Working Life

« Support The Fast | Main | India Not Economic Paradise »

July 05, 2006

Stop the Presses: Employer Resistance Rises

    The headline in The Wall Street Journal this morning could have been "Employers Love Anti-Union Labor Laws" because that is the upshot of the data reported in the article (subscription only):

Unions Set Pacts at a Slower Pace As Clout Wanes, Employers Resist
By KRIS MAHER

Unions are taking longer, as much as five years in some cases, to negotiate contracts after successful organizing campaigns, due to increased employer resistance and the weakened bargaining clout of unions, a development that could hinder efforts to attract and retain members.

Roughly 45% of newly formed unions fail to negotiate a first contract with an employer within two years, according to 2004 data from the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, a federal agency that mediates labor negotiations. Labor officials say they believe the figure has risen since then, as companies grow increasingly wary about health care and pension benefits that unions typically seek during first contract negotiations and that aren't offered by nonunion competitors. Some labor experts say companies also appear more willing to use delaying tactics that test the limits of bargaining "in good faith," essentially in a timely manner, as required by federal law.

    Huh? Don't think that it's a new idea that companies want to delay, delay, delay...there is no contract negotiation that I'm aware of that has been pushed quickly along by any company because the employer benefits from every delay possible as Rick Bank from the AFL-CIO correctly observes:

"It's taking longer to get contracts, and there probably is an incremental decrease in getting contracts," says Richard Bank, director of the collective bargaining department of the AFL-CIO, which represents about nine million workers. "The name of the game is to drag the process out interminably and prove to the workers that the union can't get a contract," he adds.

In April, Ronald Meisburg, general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, sent a memo to the board's 33 regional directors asking them "to focus particular attention on remedies for violations" related to first-contract bargaining. He noted that nearly half of all charges alleging employer refusals to bargain in good faith occur during negotiations for first contracts.

About 330 workers at a Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. wire plant in Asheboro, N.C., joined the United Steelworkers in early 2004, but didn't get a contract until last month. In March, the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers ratified a contract for about 300 engineers at UAL Corp.'s United Airlines after three years of negotiations.

In the Pittsburgh area, the Communications Workers of America recently won first contracts for a group of cable-industry workers after a five-year struggle. At one point, the union was certified to represent 1,000 workers in 10 bargaining units; only 400 workers in five units finally gained contracts starting last fall.

During the course of negotiations, several bargaining units voted the union out while others dwindled through attrition. In November 2002, the workers became employed by Comcast Corp., when it acquired AT&T Broadband. The union alleges the company didn't bargain in good faith.

D'Arcy Rudnay, a spokeswoman for Comcast, said the negotiations took so long in part because of the number of bargaining units involved. She also noted that the NLRB dismissed two charges brought by the union alleging that the company was not bargaining in good faith. "We negotiated complex and very difficult issues in good faith," she said. ppp Marge Krueger, who runs the union's Pittsburgh office, was relieved to get a first contract but says the long negotiations have already damaged organizing efforts because workers doubt the union's ability to get a contract for them.

"They think, 'You can't get contracts for the members you have now,' " she said, adding, "They don't want to go into a five-year battle like this."

Taking too long to reach a contract can cause a union to lose its standing as exclusive bargaining representative. Under federal law, a union has 12 months as an exclusive representative to reach a contract for newly organized workers. After that it risks facing decertification campaigns or challenges from rival unions.

Employers are required by law to bargain in good faith with unions. If negotiations drag on too long, the union can appeal to the NLRB and try to get the board to order the company back to the bargaining table. That process itself takes time. Another recourse for unions that believe the company isn't negotiating in good faith is to strike.

    Ha! I love that last paragraph. What penalty or what sanction with teeth awaits a company that fails to bargain in good faith? None. The game is fixed.

