It Will Take More than Better Labor Laws to Restore the Movement's Strength
I agree with the bulk of what Jared said, but there are a few points I'd take issue. Two in particular:
First, I agree there is a lot labor can do to win change locally, but it shouldn't be seen as a substitute for making change happen at the state and Federal level. For example, here (here being Montgomery Co., Maryland) a number of us have been working to have the county government assume some responsibilities for promoting worker safety. As I'm guessing most readers know, occupational health and safety enforcement is grossly underfunded. In fact, there are so few health and safety inspectors in Maryland that it would take them 134 years to inspect every workplace in our state. In response we (we being a coalition of labor and immigrant rights groups) presented our county council with a few modest proposals -- like training building inspectors to identify imminent dangers when they go out to construction sites. That was three years ago and we're still trying to get it done. It's not that anyone has a particular problem with the idea; it's that the county government is so starved for cash that it's hardly able to fund the services they provide now, let alone provide new ones. Eventually we'll make some headway, but nothing we achieve here would come close to the impact of having the Democrats in charge of OSHA.
Second, I agree that the Employee Free Choice Act would give a huge boost to organizing. However, it will take more than better labor laws to restore the labor movement's strength. As I noted in my earlier previous post, many workers -- particularly younger workers in non-traditional jobs -- are interested in non-traditional unionism. David's book describes the shining example of that in WashTech / CWA. Understandably, many unions have been reluctant to venture into areas they're not familiar with. However, they're going to have to if they want to reach those workers. For example, relatively few unions have considered how to negotiate contracts to protect workers who telecommute and -- even though multi-employer health and benefit funds have been around for a long while -- unions haven't really adapted the idea to meeting the needs of contingents, contractors, freelancers, etc. One additional point: at the end of the day, having good labor laws won't make much difference unless unions put serious resources into organizing. Some have, but many haven't.
Or to ask the question somewhat differently, in matters of worker safety and workplace conditions should we depend upon private contract (union v. management negotiations) or the general law (state and principally, federal statutes and administrative decrees)?
And if the latter, will unions support what they're likely to see as undermining the significance of their traditional role in negotiating these benefits and thus, reducing their power?
Note: We can always leave the scheduling of "bathroom breaks" and other local issues to private contract.
July 11, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a management side labor lawyer, I have to say that I have always been surprised by how little effort seems to be put into organizing by most unions. Other than SEIU and a few others, the labor "movement" doesn't seem to move much. I think if more union leaders took your attitude (i.e., that whatever the law says, labor has to do the hard work of organing in new areas now), you would see a reversal of the decline in union workplaces.
Maybe you disagree, but I think there's a real contrast between your views and those of someone like Nathan Newman, who seems much more interested in demonizing business than anything else. While the substance of EFCA would be a radical change (for the worse in my view), I think it says something that in the face of disappointing election results, some labor leaders want to blame the secret ballot election process rather than take responsibility for not having a product worth buying.
The reality is that some employees actually prefer not to unionize their workplace, and there are some good reasons to believe that that's the best choice for some employees. I agree that unions have a legitimate beef about the NLRB process -- that where an employer violates the law and fires organizers, etc., the endless delays in getting a result of any king from the Board is a problem. (Trust me that it can be a problem for employers too -- business loves nothing more than certainty and cases on appeal for years are uncertainty defined.) The problem is EFCA doesn't fix or even really address the problems with the Board. Taking away the abiltiy of employees to vote by secret ballot on unionization may result in more unionized workplaces, but it has nothing to do with the problems that exist. And, of course, if EFCA passes my clients will simply start their campaigns sooner and they will manage to get their message out to employees. So in the end, it comes back to convincing employees that unions are in their best interest even after they have heard from people like me. That's not a challenge that people who believe in labor should be afraid of.
July 11, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Labor Lawyer says;
"The reality is that some employees actually prefer not to unionize their workplace, and there are some good reasons to believe that that's the best choice for some employees."
For many years the Teamsters tried to unionize a large trucking company called Overnight, which had trucking terminals throughout much of the country. The Teamsters won a few elections at certain terminals, but not many, as the Company fought back with employee meetings, etc., and most of the employees, for one reason or other, voted against unionizing.
Overnight was in competition with other trucking companies that were unionized; Roadway, Yellow, ABF, etc., The unionized Teamsters had, a modicum of job security, company paid Pensions, and compnay paid Health and Welfare for the employee and the family. Other benefits included; sick leave, paid holidays, up to 5 weeks vacation.
Teamsters were paid time and half after 8 hours, Overnight after 40 hours.
Overnight employees had nothing like the union benefits and their total compensation package may have been half what the Teamsters received.
Recently, Overnight was bought by UPS, a Teamsters member company.
I ask myself; How much did the Overnight employees lose over the last 15/20 years by turning down Union membership?
July 11, 2008 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
John W: WIth respect to Overnite, you seem to assume that if the employees had simply voted "yes" for the Teamsters they would automatically have gotten better wages and benefits. This is a common misconception that unions like to foster. The reality is that Overnite would not have had to agree to anything proposed by the Teamsters and their wages could have been higher, lower or stayed the same. It seems just as likely to me that Overnite would not have given the Teamsters what they wanted and the employees would have been taken out on strike. So how much more did they Overnite employees make by not going on a mutually destructive months-long strike with no pay, benefits or even (at least in Virginia where Overnite is based) unemployment comp?
July 14, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink