ࡱ> qp|( / 0LDArialԖe0Ԗ0llp-a0@ .  @n?" dd@  @@`` TC      0AA@s<ʚ;#-ʚ;g4VdVd$' -a0bppp@ <4dddd8))0lL 0___PPT10 ^___PPT9@8 ?  %O  =j Unions, Employers and the LawClassAdministrativeReading for next class  Size and Structure of the Labor Movement  2 readings both in B&LReviewGrowth of contingent employment and growth of sweat shops Unionization among graduate teaching assistants Developments in the AFL-CIO including the split of 2005TodayTraditional Approach of Employers Union Organizing, Collective Bargaining and the Law Contemporary Management Approaches Impact on Likelihood of Unionization 0" ;I. Traditional Employer Approaches to Unions and Bargaining<<(_How did employers respond to unionization in the 19th century? How about in the 20th century? 6`3  II. The LawFRights of representation and to engage in bargaining Majority rule (EG  ElectionsTo be free of restraint or coercion Employers free to express opinions about unionization but not to engage in victimization of employees before, during or after union organizing campaign 'III. Contemporary Management Approaches(((Try to avoid employees even discussing unionization Use of consultants Fire and harass union activists Use of threats and intimidation "Contemporary Management Approaches##(If union wins Legal delays December 2001 Bush Administration repealed rule that government agencies can refuse to grant federal contracts to companies that don t comply with labor, environmental and consumer protection laws  The EnerSys caseIIn 1995 IUE won an election at EnerSys 2004 lawsuit: EnerSys sued its anti-union law firm, Jackson Lewis Each blamed the other for illegal activity Testimony about law suit led to 120 ULP charges against EnerSys for campaign to decertify the union Company settled back claims for $7.75 million. However, it has closed the plantJZJ>v IV. Impact on UnionizationIncreasing acceptability of employers deliberately violating the law Hypocrisy of employers as guardians of free choice Unions have tried to avoid NLRB election process  Next Time(Size and Structure of the Union Movement/    0` 33` Sf3f` 33g` f` www3PP` ZXdbmo` \ғ3y`Ӣ` 3f3ff` 3f3FKf` hk]wwwfܹ` ff>>\`Y{ff` R>&- {p_/̴>?" dd@,|?" dd@   " @ ` n?" dd@   @@``PR    @ ` ` p>> f(    6\  `}  T Click to edit Master title style! !  0^  `  RClick to edit Master text styles Second level Third level Fourth level Fifth level!     S  0e ^ `  >*  0j ^   @*  0o ^ `  @*H  0޽h ? 3380___PPT10.!` Default Design0  (     N__ P   n*  888SSoo  N__    p*  888SSood  c $ ?  4  N__ k 0I  RClick to edit Master text styles Second level Third level Fourth level Fifth level!     S   T__ P   n*  888SSoo   T#__    p*  888SSooH  0޽h/ ? 3380___PPT10.!HH$0  $(  r  S x>  r  S   `    H  0޽h ? 3380___PPT10.!`$ 0 0 $(   r  S  `}   r  S  `  H  0޽h ? 3380___PPT10.!nT$ 0 @$(  r  S D `}   r  S L> `  H  0޽h ? 3380___PPT10.!i: 0 P:(  r  S $ `}     S  `  "H  0޽h ? 3380___PPT10.!W 0 `P(  r  S TC `}     S TD `<$0  H  0޽h ? 33___PPT10..!p+[W_D' = @B D' = @BA?%,( < +O%,( < +D' =%(D)' =%(D' =ABBB@B0B%())))?D' =1:Bvisible*o3>+B#style.visibility<*?%(D' =%(D)' =%(D' =ABBB@B0B%())))?D' =1:Bvisible*o3>+B#style.visibility<*@_%(+8+0+0 + 0 pP(  r  S a `}     S b `<$0  H  0޽h ? 33___PPT10..!#+[W_D' = @B D' = @BA?%,( < +O%,( < +D' =%(D)' =%(D' =ABBB@B0B%())))?D' =1:Bvisible*o3>+B#style.visibility<*5%(D' =%(D)' =%(D' =ABBB@B0B%())))?D' =1:Bvisible*o3>+B#style.visibility<*6D%(+8+0+0 + 0 (P(  (r ( S n `}    ( S o `<$0  H ( 0޽h ? 33___PPT10..!3T+[W_D' = @B D' = @BA?%,( < +O%,( < +D' =%(D)' =%(D' =ABBB@B0B%())))?D' =1:Bvisible*o3>+B#style.visibility<*($%(D' =%(D)' =%(D' =ABBB@B0B%())))?D' =1:Bvisible*o3>+B#style.visibility<*(%%(+8+0+(0 +  0 4f(  4r 4 S  `}    4 S  `<$0  "p`PpH 4 0޽h ? 33  ___PPT10 ..!P+[W_D* ' = @B D ' = @BA?%,( < +O%,( < +D' =%(D)' =%(D' =ABBB@B0B%())))?D' =1:Bvisible*o3>+B#style.visibility<*44%(D' =%(D)' =%(D' =ABBB@B0B%())))?D' =1:Bvisible*o3>+B#style.visibility<*44G%(D' =%(D)' =%(D' =ABBB@B0B%())))?D' =1:Bvisible*o3>+B#style.visibility<*4Gg%(D' =%(D)' =%(D' =ABBB@B0B%())))?D' =1:Bvisible*o3>+B#style.visibility<*4g%(+8+0+40 +g  0 8f(  8r 8 S H `}    8 S |Ʃ `<$0  "p`PpH 8 0޽h ? 339 1 ___PPT10 ..!0K+[W_D' = @B D\' = @BA?%,( < +O%,( < +D' =%(D)' =%(D' =ABBB@B0B%())))?D' =1:Bvisible*o3>+B#style.visibility<*8%(D' =%(D)' =%(D' =ABBB@B0B%())))?D' =1:Bvisible*o3>+B#style.visibility<*8%(D' =%(D)' =%(D' =ABBB@B0B%())))?D' =1:Bvisible*o3>+B#style.visibility<*8%(+8+0+80 +c 0 0LP(  Lr L S ѩ `}    L S ҩ `<$0  H L 0޽h ? 