Just so you won’t be surprised, let me start this article off by stating that I was raised in an anti-union family.

I learned first-hand what unionization can mean in the 1950s when my uncle, a house builder with a few workers, was approached by the union with demands that his company unionize. Neither Gene nor his workers were interested, but the union reps made his life a living hell, even firing bullets into his house with his wife and children inside.

More recently, I saw an extremely important lab be shut down for a week waiting for members of the electricians union to move some wire — even though there were several electronic technicians and engineers capable of performing this 10-minute move.

Now, having said that, I also recognize the gains that unions have made and recognize, when their demands are reasonable, that they serve a very useful purpose in a lot of industries.

Which brings me to the government’s Employee Free Choice Act — the “card-check” proposal and my adamant objection to any proposal that makes public what should be a secret ballot and, once again, interjects government into the mix.

If you’re not aware, “card check” means unions will be able to organize workers and collect dues once they have collected signed cards from 50 percent of a company’s workforce and could impose binding-arbitration requirements in the initial stages of organization.

I watched a segment on a small manufacturing plant in the Midwest where this strategy was used. Interviews with the employees revealed that most of them got along well; they were friends and neighbors — until the open union vote, and then things got ugly.

So ugly, that their managers had to escort the “no” voters to their cars to avoid violence.

This isn’t about whether unions are good or bad — this is about allowing people to vote their opinion in private.

This is an important issue that we can weigh in on. Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell are waiting to hear from you.

Reach Auburn resident Karen Shepherd at karen.shepherd@rocketmail.com.