Get ready for union organizing
The cover of this week’s Economist, an international magazine I read every week, has a photograph of
President-Elect Obama with the caption: “Great Expectations.”
 | ||
Let’s begin by stating, honestly, that the name of this law is dishonest. Obama just
won the presidency in a secret ballot election; the so-called Employee Free
Choice Act would eliminate secret ballot elections where the union gets 51
percent or more of the employees of a business to sign union authorization
cards.
To take the presidential election analogy one step further, it would be like
denying citizens the right to vote because they had signed a card three months
earlier stating that they supported Hillary Clinton, Mike Huckabee, or Ralph
Nader. The Employee “No-Choice” Act would be a better name.
Once an employee signs a card supporting the union, he may find himself
represented by a union because he and a bunch of his coworkers were too drunk
to know what they were signing at the local bar.
The No-Choice Act, in addition to effectively rendering secret ballot elections
a thing of the past, would also require employers to submit to binding
arbitration if they do not reach agreement with the union over a collective
bargaining agreement within 90 days.
The incentive for unions to stonewall to get to binding arbitration would be
overwhelming. There are plenty of legal scholars who believe that this portion
of the No-Choice Act is unconstitutional, but it still is a prominent feature
of the proposed law. Imagine an arbitrator, whose experience is teaching at a
university, deciding how much you should pay a presser.
Barack Obama supported the No-Choice Act while in the Senate, and he has
championed the proposed law during his campaign. We can expect it to pass in
some form.
Even if the worst aspects are taken out, we can expect the federal government to
make it easier for unions to organize workers. Some of the compromises could
include quick secret ballot elections, or granting unions access to employees
during company time to sell the idea of unionization. There is going to be
something, quickly, passed by Congress to pay Big Labor for its support.
I have a client who has asked to meet with me next week to prepare for the
coming change in federal labor legislation. The inauguration is more than two
months away. While that may seem like an overreaction, there is no reason why
companies should not be preparing for a change that is definitely on its way.
I would recommend that all companies sit down with their managers and discuss
how having a union would affect the business. If the managers are not unified
on the issue of unionization, the business starts at a serious disadvantage.
Managers should know the company’s position on unions and take steps to further that position.
Once a unified position on unionization is developed, including a discussion of
how unionization could negatively affect employees, employers must determine
how and when to communicate with employees about unionization.
For example, if an employee is sitting at a bar with a couple of other employees
and a union representative, and the union guy hands him a card to sign, he
ought to at least know — from discussions with his employer — what the ramifications are.
In other words, the Employee No-Choice Act will require more education of and
communication with employees than the new current law. It may be a good time
for managers to understand what the current law provides, so they are prepared
when the law passes, in whatever final form it takes.
The Democratic Party platform also promises expansion of rights under the Family
and Medical Leave Act, which currently affects only employers with 50 or more
people. Look for Congress to reduce that number and to expand the reasons for
required leave, such as parent-teacher conferences. The platform also promises
an expansion of the rights of women, perhaps by resurrecting the long-ago
discredited concept of “Comparable Worth.”
Under the concept of “Comparable Worth,” people are paid based on some formula evaluating the relative worth of two
jobs. If pressers are paid a particular wage, then counter employees should be
paid a comparable wage. What a nightmare!
As President Obama attempts to meet those great expectations, I will discuss
them in this column. It is not too early, however, to start planning. There
will be change, and that change will not necessarily to good for you or your
employees.
