| U.S. Labor Law Fails to Protect Collective Bargaining |
|
|
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. The Value of Collective Bargaining
U.S. Labor Law Fails to Protect Collective BargainingThe 1935 National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) was passed to protect the right of workers in this country to “bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing.” The NLRA requires that once workers form a union, the employer and the union are obligated to bargain in “good faith,” where both parties must “meet at reasonable times,” and productively confer about “wages, hours, and other terms or conditions of employment.” Yet the Law is Easily Manipulated: A simple, but effective unionbusting strategy for employers is to avoid meaningful bargaining at all costs. "You haven’t lost until you sign a contract, consultants tell employers. Consultants advise management on how to stall or prolong the bargaining process, almost indefinitely—bargaining to the point of boredom….”8 American employers are now so proficient in sidestepping negotiations with their employees that 32 percent of workers who demonstrate majority support for union representation lack a collective bargaining agreement one year later.1 How Employers Game the System:
Law Leaves Workers in LimboIt is no surprise that so many workers in the United States are without union contracts when you examine the case of Champion Homes. For over four years, the 250 workers who assemble houses at the Champion Homes plant in Lindsay, CA, have been struggling to secure a union contract.
In July 2000, the workers voted for union representation by the
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America (Carpenters).
They formed a union to address insufficient The Champion workers who hoped to address these problems instead found negotiations with management to be an exercise in futility. According to Carlos Sahagun, a painter who has worked for the company for over 14 years, “We were almost negotiating with ourselves.” In late 2001, after months of failed negotiations, the Carpenters filed charges against the company with the NLRB for not living up to its duty to bargain. Champion Homes withdrew recognition of the union and announced it would no longer negotiate with workers in 2002. Finally, in January 2003, an Administrative Law Judge ruled that Champion Homes unlawfully refused to recognize and bargain with the union, and refused to provide the union with necessary information needed to bargain.6 The Judge then ordered Champion to “cease and desist” from refusing to bargain in good faith, to post a notice that it will not engage in the practices in the future, and to return to the bargaining table. Unfortunately for the workers at Champion Homes, justice was not served with this NLRB ruling. Predictably, the company refused to bargain in good faith. As a result, the NLRB requested that a U.S. District Court issue an injunction to force the company back to the bargaining table. In August 2003, a U.S. District Judge ordered the company to “immediately recognize and…bargain in good faith and at reasonable times with the Union.”7 The company appealed the injunction, and the workers have moved no closer to a contract that would allow them to address their problems at work. Despite these setbacks, Carlos Sahugan insists that he will continue to press for a union contract, and would “rather stay in limbo than let the company win. I’m not giving up the fight.” Endnotes 1 Kate Bronfenbrenner, “Uneasy Terrain: The Impact of Capital Mobility on Workers, Wages and Union Organizing,” U.S. Trade Deficit Review Commission, 2000. Bronfenbenner analyzed a random sample of more than 400 National Labor Relations Board certification union-election campaigns that took place in 1998 and 1999. 2 Human Rights Watch, “Unfair Advantage: Workers’ Freedom of Association in the United States Under International Human Rights Standards," 2000. 3 Ibid. 4 Ibid. 5 United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, “Building Communities, One Home at a Time.” August 2002 6 Decision of an Administrative Law Judge before the National Labor Relations Board San Francisco Division of Judges, Carpenters Union Local No. 1109, AFL-CIO, January 17, 2003. Case 32-CA-19152-1 et al, (ALJ January 17, 2003). 7 Decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Allan B. Reichard, Petitioner vs. Champion, Respondent. Petition for Temporary Injunction Under Section 10j of the NLRA, (August 22, 2003). 8 Logan, John. (2002) “‘Union Free’ movement in the USA,” Industrial Relations Journal, vol. 33, no. 3, 2002. |
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
American Rights at Work is a nonprofit advocacy organization dedicated to promoting the freedom of workers to organize unions and bargain collectively with employers.