Union Hypocrisy 101: Do as AFSCME Bosses Say, Not as They Do


First some background:

  1. Union bosses have spent HUNDREDS of MILLIONS (dare we say over a billion?) of dollars over these past few years trying to get the hallucinogencially-named Employee Free Choice Act enacted.
  2. One of the hallmark provisions of EFCA is what is known as “card-check.” Card-check means that if 50%+1 of a given unit of employees sign union authorization cards, the union wins without a secret-ballot election.
  3. Union bosses have misled, they have rallied, they have retaliated against those who do not agree, and they have threatened to “unelect” politicians who do not fall lock step with their agenda.
  4. Again, the Employee Free FORCED Choice Act has been union bosses’ number one legislative goal for several years…their TOP legislative goal…

Given the above, one would think that a union boss would be happy thrilled to hear that his own union’s  workers signed union authorization cards and want to unionize…right? Further, one would think that said union boss would readily recognize his workers’ union using the card check method…right? After all, the ends do justify the means and with all the money that has been spent, the politicians that have been bought, the lies that have been told, card-check is good…right?

Well, check out this little story of union hypocrisy, courtesy of Philadelphia AFSCME boss Henry Nicholas:

In about a month, 20 secretaries, clerks, and administrators - all employees of one of the city’s most storied unions - will participate in a National Labor Relations Board election to decide whether they want to be represented by a union themselves.

Ironically, their employer, longtime labor leader Henry Nicholas, declined to recognize the bargaining unit when he was presented with signed petition cards from a majority of the workers.

Nicholas is a staunch supporter of a proposed federal law known as “card check,” which would allow unions to organize workplaces without a separate election if a majority of workers sign cards requesting representation.

The Labor Relations Board has scheduled an April 2 election for the employees of District 1199C of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME).

Organizer John Hundzynski said “all the employees” in the office signed cards, declining to comment further. Hundzynski is a union organizer for District 1199C, usually trying to sign up nurses and other health-care workers. The Philadelphia union has 11,000 members, according to the U.S. Department of Labor.

Before Hundzynski asked Nicholas to recognize the union based on the signed cards, Hundzynski “had already asked for an election,” said Nicholas, who heads District 1199C.

“I’m not going to campaign against him. I’m not going to give out handbills. I’m not going to hold meetings,” Nicholas said. “If he wins, I’m ready to bargain expeditiously.”

Nicholas said the two disagreed Friday over whether the union’s bookkeeper should be included in the proposed bargaining unit.

When Hundzynski lost that battle, Nicholas said, he countered by proposing the card-check provision and threatened to go public if Nicholas did not agree. [Emphasis added.]

Read the rest here

Well, Henry, now it’s public and now we know, you’re just another union hypocrite.

Card-check for thee, but not me…Right, Henry?

—————————

“I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as ABC, hold up truth to your eyes.” Thomas Paine, December 23, 1776

Follow LaborUnionReport on Twitter.

For more news and views on today’s unions, go to   LaborUnionReport.com.

Cross-posted.


Meeting at Disneyworld, AFL-CIO bosses still goofy for card-check


As the AFL-CIO Executive Council meets in Orlando this week, the Workforce Fairness Institute put this great video out.

For more on the job-destroying and hallucinogenically-named Employee Free FORCED Choice Act, go here.
—————————

“I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as ABC, hold up truth to your eyes.” Thomas Paine, December 23, 1776

Follow LaborUnionReport on Twitter.

For more news and views on today’s unions, go to LaborUnionReport.com.

Cross-posted.


Labor Secretary Hilda Solis Politicizes Office, Calls for Congress to Act on Job-Destroying EFCA


President Obama’s Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis just issued a press release this morning regarding the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Annual Union Membership Report.  While a press release from a government bureaucrat (regardless of party) wouldn’t ordinarily draw our attention, the blatant political homage paid to Solis’ old union cronies as well as the nakedly partisan call for the hallucinogencially-named Employee Free FORCED Choice Act (EFCA) is astonishing. 

The job-destroying and delusionally-dubbed Employee Free Choice Act is the union bosses’ dream which has been further put into jeopardy this week with the election of Scott Brown to the Senate.

