The Service Employees International Union, Local 49, in Oregon, has run afoul of the National Labor Relations Board over its misuse of card checks. According to The Oregonian newspaper,
the Union ran a dishonest and coercive card check organizing campaign
.
The Union had apparently used a card check campaign to organize thirty-two janitors at Somers Building Maintenance in Portland. One of the workers, however, complained to the NLRB that the Union had used outdated cards and coerced employees into supporting its campaign for unionization. Apparently, a majority of workers originally signed cards to support unionization, but then a significant number of them changed their minds, leaving the union without its necessary majority.
The worker’s complaint resulted in the Union reaching a settlement with the NLRB that prohibits the union from using any card check campaigns for six months
This is an example of why card checks should not be used to replace secret-ballot elections conducted by the NLRB. Secret-ballot elections, after all, are a staple of our democracy and should not be done away with just so unions can coerce workers into supporting them.
Several months ago, we reported that FedEx trucker drivers in Massachusetts had voted to join the Teamsters Union. We thought that such a move might portend an unfortunate trend, and it now seems that the trend is picking up speed.
FedEx drivers in Windsor Connecticut want to join Teamsters Local Union 671.
The National Labor Relations Board has given them a green light to get in high gear and drive themselves to unionization. The NLRB had ruled against the FedEx position that the drivers are independent contractors; it has said they are employees and so are eligible to vote in an upcoming union election.
FedEx is driven by the concept that its truck drivers would be independent contractors, and that would give the company the leverage to compete with other companies who had higher labor costs. It would also benefit those drivers who are hard-working entrepreneurs, for they would be able to augment their routes and even add trucks.
Now neither FedEx nor its drivers will ultimately benefit. Unionization is bad for FedEx, bad for its drivers, and ultimately bad for Corporate America.
Organized labor is rapidly moving forward on a number of fronts to take advantage of Democratically controlled legislatures. On the national front, we see the heavy-handed union lobbying to pass the so-called Employee Free Choice Act. Now in Connecticut, for example, the legislature, urged on by organized labor, is considering what is called a Captive Audience bill that would prevent employers from communicating with their employees about political matters, regardless of whether those political matters might affect the workplace, pensions, and benefits. Indeed, almost any topic can be called political.
The effect, of course, will be to muzzle employers, so that they will be extremely limited in what they can say. If they violate the law, they would be subject to sanctions.
The state seems to be intent on obviating federal law that not only guarantees free speech, but that also calls for a balance between employers and union organizers when communicating with workers. This is just another example of the pro-union forces attempting to do an end-run around the National Labor Relations Act
To further hamper corporations in the state, the Connecticut attorney believes that National Labor Relations Board, which administers the NLRA, has been wrong and that the state can regulate “captive audience” staff meetings.
If Corporate America does not organize its own pro-active campaign to defeat one-sided legislation, it will find its freedom to do business severely curtailed.
Responding to their political backers, the Democrats in the Senate and House of Representatives have introduced a bill that would undermine a recent decision by the National Labor Relations Board. The bill, The Re-Empowerment of Skilled and Professional Employees and Construction Tradeworkers (RESPECT) would alter the definition of supervisor as set forth in September 2006 by the NLRB.
That earlier definition upset hundreds of thousands of supervisory nurses who were told that as supervisors they were not permitted to join unions. The NLRB had stated that supervisory nurses “assign tasks” and carry out their “responsibility to direct others.” As a result, they are supervisors.
The proposed RESPECT Act , however, would eliminate the term “assign” and the phrase “responsibility to direct” from the definition of what constitutes a supervisor. The RESPECT Act re-defines a supervisor as someone for whom supervisory activities constitute “a majority of the individual’s work time.” The result would be that all supervisory nurses would be able to join a union.
The RESPECT Act, which is supported by the AFL-CIO and the American Nurses Association, was introduced by Senators Chris Dodd, Richard Durbin, and Edward Kennedy as well as by Representatives Rob Andrews and Rosa DeLauro.
This is another indication of what Democratic control of the Congress will mean for Corporate America. And if a Democrat wins the presidential election in 2008, then there will no longer be an executive who will veto such legislation.