If Labor Law is so Unfair, Why Then....

It is no secret that for the past two years Labor has been working to get the Obama administration to change the playing field of organization in favor of unions. The legislative arena has not been so successful for them with but the rules changes put in place by the National Labor Relations Act and the actions of the US Department of Labor may yet have an impact by making it easier for unions to organize workers.

The reason they have been doing this is that union membership is at much lower levels than they would like to see them. They have made the argument that the laws are unfair and biased toward management. These labor laws, which consist of the National Labor Relations Act, the Labor-Management Relations Act and the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act were passed in 1935, 1947 and 1959 respectively. So, to echo my title, if labor law is so unfair, why then was union membership at its peak in the 1950's, with nearly 1/3 of the private sector workforce belonging to unions? The same laws were in effect then as now. Nothing has changed in the legislation. So why today is union membership in the private sector down to less than 8%? The laws have not gotten suddenly "unfair", they are the same as they have always been. So what has changed?

The reasons union membership is at such a low level are many. Here are some of them:

• In the 1950s many unions became associated and controlled by organized crime. That association remained quite a long while and that left a very disagreeable taste in people's mouths.
• The nature of work changed. The United States shifted away from the long time stronghold of unionism, manufacturing, to more white collar information/knowledge based jobs. These workers did not see themselves as fitting into "blue collar" unions.
• Management changed. To avoid the costs associated with unions, management became more aware, astute and employee friendly. Management philosophies of engagement, fair treatment, transparency, and pay for performance, among others, took away the need for union representation in many people's eyes.
• Workers became more educated and did not see themselves being associated with blue collar organization. (Hold this thought, because that is not the case anymore.)
• We ran through the dot.com bubble, which produce a large population of people who became entreprenurial and did not embrace union "collective" philosophies.
• Union organizers did not keep up with the times. They held onto techniques and philosophies that became dated and quit working. They embraced, and still do, "classism" which did not appeal to larger and larger segments of the population.

There have been some major changes in the face of unions in the last couple of decades. The type of employee that is unionized has shifted from private sector to public sector. Today over 50% of unionized employees work for some government segment. Federal, state and local employees make up the bulk of unionized workers, especially in northern tier and western states. California has become much more heavily unionized in recent years. From a report from UCLA we get this statement "Fueling the nationwide increase was the recent growth in unionization in California, which currently accounts for 16 percent of all the nation's union members, more than any other state. California's unionization rate in 2008 is 17.8 percent, up from 16.7 percent in 2007 and 15.7 percent in 2006." (Perhaps this may explain the State of California's budgetary crisis and why businesses are abandoning the state.) The educational level of union workers has also been increasing as a result of the government unionization, especially in the unionization of school teachers.

And why is it that government unionization has risen? In my opinion government is an easier target because politicians are swayed by the vote. A politician's job depends on his/her voters and if there is a large, bused-in turn out at the polls, or at least the threat of a heavily unionized turnout in the next election, politicians may be swayed to vote to make things easier for unions. Unions have contributed, and continue to contribute, hundreds of millions of dollars to influence elections at all levels. They expect payback. On the national level they have not gotten it legislatively, but they have gotten it by getting union officials appointed to key positions, such as Craig Becker on the NLR Board.

They need this influence because they have been unsuccessful on their own. The rules of the game have not changed. The laws are still the laws. It is just their game plan did not succeed and managment's game plan did. And now that they can't win anymore they want the rules changed. Unfortunately the referree (government) is going along with them and fixing the game.

If you don't believe me, pay attention to what the NLRB has done, or is racing to do.  You can keep up on this information by going to LaborUnionReport.com

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.

"Victims" Make Good Union Targets

I am currently reading a book by my favorite consulting guru Alan Weiss of Summit Consulting. The book is called Thrive!. It deals with taking control of your life and thriving as a result. I will write more on this later when I do a book review. But one of the things he said in one chapter dealt with the victimhood. Some people embrace being a victim. In HR we all have known someone like this. "Stuff" always happens to them. They are never at fault. Someone was out to get them; the boss did not understand them; someone stabbed them in the back, etc. There is always a "THEM."

This got me to thinking that unions thrive on the culture of victimhood. For a union to gain a toehold in a business they need to find, or need to create, a victim inside the workplace. And of course the "them" is always management. As a "victim" worker, management could always be paying you more, or offering you better benefits, or more security. And unions are more than willing to point out your "victim" status. Unfortunately today there is plenty of fodder for the union propaganda machines. Companies have been laying off, cutting wages, and regrettably taking advantage of some of their workers.

So how do you keep your company from feeding the propaganda machine? Here are some suggestions:

• Communication- the more employees know about the company situation the less the rumor mill works
• Fairness- I am all for people making as much money as they can, but if you are furloughing your teachers you don't give your superindendent a $20,000 increase. You don't give your CEO a $1 million bonus when your are closing three plants. You get my point.
• More communication- listen to your workers. Enlist their input on what can be done.
• More Fairness- spread the pain to minimize the pain. There may not be any raises this year if we can avoid laying anyone off.
• Don't do stupid things- Don't fire someone for a bogus reason. Be honest.
• Don't let stupid things be done to you- Don't let employees take advantage of a situation. It undermines everyone else's morale.

I am sure there are many more, so suggest some. It just dawned on me that this list could apply to employee retention too. Makes sense, not all "victims" are willing to stick around.

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.

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.