In sum, EFCA does three things:

  1. It effectively removes the right of workers to vote by secret-ballot on the question of unionization, replacing the decades-old secret-ballot process for “majority sign-up”
  2. It give a federally-appointed arbitrator the right to impose a contract on workers and their employers, which is an extraordinary and unprecedented intrusion of the government into the private sector.
  3. It imposes unrealistic monetary penalties on employers (including small businesses) whom the union-controlled National Labor Relations Board rule has committed Unfair Labor Practices.

For more background on EFCA, go here.

Given that one of Secretary Solis’ previous positions while she was in Congress was on the board of the union-funded lobbying group American Rights at Work (a potential conflict noted by the Weekly Standard last year), Ms. Solis’ union loyalties are unquestionable.  However, to use the power of her office in such a brash display of union payback is appallingly lacking in tact and beneath the office which she holds.

Here’s the text of the release [with emphasis added]:

“Today, the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced that, in 2009, the unionization rate of employed wage and salary workers was 12.3 percent, in essence unchanged from the 12.4 percent rate in 2008. Among private sector employees, the rate dropped to 7.2 percent from 7.6 percent in 2008.

“The data also show the median usual weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary union members were $908 per week, compared to $710 for workers not represented by unions. Union members earn 28 percent more than their non-union counterparts.

“When coupled with data showing that union members have access to better health care, retirement and leave benefits, these numbers make it clear that union jobs are good jobs.

“As workers across the country have seen their real and nominal wages decline as a result of the recession, these numbers show a need for Congress to pass legislation to level the playing field to enable more American workers to access the benefits of union membership. This report makes clear why the administration supports the Employee Free Choice Act.

Of course, Ms. Solis and her union comrades completely ignore the fact that unions have destroyed millions of other jobs in industries like the American auto, steel, textile, trucking and other industries.
 
Delusional.
——————————————
“I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as ABC, hold up truth to your eyes.” Thomas Paine, December 23, 1776
 
Follow LaborUnionReport on Twitter.


Brown Leads: Union Bosses’ Reign of Error May Suffer Fatal Blow Next Tuesday


Unions and their de-facto labor party political puppets [read: Democrats] are freaking out right now!  They know that their Reign of Error may come to a crashing halt next Tuesday.

The Senate Special Election in Massachusetts next Tuesday is not going their way and, while the AFL-CIO sends its shock troops and the SEIU’s attack ads and purple shirts flood the Bay state, GOP candidate Scott Brown’s momentum seems to be gaining over his opponent Martha Coakley with Brown now leading Coakley  Even in her own polling, Martha Coakley’s “bottom has fallen out.”

“I have heard that in the last two days the bottom has fallen out of her poll numbers,” says one well-connected Democratic strategist. In her own polling, Coakley is said to be around five points behind Republican Scott Brown. “If she’s not six or eight ahead going into the election, all the intensity is on the other side in terms of turnout,” the Democrat says. “So right now, she is destined to lose.”

According to a Suffolk University poll, Brown is up by 4%.

How quickly has this race turned around?

In November, Coakley was beating Brown by 31 percentage points. Now, Brown is up by 4% — a change of 35% in two months.

How important is this election to the nation?

Well, as one newscaster stated: “If Scott Brown wins next Tuesday…he will change the world of politics as we know it.” This is what has union bosses so scared.

Unions have spent over a billion dollars electing a party that would be beholden to their “special” interests (as evidenced by the sweetheart deal union bosses got from Democrats on the “Cadillac tax” earlier this week).

Union expenditures in 2006 and 2008 were purposeful and with two primary (and many secondary) goals in mind:

First and foremost, union bosses have been running a deceptive campaign to get the job-destroying and hallucinogenically-named Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) made into law. As EFCA effectively strips workers of their right to vote on unionization and gives the (union-backed) federal government the right to impose contracts in the private sector, it has been union bosses’ dream for some time..

Secondly, union bosses have been campaigning for the nationalization of U.S. health care for decades. With the billions union bosses will make from nationalizing the health care industry, union bosses see health care reform as one of the two major vehicles for them to regain their stranglehold on the U.S. economy forever.

Now, however, union bosses’ dreams may be getting a bucketful of cold (Bay State) water thrown onto them if Scott Brown wins on Tuesday.

To us, it would not matter if Spongebob were running against Martha Coakley and the union special interests…but  he’s not.  So, if you’re at all interested in helping Scott Brown end union bosses’ Reign of Error and beat Andy Stern & Co., go here to help.

