NLRB Is Set to Rule in Favor of Unions Not Employees

I know most of you have to stiffle a yawn when you see a post about unions. Well you shouldn't! It is important stuff under the actions of the current administration. But I will try to keep this relatively brief. First a little background. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is made up of 5 appointed members, 3 from the political party in power and the other 2 from the other party. Today that means the the NLRB is composed of 3 Democrat party appointees and 2 Republican. The actual number seated will depend on resignations, tenure of appointment (as in a recess appointment), and difficulty of getting appointees through the Senate approval process. During the Bush administration the Senate Democrats blocked a number of appointments so that NLRB was usually small in numbers. But they still decided on a number of cases.

One of these cases was that of Dana Corp. The issue at hand dealt with voluntary recognition of a union by management and whether employees had the right to contest that voluntary recognition by calling for a secret ballot election to decertify the union accepted by the company. The Bush-era NLRB said "yes" employees have that right and they altered the "bar to an election" that prohibited an election within one year of voluntary recognition. They said that EMPLOYEES may petition for an election. You can read the decision from the NLRB by clicking here for the write up.

This is a decision that  I personally agree with. In the world of union organizing the signing of authorization cards can be subject to acts of intimidation and people may be inclined to sign in order to save their kneecaps. Thus presentation of a bunch of cards with signatures may not accurately reflect the true feelings of the employees. Giving them a chance to vote on the union status will give you a more accurate test.

And that is the way things stand today. However, because the Bush-era NLRB was understaffed a Federal court declared that decisions made by that board were invalid and ordered the current NLRB to revisit those  (nearly 800) decisions. One of the first ones up is Dana Corp. And the early indications are that they will reverse the decision. They will declare that the voluntary recognition bar must stand and that if a union and management agree on the majority status of a union, and deem them to be the official representative of the employees, the employees will have no say in the process. For a great analysis of this and a story of personal experience in this read Jon Hyman's Card Check is Dead...Long Live Card Check.

What I find telling about this is that the NLRB is NOT about protecting the rights of employees, it is ALL about protecting the union organization. They are not interested in employees getting what is good for them, they are interested in protecting the status of the union, who through possible intimidation may be able to convince an employer that their employees would like to have that union. The unions know, as does the union-friendly NLRB, that if these situations are put to the test of an election they may lose because the true desire of the employees is expressed on the ballot and not on the authorization card. So the best way to prevent that is to take away the secret ballot election, much like EFCA was proposing.

So there you have it. The NLRB's first major decision will be one that is pro-union but ANTI-EMPLOYEE. So much for having your rights protected....

An Union Update: Craig Becker and the NLRB

I know many of you have to stiffle a yawn when you see the word "union" in a blog title. Well you shouldn't. It is IMPORTANT, especially at this time with this current administration. Of course if you feel that being unionized is good for business then don't even bother to read further. But if you are in the other camp, as am I, then read on.

Craig Becker, who was the chief counsel for the SEIU (Service Employees International Union), was given a recess appointment to the National Labor Relations Board, despite the fact that the Senate had voted overwhelmingly against his appointment. (52-33) Well, he is in and now in a position to help make signifcant rulings on hundreds of cases that had found to have been made incorrectly because of a lack of a quorum on the board.

If you think that now, as a member of the NLRB, he will make unbiased decisions then you need to probably rethink that stance. To give you a bit more background on Mr. Becker I point you to Michelle Malkin's blog post on him, Summer of corruption: Obama’s Big Labor ethics loophole. Lest you think this is a "fan" piece I will warn you right now it is not. But she points out information about Becker that I find to be rather telling. Here is bit more information on this subject from the WSJ.

So read up and understand why you need to be concerned about EFCA or EFCA like decisions that may come out of the NLRB.

Strategy Alert: Too Few Workers and Union Activity

Here are some strategic tidbits to start your week off. First, I am sure you heard that Craig Becker was given a recess appointment to the National Labor Relations Board. If you are not sure why this is important read my post NLRB Nominees: Loading the Dice in Favor of Labor Unions. If you consider yourself strategic you would have already been planning for this, but in case you haven't been paying attention here is what you might plan for. With Becker and Pearce both getting appointed you can now expect a much more union friendly environment. There have already been indications that this Democrat (read Union) controlled board will overturn many previous decisions of the board under the Bush administration. One possible ruling may be having the Weingarten Rule reinstated for non-union workers. Weingarten established the right of representation for workers who feel they will be disciplined. Employers who refuse to allow this representation may be charged with an unfair labor practice, even if no union is present, and may be required by the NLRB to reinstate the workers and pay back pay. Having this right may encourage workers to review the other "benefits" of having union representation. (If you would like a history on this back and forth decision see this 2004 article from Law at Work.) 

The second strategic point is farther off in the distance, but you need to plan for it now. The Dukakis Center at Northeastern University just released a report projecting a significant labor shortage by 2018. A couple of highlights from the report include:

• By 2018, with an expected return to healthy economic growth but no change in current labor force participation rates or immigration rates, there will likely be more jobs than people to fill them.
• If the baby boom generation retires from the labor force at the same rate and age as current older workers, the baby bust generation that follows will likely be too small to fill many of the projected new jobs.
• There could be at least 5 million potential job vacancies in the United States, nearly half of them (2.4 million) in social sector jobs in education, health care, government and nonprofit organizations.
• The loss in total output could limit the growth of needed services and cost the economy as much as $3 trillion over the five-year period beginning in 2018.

The report, called After the Recovery: Help Needed, reports that some of this shortage may be offset by enticing Baby Boomers to stay in what they call "encore" jobs. These are mostly medical, social service and education positions that not only provide income but also provide personal fulfillment to the baby boomers. This frees up younger workers to fill other positions.

Obviously if you are in healthcare right now you need to pay heed to these numbers. 2018 is not that far away. But everyone needs to pay attention to this. Issues include:

1. What jobs do we have that we may be unable to find workers for?
2. How will changing technology alter the job picture for us?
3. What is the composition of our current workforce? What is the expected loss to us?
4. What possible training will we need to do and what will be the expense?
5. How will we do this training?
6. Who or where do we need to team with to insure a future supply of workers?
7. What effect will this have on our recruitment structure and compensation structure?

These are just some of the issues. So ask yourself am I being strategic?

EFCA After Healthcare: Rising From the Dead?

Much of the talk over the past year about the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) dealt with the fact that not much was going to happen with it until HealthCare had cleared or died. Well as we all know, the Senate Healthcare Bill passed the House of Representatives on March 21 and will be signed into law by President Obama on March 23. So what now for EFCA?

Will EFCA now rise from the dead? If it does the version that will be worked on will be that of Senator Arlen Specter (pun not intended by happily pointed out.) An article in the September 17, 2009 issue of the Washington DC Employment Law Update blog dealt with Specter's "Compromise" version of EFCA. It pointed out that Specter's compromise gets rid "Card check" aspects of bill. However, quoting a Washington Post article, writer blogger Jay Sumner stated "...the amended EFCA would try to make union elections more fair by sharply limiting the time between organizers' declaration that they have enough support to call an election and the day of the vote, to reduce the potential for employer intimidation. Organizers would also be guaranteed access to workers if employers held mandatory anti-union meetings on company time. And the penalties for employers who break labor law rules would be triple what they are today."  (The emphasis is mine and points out a bad precedent. Unions have all the access they need to have after work. A time that the employer does not. Unions have the right to visit in the homes of workers, employers do not.)

The second part, and more dangerous part of the bill, gets altered as well. Sumner points out "As for the equally contentious arbitration provision, the amended bill would still impose forced government arbitration if the parties cannot agree to the terms of a first contract within a specified time period, but would establish a “last best offer” model for final resolution. Under this approach, the arbitrator chooses between the two parties’ contract proposals, rather than exercising unfettered discretion on contract terms."
Sumner summarizes by stating "While on the surface these amendments appear to temper some of the more controversial terms that have been anathema to business interests, the changes are not drastic enough to attract wide-spread support within the business community, most of which is opposed to EFCA in any form and in particular is opposed to first contract arbitration. In fact, this version of EFCA – unlike the original bill – would provide union organizers with unprecedented access to the workplace. While the suggested bill would preserve the representation election process, the shortened election period would limit an employer’s ability to present its position to employees so that employees can make a fully-educated decision on unionization having heard both sides." (The emphasis is mine).

This compromise is bad news. By stripping the "card check" from the bill and preserving "secret ballot elections" much of the uninformed will think that the bill is palatable. IT IS NOT!

So lets not let down our guard! Pay attention to what is going on. I am sure unions are chomping at the bit to get this pushed through. And as the Healthcare bill showed DEAD AND BURIED may only be a perception and EFCA may yet rise from the dead and walk ZOMBIE like to reality.

Update of Union Activity

With all the talk about Healthcare one would think that no other legislative activity is going on in Washington. Alas, we could not be so lucky. There is still plenty of activity going on. So here is an update on various activities that are taking place.

1. The folks at the Labor Relations Institute published this blog post with a great run down on what is happening with the Employee Free Choice Act. EFCA Update They point out that EFCA has become a shorthand statement for aggressive union tactics and warn of recess appointments of NLRB nominees Becker and Pearce. (They have to be recess appointees because they are so union biased their appointments are being blocked by the Senate.)
2. The folks at CrediblyConnect that Unions Don't Have EFCA (Yet), But Have Won Other Victories That Make It Easier to Organize Employees . These include changes in the rules that had required Unions to reveal how and where they spent their members money. Secretary Solis made changes that now allow the Unions to not disclose their finances.
3. @OhioLaborLawyer on Twitter pointed out that unions are not happy with some Democrats and plan to punish them at the polls. Read Unions taking on Dems who don't toe labor line that was published in The Hill.
4. Attorney Eric B. Meyer linked to an article in S.C. Politics Today about South Carolina taking the bull by the horns and protecting the state from EFCA legislation in  Secret union ballots gets OK in Senate.
5. Lastly, also from The Hill, we have Police, firefighter unions see chance to expand collective bargaining rights which discusses in roads, outside of EFCA, that public safety unions are making.

Regardless if you are currently dealing with unions or not you need to read this stuff. With changes at the Department of Labor, the NLRB, and in legislation  you may at some point soon be dealing with union activity. And the more preparation and information you have the better off you will be.

Unions and Government: A Troublesome Combination

I received a newsletter this morning from The Heritage Foundation. It was entitled Morning Bell: Big Labor Is Bankrupting Our Country.  It was an eye opener in some areas. (In the spirit of openess, The Heritage Foundation is a conservative think tank. So if you want to discount this information it is up to you. But I would pay attention to the facts.) Here are some of the facts they listed in the newsletter (and some comments by me):

1. Last month when the White House released its visitor log for the first six months of the Obama presidency, one name appeared far more often than any other: Service Employee International Union (SEIU) President Andrew Stern. (Wow, the MOST frequent visitor? Expecting something or trying to organize the White House housekeeping staff?)
2. The SEIU spent $60.7 million to elect Barack Obama president. (Stern has made it clear that he expects reciprocity. I don't think he is getting to use the Lincoln bedroom in exchange for this $60 million.)
3. Quoting a Hertiage scholar “The overall unionization rate between January and September 2009 stood at 12.4%, unchanged from last year. However, this difference masks a large difference between unions in the private and public sectors. Union membership has fallen to 7.3% of private sector workers ..... But it is a completely different story in the public sector: 37.6% of government employees belong to unions, up almost a percentage point since last year. Those 7.9 million unionized government employees are 51% of all union members nationwide.” (So the governments are such poor employers that almost 38% of workers feel they need a union to protect them. Yet they tell us in the private sector how to run our businesses. Yet only 7.3% of private sector workers have sought union protection. Hey lawmakers, "wake up and smell the coffee!"

The newsletter goes on to explain why unions target governments. Easier campaigns, more dues making it easier to influence or pressure politicians who need to get elected or re-elected. I will let you read this. The conclusion they reach is that all of this makes government more expensive and may push us to the brink of bankruptcy as a government. Is this a valid conclusion? Well took a look at how unions have helped the car industry, the steel industry, and the airline industry (anyone remember Eastern). You can draw your own conclusions.

With the changes in the NLRB, proposed legislation (EFCA and RESPECT) and executive changes removing union financing transparency unions stand a chance of regaining their "power" through political pressure and intimidation. The question is "At what cost?" to us as taxpayers, employers, employees and consumers. A truly troublesome combination.

NLRB Nominees: Loading the Dice in Favor of Labor Unions

How would you like to play a game where everytime you threw the dice you were unlikely to win because you had been given a pair of "loaded" dice? (click for the meaning of this idiom.) You probably would not want to play anymore. But what if you had no chance? What if it was the only game in town? And what if your previous wins with the non-loaded dice were going to be set aside because you were not playing under the new rules?

Well that is the scenario that is being set up with the new nominees for the National Labor Relations Board. The NLRB is made up of 5 members. Three of them generally are generally appointees of the party controlling the White House. So in this case that would be three Democratic nominees and two Republican nominees. Currently there are only two appointed members serving. One was a Bush nominee and one was a Clinton nominee. The Clinton nominee, Wilma Liebman was Obama's  for the position of Chair of the NLRB. The Bush appointee is Peter Schaumber. The remaining two Democrat nominees are Mark Pearce and Craig Becker. Craig Becker in particular has become a lighting rod for controversy. A Republican nominees has yet to be named.

To help understand why this controversy exists let us compare the backgrounds of the current members and nominees.

• Peter Schaumber: Prior to his appointment as a member of the Board, Mr. Schaumber practiced as a labor arbitrator serving on a number of industry panels and through national arbitration rosters. Mr. Schaumber began his legal career as an Assistant Corporation Counsel for the District of Columbia. Subsequently, he was appointed Assistant United States Attorney for the District of Columbia and served in that office's Criminal and Civil Divisions. Upon leaving the United States Attorney's Office, he became Senior Trial Attorney and Associate Director of a Law Department Division in the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. Upon leaving government service, Mr. Schaumber entered private law practice in Washington, D.C. and was director of his firm's Litigation Department. His practice included a wide range of trial and appellate civil litigation
• Wilma Liebman: Prior to joining the NLRB, Ms. Liebman served for two years as Deputy Director of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS). She acted as the chief operations officer of this federal agency, overseeing arbitration, alternative dispute resolution, international affairs and labor-management cooperation grants programs. In addition, Ms. Liebman advised the FMCS Director on issues involving major labor disputes and participated in significant negotiations as needed.
  From 1994-1996, Ms. Liebman served as Special Assistant to the Director of FMCS. In this role, she was a key member of the Mediator Task Force on the Future of FMCS, an 18-member employee group charged with articulating a vision and recommendations to lead the Agency into the 21st century. Prior to joining FMCS in January 1994, Ms. Liebman was Labor Counsel for the Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen from 1990 through 1993. She served as Legal Counsel to the International Brotherhood of Teamsters for nine years and as staff attorney with the NLRB from 1974 to 1980.
  
• Mark Pearce: Pearce has been a labor lawyer for his entire career. He is one of the founding partners of the Buffalo, New York law firm of Creighton, Pearce, Johnsen & Giroux where he practices union side labor and employment law before state and federal courts and agencies including the N.Y.S. Public Employment Relations Board, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the U.S. Department of Labor, and the National Labor Relations Board. In 2008 was appointed by the NYS Governor to serve as a Board Member on the New York State Industrial Board of Appeals, an independent quasi-judicial agency responsible for review of certain rulings and compliance orders of the NYS Department of Labor in matters including wage and hour law.
  
• Craig Becker: Becker currently serves as Associate General Counsel to both the Service Employees International Union and the American Federation of Labor & Congress of Industrial Organizations. He has published numerous articles on labor and employment law in scholarly journals, including the Harvard Law Review and Chicago Law Review, and has argued labor and employment cases in virtually every federal court of appeals and before the United States Supreme Court.
  

The emphases in each bio are mine. The one current Republican nominee was an arbitrator. Arbitrators are known for carefully guarding their reputations for being unbiased so they can decide cases without bias. Pearce has practiced UNION side law his entire career. Liebman, did work for the Federal Mediation and Concilliation Service, which is a plus, but was an attorney for TWO different unions. And Becker is CURRENTLY on the payroll of arguably the most powerful union in the country, the SEIU, as well as acting as council for the AFL-CIO. Becker is well known for writing many papers indicating that UNION will always win if he has anything to do with it. (Follow these links to Shopfloor and the National Right To Work committee to see business' view of Becker.)
 
Republican Senators are adamently opposed to Becker's appointment, and Senator John McCain in particular has moved to oppose his appointment. Political wrangling may end up seeing Becker's nomination being used as a bargaining chip in the final determination of various labor friendly bills currently pending in Congress. The appointment of this board as it stands will potentially have as much an effect on the labor picture in the U.S. as the passage of any bill such as EFCA or RESPECT. The opportunity for this potential board to over turn 8 years of NLRB decisions will significantly alter the labor picture for companies of all shapes and sizes both union and non-union alike.
 
So stay tuned Bunky! The road may get rough.

Stealth EFCA: New Warning On Union Friendly Legislation

A post I did back on June 23, 2009 on Why Unions are Bad for Companies, Employees and Customers has raised some hackles (click here for the meaning of this idiom) with some readers. So before I talk about stealth EFCA I wanted to respond to their comments. First, my complaint is with unions as an institution, not union workers. Yeah some are lazy jerks who game the system, but I can find those kind of people in most non-union firms too. But unions as an organization I don't like. Secondly, I have worked in a union environment. Not as a union worker but as the HR guy that had to deal with them and helped eventually decertify them. So I do know what it is like to have a union around. Thirdly, I am entitled to my opinion it is MY BLOG. It is not a newspaper. I express my opinion in addition to informing my readers. You also stated your opinion(s), not necessarily fact. One of you did it rather rudely. So we are in the same boat. Fouth, what the hell does a bad CEO in China have anything to do with anything? I didn't get that one.

Ok, enough of my response onto STEALTH EFCA, also known as the Patriot Corporations of America Act of 2009. Attorney Randy Coffey, writing for KansasCity.com, in a commentary entitled Proposal Puts Too Much Power in Union's Hands  states that "...the Patriot Corporations of America Act of 2009, deserves particular focus because it would greatly increase the success of union-organizing drives. Further, if the legislation includes a card-check feature rather than allowing employees to vote for or against a union by secret ballot, it would achieve the Employee Free Choice Act’s key provision through the regulatory process."

This act has a number of provisions for companies to show their "loyalty to the United States", such as:

• Produce at least 90 percent of its goods and services in the United States.
• Pay its highest-paid manager no more than 10,000 percent more than lowest-paid full-time employee.
• Conduct at least 50 percent of its research and development within the United States.
• Contribute at least 5 percent of its payroll to a portable pension fund for employees.
• Pay at least 70 percent of its employees’ health insurance costs.
• Provide full differential salary and insurance benefits for all National Guard and Reserve employees who are called to active duty.
• Violate no federal workplace regulations, including those relating to the environment, workplace safety, labor relations and consumer protection.

Some of these may sound reasonable, though not all, but the one BIG GOT YA is the provision that requires that a company Maintain a policy of neutrality in employee organizing drives. As Mr. Coffey points out "If management’s voice is silenced before and during a unionization attempt, unions will be able to campaign openly and employees will lose a vital information source that might have provided them with good reasons not to unionize. Without organized opposition, the union win rate approaches 90 percent, as compared with about 65 percent when management is able to present its views." Coffey goes on to warn "Patriot Corporation status may appear to be a compelling tool for growth-oriented corporations looking to gain a marketing advantage. But touting the designation also will make these companies easy targets for union organizers, who will be watching for those that have exchanged their freedom to oppose union organization for Patriot Corporation status. Even if companies are quiet about the designation, unions may be able to secure target lists directly from the Department of Labor if the certification process is public record."

So do not be wooed by the tax savings. What you may save in taxes may cost you in other areas, such as healthcare for employees (Stealth healthcare reform) and in the costs associated with dealing with unions. If you have any doubt what those costs are read the post I referenced above. You may opt to sign on, but at least make an informed decision. For one thing, signing on for this will broadcast to unions that you are an easy target.

 

 

So You Think Compliance Knowledge is not Important in HR... Well

In the ongoing debates in the HR blogsphere on the Death of HR ( Laurie Ruettimann, Mike Van Dervort and mine) there were a number of comments about necessary changes in the field to make it viable or more up-to-date. One of the areas mentioned with some regularity was that HR needed to get out of the compliance arena. Leave that to the lawyers the critics say.

My reaction?   BULLS**T!

To me, where the "rubber meets the road" * in HR is in Employee Relations. The interactions between employees and management. That is where great things get done and where major mistakes get made. And these mistakes center on violations of the laws, accidental or meant, it makes no difference. And because of this, in my opinion, HR people in ER need to know the laws. They have to be compliance people. This is different than attorneys knowing the law. No chapter and verse, court case quoting here. Just what is the law and how does it apply to my company. The practical application of the law. And there is alot of it.

And there is more coming. The Obama administration is trying to make its mark in labor and employment law. They have already passed the Lily Ledbetter Act and four presidential Executive Orders have been passed. AND there are THIRTEEN pieces of legislation pending mid-term. The one with the most press coverage is the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) but there are a dozen more. Here is the list of 2009 Mid-Term Federal Legislation pending. Thanks to the folks at World at Work and blog buddy Eric B. Meyer for the heads up.

* To my non-American readers click the link for a definition of this idiom.

Five Great Reads in Human Resources Blogs This Week

I have done some reading today and I am passing on to you five blogs that I think are important reads. What a great guy I am. (Said blushing... well not really) This is not to say that there are not at least another 100 good blog posts out there to read, there are. But if you read these you will be a bit more educated on some important subjects.

1. First up is Ann Bares at Compensation Cafe. She wrote Managers: The Next Critical Shortage. If you did not have a compelling reason to work on development programs and incentive programs you will now.


2. Secondly is Kris Dunn at The HR Capitalist. He wrote Here's Why Companies That Have Used Card Check In The Past Are Silent These Days... This is an update on the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) and why companies that have used card check in the past are NOT singing its praises. Great info from someone who has been there.


3. Eva Rykr, of iOrgPsych writes about The Case for Analytics in HR. She says analytics is more than just measurement. And in this day and age of making a contribution to the organization (so both it and you survive) this is an essential understanding to have. A KEY HR SKILL.


4. Another KEY HR SKILL is giving presentations. Steve Tobak writes on How to Give a Killer Online Presentation. Well the advice works for in person presentations as well.


5. Lastly, but not the least, Jon Hyman tells a personal story that should be very instructive to people about NOT USING COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL in A short rant, and a lesson in employee appreciation. Jon has his taken and he did not take to it kindly, even though the "thief" thought they were doing him a favor. He even throws in a bit of HR wisdom.

Well there you have it. Great reading, great lessons. As always, keep reading HR Observations and pass it on to your friends and colleagues. And BTW, if you know of organizations that are looking for consulting work in human resources I have a great team put together. (Hey it is the first commercial I have ever done.)

Update on EFCA: SEIU Rejects "Card" Signing: SAY WHAT???

According to an article in the LA Times (SEIU borrows business' anti-union tactics to fend off a rival) the SEIU, the Service Employees International Union, is rejecting exactly what they are supporting in the Employee Free Choice Act. The article states "...the union is urging federal officials to throw out petitions signed by tens of thousands of its own members who have asked to be represented by a rival upstart group." The article goes on to say " In lodging legal challenges to the roughly 80 petitions filed by its fledgling competitor, the SEIU has moved to block organizing elections at hospitals, clinics and nursing homes up and down the state. And it has used some of the same tactics that employers often use to thwart union drives."

Amazingly the SEIU, as the article states "One of the giant union's allegations echoes a key argument that corporate interests make against the proposed law, the Employee Free Choice Act: that labor activists can intimidate or mislead workers during organizing campaigns." Talk about being two-faced! The SEIU has turned to the NLRB and has charged the rival union with unfair labor practices (ULPs) and wants the petitions set aside. Yet Andy Stern, president of the SEIU, says this does not change his stance on EFCA. Sure, not as long as it will work for his benefit. But let it work against him and he is for using current labor law. Sounds like a good argument for not needing EFCA in the first place.

Read the article (link above) to get the full story, especially if you think EFCA is a good thing. This may help you decide otherwise.

A side note: Al Franken will be made the newest Senator next week. This will give the Democrats a philibuster proof majority. This is going to make it much more likely that the EFCA will be passed along with all the other pending legislation mentioned in yesterday's post. Read them and weep.

The First 100 Days of Obama: Fistful of Talent Saved Me An Update

The folks over at Fistful of Talent saved me a legislative update. Follow this link to Tough Love: The First 100 Days of the Obama Administration. It is getting very hard to be an employer these days and it is not going to get any easier. So read and learn and prepare. Or be active and contact legislators to express your opinion on the pending legislation.

Change you can believe in.... well you can believe there will be change and more change. Hang on to your hat the rollercoaster is leaving the platform!

Why Unions Are Bad For Companies, Employees and Customers

If you have ever read my blog you know that I am no fan of unions. They may have had their place in the past but not in today's world. I have mentioned in my blogs on EFCA (Employee Free Choice Act) that unions cost a company. Not just in direct costs, but in indirect costs as well. Slowed work process, lessened productivity, poorer employee relations, and more have been cited as the costs associated with unionism. A study by the Heritage Foundation puts a bit more concreteness to this argument. What Unions Do: How Labor Unions Affect Jobs and the Economy can be read by clicking the title.

This study finds:

• "Unions function as labor cartels. A labor cartel restricts the number of workers in a company or industry to drive up the remaining workers' wages..... Companies pass on those higher wages to consumers through higher prices, and often they also earn lower profits. Economic research finds that unions benefit their members but hurt consumers generally, and especially workers who are denied job opportunities.


• The average union member earns more than the average non-union worker. However, that does not mean that expanding union membership will raise wages: Few workers who join a union today get a pay raise. ....The economy has become more competitive over the past generation. Companies have less power to pass price increases on to consumers without going out of business. Consequently, unions do not negotiate higher wages for many newly organized workers. These days, unions win higher wages for employees only at companies with competitive advantages that allow them to pay higher wages, such as successful research and development (R&D) projects or capital investments.


• Unions effectively tax these investments by negotiating higher wages for their members, thus lowering profits. Unionized companies respond to this union tax by reducing investment. Less investment makes unionized companies less competitive.


• Economists consistently find that unions decrease the number of jobs available in the economy. The vast majority of manufacturing jobs lost over the past three decades have been among union members--non-union manufacturing employment has risen. Research also shows that widespread unionization delays recovery from economic downturns.


• Some unions win higher wages for their members, though many do not. But with these higher wages, unions bring less investment, fewer jobs, higher prices, and smaller 401(k) plans for everyone else.


• Economic theory consequently suggests that unions raise the wages of their members at the cost of lower profits and fewer jobs, that lower profits cause businesses to invest less, and that unions have a smaller effect in competitive markets (where a union cannot obtain a monopoly).


• .....union contracts compress wages: They suppress the wages of more productive workers and raise the wages of the less competent. Unions redistribute wealth between workers. Everyone gets the same seniority-based raise regardless of how much or little he contributes, and this reduces wage inequality in unionized companies... But this increased equality comes at a cost to employers. Often, the best workers will not work under union contracts that put a cap on their wages, so union firms have difficulty attracting and retaining top employees.


• Studies typically find that unionized companies earn profits between 10 percent and 15 percent lower than those of comparable non-union firms."

Much more can be read in this study. If you truly want to know the costs, ALL THE COSTS, that are associated with unions read the article. It talks about how unions have cost GM and the US.

Probably the item I find the most disagreeable is this following statement on individualism. It is why I have never belonged to a union, it goes against how I was raised.

"Final union contracts typically give workers group identities instead of treating them as individuals. Unions do not have the resources to monitor each worker's performance and tailor the contract accordingly. Even if they could, they would not want to do so. Unions want employees to view the union--not their individual achievements--as the source of their economic gains. As a result, union contracts typically base pay and promotions on seniority or detailed union job classifications. Unions rarely allow employers to base pay on individual performance or promote workers on the basis of individual ability."

Just does not suit me.

SEIU Targets Banks: Union Workers Will Reform the Banking Industry

In the Sunday issue of the Atlanta Journal Constitution in the Pro/Con column there was a discussion on unionizing the banking industry. The question was whether or not unionized workers will help improve and reform the banking industry. On the PRO side, Stephen Lerner, Special Assistant to the President, Service Employees International Union (SEIU) claimed "Workers at big banks like Bank of America can play a central role in reforming an industry that puts profits over people and drove our economy into the ground." He went on further to state that to do that "...they need a voice on the job to sound the alarm and repair our economy. These are exactly the kind of workers who benefit from a union, and it is an excellent example of how having a voice on the job can significantly improve the services workers provide..." He finished his argument by saying "By allowing bank workers to form unions, they can unite to create an industry that puts consumers, workers, and our economy ahead of profits." (News flash to Mr. Lerner, profit is important for continued operation. Even a union will go out of business if does not make money in the form of dues.)

Speaking for the CON side was Peter R. Spanos, Labor & Employment Partner, Burr & Forman. He points out that "Fewer than 2 percent of all bank employees nationwide are represented by unions, with most in only about a dozen banks. The SEIU has plans to picket some banks, but their employees are not reaching out for help." He further states "Compensation and benefits run 7-8.5 percent higher at unionized banks, a serious drawback now. Union work rules and grievances could add more operational costs."

There is no doubt that some banks have had trouble. Three banks were closed just this past Friday. However, this is not because of how they treat their workers. It was poor decision making and bad lending practices. Having unionized tellers is not going to change that. In most cases people do not unionize to reform the companies for which they work. They unionize to improve their wages, benefits, working conditions and personal safety. In some cases, such as with nursing, reducing hours may have the effect of improving patient care. However, most banks do not have 24/7 working hours (in fact I don't know any that do).

It is a well documented fact that unionization increases the costs to the company or organization. It is not just the wages and benefits costs, but it is in the restricted operating environment that gets introduced. And we all know that increased costs result in increase prices. With banks that is increased fees on services. Do you really want to pay more for your ATM? Or have a service charge for talking to a teller? I think unionization will result in higher automation and fewer people. But the SEIU has targeted bank tellers, hoping, I am sure, for a passage of EFCA to make union organization easier.

So you can expect at some point to see picket signs in front of your local bank. And the next time you talk to your teller check for the union label.

EFCA Slight of Hand: My Prediction Comes True

About a month or so ago I predicted that the Pro-EFCA crowd would offer some compromise on the bill in order to get it passed. The firestorm of controversy around the secret ballot provision was too much and was making the law defeatable in the Senate. I said that the Pro-EFCAs would compromise on secret ballot because what they really wanted was the second provision of the law, arbitrated contract negotiation. See this March 11th post.

Well it appears my prediction is coming to be. This article in the Cleveland Plain Dealer online version quotes Sen. Sherrod Brown as saying the bill will be rewritten to preserve the secret ballot. No mention is made of the more onerous provision of the law.

Do not be fooled folks. This is slight of hand, the magician's trick of pay attention to this hand while I actually do the trick with the other. Don't let up on your Sentors in telling them this is not good legislation regardless of what happens with the secret ballot.

Compromise, Old Ways and Reform: Why EFCA Is So Important

I know alot of people are tired of the discussions on the Employee Free Choice Act. Laurie Ruettimann of Punk Rock Human Resources is a leader in this respect with her blog post of EFCA: I'm Bored. She says this is a tired discussion and that labor and management both missed an opportunity to come up with a new way of conducting labor relations.

Arlen Spector, the Republican Senator from Pennsylvania and a key vote on EFCA, has publicly announced he will not support the bill, thus eliminating the possibility of a vote of cloture. (Cloture means closure. Here is an explanation of it from the Senate.) In his remarks Specter also suggested that the National Labor Relations Act needed an overall. Michael Moore, at the Pennsylvania Labor & Employment Blog, gives a detailed explanation of Specter's remarks. My reading of this overall actually sounds still too biased in favor of unions and is not much more than another way of institutionalizing EFCA.

I am in agreement with both Ruettimann and Specter. It is time to look at modernizing and revising labor laws passed in the 1930's and 1940's. The world is a much different place now with a much different workforce. However, in order to do that both sides of the table must be interested and UNIONS are not interested in doing that. They see this time and this administration as an opportunity to regain power, using old methods and old tactics that perpetuate old union points of view. Why negotiate a new way of doing things if you think the deck is stacked in your favor? (explanation of that idiom)

That is why it is important to defeat this law! Passage will not bring about a new, even way of doing things. It will bring about a new way of doing the old things and it will be in favor of the unions. And once that is done it will be a long-time before we get reform.

