|
From Americans Rights at Work Written by Erin Johansson |
|
| March 28, 2008 | |
|
Circuit court judges appointed by Presidents Reagan and G.W. Bush ruled recently that a 2005 decision by the Bush NLRB was unreasonable. The Bush Board found that the CEO of Stanadyne Automotive Corp. acted legally when he prohibited "harassment" in response to what he described as "union supporters harassing...fellow employees" during the organizing campaign. Yet the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit disagreed, and ruled that since the employer had already announced one illegal rule prohibiting workers from discussing unions with their coworkers, "no reasonable employee could fail to infer that the rule against 'harassment'...was intended to discourage protected election activity." This decision is a step in the right direction to tip the NLRB back to neutral ground, after it handed out a unionbusting playbook for employers in 2005. But unfortunately, the circuit court left the Board's other decisions in the case standing, including that Stanadyne did nothing wrong when he spread intimidating statements and propaganda around the workplace during the campaign, including a giant poster with the word "CLOSED" written across images of shuttered plants. The court noted that the Labor Board made this ruling on the basis that the "prediction" of plant closure was based on "objective fact." Right-like the fact that 51 percent of employers faced with organizing efforts threaten to close the facility if workers vote for a union, yet fewer than three percent of these employers follow through with the threat. Clearly, we have a long way to go. |
|
From Americans Rights at Work Written by Erin Johansson |
|
| March 25, 2008 |
In a rebuke of the Bush Board, an agency of the United Nations ruled that the NLRB's decision to broaden the definition of supervisor was in violation of core international labor standards. The International Labor Organization (ILO) charged that three 2006 supervisor decisions "appear to give rise to an overly wide definition of supervisory staff that would go beyond freedom of association principles... [and] might lead to the exclusion of wide categories of workers from protection of their freedom of association rights."
In response to a complaint filed by the AFL-CIO, the ILO's Committee on Freedom of Association Committee reiterated that supervisors are "only those persons who genuinely represent the interests of employers," which is contrary to the Bush Board's new definition of a supervisor, which includes those with "minor or sporadic oversight over co-workers." The committee also expressed concern about the potential "clogging of the representation and collective bargaining process through an increase in appeals filed by employers with a view to challenging the status of employees in bargaining units."
The ILO committee recommended that the U.S. government take the necessary steps to ensure that only true supervisors are excluded from the protections of the National Labor Relations Act. The United States is bound to uphold international labor standards, including the freedom of association, as a member of the ILO. Are you paying attention, members of Congress? You have a chance to right this wrong.
|
Written by Erin Johansson |
|
| March 18, 2008 | |
|
Joe Hendricks wanted little more than respect from Wal-Mart when he decided to vote for union representation along with his coworkers in the meat department in 2000. He told me that at Wal-Mart, "We was more of a number, you know?" Yet after the union vote by the Jacksonville, Texas, employees, Wal-Mart eliminated meat-cutting positions companywide and argued that it had no obligation to recognize their union. The company also fired Joe and several other union supporters. The workers at the Jacksonville store remain the only Wal-Mart employees in the U.S. to successfully vote for union representation. Now, eight years after the union vote, the D.C. Circuit Court just affirmed a National Labor Relations Board decision and ordered Wal-Mart to negotiate with the workers-but merely over the effects of the company's decision to eliminate their jobs. There will be no union representation at the store, and the workers won't get to bargain over wage increases, job security, or better equipment. Wal-Mart has successfully gamed the system and remains union-free. Joe's dream for respect is a basic one, but apparently one that our labor law system could not accommodate. |