AN "EMPLOYEE FREE CHOICE ACT" -- FOR WHOSE BENEFIT?

Historically, Unions have worked to provide enlightenment and social legislation to make US businesses better places to work. Employers have built the enterprises that create jobs and opportunity. The pending Employee Free Choice Act proposes to drastically alter the relationship of these two institutions and the labor organizing process.

Effective business leadership demands a fact-based understanding of issues – especially of the big issues. The proposed Employee Free Choice Act is a big issue.

How does the labor organizing process currently work? In general, the National Labor Relations Act provides that employees may petition their employers to be represented by a union. The employer may recognize the Union at that point or require a secret ballot election to confirm that this is the employees’ choice.

Up until the time that the petition is presented to the employer, organizing and influencing conversations with employees are typically limited to union organizers and other employees. Between the time that a petition is presented and an election is held (if an election is to be held) employers can then converse with and attempt to influence their employees’ votes.

What would the Employee Free Choice Act do?
Most significantly this proposed Act would: eliminate any option for a secret ballot election – a petition presented by a Union would be enough; mandate mediation and arbitration when, within time limits, the parties do not agree on an initial contract; provide for injunctions and penalties.

What are the facts on election results? According to the National Labor Relations Board, 30,507 representation elections have been held in the 13 years since 1997. In 1997 Unions won 51% of these elections, and this percentage continually rose through 2009 when Unions won 66% of elections.

When a Union prevails, are contract terms ever reached? A recent study found that 66% of union election victories have then resulted in agreement on the terms of a first contract.

Do Union and Company organizations have anything in common? Unions and Companies are each businesses focused on their own business performance. In the organizing process, the primary business interest of Companies is to retain their flexibility to manage. The primary business interest of Unions is to increase their membership and dues income. Both, however, claim added altruistic motives.

Do Unions or Companies best protect job security? A common point of the union versus no union debate centers on the creation of job security. In reality, job security is created by neither unions nor companies. Rather, job security is provided by customers who create the demand for a product or service, and are satisfied (or not) by the offering, its quality, delivery and related services.

Does unionization create an opportunity for increased pay? A recognized Union can certainly bargain for its members’ improved wages and benefits. It must approach these opportunities prudently because the competitive business environment will keep employers from paying more than they can afford. If pay and benefits are driven to unaffordable levels an employer may be forced to reduce costs, opt for alternative sources of labor or, in the extreme, opt to exit its business.

Where current labor agreements provide for extreme pay, benefits or work rules is it the Union or the Company that is responsible? Yes. Turn to the signature page of any labor agreement and there are two signature sections – one for the employer and one for the Union. Both agreed to any terms, extreme and otherwise.

Are Unions the victims of their own successes? Over the years Unions have helped to achieve, among other advances, minimum wage, workers compensation and unemployment insurances, improvements in Social Security benefits and job safety and health legislation. These are impressive benefits that government now assures for every Union and non-Union employee. These substantive advances leave far fewer job improvements for unions to promise to their current and potential members.

Are Companies the victims of their own failures? When their work environments provide their employees with limited challenges or limited opportunities for career growth, little or no recognition and appreciation for a job well done and a less than pleasant or welcoming environment, they open themselves to have those matters addressed by a Union. To be sure, an employer who doesn’t address a poor work environment has long been a Union organizer’s best friend.

What are an employee’s options? An employee may have a positive or negative environment in which to work. In either case he or she can accept that environment, or work with or without a union to change it. Alternatively, an employee is not indentured to his/her employer. He /she has the added option of packing up and moving to a better circumstance – even in a weak economy, when it may take them a bit longer.

Do currently recognized Union bargaining units exist because the Union drove them or because of the employers’ practices? While each instance is different, the hope is that the bargaining units exist because that selection was the employees’ preference.

Are employees capable of making this selection? Let’s not make the mistake of assessing people’s intelligence solely based on their job title, income, or even their education, whether they are union leaders, company leaders or employees. With the presence of important information and the absence of undue pressures, employees are quite capable of making the right selection for themselves.

* * * * * *

The intensifying debate over the proposed “Employee Free Choice Act” has been fueled by employers’ and unions’ mutual demonization. The hyperbole, name calling and baiting have effectively obscured facts. As these two big bulls lock horns over their self interests, eyeing the spoils of their contest, employees are left in the shadows – pawns of the ritual. Any real concern for an Employee appears to have ended with the titling of the Act.

So during an organizing drive, who really watches out for employees? Having been badgered by union organizers, managers and fellow employees, the anonymity of the secret ballot may be an employee’s only refuge, and the best protector of their own interests.
_________________________________________________________________

For the first 35 years of his career, Stan Davis's in-house human capital responsibilities included working closely with unions, managements and employees in scores of unionized and non-unionized business environments.