The Clock Is Ticking: NLRB Speeds On Decisions

A newsletter I received today from the law firm of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., was entitled NLRB Issues Numerous Controversial Anti-Business Decisions. The newsletter detailed a number of decisions that the current board has quickly made. According to the authors "In one day, August 27, the current NLRB majority, consisting of Chairman Wilma Liebman and Board Members Mark Pearce and Craig Becker, issued over 30 major decisions..."


The newsletter further states "...there are many that, under questionable and closely contested facts, expand interpretations of 'protected concerted activity.' The result is a clear pattern where the Board exercises increased scrutiny of employer conduct when a union loses a representation election."

One of the reasons they are rushing through these decisions is that Craig Becker, former Chief Counsel for the SEIU, is a recess appointment. You can read more on him here An Union Update: Craig Becker and the NLRB. But what that means is that they are rushing through as many decisions as possible before his term is up at the end of the year. They know he will not be in that position come January, and will have not chance of getting reappointed, since he could not get confirmed by the Senate this year. With the changes likely to happen in the mid-term election his chances will become "slim to none" with the emphasis on the "none."

So in the meantime they are cranking out as many "union friendly" decisions as possible. Well here, let me make it easy and offer them this form they can use.

This will make their job just a bit easier.

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?

Unions and Republicans: Both Unhappy With Healthcare Bill

There is an old saying that politics makes for strange bedfellows. (Click for an explanation of the idiom.) And it looks like 2010 is going to make for some weirdness in Washington (even more than usual.) Everyone knows that Republicans are unhappy with both versions of the Healthcare bill being promoted by the Obama administration. One of the versions proposes to pay for healthcare by taxing what the President calls "cadillac plans." This was meant to appeal to the "masses" because it implied taxing the rich. Well it turns out that many labor union members have "cadillac" healthcare plans and they are really upset with the current state of the healthcare bill.

They are so upset that they went to see the President Monday night to not only express their dismay but to threaten that many Democrats may lose their jobs in the next election if changes are not made. (Anyone surprised that union leaders resort to threats?) In an AP article, Labor angry over Obama-backed insurance tax, reporter Erica Werner says "The president of the AFL-CIO, Richard Trumka, warned that Democrats risk catastrophic election defeats similar to 1994 if they fail to come up with a health bill labor likes." She goes on further to report "The head of the International Association of Firefighters, Harold A. Schaitberger, made similarly threatening remarks in a statement Monday. 'The president's support for the excise tax is a huge disappointment and cannot be ignored. If President Obama continues to support it and signs a bill that includes the excise tax on workers, we will hold him accountable,' said Schaitberger, who was not among the attendees at the White House meeting."

So here we have a strange beginning to 2010 and the renewed debate on healthcare, labor unions and Republicans working together to get it changed. Who would have guessed it is the union workers who have the "rich" benefit plans that the Democrats railed against. OOPS!

This one will be interesting to watch.

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.

Employee Attitude or Management Attitude? Or Both?

Kris Dunn's great riff on customer service attitude at Enterprise Rent-a-Car reminded me of a topic I was going to post on a couple of weeks ago. Cathy Martin, writer of Profitability Through Human Capital, and I were talking about grocery shopping. We both shop at Kroger and Publix. Both are fine companies and I have shopped at both. Currently I spend most of my grocery shopping time at Publix with occassional trips to Kroger for special items. It used to be the reverse. I tell you this so you can tell that I have had a lot of time to compare the two stores.

To me there is a palpable difference in "attitude" of the workers, primarily the cashiers and baggers. At Publix everyone I have encountered is friendly, sometimes chatty, always nice. The baggers almost always offer to carry your bags out to the car (lest you think this is for money they do NOT receive tips for this.) They are efficient as well, and in a few cases run to exchange items for you if you did not get the right item. I have never heard them complain about their work schedules or even talk about when they are getting off.

At the Kroger I did my primary shopping at the case was not the same. They were friendly enough when I spoke to them, as I am want to do, but most the times they did not speak first. And in some instances I got nothing but "bad news" when I asked how they were that day. I have heard numerous conversations about when shifts ended and how ready people were to get off work. And I have never heard anyone offer to carry groceries out to a car. Now I am not saying these people were bad employees or the store was a bad store. I have had similar experiences in multiple stores.

The difference seems to be the "ATTITUDE". What can I attribute this to? I feel that the difference is tied to the following: Publix is employee owned and non-union. Kroger is heavily unionized, though not all locations I believe, and employees are just employees. Publix managers treat workers like fellow owners and realize that mistreatment may make them susceptible to unions, something Publix ardently tries to avoid. Kroger managers treat employees like employees and much of that interaction and training is tied up in the fact that the union-management relationship is an adversarial one. If you are trained to see your employee as an adversary that will certainly have an effect on the relationship and thus the attitude of the employee. On the converse holds too. Publix employees have a personal stake in the company's success. For many Kroger employees it just comes across as "a job."

I realize I am "broad brushing" here and we can probably all find examples that run contrary to my statements here, but as a general statement others agree with this assessment.

So what do you think it is? The attitudes of the employees, or the managers or a combination?

Do you feel the same thing? Do your customers feel this when they walk into your establishment?

Tell me your experiences or similar stories of other establishments.

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.

And You Would Belong to the Union Why?

This got some play on a radio show yesterday, so I thought I would mention it again. The SEIU, the Service Employees International Union, is being struck by the union that has organized the workers of the SEIU. Say what?? Yes, that is true. the Union of Union Representatives has filed unfair labor practice charges against the SEIU, according to the Washington Post article, which said "The workers union's leaders say that the SEIU is engaging in the same kind of practices that some businesses use: laying off workers without proper notice, contracting out work to temporary-staffing firms, banning union activities and reclassifying workers to reduce union numbers." The quoted a union official ""It's completely hypocritical," said Malcolm Harris, president of the workers union. "This is the union that's been at the forefront of progressive issues, around ensuring that working people and working families are taken care of, but when it comes to the people that work for SEIU, they haven't set the same standards."

The article further quoted Harris saying "... his union's understanding is that the layoffs are the result of budget troubles faced by the SEIU, which, on top of the California dispute, spent $80 million during the 2008 election and is planning to spend tens of millions more to advocate on behalf of Obama's health-care plan and card check." The article also mentioned that "Fewer than half of the workers at SEIU chapters are unionized, and Harris's union's contract with SEIU forbids it from trying to help organize SEIU employees in local chapters."

My first question is, if the SEIU is so great why is it necessary to have their workers represented by another union?? My next question is, why would anyone want to be represented by a union who mistreats its own workers? The SEIU seems to be more about making Andy Stern a powerful man as opposed to making things better for workers. He is on a power grab, waging war on other unions. But it seems that his "better world" may be falling apart on him. Some of the unions that broke away from the AFL-CIO following the SEIU have gone back or are considering so. Regardless, any company being organized by the SEIU certainly needs to use this example of how the SEIU treats its own workers as a picture of what the world really looks like.

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???

Andy Sterns: Business' Biggest Enemy?

Andy Sterns is the president of the SEIU, Service Employees International Union, an AFL-CIO breakaway and the fast growing union organization in the United States. He is also one of the biggest threats to American businesses. In an interview in the Wall Street Journal in December called Let's 'Share the Wealth' : America's most powerful union boss says Europe offers a good economic model Sterns makes it no secret that he feels unions got Obama elected and he intends to hold Obama's feet to the fire. "Mr. Stern sets this simple bar for the Obama presidency: "I expect nothing less than what he said he was going to do, and we should hold him accountable."

And Stern seems to have Obama's ear. Stern recommended Rep. Hilda Solis as a nominee for Labor Secretary (see yesterday's blog post) and was on the inauguration stand right beside the new President as he was sworn in. Stern is obviously a big proponent of the Employee Free Choice Act. So he will be bringing a great deal of pressure to bear on Congress and the Obama administration to get it passed. After all $450 million buys alot of favors.

Stern is not your stereotypical leader. He is highly educated and articulate. He has never held a blue collar job and had been trained in union tactics by a reputed socialist organization. He has been able to team with WalMart, a hated enemy, to argue for universal healthcare (see my post from Feb. 08, 2007 called Strange Bedfellows.)

However, he is not without his warts. There are union members in California who feel that he has run roughshod over their rights and many union leaders are unhappy with his strong-arm tactics against unions he wants possession of. See SEIU President Andy Stern is a threat to labor soul published at NYDailynews.com.

So do not take this man lightly. He is out to get business. And other unions. And, by the way, politicians if they do not do what he wants. The WSJ had this fact and quote. "The bit about accountability is no idle warning. Organized labor put up some $450 million to get Democrats elected. The SEIU accounted for $85 million of that, making Mr. Stern's union the single biggest contributor to either party in this election cycle. And just in case, the SEIU set aside an additional $10 million fund to get people unelected if need be. "We would like to make sure people appreciate that we take them at their word and when they don't live up to their word there should be consequences," he says."