————————————

I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as ABC, hold up truth to your eyes.” Thomas Paine, December 23, 1776

Follow LaborUnionReport on Twitter.

Cross-posted.


IS HE HALLUCINATING? AFL-CIO Boss Predicts Job-Destroying EFCA Will Pass in First Quarter 2010 and CREATE Jobs!


While we have no doubts today’s union bosses like the AFL-CIO’s Rich Trumka want to see the hallucinogenically-named Employee Free Choice Act passed at all costs (including spending $1.5 billion of union members’ money on getting Democrats elected in 2006 and 2008), we do question his sincerity when he says EFCA will create jobs.
Speaking at the National Press Club this afternoon, AFL-CIO president, Richard Trumka made a bold prediction: The Employee Free Choice Act–the flagship legislation of the labor movement–will pass in the first quarter of 2010.

“I think you’ll see the Employee Free Choice Act pass in the first quarter of 2010,” Trumka said. “You’ll have it have some real effect. We’ll start creating and making new jobs in this country again.”

That will probably come as news to a lot of Democrats who are looking to make a quick pivot from health care to a jobs bill. Unless EFCA was attached to a bigger jobs package… [Emphasis added.]
While we’ve been calling the job-destroying Employee Free FORCED Choice Act a hallucinogenically-named bill for a few years, until now, it was always tongue and cheek…

We never really thought union bosses were doing illicit drugs…only that their ambitions to remove workers’ right to vote on unionization clouded their morals like a hallucinogen.

But, if Trumka really believes that EFCA and higher unionization will create jobs instead of destroying themwe’re not so sure anymore.

—————————-

“I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as ABC, hold up truth to your eyes.” Thomas Paine, December 23, 1776

Follow LaborUnionReport on Twitter.


Obama Backs SEIU’s Becker, Labor Union Shorts & EFCA Update


A hearty Happy New Year to you!

Besides some breaking news and an EFCA update, we offer you our first 2010 edition of Labor Union Shorts.

First, this…

BREAKING: Becker to be Re-Nominated…

President Obama’s radical union nominee to the National Labor Relations Board, Craig Becker (who is Assistant General Counsel to both the AFL-CIO and the SEIU) had his nomination rejected by the Senate only a week ago.  However, liberal blogs Huffington Post and FireDogLake are reporting that the President is frustrated with a lack of progress on his nominations and may be renominating Becker again.

According to FireDogLake:

Now, in all likelihood, McCain will again slap a hold on Becker; the White House will then have a couple options.  It can negotiate with McCain for something else he wants; the HELP committee can hold a full hearing on Becker like McCain wants; Harry Reid can force a vote and get 60 senators to vote for Becker, which will end up being a proxy fight over the Employee Free Choice Act; or McCain’s icy heart will melt and allow Becker to go through.

In either case, as Becker’s nomination goes, so do the other 2 NLRB nominees, who must be voted on in a package with Becker.  Meanwhile, the 2-member NLRB will continue to make uncontroversial rulings on pending cases that may yet be ruled invalid by the Supreme Court.

Read more from HuffPo here

The EFCA Echo Chamber:

You may have noticed lately that there’s a lot of chatter throughout the blogosphere about the likelihood of Democrats attempting to muscle the job-destroying and hallucinogenically-named Employee Free FORCED Choice Act.

Although much of the chatter surrounding EFCA’s timing is purely conjecture at this point, the chances are the chatter is correct.

Union bosses know that their days to get anything like EFCA done in DC are numbered. In fact, there are only ten months and three weeks left before Americans head to polls to either rebuke and repudiate the leftward lean of Washington or give the Democrats an endorsement of their running the country further into the ground.  And, so far, it looks like the Democrats will be losing their 60-seat supermajority in the Senate as top Democrats run for the exits.

There’s still hope (albeit slim) that a busy legislative schedule may impede EFCA.

The 2010 legislative calendar is still unclear with the nationalization of America’s health care going into secret negotiations between House and Senate Democrats despite President Obama’s repeated promises of airing the negotiations on C-SPAN.  However, while the health care debate still goes on, it’s being reported that the President is also preparing a push for amnesty for illegals, aka Immigration Reform.  That debate will surely warm up the capital like a donkey’s a** after eating hot plate of frijoles! [Editor's note: If you thought you were subscribing to a PC post, we apologize for any misgivings.]