July 5, 2006 in Labor | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b76269e200d8349f048d53ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Stop the Presses: Employer Resistance Rises:

Comments

If workers strike in an effort to compel an employer to agree to a contract, they can be replaced permanently. The NLRB’s reluctance to identify and remedy unfair labor practices that result from employers’ “failure to bargain in good faith” is a systematic denial of the striking workers’ right to keep their jobs while engaging in lawful concerted activity. In the increasingly less frequent instances where an employer is found to have committed an unfair labor practice, striking employees are generally entitled to reinstatement.

Posted by: art | Jul 5, 2006 9:45:14 PM

I spoke to this reporter at length before his article came out and told him not to rely on FMCS data. Unfortunately the article went to press anyway. The FMCS data on first contract rates are flawed because they a) depend on self reporting of new contracts signed by employers and b) have no accurate way off assessing the population of newly organized units in the private sector to then determine which percent of them have gotten first within two years of being organize. This is an issue because as more and more unions turn to organizing outside the NLRB process there is no central body which records when those new units get organized and it is an issue because the NLRB data is increasingly messy in terms of being able to go through a pull out total number units certified in any given year.

If the FMCS rates were right we would have strong evidence of an increase in newly organized units being decertified, plants being closed or units being contacted out post organiziing, elections being overturned,or unions giving up and withdrawiing. Instead, my research over the last 18 years on first contract rates has found the opposite trend. Yes employer opposition is tough and always getting tougher, but one area that unions have been making improvements in is first contracts. That's because the unions that are successful in organizing are running the kinds of campaigns that would make them more likely to win first contracts, and because we have more non-NLRB campaigns where the first contract rate is much higher, and bacause there has been an in organizing in the non-profit sector, where first contract rates are also higher. So first contract rates according to my data are consistently averaging 68% for NLRB campaigns, above 90% for non-NLRB campaigns (and have always averaged above 90% in the public sector). That means that rather than the 45% not getting first contracts with two years of the agreement reported by Maher, the rate in the private sector not getting contracs within two years of the election is more likely to average closer to 15%.

The problem within the labor movement is that there are some who want the bad news number -- that it is getting harder and harder to organize, even when it is based on a flawed source, because they believe it will help in the argument for labor law reform.

But we are only doing ourselves great harm if we make ourselves look weaker than we are to try to get the law changed and provide ammunition to those that would show workers that unions are increasingly irrelevent. There is so much bad news in organizing, the fact that unions have been doing a better job of getting first contracts is not something to hide. And we should be smart enough to understand that a federal agency that gets its first contract data from employers reporting in that they have a first contract but has no good way of determining the total possible universe from which those first contracts could have come, is not the reliable source to use for determinng first contract rates. The only way to collect these data is go through the tedious process of getting a random sample of union organizing campaigns, getting a high response rate, and finding out what the first contract rate is. That is what I have done over the last 15 years, seven different times.

The WSJ went with their story but the labor movement doesn't need to. And needs to be prepared because these data are going to be used by a steady stream of academics to show that unions are increasingly irrelevent. Follow the thread through. Since unions tend to win in increasingly smaller units , and the first contract rate, according to FMCS is only 55% then if you accept their numbers, fewer than 20% of workers who participate in elections/card checks in the private sector end up being unionized. Once that figure comes out in an academic refereed journal then it will be the number that stands.

We are down, but lets not make ourselves appear even worse off than we are. And lets keep our critical edge and remember that in terms of getting real labor law reform, the best thing we can do is build a more powerful movement not use flawed data that makes us look weaker than we actually are.
Kate

Posted by: Kate Bronfenbrenner | Jul 9, 2006 9:02:26 AM

[url=http://drug-effexor.webs.com/]Effexor[/url] (Venlafaxine) is an oral antidepressant drug.

Posted by: elerouxuptuse | Feb 16, 2009 10:08:47 AM

[url=http://effexor-dose.webs.com/]Effexor[/url] (Venlafaxine) is an oral antidepressant drug.

Posted by: Oberrifesia | Feb 22, 2009 11:08:30 PM

Post a comment