SEIU: 'No-vote' unionism is more democratic

US employers believe their workers face a fundamental attack on their basic rights, in the form of Democrat-backed proposals that could alter labor law. "Our members believe this legislation is really detrimental to democracy and freedom of choice," says Jeri Gillespie, vice-president of human resource policy at the National Association of Manufacturers, about the proposed legislation the Democrats call the Employee Free Choice Act.

"It is terribly unfortunate that people are not talking about the fact that you are giving up your right to a secret ballot," says Lee Scott, chief executive of Wal-Mart, a company with a robustly anti-union record.

But both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, the two Democratic presidential hopefuls, say that if elected they will support changes in labor law that unions say are needed to protect the ability of workers to join a organise if they want to.

Anna Burger, the international secretary-treasurer for the SEIU service workers union, argues that the -legislation - which is likely to return to the legislative agenda in 2009 - "is about having employees exercising their voice, free of intimidation".

"The reality is that, in fact, they are intimidated, threatened and fired . . . So it is basically giving workers the democratic right to form a union."

Under current labour law, dating back to 1936, employers can choose to recognize a union based simply on a majority of workers signing a petition asking for representation. However, they also have the right to insist on a secret ballot, overseen by the National Labor Relations Board.

The ballot allows employers to hold mandatory "captive audience" meetings with workers to put the case against the union. Labour lawyers and "union avoidance consultants" are also regularly called in to support the management's position.

Bruce Raynor, head of the Unite Here textile and service workers union, points out that even if the union wins, there is no legal mechanism for enforcing a contract should the employer fail to negotiate in good faith. His members, he says, spent seven years unsuccessfully seeking a contract with Goya, a food processor in Miami, after winning a ballot.

As a result, Unite Here no longer attempts to organize in workplaces where employers insist upon an NLRB ballot.

"US labour law is set up in such a way that if the union chooses the procedure laid out in the law to organise and the employer opposes it, then the union simply cannot organise," he says. "It simply doesn't work, so we have abandoned it."

Unite Here, with 440,000 members in the US and Canada, is continuing to expand, adding more than 15,000 members last year. But it does so by first reaching deals under which the employer agrees to remain neutral as the workers debate representation and commits to negotiate a contract with the union if it wins their support. The UFCW grocery union has also abandoned its efforts to organise Wal-Mart workers, focusing instead on a broader political campaign against the retailer.

The Canadian province of Quebec shows the difference a card-count system could make for US unions. Provincial law allows union recognition without a ballot, leading to local union victories against both Wal-Mart and Cintas, a laundry services company. In the US, both are adamantly anti-union companies. Quebec law also allows a government-appointed mediator to impose a contract on the parties.

The current level of employer opposition provides an indication of how fiercely US employers will fight a similar situation developing, even if the Democrats control both the White House and Congress.

(ft.com)