New Jersey Passes Card Check Legislation
With the signature of acting Governor Codey, New Jersey has made "card check" recognition -- the right of workers to form a union when 50% of them sign cards requesting it -- the law of the land in that state.
At least for workers not covered by federal labor law.
But it's both a good symbolic message and will help a number of workers who lack such rights (text below from subscription-only Daily Labor Report):
The measure applies only to racetrack owners, breeders, and trainers; real estate brokers; certain small businesses not engaged in interstate commerce; Native American tribes; agricultural laborers; domestic servants; independent contractors; certain public employees; supervisors; and employees subject to the Railway Labor Act, according to the New Jersey State AFL-CIO...The text of the bill is here.Most of the state's hospitals ultimately won an exemption from the provisions of the bill under a Senate floor amendment that excluded private, federal tax-exempt non-profit organizations from the requirement to recognize a union as a collective bargaining representative based on signed authorization cards from a majority of employees.
The measure authorizes the New Jersey State Board of Mediation to determine whether an employee unit is an appropriate unit for collective bargaining. Employers are liable under the bill for fines of up to $ 1,000 and court costs if they refuse to provide information to the Board of Mediation or seek to prevent the board from carrying out its responsibilities.
Probably the largest effect of the bill will be on state employees, who now be able to use card check in most representation campaigns-- although granting organizing rights to agricultural workers corrects one of the most glaring racist injustices of our national labor law.
But this legislation highlights that there are many ways for progressives to improve the conditions for union organizing through state and local legislation. These happen mostly in incremental ways, but many, many incremental changes can help workers tremendously.
Comments (5)
In 2008 Jon S. Corzine, then Governor of New Jersey, former U.S. Senator, a midwestern son of a farmer and a school teacher who rose to become co-head of Goldman Sachs, will be 61 years old.
Corzine in 2008!
July 22, 2005 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is this the beginning of a trend? I hope so. Blagovich (sp?), Gov. of Illinois has done something similar with childcare workers and home health aides, resulting in tens of thousands of new union members.
This should be a precondition for unions supporting governors - executive orders that allow card-check.
For those not immersed in union lingo - the difference is immense. Card check means that all an organizer has to do is get a person at the shop to sign a card saying they allow the union to represent them. Get 50% + 1 of the workers to sign and you win a union. You still have to negotiate a contract, but the basic work is so much easier in the short run.
Without card-check, first you get cards signed. Then you call for an election. The NLRB sets a date, the employer contests the date. The process drags for months. Meanwhile active union advocates in the workplace are harrassed and fired. Meetings are held by management laying out every reason why unions would be bad, usually lying through their teeth about at least half of it. People are demoralized in every way management can think of, usually with the help of legal firms that specialize in demoralizing workers.
Finally, an election is held. The results are contested if the union wins, and the appeals process takes more months. The whole thing can kill a drive if people are not prepared for the long haul, with strong support in the workplace, a well organized union presence, and a huge investment in union resources. These bureaucratic rules are a big part of the reason that unions have decreased in numbers over time.
July 22, 2005 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
The law may have a slight effect on some occupations, but many of those listed raise serious federal legal questions. An attempt by independent contractors to organize risks antitrust violations. Covering those deliberately excluded from the Wagner Act (like supervisors) and those covered by another federal labor law (like railway workers) runs into the preemption doctrine. There may not be many employees of Indian tribes in NJ, but I'd expect the them to argue strenuously that a state cannot impair their sovereign power over their own employees. I trust NJ has budgeted for the legal expenses it will incur in litigating those items. In any event, the law is likely to have more symbolic than practical effect.
July 23, 2005 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
The question of independent contractors is especially interesting, given how prevalent they are in several key sectors. How do you think we could deal with that? I've heard two interesting suggestions, one being forming labor cooperatives of independent contractors, the other being a track taken by the IWW (I know, but it actually worked for several hundred workers) to just do direct action organizing and reach agreements outside of state arbitration. Problematic, but maybe combining the two approaches would work if it were given support by a larger union, say the CWA which has shown some interest in organizing independent tech workers I believe.
July 24, 2005 8:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I doubt if there's any feasible way for independent contractors to bargain collectively. If two or more employers combine to set their charges, it's legally a combination in restraint of trade. That opens them up to treble damage actions, injunctions, and even criminal penalties. Some years ago, lawyers in DC who accepted public defender appointments tried to organize and were immediately hit with antitrust threats. The same thing would happen with truck drivers and others, assuming that they were independent contractors in fact rather than in name. It doesn't make any difference whether they try to do it through a state law (which is preempted by federal law) or through "direct action."
July 24, 2005 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink