Huff Post: Labor Targets Unionbusting Firms, Front Groups Profiting from Fear of Workers' Rights

[Omaha Steve]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/art-levine/labor-targets-unionbustin_b_173759.html

Art Levine

Contributing editor of The Washington Monthly
Posted March 11, 2009 | 02:55 AM (EST)

As political wars broke out yesterday over union rights, at a hearing before the Senate health and labor committee, economic experts were joined by union members -- an electrical line repair woman from Alaska and others -- who explained the benefits of joining a union as a gateway to the middle class.

The battle over the Employee Free Choice Act introduced yesterday, however, is also proving to be a full-employment project not just for lobbyists and flacks, but "union avoidance" firms such as Jackson-Lewis that are marketing "Employee Free Choice Act Defense Kits" for nearly $5,000 a set, if you act now.

Jackson Lewis asks:

Is your company at risk for a union organizing attempt?

Is everyone, at every level of your company, aware of the tactics unions are using today to gain new members? EFCA calls for revolutionary changes to labor law, changes that would allow them to organize your entire workforce by simply getting 50% +1 employee to sign a "union authorization" card. That means 100% of your employees could become union members without ever having been asked to voice their opinion on that representation... representation that would obligate every employee to pay dues, that would obligate you to bargain on wages, benefits and working conditions, and could make your company liable to substantial fines for any infraction of the law.


Introducing the EFCA Defense Kit: The Ultimate Union-Free Solution

...With the anticipated shifts in the political climate, its imperative that every company begin educating employees at all levels in order to protect those employees' rights. Companies that are caught unaware of the card check provisions in this law could find themselves facing a unionized workforce that never had the chance to hear the potential downside of union membership.

A vital, time-limited offer

The EFCA Defense Kit is worth every penny and more. In fact, many companies who understand the cost of a union organizing drive, or worse yet, unionization, consider the cost of this kit nominal for the powerful information it delivers. The kit contains 6 DVDs that educate upper management, supervisors and mid-level managers, existing employees and new employees. What's more, it offers ongoing communication that will help your company stay union-free for years to come - all through great communication tools and positive employee relations.

FULL story at link.

[B Whale]

1. Do you know what % of

the US workforce is Unionised? And is it rising or falling out of interest?

[Omaha Steve]

2. After 20 plus years in decline

The last 2 years it has risen.

[B Whale]

3. I'm interested in the different

views of the American 'left' (democrats) or america at large of Unions. I'm from the UK and the Union movement here, as you probably well know, started the Labour party so the Unions could have parlinmentary representation so is well ingrained in our political culture.

In addition the ideal of the freedom to organise is a cherished one by many here in the UK, but doesn't appear to be in America, a place with a lot more emphasis on freedom. Forming a Union should be, in my mind, non-contradictory with American ideals of freedom but it appears to be. Am i correct? and if so why do you think this is?

[Dr.Phool]

5. It's not "falling out of interest".

More people today than ever say they want to join a union. Corporations have fought a might war for decades to prevent elections, and make it damn near impossible to form a union.

That's why the Employee Free Choice Act is a necessity. It levels the playing field, and removes managements most potent weapons, such as fear and intimidation, delaying tactics to stall elections, etc.

[pnutbutr]

4. unions are good for the most part but

I don't think anyone should be required to join.

The one thing I really don't like about them is that most of the time they create tension between the employees and employer. It fuels distrust, the us against them attitude and breeds the enough is never enough mentality.

Look at the car companies right now. They are required to pay 80% salary to workers who aren't working. Policies like that are what drive the companies into chapter 11 in times of economic hardship and allow them to eliminate pensions for everyone. Layoffs are terrible but honestly, what's better, laying off some workers, continuing to provide benefits like pensions and staying in business or laying off everyone and eliminating any and all benefits then having the company restructure and pretend nothing happened?

Basically, unions and employers need to work together to understand eachothers positions, the potential consequences of their requests and compromise on what's best overall for everyone instead of maintaining the us vs. them fight for every inch.

[Dr.Phool]

6. A union does try to work together with a company for mutual benefit.

Most employees are happy with mutually agreed upon work rules, grievance procedures, and an honest days pay. Unions are protection against vindictive managers.

Also, remember that "requiring companies to pay 80% salary to workers who aren't working" is not unreasonable. Whenever a contract negotiation is started, there is a pretty much set package that can be negotiated. You exchange hourly benefits in the package for payments into a fund to pay for that benefit. The same thing with pensions, vacations, and health care.

The biggest expense in the package, other than wages, is by far health care. One more reason that universal, single payer would benefit both employers and employees. It would free up a major expense for corporations.

When you go to work for a union shop, you are required to pay dues, because you're reaping the same pay and benefits that are negotiated by the union. You can't come in and undermine everyone else by working for less, and not paying dues.

[B Whale]

7. It only becomes Us aginst Them

in my experience when the employer is exploitative. If profit is the only motive in a business this is widespread, if Unions are prevelant in a business it ensures profit is not the only overiding factor in decision making and conflict becomes less likely

[pnutbutr]

8. profit is

the only point of business. Unions force the shift in focus and create animosity and conflict. Unions are great for workers but businesses hate them for a reason. It's forces them to sacrifice profit and creates the us vs. them mentality in the ongoing struggle for the workers to gain benefits and the company to gain profit.

[B Whale]

9. I don't agree that the only point of business

is profit. That mentality leads to the conflict you talk about not the Unions.

If the only point of a business is profit and no other consideration is taken into account then that is when rivers are polluted, workers die in accidents, workers are laid off with no reason or notice, are exploited, under paid and generally treated like sh1t. Hence the Unions

[pnutbutr]

10. hence

government regulations and workers rights laws. Unions serve to expand on those laws by making specific contracts with the employer.

[B Whale]

11. This laws are only there because of the Unions.

There is an essential conflict between workers and business with or without Unions. Businesses seek to maximise profits and workers seek fair pay and treatment.

Businesses are more powerful than individual workers so Unions exist to counterbalance that and strive for fair treatment on behalf of individual workers.

As for expanding Labour Laws. The world is ever changing and laws and protection needs to be constantly improved and altered to fit new realities in the workplace.