This begs the question:  What comes first?  EFCA?…Or making sure that 12 million illegal immigrants can become health-insured Democrat voters before November?

LUR’s Labor Shorts: Exposing Union Bosses One Skid Mark at a Time

For previous Labor Shorts, go here.

  • Fugheddaboutit! They Don’t Call it the Garbage Garden State For Nuttin!: Reputed Mobster Pleads Guilty To Racketeering Charge. “A high-ranking soldier in the Gambino Crime Family pleaded guilty yesterday to a federal charge of racketeering conspiracy for his role in running an enterprise that engaged in illegal gambling, extortion, fraud schemes and labor racketeering…”
  • BFF?  A San Francisco slammer and some new friends awaited Uber-Union Boss Richie Trumka on Tuesday as the newly-anointed AFL-CIO kingpin, along with dozens of others, got themsleves arrested during an allegedly illegal sit-in in the lobby of the San Francisco Hilton.
  • Union of Ailing Workplaces… A New York Times expose on one formerly-militant, now newly humbled, UAW local should remove all doubt as to what helped drive Government Motors (…er, GM…) into bankruptcy. [Here's a hint:  Some people would call it 'sabotage.']
  • Is He or Isn’t He?…Why not ask Andy? Nearly two months after a request to the U.S. Attoney to investigate whether SEIU’s lavender-lapeled lord of labor Andy Stern is illegally lobbying, CNN finally did a partial puff piece on the months-old story…and asked Andy Stern if he is a lobbyist. [See more here.]
  • Union Bullsh*t Watch is Back! Glass-Housed Teamsters Ticked Over “Anti-Union” Flyers As the adage goes: He who lives in a glass house should not throw rocks.
  • Carpenters Build Glass Houses Too? With Apparently No Union to Save Them, Chicago’s Carpenters’ Union Lays Off Dozens of Organizers…but buys over $730,000 in cars.
  • Rated ‘M’ (for Mature Audiences only): The Teamsters, the Tart & a Pocketful of Meth featuring one of the best quotes ever [upon appearing before a judge on drug charges]: “…before the accident, I was a heroin addict and used crack, but I don’t do drugs any more. I’m a Teamster.”
  • Shameful: SEIU’s Top 10 Bloopers Compiled by Stern Burger With Fries, one of the growing list of SEIU-critical blogs (this one apparently written by disaffected SEIU members) that is increasingly condemning of the Union of Purple People Eaters and its Lord of Labor, Andy Stern, his Queen, Anna Burger, and their collectivist minions.
  • Dis-United Labor Union Boss Crows Over SEIU-Muddied Merger. UNITE-HERE’s John Wilhelm is crowing over what he says is evidence that his rivals are falling apart and being absorbed into SEIU: “A war that they chose to start has become a war that they cannot win, although it is not yet ended.”

Until next time, we offer you our very best wishes!

Follow LaborUnionReport on Twitter.

Cross-posted.

————————————-

“I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as ABC, hold up truth to your eyes.” — Thomas Paine, December 23, 1776


“Card Check:” What’s Wrong with Arbitration?


The part that nobody much is talking about in the debate over the “Card Check” legislation is the fact that once the union is recognized, if the union and the employer do not reach agreement, their dispute goes to arbitration.  I’ve done more arbitrations than most people in America and I’ve done real, adversarial interest arbitrations, the kind of arbitration this bill mandates.  There aren’t a lot of people who can say that.

The following is from a manuscript I’m working on about running a government.  It reflects my experience with the labor arbitration process under American labor law.  It is a part of a much larger work so there are a lot of missing antecedents and a lot of missing references, but I think you’ll get the drift.  Executive Summary: If you own or run the enterprise, you really, really, really don’t want to deal with arbitration.  Read and learn:

There is a vast body of law concerning labor grievances and arbitration.  The seminal law is articulated in the so-called Steelworkers Trilogy of U. S. Supreme Court decisions from the sixties.  The fundamental thrust of the Trilogy is that the parties have voluntarily agreed to forego their economic and legal rights to enforce the contract for the life of the agreement and have submitted themselves to the authority of labor arbitrators to which they will be bound.  The SC said that courts were to give great deference to arbitrators and not substitute their judgment in any decision that did not involve fraud or gross error, and should even tolerate what the court might see as gross error if it concerned a question of contract rather than law.  That is all fine in the private sector, where if your name is on the door, you can do pretty much anything you want.  It is just plain wrong in the public sector where in the executive branch, that which is not permitted by the legislative body is prohibited to the executive body.  That distinction is adamantly opposed by arbitrators and not yet effectively observed by courts, though we have been successful in Alaska in nudging our courts that way.  In fact, we were successful enough that some luminaries in the National Academy of Arbitrators wrote complaining about us in their journal.

 

While the Trilogy Court was at pains to say that the arbitrator was to be constrained by the “four corners of the agreement” and was not empowered to “dispense his own brand of industrial justice,” the opposite has largely been the case and arbitrators have become peripatetic angels of equity flitting about setting the world right as they are given to see the right.  Unaccountable arbitrators exercising sweeping equity powers in legally binding decisions are a major cause of the demise of unionization in the true private sector.  In the simplest example, Acme Enterprises makes a deal with a union that it thinks it can afford and probably exchanged something of value with the union to get it. Some dispute arises over a term of that deal that proceeds to arbitration.  The angel of equity does not like the deal for whatever reason and completely reforms the contract in a manner that Acme cannot live with or cannot afford, and Acme is bound by the decision.  No court will disturb the decision unless it was procured by fraud, violates a clearly articulated public policy, or, maybe, is blatantly wrong as a matter of law.  Acme then either goes bankrupt to get out of the contract or flees to Malaysia.  And you were wondering what had happened to American industry?

 

Here’s the beef: State bargaining laws came about thirty or forty years after the federal bargaining law and took many of the lessons of that period of time.  Where the federal law does not even mention them, State laws usually expressly compel a grievance procedure that ends in binding arbitration.  Nor does the private sector quid pro quo of a no-strike or lockout promise in exchange for binding arbitration of grievances apply, since most public bargaining laws only allow strikes in pursuit of an agreement.  State governments and political subdivisions have not voluntarily relinquished any remedy; they are compelled to a particular course of remedy.  Since the executive body of a government can only execute that which has been prescribed or proscribed by the legislative body, a person, in this case the arbitrator, acting on or on behalf of the executive body can have no more power than the executive itself has.  The arbitrator as a creature of state law or local ordinance is limited by that state law or local ordinance and is entitled to no deference from the courts when he or she applies state law or local ordinance or interprets a contract entered into under that law or ordinance.

 

The real issue with arbitrators is the same issue that real Americans have with courts; arbitrators are lawyers.  Lawyers have to go to law schools, and most law schools are just not a part of America.  There is that nagging piece of the Constitution about powers not explicitly delegated to the United States are reserved to the people and the states.  Law school professors have a lot of trouble with this notion.  Under our Constitution, judges cannot make law; that is reserved to the people and their representatives.  I do not want to get into a Con Law debate here, but the issue is the same; can a judge make law or does he just apply and interpret law[1]?  The question is the same for arbitrators, and they are almost all lawyers who definitionally went to law schools where this debate began.  It is telling that the bible of modern arbitrators is entitled, The Common Law of the Workplace.  There is majesty in common law, the judge made law of torts and real estate and contracts and most of everyday civil life.  There is no place for common law in the world of codified law.  State bargaining laws and labor agreements entered into under those laws are codified; the arbitrator is charged with interpreting and applying the words of that codification.  It is unsatisfying for the law student turned arbitrator to conclude that no matter the equity on one side or the other, the words of the contract just will not allow her to decide the dispute.  She cannot say “grievance denied” because she cannot find authority in the agreement, so she engages in contract formation to achieve the result she desires.  It does not matter whether the question is whether Susie should have been reprimanded for being late for work or whether there are sufficient penumbras and emanations of unexpressed rights to find the right to privacy that is said to underlie Griswold v. Connecticut or Roe v. Wade, the question is the same: can a judge or arbitrator make the law or rule?  I suspect this dispute will go on for a while.

 

If you will be under contract for a year or two after you take office, have your labor relations people start setting arbitrations up for appeal and look for a good one to take to court.  Look for one like I described earlier that will not pass the red face test even for Democrats and take it to the Supreme Court if necessary.  Look for the right court to take it too, however; judges went to law school too.  You’ll only have to get an arbitrator reversed once to get them to understand that there is a new sheriff in town and they’d best get it right.

