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

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....