’t allow unions to do that to the North Carolina businesses,” said North Carolina State Sen. Bob Rucho, R-Mecklenburg.

“Free choice would be severely restricted by subjecting workers to undue pressure and intimidation, by having to make a public decision for or against union representation,” said State Rep. Paul Stam R-Wake.

Hagan said the move will “level the playing field.”

“It doesn’t do away with the secret ballot; it gives employees the opportunity to decide which way they want to consider the vote,” she said.

Ralliers flooded the phonelines at Hagan’s offices in Washington and Raleigh to voice their opposition.

Democratic Party activist Will Cubbison of Raleigh said labor elections aren’t fair because of company intimidation in the days leading up to a vote.

State House and Senate republicans are sending a letter to North Carolina’s congressional delegation in Washington to ask them to oppose the bill on behalf of the state’s workers.

Listen to Hagan and Rurcho:

A rally was held in Raleigh held Tuesday in opposition to Employee Free Choice Act, also known as the card-check bill, which may be proposed in Congress.

This editorial appeared in the The Waynesboro News Virginian.

Among other things expected to occupy Congress and Barack Obama next year will be legislation known as the Employee Free Choice Act, a name that strikes some, including Del. Chris Saxman, R-Staunton, as oxymoronic.

Particularly objectionable in the mind of Saxman and business is an element that would eliminate secret ballots for union elections, leaving workers subject to coercion by union bosses eyeing power and dues. The right-to-work status of Virginia, Saxman explains, would be shattered and so he acts.

His solution is a constitutional amendment that would safeguard the commonwealth’s right-to-work law, which bars unions and employees from making payment of union dues a condition of employment. Union representatives say the federal law would shield workers from employer interference. Saxman says the law would accomplish the opposite and would deal an ill-timed blow to the state’s efforts to attract business.

Not only is Saxman correct, his position on secret ballots is reflected by Mark Warner, the former governor and one of the state’s most powerful Democrats who next month will take John Warner’s place in the Senate. Warner relied in no small part on union support in scoring an easy victory over Jim Gilmore in November, but told The News Virginian in an editorial board interview in the fall that he found troubling the portion of the law proposing to eliminate secret ballots.

Jim Flickinger, president of the International Brotherhood of DuPont Workers, which represents Invista employees, worries about lag time between approval of union elections and the time the election is held. He says he has seen elsewhere how employers use this time to propagandize against unions. But he adds that he does not quibble with Virginia’s right-to-work law.

Unions and the federal bill would chew away at the free-speech rights of employers while placing workers under the unvarnished scrutiny of organizers. Further, it would allow a government panel to establish a two-year collective bargaining agreement if the two sides fail to broker their own deal within 130 days. That places workers as well as employers at a disadvantage when considering the impact of unionization.

For these reasons, Congress should reject the Employee Free Choice Act. Because the concept is bound to linger whether it survives this year or not, the General Assembly should press ahead with Saxman’s legislation. That even a union leader such as Flickinger finds the state’s right-to-work law acceptable is a testament to its fairness.

The ability of workers to organize is part of life in the American workplace. So, too, should be the right of workers to just say no.