Union Organizers Turn Up the Heat in Olympia and D.C.
By Clemens H. Barnes
July 22, 2009
Four months ago, the “Employee Free Choice Act”—which would have helped union organizers by eliminating secret ballot elections in favor of accepting signed union cards, increased penalties for employers for misconduct in union organizing campaigns, and provided for arbitrator-dictated terms of an employer’s first union contract if bargaining failed—fell short of the votes required to break a filibuster in the U.S. Senate. In Olympia, the “Worker Privacy Act”—which would have limited the ability of employers to tell their side of the unionizing issue—was killed after inappropriate lobbying by organized labor was uncovered by the Seattle Times. See Graham & Dunn Cyber-Graham, March 26, 2009.
In the news this past week are developments on both fronts.
To overcome objections to the effective elimination of secret ballot elections, Democrats in D.C.—in collaboration with organized labor—have reportedly decided to drop the card-check provision in order to capture enough votes to defeat a filibuster. A revised bill is in the works. The bill would drop card-check . . . but would still contain enhanced penalties for employers accused of wrongdoing in opposing union organizing campaigns, and provide for the imposition by a government arbitrator of the terms of a collective bargaining agreement, if an agreement is not promptly reached between the parties. Critics of the proposed legislation, on the management-side of the aisle, argue that the prospect of a government-imposed contract will inflate union demands at the bargaining table, and be a big boost in union organizing to begin with, because a union would then be in a position to promise not just the right to negotiate, but that a contract will actually be obtained (and on terms not dictated by an employer’s bargaining leverage).
In Olympia, reports the P-I Online on Monday, July 13, the State Labor Council is turning up the heat on Democrats in state government, again threatening to cut off campaign financing for politicians who oppose passage of legislation supported by organized labor, specifically, the Workers Privacy Act. A key provision in that legislation would prevent employers from making “captive audience speeches”—holding discussions on company time about the pros-and-cons of unions.
A revised federal Employee Free Choice Act is not in final form, but its drafters are reported to be considering giving union organizers access to company property for campaigning, and, like the Washington State labor bill, barring employers from requiring employees to attend “captive audience” meetings.