33KC___PPT10#..# 5u+[W_D ' = @B Dn ' = @BA?%,( < +O%,( < +D' =%(D)' =%(D' =ABBB@B0B%())))?D' =1:Bvisible*o3>+B#style.visibility<*L'%(D' =%(D)' =%(D' =ABBB@B0B%())))?D' =1:Bvisible*o3>+B#style.visibility<*L'j%(D' =%(D)' =%(D' =ABBB@B0B%())))?D' =1:Bvisible*o3>+B#style.visibility<*Lj%(D' =%(D)' =%(D' =ABBB@B0B%())))?D' =1:Bvisible*o3>+B#style.visibility<*L%(D' =%(D)' =%(D' =ABBB@B0B%())))?D' =1:Bvisible*o3>+B#style.visibility<*LJ%(+8+0+L0 +g  0 <f(  <r < S  `}    < S `p `<$0  "p`PpH < 0޽h ? 339 1 ___PPT10 ..!4+[W_D' = @B D\' = @BA?%,( < +O%,( < +D' =%(D)' =%(D' =ABBB@B0B%())))?D' =1:Bvisible*o3>+B#style.visibility<*<E%(D' =%(D)' =%(D' =ABBB@B0B%())))?D' =1:Bvisible*o3>+B#style.visibility<*<Ex%(D' =%(D)' =%(D' =ABBB@B0B%())))?D' =1:Bvisible*o3>+B#style.visibility<*<x%(+8+0+<0 +$ 0 ,$(  ,r , S  `}   r , S  `  H , 0޽h ? 3380___PPT10.!vT0 ~$(  $^ $ S     x $ c $6 k 0I   H $ 0޽h/ ? 3380___PPT10.!IJHA0 0Q(  0^ 0 S      0 c $D k 0I   GTo be free of restraint or coercion No promise of benefit for defeating union or choosing any particular union No threat of reprisal for choosing union Thus can't threaten to ignore bargaining obligation if union wins - Donn Products, Inc.&$$H 0 0޽h/ ? 3380___PPT10.!@O0 @ (  @^ @ S      @ c $` k 0I    Try to avoid employees even discussing unionization 2005 NLRB upheld employer rule banning off-duty fraternizing among co-workers 2007 Circuit Court of appeals over-turned on basis that employees would see this as a ban on concerted activity, not just socializing In another case Federal appeals court overturned employer rule forbidding employees from discussing workplace conditions with each other and passing out literature to fellow employees Use of consultants  75% of employers do this (data from 2004) Growth of whole industry of counter union consultants Many guarantee success in avoiding union organization Sophisticated use of modern psychology to intimidate and harass employees Fire and harass union activists Estimates that 1 in 20 union supporters and 1 in 5 union activists illegally terminated in course of organizing campaigns and about 25% of employers do this 20,000 such people get restitution each year May take years to get them reinstated No penalty against employer, just reinstatement and back pay Continued harassment is the future outlook for these employees Use of threats and intimidation 92% of employers hold mandatory anti-union meetings and 78% direct supervisors to meet individually with employees In most cases it will take months or years before cases can be heard and then can continue appeals Usual remedy is just to re-run election In 2000 butchers at one Walmart store in Jacksonville, Texas voted 7-3 for representation by the UFCW which was conducting organizing drives at about 20 of the stores Walmart responded by eliminating meat cutting departments at 180 of its stores with prepackaged meat4PP@PPP PmP!P P4@   m! ,{^H @ 0޽h/ ? 3380___PPT10.! 0 6.D(  D^ D S     ( D c $d k 0I   If union wins Employer will refuse to bargain as technique to challenge bargaining unit determination May take years before appeals on this are finished Legal delays Constant barrage of anti-union propaganda 1998 Board General Counsel Fred Feinstein asked President Clinton to withdraw his renomination for another term because Republicans in Senate refused to reconfirm him Reason was he opposed employer delays by seeking court orders to enforce Board orders while cases under appeal Law specifically allows for this` $ H D 0޽h/ ? 3380___PPT10.!_ 0  Ho(  H^ H S      H c $S k 0I   e#Unions have tried to avoid NLRB election process Even when they win, employer legal challenges often make the process take years Voluntary recognition of majority union has always been legal Many unions try to get neutrality agreements and agreements on card check recognition June 2004 NLRB said it would hear a case (probably in 2005) enabling it to outlaw voluntary card check recognition on the grounds that secret ballot elections are preferable method of determining employee preferences Case financed by the National Right to Work Committee&11H H 0޽h/ ? 