When is a FedEx worker not a FedEx employee? When it benefits the FedEx Corporation.  In a new report, Fed Up with FedEx: How FedEx Ground Tramples Workers' Rights at Civil Rights, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and American Rights at Work document the widespread use of employee misclassification at FedEx Ground, which denies workers’ fundamental civil rights and workplace protections.

» Learn more
» Read the executive summary
» Download the report (PDF)

Millions of Americans are classified as independent contractors but essentially work as employees. Under the law, true independent contractors are supposed to be in charge of the methods they use to do their work. But misclassified workers suffer the worst of both worlds: they are without meaningful control over their work and lack the legal protections and benefits of employees.

Bill Belichick knows the cost of breaking the rules. The coach of the New England Patriots was forced to cough up $500,000--about 12% of his annual salary--for spying on his opponents during the NFL's season opener. The league's punishment didn't stop there - the Patriots also had to pay a quarter-million dollar fine and give up at least one draft pick. Discipline was swift and severe. All in all, the punishment was the NFL's biggest ever, and it surely sent a message to every team in the league. The incident stands in stark contrast to another reported last week by the Las Vegas Sun involving Wal-Mart, the world's biggest employer.

Opponents of the Employee Free Choice Act have a one-note strategy to derail reform of our broken labor law system.  The anti-union, right-wing, business lobby simply spins the same broken record of lies, over and over again.  Track 1 is the bogus assertion: "The bill does away with secret ballot elections, and, elections without secret ballots are undemocratic." Track 2 is the counterfeit claim: "Elections for union representation are just like elections for Congress."

Under the current labor law system, employers often use a combination of legal and illegal methods to silence employees who attempt to form unions and bargain for better wages and working conditions. When faced with organizing drives, 25 percent of employers fire at least one pro-union worker; 51 percent threaten to close a worksite if the union prevails; and, 91 percent force employees to attend one-on-one anti-union meetings with their supervisors. The solution: Labor law reform that gives workers a free choice and a fair chance to form a union.

The Employee Free Choice Act allows workers, not their employers, to decide how workers will form a union: through National Labor Relations Board-supervised majority sign-up or through NLRB so-called elections.

Under current law, anti-union employers often drag workers through lengthy negotiations by delaying bargaining sessions, withholding relevant information, and putting forth bogus proposals. Even though these tactics are illegal, there are no effective deterrents to prevent “surface bargaining.”

The Employee Free Choice Act would help ensure that workers and employers reach a first contract in a responsible period of time.

Management routinely coerces employees not to choose union representation.  Freedom of association—the right of employees to join a union and bargain collectively—is theoretically guaranteed by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the U.S. Constitution, and several international human rights agreements.  However, as Human Rights Watch concluded in a 2000 report on U.S. compliance with international human rights standards, employees’ freedom of association in the United States is routinely violated through employer coercion.¹ 

More effective remedies against employer coercion—like injunctive relief and monetary penalties—in the Employee Free Choice Act will help restore workers' freedom to form unions.

Here are some frequently asked questions and answers about majority sign-up procedures.

Even though the National Labor Relations Act says employees have the right to form a union and bargain collectively, in total, 32 million American workers—one quarter of the workforce—are without any legal protection to form unions and collectively bargain.

The right to form a union and collectively bargain is a basic right, recognized by U.S. federal law since 1935 and universally recognized and protected around the world.  So why is it that over 20,000 workers are fired or discriminated against each year for union activities in this country?  One reason workers’ rights violations are so widespread is because the American labor law system offers terribly weak punishments.

It’s well recognized that the ability to have a say in one’s working conditions is fundamental.  That’s why the right to form a union and engage in collective bargaining is considered a human right and a measure of democracy in the industrialized world.  So how is it that so few American workers have a collective voice about their working conditions?  Protection from being fired without just cause?  Or a union contract guaranteeing a level of wages and benefits?  Blame rests with the U.S. labor law system for failing to adequately protect workers’ rights to collective bargaining. 

This report provides an in-depth look at workers fighting for the right to form unions in Florida's nursing home industry. Findings indicate that workers face widespread and systematic violations of their legal and human rights, and show the need for labor law reform.

» Download the report (PDF: 24 pages, 316 KB)

American Rights at Work commissioned University of Oregon political scientist Gordon Lafer to investigate how current union election procedures measure up to U.S. democratic standards.  In spite of the presence of secret ballots, the report concludes that union representation elections fall alarmingly short of living up to the most fundamental tenets of democracy.

Neither Free Nor Fair: The Subversion of Democracy Under NLRB Elections contrasts what NLRB elections look like in the real world with what happens in elections for public office.  

» Full Report (PDF: 72 pages, 733 KB)
» Executive Summary
» Read the related press release  

"Legal obstacles tilt the playing field so steeply against workers' freedom of association that the United States is in violation of international human rights standards for workers." Human Rights Watch Executive Director Kenneth Roth

"[Union election] delays extend the duration and the effectiveness of the employer campaign and undermine employee confidence in the effectiveness of both the union and the labor board." 

"Anti-union employers are making a mockery of the principles governing American elections.  Weak labor laws allow anti-union employers to manipulate the outcome of union elections in a manner that is inherently unfair and undemocratic."

The Bush-appointed National Labor Relations Board issued decisions in October that could strip millions of workers of their right to have a union at work—all without holding public hearings. 

On July 18, 2006, Comedy Central's "The Colbert Report"—a show satirizing Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor"—host Stephen Colbert took on the National Labor Relations Board and the potentially disastrous impact its rulings could have on workers.

Watch the video below:

If you haven't done so, tell President Bush what you think about this latest attack on workers' rights.  The very agency that is supposed to protect a worker's basic right to form a union has once again taken away those rights, and moved instead to protect the interests of big business.

If you need a reason for Congress to pass the Employee Free Choice Act and grant employees the right to form unions through majority sign-up, let me refer you to the case of Green Valley Manor.  In the span of three weeks last summer, employees of this nursing home in St. Louis, Mo., attempted to form a union and were forced to stop in the face of retaliation by their employer. 

Here is a brief timeline of events:

Here’s a tale told far too often: workers have come together to vote for a union, but don’t have a contract in their workplace.  Why?  Their employer unlawfully refuses to bargain with them and the National Labor Relations Board fails to enforce our weak labor law. 

Ten years after Goya Foods employees in Miami voted for a union, a circuit court judge ordered the company to finally negotiate a contract.  This is yet another example of why Congress must amend labor law to grant workers the right to first contract arbitration, ensuring that their vote for a union actually leads to a union contract.

Way back in 1989, over 200 Domsey Trading employees decided to form a union and the company retaliated with physical assaults, racial and sexual abuse, and illegally firings.  Yet these workers had to wait until this past September 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 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...

In September, the National Labor Relations Board issued an unprecedented number of decisions undermining workers’ fundamental rights.  Two of these decisions added new hurdles that workers must overcome before they can receive what employers have unlawfully taken away, most involving backpay. In one case, the NLRB made it even cheaper for employers to fire union supporters to chill an organizing effort.  In the other, the Republican majority of the Board reversed a 45-year precedent to shift a burden of proof from the employer to the worker, to make it more difficult for fired workers to collect backpay. 

 Until now, workers have successfully formed unions through voluntary recognition, a process where employers agree to recognize a union once a majority of workers sign cards.  This peaceful, swift, and non-disruptive organizing method provides an alternative to the flawed National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) election process.  However, workers and employers who use this method are now undermined by a major ruling of the NLRB.  The Republican majority of the Board sided with anti-union groups in radically changing the law.  Without providing legitimate factual evidence to justify reversing 40 years of precedent, the Board exposed its real political motivations.

On May 15, 2006, the Republican majority of the Board ruled that a treatment center for children and adolescents did not retaliate against its employees when it terminated its funding from the United Way after the organization supported employees' bargaining efforts.  The loss of funding meant fewer hours and less pay for several employees. The majority of the Board concluded that the employer merely acted in response to an "intrusion" by a third party, reversing a 2004 decision of an administrative law judge who determined that this tactic was indeed retaliation.

Last year was quite the year for anti-union employers.  The Republican majority of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) went out of its way to endorse the unscrupulous tactics of employers at the expense of workers' rights.

A federal appeals court recently joined the growing chorus of critics of the National Labor Relations Board’s Republican majority.  The Seventh Circuit Court issued a harsh assessment of the Board last month when they ruled to overturn its finding that an employer’s partial lockout of pro-union workers was legal.  The decision wasn’t handed down by “liberal activist judges,” as you might have expected.  Rather, a trio of Republican-appointed judges denounced the Bush Board.

Given all the obstacles workers face when forming unions these days, the last thing they should have to worry about is whether they are, in fact, workers under the law.  Yet for the third time since 2004, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has ruled that a category of workers should not be considered employees.  This time around, newspaper delivery carriers didn’t make the cut.  But the NLRB decision didn’t simply end a semantic debate for thousands of men and women who deliver newspapers around the country, it denied them legal protection to form a union to improve their working conditions. 

All workers—whether they are in a union or not—are supposed to be protected under the National Labor Relations Act when they engage in reasonable on-site work stoppages or job actions. Try telling that to the 83 employees who the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruled were allowed to be fired after peacefully protesting on their employer’s parking lot.  This recent NLRB decision sends the message that employers and their parking lots are more worthy of protection than the already limited rights of workers.