Pitching In When Times Are Tough: OOPS!

One of the things I love about the the good ol' US of A is that, as a whole, we are a generous people. Individually we give ALOT of money to charities that help people across the nation and across the world. And of course the government is very generous with our money, helping countless causes around the world, supplying disaster relief, providing money to governments and charities to make up for the shortfall. This is something the US should be proud of doing. So it goes to figure that when our own country starts to suffer some we pitch in. We send money to areas hit by hurricanes. The government, with our money, bails out the banks. Which is ok, it will be good in the long run. We conserve fuel and start taking public transportation. So everyone pitches in to help make keep the economy whole and get things turned around. Right?

Well wait a minute. Not everyone! How can this be you ask? Aren't we all patriots? Apparently not the 27,000 Boeing machinists, who have gone out on strike. This is a strike which will cost the company $100 million a day according to a Reuter's news story. Additionally it has already had a global impact, depressing some stocks and raising the value of Airbus. In Seattle the local economy will be hit hard, given that is where the machinists are located. The machinists are even angry at their own union for trying to delay the strike in order to reach agreement with Boeing. So they have gone on strike and the effect is being felt worldwide.

The issue is apparently not money (hmmm, really?), it is about subcontracting and outsourcing. It is that Global Economy thing. Well, we will see how this turns out. Here is an Associated Press story which has a more complete detailing of the issues and demands.

You will note that the major issue in this article is money. They wanted more than the 11% increase that was offered. (I think most of us would be pretty happy with an 11% increase.)Given that the average wage for machinists is $56,000 a year before overtime and benefits that raise would have been $6000+. If my calculator is correct that is $162,000,000 in additional wages. It is no wonder Boeing has to outsource or subcontract work.

Anyway, read the articles. You decide if the machinists are helping or hurting our tough economy. USA, USA, USA

(Photo credit: Robert Sorbo/Reuter)

Employee Free Choice Act AGAIN: If You Are Not Scared Now You Should Be!

There has been some increased exposure to the Employee Free Choice Act (note: bill proposers are good at calling something it isn't. Paycheck Fairness is the same way) because WalMart made the news talking to employees about it. The Wall Street Journal wrote about it (see here) and I have exerpted this paragraph that puts it in a nutshell for HR managers and businesses.

"The bill was crafted by labor as a response to more aggressive opposition by companies to union-organizing activity. The AFL-CIO and individual unions such as the United Food and Commercial Workers have promised to make passage of the new labor law their No. 1 mission after the November election.........Both supporters and opponents of the Employee Free Choice Act believe it would simplify and speed labor's ability to unionize companies. Currently, companies can demand a secret-ballot election to determine union representation. Those elections often are preceded by months of strident employer and union campaigns.

Under the proposed legislation, companies could no longer have the right to insist on one secret ballot. Instead, the Free Choice, or "card check," legislation would let unions form if more than 50% of workers simply sign a card saying they want to join. It is far easier for unions to get workers to sign cards because the organizers can approach workers repeatedly, over a period of weeks or months, until the union garners enough support."

If you are in HR or run a business and that doesn't scare you, then you need a wake-up call.

Advice for Non-Union Employers: Follow Or Rue the Day!

I have posted a number of times on the Employee Free Choice Act (NOT!) so you may be getting tired of it. Well you shouldn't! If you are non-union you are in great peril of being union if this law passes. Here is some advice (and additional information) from the Pennsylvania Labor and Employment Blog.

If you are already unionized you can skip this one otherwise you had better read up.

Mixing Beer Companies Brews Trouble

The Wall Street Journal did an analysis of the rumored purchase of Anheuser-Busch, by Brazilian/Belgian owned InBev. Some of the analysis dealt with the financial and marketing aspects of the deal, but much of it talked about the Human Resources issues that surround the deal. These include:

• Anheuser is heavily unionized and InBev has been very tough with European unions, facing strikes and protests in Belgium and Newfoundland. In fact in Newfoundland InBev hired a hard-nosed security company to keep the union under control. (Harkens back to the days of the railroads and the Pinkertons.)


• InBev is very harsh on non-performing employees, subjecting them to what as been described as isolated cases of moral harassment.


• InBev has what is called a "high octane" culture, meaning very "rah, rah". Low costs, high incentives. This does not match the much more traditional culture at A-B.


• InBev has a tendency to replace management with Brazlians.

A-B has responded coolly to the interest by InBev and naturally, the unions representing the workers are not happy with the idea at all.

It is well known that many mergers and aquisitions fail, not for financial reasons, but for people reasons. Does this one make financial sense? Absolutely, InBev has an operating margin of 27% while A-B's is 17%. But the people issues maybe difficult to overcome.

Another key to this may be the reaction of the American public. Messing with the clydesdales is downright UN-American. To me it would be like selling the White House. And with the political landscape poised to become the domain of union-friendly Democrats there might be some trouble in Congress and the White House with this one.

But if this occurs this will be one to watch. Will it succeed? Or will it become another Harvard Business School case study of one more M & A sunk do to people reasons?

Update on Crummy Tactics

After I wrote yesterday's post about the picketers outside my window I came across this article entitled Carpenters Union Hires Stand-Ins for Picket Lines. There was a good reason all these picketers look like homeless people, they are! They go by, pick them up, pay them $8 per hour then drop them off again.

Pretty low-life way of conducting a labor dispute. How do hardworking carpenters feel about being represented in that manner? I would not be too happy if I were one.

Cornucopia of HR Topics: The Carnival of HR

The Carnival of HR is a collection of recent posts in a wide range of HR related blogs. It is an excellent resource and a quick way to find a current read on current subjects. Check it out at the Career Encouragement Blog of Peggy Andrews. The subjects this go-around include Why HR Stinks, Talent discussions, the softer side of employment law, generational differences, unions, enthusiasm, leadership and much, much more. You are cheating yourself if you do not take advantage of these great reads.

So Much for Free Choice: Unions and Secret Pacts With Employers

I have written several times, as have other bloggers, about the so-called Employee Free Choice Act, an attempt at legislation that will take away the right for employees to select, by secret ballot, whether or not they wish to be represented by a union. Well here is another tactic by the unions to erode that right even further. On the front page of the weekend edition of the Wall Street Journal the following headline "Unions Forge Secret Pacts With Major Employers". The first paragraph of the article reads "Two of the nation's largest labor unions have struck confidential agreements with large employers that give the companies the right to designate which of their locations, and how many workers, the unions can seek to organize."

The unions are the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), (the AFL-CIO breakaway) and Unite Here. The employers are Sodexho, Inc. and Compass Group USA. The agreements go beyond neutrality agreements (organizing attempts that the employers do not dispute) and there is a selection process between the company and the union on which locations can organize and which cannot. Thus, the unions and the employers decide who has the right to belong to the union and not the employees themselves. These agreements have been criticized and the question has been asked what the trade-off is. Well the trade-off is that the unions get to increase their membership without dispute and the companies get the unions to agree to not strike. Sounds good? Maybe for the unions, maybe for the employer, but not for the employee! The employees do not get to decide if they want to organize, they do not get to have a say by secret ballot, and if they are organized they cannot strike if they so desire.

Makes you wonder whose side the union is on doesn't it? Well I have always said that a union today is just a business and they make their money off of dues. If they can increase their membership and hence their revenue by making secret deals they will do so even if it does not benefit the employees. The businesses who are entering into these agreements are probably trying to limit their damages, thinking they would probably have been organized at sometime anyway (which means they probably deserve a union). So they get to pick who gets oranized and who doesn't. But they are not thinking in the best interests of their employees either.

So the unions gain, the companies gain and the employees lose. What a great system.

Sign of the Times? Union Activity Rising?

As the U.S. economy slides employees feel the pressure on their pocketbook. So what do they do about it. They cut corners, they reduce the "extra" spending. But eventually they start looking for more money. One way of doing that is looking for a different job, though that may be problematic and a bit unsettling for many. A second way for getting more money is to try to get it from their current employer. They look for bigger raises or they look for "cost of living" increases. Ann Bares, in Compensation Force warns against this with the statement "Experts warn (and I would second this warning) of the pitfalls associated with simply increasing base pay (in the form of a "cost of living" increase) to address these rising costs. What happens if gas prices continue to increase indefinitely, and you've set a precedent for covering the cost? And why increase pay to address fuel costs but not rising healthcare expenses? Again, potentially dangerous and slippery territory to step into." She offers some alternatives to COLAs so read her article.

Another way employees may try to get more money is to seek third party representation. And unions are selling it. Rising prices, job cuts, fear and a union friendly Congress are all leading to what may be an uptick in union activity. Atlanta, Georgia (where I work) has not exactly been a hotbed of union activity in the past. But union radio ads have been on the rise, and just last week in one day I saw two union picket lines where wages seemed to be the issue.

So beware! Be on your guard. Pay attention to signs of union activity in your workplace. Unless of course you want a union. I believe that as the economy worsens this activity will increase. And if we end up with a Democrat administration we will likely see union friendly legislation passed (See my previous post on the Employee Free Choice Act and Kris Dunn's post When "The Sopranos" Force an Employee To Sign a Union Card...) which will facilitate union organization. Clean up your "house", train your supervisors, put them on guard about accepting any union cards, otherwise you will get something you don't want. There is a big cost associated with unions (look at the auto companies.. are they doing well right now?) and in tough economic times do you want any more costs to handle?

Unions and Democrats: Bad News for Companies in 2009

According to an article in Kiplinger's online newsletter organized is preparing to spend enormous amounts of money on the presidental, congressional and other campaigns this election year. According to the article "Organized labor will empty its huge war chest in the coming months in a bid to elect pro-worker candidates to the White House, Congress and state and local offices. The AFL-CIO has approved a record political budget of $53 million, and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) has budgeted $70 million." They will be spending twice the amount that business is spending in an effort to get as many Democrats elected as possible. And they are coordinating the efforts to avoid redundancy in the campaign.

The reason they are doing this is that a Democrat controlled White House, Congress and State Houses will be much more friendly to union favorable legislation. This is important to them as they try to regain their strength from a long period of losing membership.

One area they are in particular trying to be influential is in the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act. The article states "The top legislative priority for unions next year is to pass the Employee Free Choice Act, which would require employers to recognize a union after a majority of workers sign pro-union cards. Union organizers stress that putting a Democrat in the White House and increasing the clout of Democrats on Capitol Hill would vastly improve the bill's chances. Passage of the bill would greatly boost unions' organizing efforts, helping to replenish their ranks." Additionally, "Other legislation on labor's agenda includes paid family leave and a reworking of job definitions to make more positions eligible for union membership."

Please pay attention to the two highlighted areas above. The so-called Employee Free Choice Act is anything but. It takes AWAY an employee's ability to choose, in an intimidation free setting, whether or not they wish to be represented by a union after they have had an opportunity to hear the pros and cons of union representation. EFCA allows for a union to get employees to sign cards, often in an intimidating setting, and then forcing the employer to recognize and negotiate with the union without a secret ballot election ever being held. This law is not about employee choice! It is about the second highlighted area. It is about unions making things easier for them to replenish their depleting ranks!

If it passes, due to a Democrat controlled administration, it will be bad news for employers and business in general. So pay attention to the election, pay attention to union activity, pay attention to what employees are saying.

Secret Ballot As a Foundation to Freedom: Not to Unions!

Kudos to Kris Dunn of the HR Capitalist for reminding us about the so-called Employee Free Choice Act. (Click the link for a Wikipedia explanation.) While currently idling in Congress waiting for the November elections to take place, this insidious piece of legislation will be raised again, probably next year. To read a better analysis of this go to the Employee Free Choice Act Blog.

The title of the legislation is totally bogus. In fact the EFCA seeks to take away any concept of free choice by requiring employees to make a public declaration of their support, or lack there of, and sign a card or petition for union representation. Up to now employees have been allowed to sign (or not) and then, after a campaign by both sides, decide by secret ballet whether they wanted a union or not. The EFCA seeks to take that away and give employees no opportunity to hear the merits (or lack of) union membership and then decide in a private way to vote for or against. Having to decide openly in a public forum opens the process to the use of intimidation or coersion. And for those of you that don't think unions do that anymore watch the following video.




So watch this legislation carefully.

Look Out! Here Comes Unionism.

If you thought unions have gone the way of the dinosaurs don't look now but here they come. They have been in the news in the US quite a bit the last month or so. First the UAW dealing with the auto companies. Then the writers in Hollywood. And now home-based child care workers. Yes, that is right HOME-BASED child care workers. In New York City these workers are joining the powerful New York City chapter of the American Federation of Teachers. They are looking for more money and, in particular, health benefits and retirement benefits.

An article on MSNBC, entitled Writers a rarity- A union with power argues that the writers may be one of the most powerful unions in the country because they deal in intellectual capital. And the home-based child care workers may have a similar claim. The trend seems to be less power for unions that have workers that make things and more power for unions that have workers that work on brain power.

With the prospect of a Democratic administration starting in 2009 unions stand to gain even more power. Legislation is already floating that will take away secret ballot elections, opening up the prospect of the intimidation factor in union elections. Changes in the make up of the NLRB may also bring about more union friendly decisions. And just a Congress and Administration controlled by the labor friendly Democratic party bodes well for union friendly legislation.

So hold on to your HR hat (the one of many you wear) and be alert for union activity. Get those supervisors trained now.