 

When the contracts come up for re-negotiation, you want language changes.  There are several handbooks out there with model language, but your labor relations people can craft something to your circumstances as well.  What you want is language that limits access to the grievance procedure to disputes concerning the express terms of the agreement and you want the union to be the one that advances grievances to the higher levels, not individual employees.  That controls what can be grieved and who can grieve it.  It is a good thing to set up some sort of complaint process outside the grievance process that ends with the head of the agency’s response but cannot go to arbitration – it makes a good safety valve for you and the union and forms a reasonable check against error.

 

You also want language that limits an arbitrator’s authority to applying and interpreting the express terms of the agreement, prohibiting them from adding to, subtracting from, or modifying any term of the agreement, and prohibiting them from modifying a management decision unless they find a specific violation of the express terms of the agreement[2].  Language like this will clip the angel of equity’s wings or at least give you a basis for having a court clip those wings.  Once you have language like this, have your labor relations people start every hearing, every closing argument, and every brief by telling the arbitrator the limits of his or her authority; they don’t like it, but they take it.  You will have to indoctrinate your labor relations people about this a little.  Under Democrat rule, they will have been conditioned to be extravagantly deferential to arbitrators.  Tell them to get over it; arbitrators are hired help.  They are expensive hired help, but hired nonetheless.  Their job is to do what the parties have hired them to do; apply and interpret the written contract before them.  They are not judges with equity power and they do not get all the obsequiousness that Hizzoner gets.  This is especially true at the state level.  As an officer of the state government, I articulated the will of a sovereign and stood for the full authority of a sovereign people.  I may bow, at least a little, before the majesty of the law, but I damn well don’t bow for much else.

 

And lastly, you want the loser to pay for the arbitration.  Not all laws allow this, and some states have set up their own mediation and arbitration boards so everyone goes for “free.”  Arbitrators and unions hate “loser pays” agreements.  Loser pays makes the arbitrator make tough decisions and makes the union screen cases because arbitration is expensive.  Arbitrators charge a per diem rate for the hearing and their thinking and writing time.  West Coast labor arbitrators currently average about $1000 per day and usually each day of hearing means a day or more of research and writing.  Then they get travel and expenses, and many of them know how to live well.  Our 2005 budgeting figure for arbitrations was $4000 per hearing day.  Two skillful and experienced lay advocates before an experienced arbitrator can put on any case in less than three days, most cases can be put on in a day and the advocates and the arbitrator can be washing the day down by 5:00 PM.  Put a lawyer on either side of the table and the hearing time doubles, even if the lawyer isn’t working on billable hours.  Put a private practice attorney working on billable hours on either side of the table and the hearing time goes up exponentially.  In my advocacy days, I loved to see some well dressed, well coiffed lawyer with a couple of Harvard educated briefcase toters show up.  I could be pretty confident that I was going to eat his lunch, maybe have a little fun with his pretty briefcase toter back in my single days, and send his client one Helluva bill.



 

[1] See Justice Scalia’s “A Matter of Interpretation” for a brilliant debate on these issues.

[2] Even this is not enough to stop some of them.  If you read their bible, The Common Law of the Workplace, you will find the late Arbitrator Carlton’s Snow’s words on interpreting contracts.  Leaning on Corbin on Contracts, he opines that all human use of language has inherent ambiguity, so the learned arbitrator must give the language context and meaning.  That is just rationalization for substitution of judgment.


The Worst Part of Card Check: Arbitration (Long)


All the focus about “card check” has been on the possibility of unionization without an election.  It makes a nice emotional appeal about taking away the precious secret ballot but it isn’t the worst part of the Employee Free Choice Act.  The worst part is what happens after an employer is unionized.

Here’s the way it works now: If a union wants to organize an employer it sends organizers in to contact employees.  Employers usually won’t let union organizers on the property - that’s why they have all those “No Soliciting” signs and do stuff like not let Salvation Army bell-ringers set up at the door.  So, the organizers have to haunt the streets, parking lots, and local diners and watering holes to try to find some employees who’ll organize inside for them.  Quite often those are people who already have discipline issues or some other beef with the employer.  By whatever means, the union manages to get at least 30% of the employees to sign a card saying they want to be represented by the union.  The union presents a petition for recognition and its cards to the local National Labor Relations Board office.  The NLRB verifies the cards and if the union really does have 30%, it notifies the employer that there is a sufficient petition for representation of all of Acme Enterprises’ non-supervisory, non-confidential employees or some such.  In this case the bargaining unit would be all non-supervisory, non-confidential employees.  Acme would object to the petition saying the bargaining unit was too broad and didn’t represent a community of interest.  That objection would be adjudicated as far as Acme had the money and interest in adjudicating it in order to narrow (or widen sometimes) the definition.  When adjudication was complete, the NLRB would order Acme to produce a list of all the employees in the job classifications in the proposed bargaining unit.  There would then be a process of disputing the names and even job classifications if the union felt some person was improperly classified.  Disputing the list can be done by either party, but it is more the employer’s game because time is the union’s enemy.  By the time it all sorts out, a year may have passed since the original petition.  Sometimes some of the organizers have been fired; usually because they were malcontents with performance problems, but sometimes just because they were organizers.  Then the NLRB sets an election which it supervises and which are usually scrupulously fair.  The union must get 50% + 1 of those voting and unions often lose these elections.  Time is the union’s enemy and the employers know it.  The employer does everything it lawfully, and sometimes not so lawfully, can to string it out.  The employer communicates with its employees about the prospects of unionization.  The employer can’t say, “if you vote to go union, we’re closing the plant,” but it can come pretty close and usually does.  In the year or year and a half since the first blush of union enthusiasm, there has been turnover, the employer might have fixed something that was causing the employees to be aggrieved, or even, the employer may have let it be known that unionization would cost people their jobs.  So, in the secrecy of the election, the employees choose not to go union.  Card check will eliminate much of the time issue and allow unions to get their recognition while whatever aggrieved the employees is still fresh and before the employer can react.  Be that as it may, people like me will still figure out ways to make getting a majority a daunting task, card check law or not.

So, lets go on to what happens if the union does win an election under current law.  Current law forces the employer to recognize the union as the exclusive representative of ALL the employees and imposes on the union and the employer the duty to bargain in good faith over wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment.  Neither party is compelled to make a concession or to make an agreement.  While taking a firm, unmoveable position MAY give rise to an unfair labor practice finding, it is not a per se unfair labor practice.  The bargaining can go on for a very long time and the employer can do things to make it very, very difficult for the union to have a bargaining team at the table, to meet with its represented employees, etc. and to do so perfectly legally.  The union only has legal protection as the exclusive representative for one year from its date of certification.  All the employer has to do is make it take longer than that year for the union to get its first contract and the union faces loss of its majority status and potential de-certification as the exclusive representative.  And yes, employers do this stuff - all the time.  So do unions when they’re trying to raid another union’s jurisdiction.  Card check’s other provisions change all this and cause a profound change in the way collective bargaining works in the private sector.

Under EFCA, once the union is recognized, the parties have 120 days to reach an agreement.  If they don’t, then mediation through the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service is mandatory.  If mediation fails to produce a labor agreement, the parties must submit to arbitration.  This sort of arbitration is called Interest Arbitration and is unheard of in the private sector.  The law leaves it up to USDOL to come up with regulations by which arbitrators will be selected.  Rights arbitration, or grievance arbitration, is well established in both the private and public sectors and there are many practicing arbitrators with rights experience, some of whom also do interest arbitration.  FMCS already credentials them and will assign them if the parties ask for an arbitrator for either a rights or interest dispute, but interest dispute occur almost entirely in the public sector and almost exclusively involve police, fire, jail, and hospital employees.

There is nothing in the EFCA that sets out the processes by which arbitrators will be selected, how hearings will be conducted, what the evidentiary rules are, or what the arbitrator’s decisional criteria will be.  My state’s interest arbitration law is similarly vague and our labor relations agency has never promulgated regulations.  Most interest arbitration briefs start with several pages on the authority of the arbitrator and several disputes over interest arbitration processes have been to the Alaska Supreme Court.  And there’s the big rub with interest arbitration in the private sector: When I did interest arbitration in the public sector, it was bad enough, but my Legislature had approval authority over the monetary terms of the agreement; the arbitrator couldn’t force terms and spending to pay for them unless the Legislature approved those terms and if the arbitrator did something we simply couldn’t accept, we could appeal his decision to the courts, albeit on limited grounds.  You don’t have that in the  private sector.