It is a regular pastime for co-workers to chat during a coffee break, at a union hall, or over a beer about workplace issues, good grilling recipes, and celebrity gossip.  Yet a recent ruling by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) allows employers to ban off-duty fraternizing among co-workers, severely weakening the rights of free association and speech, and violating basic standards of privacy for America's workers.

Just as it's against the law for employers to discriminate on the basis of race, gender, ethnicity, age, or disability in hiring practices, it's illegal to not hire someone because of their union affiliation.  Yet that's exactly what happened to eight electricians in Nebraska.  Although the National Labor Relations Board just ruled in their favor, the case demonstrates that while discrimination is technically illegal, a weak and delay-ridden labor law system renders it an effective strategy for an employer to remain union-free. 

When five workers voted unanimously to form a union through the National Labor Relations Board process, they likely thought it would be a matter of weeks before they could begin bargaining with their employer.  They were mistaken.  Two years and three separate legal determinations later, these workers haven't gotten to the bargaining stage, thanks to an NLRB election process enabling frivolous legal objections filed by the employer.

As we've made clear in our Workers Rights Watch: Eye on the NLRB series, a number of recent decisions from the National Labor Relations Board have restricted the rights of workers struggling to form unions. What we haven't mentioned before is that the Board has narrowed legal protections for the majority of Americans who are not represented by a union, but who need to turn to co-workers for 'mutual aid and protection' when they fear employer reprisal.  A case involving a non-union Wal-Mart employee makes evident how labor law impedes rather than protects these workers' rights.

When a small group of engineers asked for union recognition, their employer responded with retaliation so severe—including threats of job loss, unlawful surveillance, and the firing of their co-worker—that it was no wonder they voted against forming a union when the election was eventually held.  Unfortunately, the engineers had to wait for two years for a judge to find the employer guilty.  And while the judge threw out the results of the election and ordered the employer to recognize the union and bargain with the engineers, the ruling was immediately appealed by the employer.  The ultimate insult for the engineers, however, was the National Labor Relations Board's recent decision to overturn the judge’s ruling. The Bush-appointed NLRB members decided that the best solution to an employer seriously threatening and intimidating employees was… another election.

This summer, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) told hard-working graduate research and teaching assistants that they were not workers, and therefore denied them the right to organize and collectively bargain.  Workers' rights took another step backwards when the NLRB recently decided that disabled employees who receive rehabilitative services from their employer are not workers, and are therefore ineligible to form a union under the protections of federal law.  This ruling is not only a major setback for disabled Americans and their efforts to fully integrate into the workforce and society, but represents another move by the NLRB to shrink federal protections of worker rights. 

North Carolina meatpackers have endured grisly working conditions, unfair pay, and a decade of attacks on their right to organize.  So why has the NLRB failed to rule on their case for four years?   

When employees collectively decide that they no longer wish to be represented by a union, they have the ability under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to vote to revoke union representation at their workplace.  This process, known as a decertification, is expressly intended for workers to initiate, not employers.  While it is illegal for employers to orchestrate a decertification election to rid employees of their union, they can use their position of power to break the law with little fear of the consequences. 

Workers at Pearson Educational, Inc. in Indianapolis have been in limbo since they voted for union representation six years ago.  It all started in June of 1998, when a majority of warehouse and distribution workers chose union representation.  Instead of accepting the results of the election and negotiating wages, benefits, and working conditions with its employees, the company chose to appeal, resulting in a delay that stalled bargaining for years.  On July 6, 2004, the appeals process was exhausted, the result of the election was confirmed, and the company was finally ordered to bargain six years after the workers voted for union representation.

What would prevent a corporation from lying to shareholders about profits if its only punishment was to promise it wouldn't lie again?  Sadly, when a company violates labor law, often the company's only punishment is to post a notice promising not to break the law again.  With remedies like this, there is little to deter employers from violating labor law.  In May 2004, the NLRB ordered just such a remedy, and if anything, it sent a message to nurses in Albany, NY, that the law does little to protect their rights. 

On September 18, 2003, workers at New York Display & Die Cutting Corp. cast ballots to decide on union representation.  Yet even with just 26 ballots cast, it wasn’t until June 3, 2004—more than eight months after the election—that the results were announced. The workers at the sign and display production company expected and deserved a swift resolution, but were instead forced to hold their breath awaiting the election outcome. 

David Snead worked for Hewlett Packard (HP) for years with a clean work record.  Then in February 2002, he discussed the idea of forming a union with his co-workers. Not long after his supervisors learned of David’s efforts to organize a union, they illegally fired him for misconduct he had not committed, according to a recently issued decision of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

 Behind closed doors, the fate of millions of America's workers will be decided by the National Labor Relations Board.  The five-member Board is considering three cases which could strip millions of workers-including nurses, quality control inspectors, sales representatives, and many others-of their rights to form a union and collectively bargain.  Yet despite the great significance of the ruling, the Republican majority of the Board is refusing to hold public hearings on the matter.