Employer Anti-Union Advertising Campaign Twists the Truth
Tomorrow, the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace will begin its television ad campaign against the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA). (You can view the ad on their website.) This legislation would require employers to recognize a union after a majority of the workers have signed a card stating their desire to be represented by the union. The alternative, which employer groups like the CDW support, is to continue allowing employers to demand a secret-ballot "election" even after such union support has been demonstrated. Despite what the name of the CDW suggests, employers do not support the right to demand an election because they are deeply committed to democracy and unions are not. Employers want this right because it allows them to have more time to threaten, intimidate and even fire pro-union employees and then re-ask employees if they want the union.
Ironically, this commercial paints unions as the ones who are threatening and coercing workers; however, while large numbers of unfair labor practices have been filed for employer violations during union organizing campaigns, only a handful have ever been filed against unions for coercing workers to sign authorization cards. Given the way that these "elections" are conducted (see my post on the EFCA from last summer), framing the debate over the EFCA as about "democracy" or "elections" may be a smart public relations move but it is simply disingenuous. For employers this is about money--the money they fear having to share with employees if they cannot crush workers' desires to form a union. The CDW even goes so far as to call this legislation "anti-worker" and presents itself as a "coalition of workers, employers, associations and organizations." But the CDW's list of supporters tells the real story of who is supporting the effort to kill this much-needed legislation.
Echoes the Orwellian "right-to-work" laws.
April 24, 2008 11:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
a strategic response would be to put in an amendment making an employer's interference in a 'secret ballot' election a criminal offense and give the union unfettered access to the employees for the campaign - basically level the playing field for workers trying to organize. seeing the bosses reject real fairness in the process would lay their argument bare
April 25, 2008 12:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
From a small business owner's perspective, the union negotiating power is definately tipped in their favor. There is a balance in this issue, there needs to be a balance of power and the demands need to be reasonable and realistic.
A collegue of mine a number of years ago was an owner of a non-union elevator company. Everyone was happy working there, they had the repuation in the local market of being the highest quality provider of elevator maintenance and were doing very well. Then a new employee who was secretly a union member working with the local union, started covertly trying to breed dissatisfaction among the employees and organize them to affiliate with the union. Eventually the issue came to light and they voted. The union lost. That wasn't the end of it. The union spy continued to spread discontent. In the meantime, union officials began intimidating the owner and threatening to do a hostile takeover of his privately owned business through legal maneuvers. He did his best to be reasonable and meet employee concerns. He wasn't getting terribly rich from his business, but the union didn't care. What bothered them was that he was the only non-union elevator shop in the local market. He was more competitive, and provided better benefits and pay to his employees, stealing the best performing union guys over to his non-union shop. They would quit the union.
Long story short... he went through a long legal battle, almost lost his business from the legal fees and high employee turnover due to the fear the union brought by threatening to shut down the business. In the end, he lost his entire savings, but kept his business non-union last I heard. He is smaller and now has to pay his employees less with fewer benefits. Who won? The attorneys and the union. They squashed a successful non-union shop with intimidation and heavy handed legal tactics. It wasn't about the employees, it was all about union power.
Unions have served a great purpose in providing a balance of negotiating power which holds business owners accountable to treating employees fairly. However, the fights that are going on now are a bit excessive and no longer serve the original purposes of unions. Unions are struggling for dominance, not equal negotiating power. They see the guy who signs the paychecks as the enemy, not an economic partner. That is why every move business owners make are viewed with distrust and held under suspicion. They are damned if the do and damned if they don't. That has to change if there is to be real progress.
Jim
http://www.thetruthaboutcredit.com
April 28, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink