Two Pieces on EFCA
Posted On Monday, March 16, 2009 at at 11:25 AM by Dan
Two articles on the Employee Free Choice Act, sorta. The first one is about rights at work which is related to EFCA. The second is about a reform piece that should be in EFCA but isn't. Both are good pieces.
"Can My Employer Do That To Me?"
Find Out If You're Being Treated Fairly
By Kari Lydersen
AlterNet
Posted March 13, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/story/131152/%22can_my_employer_do_that_to_me%22_find_out_if_you%27re_being_treated_fairly/?page=entire
[Alternet moderator: find the website refered to here at:] http://www.canmybossdothat.com/
Labor and employment laws are complicated beasts. A new website launched by the Chicago-based national group Interfaith Worker Justice offers help.
"Can my boss do that?"
It's surely a common refrain nationwide, especially in the current desperate economic climate. Labor and employment laws are complicated beasts, often filled with deceptive terms such as "right to work", which actually has a lot more to do with keeping unions down than anyone's right to work.
With unionization at record lows nationwide and lawyers who offer pro bono advice stretched to their limits, it is hard for workers of any shade of collar to know where to turn for help answering the question "Can my boss do that?" A new website launched by the Chicago-based national group Interfaith Worker Justice offers a good start.
The user-friendly site covers a comprehensive range of the most common workplace related legal terms and situations, providing explanations and answers in clear and concise terminology that breaks down nuances without overwhelming the already-stressed out worker with too much text or extra detail.
The home page features a section tailored to workers facing job loss, with information on severance pay, health insurance including the new stimulus COBRA provision and how to "not get scammed" in looking for a new job. There is a warning that the viewing or emailing of the site may be tracked on work computers...and the strategic disclaimer apparently meant for employers'
eyes: "Ethical employers should not have to face competitors who violate laws and basic decency. This site seeks to have all work honor justice and respect the laborer and employer."
In some cases the answers leave you wanting more context, such as the description of Right-to-Work:
"Right-to-Work laws have nothing to do with whether you can be fired. It's a way to take power away and give workers the Right-to-Work for less."
But the entry on "Fighting unfair treatment" is more typical of the site and comprehensive:
"Even if it's not illegal, you can try to fight unfair treatment. Some companies have internal grievance procedures, (although it may not be impartial). If you have union protection, you have many rights to fair discipline and appeal.
Non-union workers do not have the right to have a co- worker present when they are questioned. You don't have the same job protections as a union member, since you can still be fired with no good reason. Even though it's not a right, you can ask to have a co-worker with you. A witness and advisor can help."
The sections covering worker health and safety and workers' comp appear extremely useful, giving detailed checklists of what one needs to successfully file for workers' compensation and what to do if you are hurt at work.
The site also breaks down the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the 1935 law protecting a workers' right to collective organizing. It lays out the separate laws for railway and airline workers limiting their ability to strike, and outlines which industries are not covered by the NLRA. (It is widely known that farm workers and domestic workers aren't covered, but you might be surprised to learn that neither are employees of religious organizations or of horse and dog racing
tracks.)
There are helpful downloads and links throughout the site, including copies of actual laws, contact information for government agencies and a directory of National Labor Relations Board offices. The section on unions explains both workers' rights to organize a union and their rights within a union. If those rights aren't being respected, the site tells you how to change unions or get rid of a union, with information tailored by state.
Interfaith Worker Justice (previously known as the National Interfaith Committee on Worker Justice) has a long history of working in partnership with unions and with non-union workers in a variety of community-based and democratic campaigns, including creative actions and civil disobedience. Their staff and affiliated faith- based leaders and "workers centers" nationwide probably have first hand experience with nearly every subject covered on the website. They are known for being energetic and effective supporters of union campaigns, while also being quick to help workers fight for their rights within a union or opposing an undemocratic or sluggish union.
For example the section on a union's fair duty of representation reads:
"Representatives of the union (elected leaders, staff, and shop stewards) can't discriminate against a worker because of union politics (for example, because a worker spoke out against something the union was doing or supported another candidate in a union election). The union cannot play favorites. They must represent every worker who is covered by the contract -- members and non-members. The union cannot make a non-member join in order to represent her grievance or discipline case.
Unions have to give a reasonable level of representation, but the standard is pretty low."
This winter Interfaith Worker Justice was deeply involved in the successful struggle of workers at Republic Windows and Doors in Chicago, where more than 200 workers occupied the factory after it was closed suddenly and they were not given federally mandated notice or severance pay. In the face of the occupation and surrounding public and political pressure, two major banks extended loans to cover the money due workers, and a California-based manufacturer of green building components ended up buying the factory and promising to hire workers back. Republic Windows workers were represented by the UE union, whose organizers and supporters were on top of the complicated legal issues involved. But since their high profile victory, the Republic Workers have heard from countless other workers nationwide whose legal rights were violated, and who didn't know it at the time or didn't know where to turn.
This website should be a valuable aid for workers across the country and across the spectrum of industries and positions.
Kari Lydersen, a regular contributor to AlterNet, also writes for the Washington Post and is an instructor for the Urban Youth International Journalism Program in Chicago.
----------------------
Jonathan Cutler
'Free Choice' Must Mean Switching Unions, Too
http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/editorials/hc-cutler-union-free-choice.artmar15,0,7563380.story
Union leaders have a legislative plan that they say is part of the solution for rebuilding a strong labor movement: Make it easier to get into a union. They are pressing congressional Democrats to adopt the so-called "Employee Free Choice Act" that would, among other things, replace the secret ballot union election with a proposed "card check" system that would have a union certified as the sole bargaining representative for workers after 50 percent of employees in a designated unit sign petition cards.
Although the loss of the secret ballot may expose workers to various forms of intimidation, there is something attractive about the notion that it could be as easy to get union representation as it is to get legal representation. But that notion would only make sense if accompanied by another: It should be as easy to replace an ineffectual union as it is to replace a lousy lawyer.
Employee free choice means nothing if workers cannot dump an inept union. But for more than 50 years, the National Labor Relations Board has used an obscure rule — the so-called "contract-bar" doctrine — to strictly limit the ability of workers to trade in an incumbent union for a more attractive competitor. The NLRB will not consider petitions for a challenge election during the first three years of any contract between an incumbent union and an employer. The board will only hear petitions submitted during an intentionally narrow window — the 60 days before the third anniversary of a contract. The rationale for the policy is unambiguous: When there is a conflict between industrial stability and freedom of employees' choice, stability is the paramount consideration.
But it is not just government that favors stability and unity. Incumbent unions love the security afforded by a government policy that blocks external challengers and thwarts escape by union dissidents.
It is no coincidence, then, that in late February the Service Employees International Union — one of the unions pressing most aggressively for the "easy-entry" card-check provision of the Employee Free Choice Act — invoked the "no-exit" contract-bar rule in an increasingly fierce battle with activist health care workers from its enormous 150,000-member local in California who want to dump SEIU and join a rival group, the National Union of Healthcare Workers.
Indeed, it has gone further by asking that the NLRB deny the Kaiser employees' request for a secret ballot challenge election.
Incumbent unions are not the only ones who seem to fear the whole business of union competition — raiding, poaching, challenge elections, etc. Many so-called "pro-labor" academics recoil at the idea of union rivalry. Catherine Fisk, a professor of labor law at the University of California, Irvine, recently warned that employers would probably try to capitalize on the schism.
"Historically, fights within unions have been used by employers to their advantage," Fisk said. "It's the classic divide and conquer strategy."
But that old dog won't bark. In March 2008, one of the nation's most prominent law firms specializing in helping employers manage labor trouble distributed a memo analyzing the growing challenge to the SEIU. The memo warned that "this struggle" would "almost certainly" result in "an energized and aggressive" union movement "in California and elsewhere." The "debate" will force all contenders to prove that they "can bargain strong contracts and organize new members effectively." "Employers are advised," the memo concluded, to prepare for "more aggressive organizing and collective bargaining campaigns." In other words, prepare for a strong labor movement.
But that strong labor movement depends on real employee free choice. In the last instance, union revitalization does not await the end of the secret ballot in union elections but the end of the contract-bar doctrine and the freedom to replace ineffectual unions with nimble, hungry challengers.
•Jonathan Cutler is associate professor of sociology at Wesleyan University. He is the author of "Labor's Time: Shorter Hours, the UAW, and the Struggle for American Unionism."
