Unions Forge Secret Pacts With Major Employers

[question everything]

The Wall Street Journal

Unions Forge Secret Pacts With Major Employers
By KRIS MAHER
May 10, 2008; Page A1

Two of the nation's largest labor unions have struck confidential agreements with large employers that give the companies the right to designate which of their locations, and how many workers, the unions can seek to organize. The agreements are raising questions about union transparency and workers' rights. A summary document put together by the unions says it is critical to the success of the partnership "that we honor the confidentiality and not publicly disclose the existence of these agreements." That includes not disclosing them to union members.

The agreements involve workers who provide food, laundry and housekeeping services on an outsourced basis. The employers are Sodexho Inc. and the Compass Group USA unit of London-based Compass Group PLC. The unions are the 1.7 million-member Service Employees International Union, or SEIU, and Unite Here. The unions say they negotiated a similar agreement with Aramark Corp. but that Aramark broke the deal last year, and they're trying to reach a new one. An Aramark spokesman declined to comment on that. The unions defend the agreements and their secrecy, saying they've helped workers join unions in growing industries at a time of declining union membership in many sectors. Last year, 7.5% of private-sector workers belonged to unions, compared with 17% 25 years ago. The agreements have "resulted in tens of thousands of workers getting unions" and been a major advance for the labor movement, said the president of Unite Here, Bruce Raynor.

(snip)

Labor experts said agreements such as those the SEIU and Unite Here reached open a window on a big debate within organized labor: what kind of tradeoffs to make when forging neutrality deals, and whether to let union members know of the tradeoffs. The SEIU's president, Andy Stern, said the unions sought the agreements after realizing that traditional organizing campaigns at individual sites were proving ineffective. "The old ways aren't working, and we're trying to find different relationships with employers that guarantee workers a voice," he said. He dismissed the idea that the new agreements are undemocratic. "These workers have no unions; that's where we start from," he said.

(snip)

The agreements, which expire at then end of 2008, stipulate the number of employees that the unions can try to organize: 11,000 Sodexho workers and 20,000 Compass workers. The unions gave up the right to strike and to post derogatory language about the companies on bulletin boards. With Compass, the unions agreed to these restrictions "anywhere in the world." In exchange, the companies agree not to oppose union organizing at the designated locations. But limits are also set. "Local unions are not free to engage in organizing activities at any Compass or Sodexho locations unless the sites have been designated," says the confidential summary.

(snip)

Some argue that the SEIU is adding new members at the expense of current ones. "We really believe that Stern and the international are putting growth in numbers ahead of any other consideration of what a union means in the lives of working people," said Zev Kvitky, president of a small SEIU local that represents food-service and custodial workers at Stanford University. Mr. Stern, rejecting the criticism, said the union actually is becoming less centralized. Labor experts said it was highly unusual for unions to give employers the ability to choose which employees a union can try to organize. "That's not widespread," said Robert Bruno, associate professor of labor relations at the University of Illinois at Chicago. "When you agree to these kinds of conditions the question is what is lost and what is gained?" The agreements enable the unions to organize workers through a simple card-signing process in which the companies agree to remain neutral, rather than a secret-ballot election. The companies agree to provide the unions with lists of employees and access to workers. The unions give up the ability to strike and agree that they will present issues before a labor-management committee before engaging in leafleting or rallies.


URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121038122486582367.html (subscription)

[Vincardog]

1. From targeted states to targeted union sites we have to make them quit bargaining with the devil.

Who the hell are they to say I don't deserve union protection?

[mitchtv]

2. Is this the same SEIU who attacked the

Nurse' convention? For Shame

[unkachuck]

3. if these secret agreements....

"that we honor the confidentiality and not publicly disclose the existence of these agreements."

....are in any way beneficial to membership, why can't they stand the light of day?....and yes, that's undemocratic....do you have secret monthly membership meetings too?....and secret contracts and secret conventions?

"...and we're trying to find different relationships with employers..."

....I can understand trying to boost membership but you don't do so by selling your soul in a partnership with the devil....

"Local unions are not free to engage in organizing activities at any Compass or Sodexho locations unless the sites have been designated,"

....you need their permission?....you have designated-organization-zones?....just like free-speech-zones?

"The unions give up the ability to strike..."

....this I'll never understand, striking is the only real weapon you have....I'd give up my right to strike when management gave up their right to manage....

[KitSileya]

4. Talk about selling out.

That's the only way to interpret this. The union honchos are tossing their members under the bus and selling out. It's clear they don't have the courage to stand and fight for their rights as union folks should.