Anticipating And Moving First

    Recently, I wrote about the Kentucky River NRLB cases that are likely to be a bad development for people trying to get a union--the cases, if decided in favor of employers, would take a whole lot of people out of potential or existing bargaining units by classifying them as "supervisors."

    Today, The Wall Street Journal (subscription required) reports that some unions are moving quickly in anticipation of a bad ruling from the NLRB. Those unions are adding to collective bargaining agreements provisions that would protect the units even if an NLRB ruling tried to remove a whole raft of workers from their unions. Here's part of the story:

With new rules likely to restrict the union eligibility of certain workers, some unions are racing to add language to contracts to protect members from being locked out of collective bargaining.

Meanwhile, companies are confident decisions by the National Labor Relations Board will fall in their favor and are seeking to remove workers from existing bargaining units.

The NLRB is expected to determine whether workers with some authority, such as charge nurses in hospitals, lead workers at manufacturers and foremen at construction sites, qualify as supervisors -- and are thus excluded from collective-bargaining protections -- because they use "independent judgment" to direct the schedules and activities of other workers. Labor attorneys and NLRB watchers expect a decision by the end of August, but one could come sooner.

If the board effectively broadens the definition of supervisor, as expected, it would be a setback to organized labor's efforts to expand its presence in growing areas of the economy such as health care. Companies could redefine job duties to ensure workers are no longer eligible to join unions, challenge bargaining units through NLRB petitions or simply refuse to recognize union representation of certain workers. "They can quite frankly say, 'We no longer are going to recognize you as the representative of these people,' " says James Redeker, an attorney in Philadelphia who represents management on labor issues. "The union is then forced to file an unfair labor practice charge."

The issue has flared in the wake of a 2001 Supreme Court decision that opened the door for employers to broaden the types of workers ineligible to join unions. The labor board, then controlled by Clinton administration appointees, had initially sided with unions in a case involving attempts to organize nurses at a health-care facility in Pippa Passes, Ky.

But the Supreme Court overturned the board's decision, saying the board was mistaken when it found that the nurses weren't supervisors. Since then, other cases with similar issues have been filed and are before the five-member board, which is now controlled by Bush administration appointees.

    But, the true idiocy in this potential ruling is seen in this quote:

Some workers, themselves, say they would give up responsibilities overseeing others' work in order to remain in the union."If it meant the difference of being able to be in the union and have my union benefits and my contract, I would choose to stay with the union," said Cyndy Chan, a 35-year-old sheet-metal worker in Portland, Ore.

    So, simply for desiring more control and power and trying to hurt workers, companies will lose people who might turn out to be decent first-line managers but understand the value of sticking with union. Brilliant.

Comments

[liberal elite]

Not being a Journal subscriber, I missed the story quoted above, but I understand this is a major front on Bush assault on the American people.

But it's not just BushCo.

In spite of receiving campaign contributions from just about every major union in New York state, Hillary Clinton--Democratic primary contestant in the US Senate race--has accepted $40,000 in 2006 from SUPA.

Talk about hypocrisy!

[D Flinchum]

Elizabeth Warren tells a remarkable story about Hillary Clinton on pages 123-126 of "The Two-Income Trap", her book about the economic forces making life so hard for middle-class families. EW is an expert on bankruptcy and was surprised in 1998 to have HC join her in opposition to the bankruptcy bill that was finally passed in 2000 but vetoed by President Clinton. HC referred to it as "that awful bill" and vowed to fight it. BC's White House had been at least not opposed to it if not moderately supporting it before HC came out against it.

Fast forward to spring 2001: The bill, basically unchanged, is back in the Senate and HC is the junior Senator from NY. She has received $140,000 in campaign contributions from "banking industry executives". She votes for "that awful bill". I guess she can now argue that she opposed the bill before she voted for it.