Labor Relations 101

There Is Nothing "Free" About The Employee Free Choice Act

Noah Scott Warman, an attorney for labor unions, has posted an interesting opinion in the Miami Herald newspaper regarding the Employee Free Choice Act.  He actually believes that the Employee Free Choice Act is a necessary piece of legislation that will "counter a three-decade-long war on workers' right to organize unions."  This could not be further from the truth!

The Employee Free Choice Act was a little known piece of legislation officially entitled H.R. 800, S. 1041, that was passed through the congressional body.  The Employee Free Choice essentially rewrites the laws and procedures of the National Labor Relations Act, thus allowing unions to forgo the secret ballot process of voting for or against joining a union.  Instead, if a labor union receives the signatures of at least 50% of employees, they then have the right to walk in to a business and demand instant recognition.

The business owners then have up to 90 days (i.e. 3 months) to bargain a contract.  If a contract settlement has not been reached, then either the business or labor union may notify the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service of the dispute and request mediation.  If the FMCS is not able to negotiate a settlement within 30 days then the matter is given to an arbitration board, which will then make a ruling that will be binding upon both parties for 2 years.

Please tell me how this Employee Free Choice Act is fair to employees and business?  Mr. Warman will have you believe that the Employee Free Choice Act will make the playing field equal and that employees will "finally" have the right to become unionized without being terminated for their union activities.  Mr. Warman has failed to produce statistics that demonstrate that on overwhelming number of pro-union employees are fired for utilizing their legal right to voice their support for the union.  The secret ballot election process allows employees to cast their vote without anyone knowing how they voted.  It protects them from both corporate and union influence. 

You see, I am a labor relations consultant, and I have witnessed first hand how union organizers will go to any means to get employees to sign up for the union.  I have seen union organizers forge employees signatures; utilize Spanish speaking interpreters to lie to and confuse Spanish speaking employees regarding their employers; offering of false promises such as "if you join the union we'll get you $15 dollars more an hour" all the while knowing that they do not have the bargaining power to fulfill such a promise.   

The fact of the matter is this, both the AFL-CIO and the Change To Win Coalition have spent upwards of $400 million dollars in political contributions to the Democratic party because Barack Obama has vowed to pass the Employee Free Choice Act if elected.  Where do unions get this kind of money? 

Proponents of the bill, such as Mr. Warman, miss the mark.  The Employee Free Choice Act is nothing more than a veiled attempt by organized labor to prove that it is still relevant today. Labor unions have been in existence for over 70 years.  The tactics and "business" practices they employ have not changed in 70 years.  Unions have failed to prove that they can and will have a positive impact on business and commerce.  Until labor unions learn how to be that fiscal "seat at the table" they will continue to be a drain on the employees they seek to represent and the businesses they seek to "protect" workers from. 

Why Is It No One Told Me They Wanted A Union?

I just got off the phone with a business associate of mine.  He just discovered that the International Association of Machinists (a labor union) has petitioned the National Labor Relations Board to hold a secret ballot election.  The secret ballot election will determine whether or not 68 warehouse employees will be represented by the Machinists.

This of course caught my associate by complete surprise.  The only thing he could say was "I thought everyone was happy."  And that, my friends, is usually the sentiment of managers throughout the country. 

Many employees do not vocalize the issues and problems they face on their jobs.  They may fear some form of retaliation or they simply want to do their jobs without unnecessary drama.  And then there are those employees who live to "stir up the hornets nest."  They will let management know their opinions on everything from staffing to how the business should be run.  And it is usually these employees that management turns a blind ear/eye toward.  This is where part of the problem lies.

I am not saying that managers have to jump on every issue that is brought to their attention, but I am advocating the importance of listening.  When managers LISTEN employees feel empowered.  When managers take ACTION based on what they have heard and observed then employees feel that management is properly representing their concerns in the workplace.

It is usually during the second week of a labor union campaign that management is confronted with the awful truth that has been staring at them like a 500 foot pink elephant in the middle of the room:  WE DIDN"T LISTEN TO OUR EMPLOYEES!

As a result, employees feel the need to seek third party representation via a labor union because the union has promised them that they will be their voice at the bargaining table.  And what employees often find out is that after the union has been elected to be their collective bargaining representative those problems they complained about are still present in the work environment. 

The best and most effective strategy to ensuring that management and employees remain "on the same page" is to take time to hold formal and informal meetings about the state of the work environment.  Management and employees may even agree on creating a "time table" by which they can chart when both parties will meet to work and solve any lingering problems together. 

I will include more information in future posts...

What Do We Want? Job Security!!

The United Autoworkers of America (UAW) have announced an economic strike against General Motors (GM) today.  Workers walked out of their respective General Motor facilities at 10a.m. this morning.  The national strike called upon by the UAW is its first since 1976.

While many assumed that GM and the UAW would come to an agreement this past weekend, negotiations spriraled out of control when the neither party could come to terms regarding job security for the roughly 73,000 GM employees.

Mark Turnbull, of the Christian Science Monitor, provided the following statement from John Wolkonowicz, an auto analyst from the consulting firm Global Insight in Lexington, Mass.

"The Union leadership fully understands the seriousness of the situation...They're out to preserve jobs and preserve salaries for their members.  They'll do whatever they can to achieve that."

Neither party can withstand the effects of a long term strike.  It is likely that General Motors will concede some level of flexibility as it relates to job security, but will this be enough for the UAW?  Admittedly the union does not have a strong bargaining position, but General Motors can not afford to be without its employees.  Both parties will have to come to some consensus if they both wish to be viable and profitable for the future.

Wait A Minute...You're NOT A Supervisor?

The Congressional Education and Labor Committee ruled 26-20 to adopt a bill that would overturn the National Labor Relations Board "charge nurses" ruling in the Oakwood Health Care case (also referred to as the Kentucky River case) from 2006.

Jesse J. Holland of the Fresnobee.com reported that under the new legislation supervisors would have to spend the majority of their time performing supervisory duties in order to fit within the "Section 2(11)" managerial category.

In the 2006 Oakwood Health Care case the five person National Labor Relations Board ruled that charge nurses who gave "significant overall duties" to employees were considered exempt from inclusion  in  NLRB  secret ballot elections for  potential union  membership.

The bill has not been approved by the House.  However, if it does pass then it will be more difficult for companies to apply the supervisory title to workers that do not spend a majority of their time performing supervisory duties.  As a result employees that have been traditionally excluded from bargaining units will now have the right to vote in NLRB secret ballot elections.