So, the parties can’t reach an agreement.  It is a given that the FMCS mediator will be very union friendly in a Democrat administration and friendlier than you’d like even in a Republican administration, so the employer is either going to get rolled by the mediator or mediation will fail and you’re set for arbitration.  Practice these days is that you’d ask the FMCS for a list of arbitrators and the parties would select one by agreement or by striking names until one is left.  I’ve worked a lot of FMCS lists and most of the arbitrators on those lists are a pig in a poke, few cases, fewer published even in the world of rights arbitration.  Fewer still will have done interest arbitrations.  Almost all the good arbitrators are in their sixties or older, many in their seventies and eighties and all are very hard to schedule, especially if you’re not in a big city.  Most were some sort of corporate general counsel, a government lawyer, law professor, judge or ALJ, or industrial relations professor.  Most of the not so good and younger arbitrators are either a lawyer with little experience who decided arbitration was a better living than hustling hours or they’re an ex union rep, especially ex-NEA reps, who has decided to hang out their own shingle.  You really don’t want to stake your company or even your government’s future on the decisions of these people with no possibility of review, and the state of the law is that review of an arbitrator’s decision is almost impossible.  The controlling authority is a series of cases from the ’sixties called the Steelworkers’ Trilogy that set an impossibly high standard of deference to labor arbitrators.  I happen to think that compulsory arbitration under EFCA can be distinguished from voluntary rights arbitration under the NLRA, but that USSC decision is uncertain and many years away.  For the foreseeable future, the union and the employer are bound for at least two years to whatever the arbitrator says.

And that is scary in the private sector.  These days there is almost no rights arbitration in the private sector; grievances get resolved short of arbitration.  Interest arbitration is unheard of in the private sector except in professional sports, a very different game (sorry!).  So, all the rights arbitration experience is either in a few moribund legacy industries or in the public sector.  All the interest arbitration experience is in the public sector or in professional sports.  Yeah, those arbitrators are going to know a lot about your business!  There’s a dirty little whipsaw game that can be played between employers to make the labor costs spiral.  So, Acme Enterprises gets an arbitrated agreement with Widget Makers Local 1.  Local 1 is bargaining with Acme’s competitor, Superior Enterprises and makes a deal with Superior that if Superior will give them a taste more money, they won’t insist on the same work rules that Acme got.  Then next year, they whipsaw Acme up to Superior’s money, and whipsaw Superior up to Acme’s work rules.  That process ends when Acme and Superior go bankrupt or move off shore.   Labor costs will skyrocket and management flexibility will all but disappear.  If the public sector experience is repeated, and it likely will, employers will just get rolled in the early years and those that survive it will spend the rest of their days seeking concessions and fighting decertification battles.  Of course, if the employer does business with government or need permits and such, they won’t be able to do that concessions and decertification threat stuff.

In sum, in the public sector, if you’re inclined to act like a real employer, you can.  If an arbitrator gets out of hand, your legislature can refuse to pay for it or you can appeal the decision to the courts as a sovereign.  You can’t do either of those things with an untenable interest arbitrator’s award in the private sector.  You’re stuck with it for two years and there’s nothing you can do about it.


What the Employee Free Choice Act Really Does. Warning: Complicated and Boring


Promoted: I don’t care if it’s boring.  Read the darn thing anyway. - Moe Lane

The stated purpose of the Act is: “To amend the National Labor Relations Act to establish an efficient system to enable employees to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to provide for mandatory injunctions for unfair labor practices during organizing efforts, and for other purposes. “  The Act does three things: it requires certification of a union that can show a majority of employees in an appropriate bargaining unit have signed interest cards, it mandates bargaining within ten days of certification, mediation by the Federal Mediation and Concilliation Service if an agreement is not reached in 90 days and arbitration if mediation does not produce an agreement within 30 days, the award of which will be binding on the parties for two years or longer by mutual agreement, and establishes mandatory injunctions, backpay and liquidated damages, and civil penalties against employers who commit certain unfair labor practices (ULP) during organization or during the pendency of bargaining/arbitration.

Read More →