‘Union Representation Elections Don’t Resemble Anything We Call American’

by James Parks, Feb 9, 2007

Gordon Lafer also testified during House hearings on the Employee Free Choice Act.

The United States routinely sends observers to foreign countries to ensure their elections are “free and fair.” Yet, when it comes to workers who want to form a union in this country, the process is anything but free and fair.

The current system for choosing a union is seriously broken and the best way to fix it is for Congress to pass the Employee Free Choice Act (H.R. 800) says Mary Beth Maxwell, executive director of American Rights At Work, which sponsored a briefing on the bill today for Capitol Hill staff members.

Employer interference is off the charts. Every 23 minutes a person is fired or discriminated against for supporting a union. [Employer] lawlessness is rampant in the workplace. The system is broken and manipulated by employers and there are no meaningful penalties for breaking the law.

The bill was introduced by Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), the chairman of Education and Labor, and now has 231 co-sponsors, (Click here to see if your representative is a co-sponsor.).

If passed, the Employee Free Choice Act would:

• Establish stronger penalties for violation of employee rights when workers seek to form a union and during first-contract negotiations.
• Provide mediation and arbitration for first-contract disputes.
• Allow employees to form unions by signing cards authorizing union representation.
  

Gordon Lafer, a professor at the University of Oregon who has studied how the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) union representation election process really works, told the staff members the process

resembles what happens in rogue regimes abroad rather than anything we call American.

Even though the process ends in a secret ballot, it is not fair, Lafer told a briefing for Capitol Hill staff members Friday. He compared what happens in union representation elections to the standards the United States sets for what is “free and fair” in foreign elections and says “every aspect of the NLRB process violates U.S. standards of free and fair.”

In a report for ARAW, Lafer compares U.S. standards for foreign and domestic elections with the union representation election:

• Democratic Election Standard: Each side should have equal access to the media so that competing viewpoints can create an informed electorate.
• Union Representation Election: Employees are restricted from openly handing out information. Employers have monopoly control of media in the workplace. Employers can distribute anti-union literature anywhere anytime, while pro-union workers can only post literature in the break area during break time.
  
• Democratic Election Standard: The right should be freedom of speech that allows broad debate of public issues.
  
• Union Representation Election: Employers are allowed to enforce a total ban on employees discussing a proposed union outside the break room. Yet employers can have unrestricted access to employees, including mandatory staff meetings and one-on-one meetings with supervisors.
  
• Democratic Election Standard: Both sides should have equal access to contact and inform voters.
  
• Union Representation Election: Although pro-union workers can contact workers outside the workplace, they cannot have address information for employees until they can document that 30 percent of the workforce wants a union.
  
• Democratic Election Standard: No side should coerce or have undue influence on who a voter supports.
  
• Union Representation Election: Employees are not protected against economic coercion. Employers and supervisors exercise considerable leverage over workers. Generally, they stop short of outright threats or bribes (which are illegal) and instead, are allowed to issue thinly veiled threats like “choosing a union may lead the company to lose business or make cutbacks.”
  
• Democratic Election Standard: Once the voters make a decision, it should take effect quickly through a system of regular elections and fixed terms of office.
  
• Union Representation Election: If workers vote for a union, they can face infinite delays before their will is carried out. Often the delays, which sometimes take years because employers take full advantage of permissive election guidelines and drag out appeals for years. Also, the laws require that the workplace operate as if the workers did not choose a union during the appeals.
  
• Democratic Election Standard: Campaign finances should be regulated to allow a competitive and level playing field.
  
• Union Representation Election: The law sets no limit on the amount an employer can spend to fight workers’ choice to form a union. Also, the employer has access to resources the union doesn’t such as on-the-clock meetings, use of company property and equipment and converting supervisors to anti-union campaign staff.

Print This Article | E-Mail This Article |Comments (1)