Meyerson also nominated two of the Labor Board's rulings to the "Double Standard Hall of Fame."  In the Dana/Metaldyne ruling [3], the Republican majority ruled that when workers form a union by signing cards or petitions, they are subject to pressure and thus it is not the best way to determine worker sentiment.  However, in Wurtland Nursing, the Republican majority ruled that signed cards or petitions are a perfectly suitable demonstration of worker sentiment, making no reference to the potential for coercion from managers or co-workers.  Meyerson concluded [4]:

Signed petitions from workers, in other words, are suspect when the workers want a union and proof positive when they don't.

Seeking Justice at the Labor Board? Don't hold your Breath

Written by Erin Johansson

Thursday, 06 December 2007

Way back in 1989, over 200 Domsey Trading employees decided to form a union and the company retaliated [5] with physical assaults, racial and sexual abuse, and illegally firings.  Yet these workers had to wait until this past September [6] for the National Labor Relations Board to confirm the amount of backpay the company owed them.  I'm a patient person, but 18 years is a long time for wait for justice.  Tragically, one of the main union supporters passed away [7] before he could collect his backpay.  The Domsey Trading case is one of many issued by the Labor Board in September marred by outrageous delays... Baker Electric was pending at the Labor Board for six years [8] before they remanded it back to an administrative law judge to determine how much backpay the company-which is now out of business-owed to its former employees for illegal actions committed in 1993.   The Earthgrains Co. was pending at the Labor Board for seven years [9] before they found an employer guilty of numerous illegal tactics that occurred in 1998.   The Labor Board finally ordered a new election in BP Amoco Chemical seven years [10] after employees voted against union representation in response to illegal intimidation by their employer.   The Labor Board dismissed the employers' objections in Ryder Memorial Hospital and finally certified that the employees voted for a union three years [11] ago.

 

 

Battista in Wonderland

Written by Erin Johansson

Monday, 26 November 2007

This past September, National Labor Relations Board Chairman Robert Battista, appointed by Bush in 2002, led his fellow Republicans in a flurry of anti-worker decisions.  After reviewing these decisions, I'm momentarily deluded into thinking that Americans wield enormous power in the workplace that needs to be checked, and that employers can only catch a break when the government steps in to protect them.  When I quickly return to reality, I'm left wondering if Battista and friends missed the sarcasm in Stephen Colbert's call for management "solidarity." [12] The Labor Board's "September Steamroll" galvanized over 1,000 workers to brave cold November rain and picket the NLRB headquarters in Washington, DC.  Mike Hall of  AFL-CIO Now explains why their members were inspired to protest based on these decisions [13] that:  Make it harder to form unions through majority sign-up [...] Make it harder for illegally fired workers to recover back pay [...] Make it legal for employers to discriminate against union supporters in the hiring process and to refuse to hire a worker who comes to the job intending to try to form a union. More than just the usual suspects are now taking note of the Labor Board's extremist decisions.  The Washington Post [14], National Public Radio [15], The Philadelphia Inquirer [16], The St. Louis Post-Dispatch [17], and other news outlets covered the September rulings and some of the implications for workers.  Chairman Battista even issued a rare statement to the media, dismissing the outcry against the rulings as "shrill political rhetoric [18]."   It's about time the media started noticing that the Board-tasked with protecting our fundamental rights to freedom of association-has been quietly dismantling those rights.