Newest Carnival of HR: A MUST READ for HR Pros

The newest Carnival of HR is at the IC4P Productivity Blog. This version is full of some very interesting blog posts. Full of information about productivity, labor law, leadership, use of social media, engagement and performance management. It is a MUST read of links these great topics on some great blogs. So read up, learn something and be a better HR professional.

EFCA: Biden, Unions and Congress Start "The Dance"

The Employee Free Choice Act, popularily referred to as the "card check" bill was introduced into both houses of Congress on March 10th. Debate has started, but so far support has eroded for the bill in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. The bill’s fate increasingly hinges on Sens. Blanche L. Lincoln (D-Ark.) and Mary L. Landrieu (D-La.) — two wavering moderates who would love to dodge the controversy. But the White House has pulled out the big guns for support. Vice President Joe Biden appeared in front of an executive meeting of the AFL-CIO. He was very vocal in his support of EFCA. According to Politico.com "Vice President Joe Biden wasn’t exactly restrained in remarks to an AFL-CIO gathering in Miami last Thursday, saying, 'You all brought me to the dance a long time ago, and it’s time we start dancing.'"

The bill is significant. According to one study passage of the bill could eliminate over 600,000 jobs. Let me remind you of the provisions of the bill.

1. EFCA would eliminate the secret ballot election that is normally required for your employees to select a union, and replace it with a much less formal "card check" process that is controlled by the union and is secretive, selective, and susceptible to abuse and coercion.
   
2. Even more alarming are provisions in EFCA that would require so-called "interest arbitration" of the first contract once a union gets in. Under these provisions, if the first contract is not negotiated to conclusion between the parties within a relatively short 120-day period, the contract dispute would be referred to an arbitrator who would then determine the contract terms for a two-year period with no right of appeal.

Most of the attention has been focused on the first provision and there has been a backlash against it. Several states are even introducing legislation to preserve secret ballot elections in their states.

However, most labor negotiators that I know and have read about are more concerned with the second provision. Few first time contracts are negotiated in 6 months, much less 120 days. The failure to do so enforces an arbitrator designed contract, one that will not be in the best interest of the company.

I am playing "seer and soothesayer" and making a prediction. I predict we will see an attempt to "compromise" on the "card check" provision to make EFCA more palatable to the public while maintaining the more harmful "interest arbitration" provision.

I have written my Congressional representatives, both House and Senate, and expressed my opinion. I suggest you do the same. Guess we will have to see if President Obama is waiting to tap Joe Biden and cut in to dance with the AFL-CIO on this one. New Labor Secretary Hilda Solis has already been at the dance and has been filling in her dance card too.

Apparently Executive Order Means Union Friendly

In his less than one month in office President Obama has had his Executive Order pen working overtime, especially when it comes to pro-union EOs. On January 30th he signed three pro-union orders and then signed more on February 6th. These include:

• An executive order that requires employers with federal contracts above $100,000 in value to post a notice in the workplace informing their employees of their rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), including the right to join a union. This repealed "Beck" orders that President Bush has put in place.


• A second order applies to federal contractors who provide services to government buildings. Under this new executive order, when a federal agency changes contractors, the new contractor will be required to offer jobs to the non-supervisory employees of its predecessor. This order is designed to try to ensure that when a unionized contractor is replaced, its successor will be obliged under existing labor laws to bargain with the original contractor’s labor union.


• A third order prevents federal contractors from being reimbursed in federal funds for money spent to oppose (or support) union organizing efforts among their employees.


• A fourth executive order, dealing with what are called Project Labor Agreements, requires basically that all covered contractors with contracts of $25 million or more for federal construction contracts (defined as work involving construction, rehabilitation, alteration, conversion, extension, repair or improvement of builds, highways or other real property) use union labor.

All these orders are effective immediately.

So there you have it. Making sure the unions get some payback. And you thought it was all going to be through EFCA and RESPECT. I am suprised the ARRA ("stimulus bill" for you uninformed) does not require that everyone that is going to get a tax cut, tax break, unemployment, workers' comp or any other assistance or money become a union member. MMM.. maybe I should not speak too soon, afterall has anyone really had time to read the 1000+ pages???

Career Opportunity for HR in the EFCA

Here is a great blog post by Alan Collins on the HR opportunity in the Employee Free Choice Act. I could not have written this any better (or for that matter even as well as). It is a discussion about the four opportunities for HR. Read it and learn.

On an information level visit LaborPains.org , scroll down and watch the video. Then scroll down and read the list of "notables" that are against the EFCA. Very informative blog.