Democrats Drop Key Part of Bill to Assist Unions

[cal04]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/17/business/17union.html?hp

A half-dozen senators friendly to labor have decided to drop a central provision of a bill that would have made it easier to organize workers.

The so-called card-check provision — which senators decided to scrap to help secure a filibuster-proof 60 votes — would have required employers to recognize a union as soon as a majority of workers signed cards saying they wanted a union. Currently, employers can insist on a secret-ballot election, a higher hurdle for unions.

The abandonment of card check was another example of the power of moderate Democrats to constrain their party’s more liberal legislative efforts. Though the Democrats have a 60-40 vote advantage in the Senate, and President Obama supports the measure, several moderate Democrats opposed the card-check provision as undemocratic.

In its place, several Senate and labor officials said, the revised bill would require shorter unionization campaigns and faster elections.

While disappointed with the failure of card check, union leaders argued this would still be an important victory because it would give companies less time to press workers to vote against unionizing.

[Earth Bound Misfit]

1. I would be willing to give up the card-check provision ...

...in exchange for a fairer election process, one that would:

1)shorten the length of time between petition and election.

2)give equal access to employees to both management and the Union during the period between petition and election.

3)Would streamline the lengthy appeals process currently in place for post-election objections:

If the NLRB finds that the election was fairly conducted and certifies it, the employer is obligated under the law to bargain in good faith with the workers' chosen representative. The employer can legally defy the NLRB's order by engaging in a technical refusal to bargain. Using this tactic, the employer forces the Union to file a new ULP charge with the NLRB, and the NLRB must then initiate a ULP case based on the employer's refusal to bargain, and seek support for the NLRB ruling from an Appellate Court. YEARS of litigation often follow. And all this takes place AFTER the NLRB's already lengthy 2 stage appeal process.

I would be willing to make concessions on the arbitration and mediation provisions, maybe extend the period to 6 months (or more) before the mediation and arbitration process starts. The 90-120 days is unrealistic, IMO.

The one thing I would be unwilling to compromise on is the "penalties" provision. These are a must. A common expression of U.S. labor law says that the NLRA is remedial, not punitive. The NLRB cannot penalize an employer for breaking the law. It can only order a "make-whole" remedy restoring the status quo for unfair labor practices.

This is what typically happens when an employer breaks the law:

The NLRB issues an order stating something like "we shall order it to cease and desist, to bargain on request with the Union,..." and further "order" them to POST A SIGN FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS "IN A CONSPICUOUS PLACE" stating (sarcastically paraphrasing) "We know we were naughty, but we promise we won't do it again".

Of course, they WILL "do it again", because the current law provides no real disincentive for employers to flout the NLRB's orders.

No, no compromise WHATSOEVER on the penalties provision. I'm sure the counter to that would be mgmt would want increased penalties on Unions who commit similar violations. Fine with me. I am not naive enough to think that Unions don't break laws, too, and by increasing penalties on Unions, it provides even further protection for workers, which is NEVER a bad thing.

Edit spelling