3380___PPT10. fwT 0 @Pd(  PX P C      P S  k 0I   ffIn 1995 IUE won an election at EnerSys, Battery maker based in Sumter South Carolina Company was just livid Testimony about law suit led to 120 ULP charges against EnerSys for campaign to decertify the union Fired union supporters on trumped up charges  testimony of supervisors Company illegally assisted the anti-union campaign, helping anti-union employees write up fliers, paying the postage to send the fliers and sending the leader of the anti-union employees anonymous envelopes of cash Company HR director testified that the president of the company once said,  We need to do whatever we ve got to do to get rid of this union, regardless of what it may cost us. After 19955 union victory, company refused to bargain, challenging the validity of the vote and refusing to raise wages that whole time. Federal Appeals Court ordered it to bargain When it began to bargain, even though its business was booming, it insisted on a 10% wage cut with a kind of productivity sharing. Eventually, pressured by union officials in Washington, they accepted this Then company cut wages by 16% not 10, and gainsharing raises were tiny even though productivity gains large An arbitrator then ruled the company manipulated the system to provide tiny bonuses, one former manager testifying that the company budget didn t contain any money for the bonuses, i.e. they never intended to give them Workers were angry with the union about the pay cut and that led to the effort to decertify Fired the union president right at the arbitration hearing about the bonuses, accusing him of lying This just a small sample of the company s actions Company settled back claims for $7.75 million Then sued law firm to get this money back *** EnerSys said that Jackson Lewis engaged in malpractice advising the company to withdraw recognition of the union (which it did saying a majority of employees filed cards) when it must have known about the illegal aid to the anti-union campaign!!!!(PEPdPP.P&P(Ed.&  P aH P 0޽h/ ? 3380___PPT10.# `]rXPG#s%') ,47={}}FuTOpAY_~ڮ1( / 0LDAriale00LLpԖ-a0Ԗ. Traditional Employer Approaches to Unions and Bargaining II. The Law Elections(III. Contemporary Management Approaches#Contemporary Management ApproachesThe EnerSys caseIV. Impact on Unionization Next Time  Fonts UsedDesign Template Slide Titles  f.  y_DonnDonn-$xx--'@Arial-. .2 0Unions, Employers and the ."System:-@Arial-.  2 <GLaw.-@Arial-. 2 KGClass,.-՜.+,0     ~On-screen ShowLe Moyne College/ ' ArialDefault DesignUnions, Employers and the LawAdministrativeReviewToday<I. Traditional Employer Approaches to Unions and Bargaining II. The Law Elections(III. Contemporary Management Approaches#Contemporary Management ApproachesThe EnerSys caseIV. Impact on Unionization Next Time  Fonts UsedDesign Template Slide Titles _:DonnDonn  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWsrtuvwxyz{}~Root EntrydO)@D՟Current User,SummaryInformation(PowerPoint Document(DocumentSummaryInformation8@ .  @n?" dd@  @@`` TC      0AA@s<ʚ;#-ʚ;g4VdVd$'-a0bppp@ <4dddd))0LL 0___PPT10 ^___PPT9@8 ?  %O  =j Unions, Employers and the LawClassAdministrativeReading for next class  Size and Structure of the Labor Movement  2 readings both in B&LReviewGrowth of contingent employment and growth of sweat shops Unionization among graduate teaching assistants Developments in the AFL-CIO including the split of 2005TodayTraditional Approach of Employers Union Organizing, Collective Bargaining and the Law Contemporary Management Approaches Impact on Likelihood of Unionization 0" ;I. Traditional Employer Approaches to Unions and Bargaining<<(_How did employers respond to unionization in the 19th century? How about in the 20th century? 6`3  II. The LawFRights of representation and to engage in bargaining Majority rule (EG  ElectionsTo be free of restraint or coercion Employers free to express opinions about unionization but not to engage in victimization of employees before, during or after union organizing campaign 'III. Contemporary Management Approaches(((Try to avoid employees even discussing unionization Use of consultants Fire and harass union activists Use of threats and intimidation "Contemporary Management Approaches##(If union wins Legal delays December 2001 Bush Administration repealed rule that government agencies can refuse to grant federal contracts to companies that don t comply with labor, environmental and consumer protection laws  The EnerSys caseIIn 1995 IUE won an election at EnerSys 2004 lawsuit: EnerSys sued its anti-union law firm, Jackson Lewis Each blamed the other for illegal activity Testimony about law suit led to 120 ULP charges against EnerSys for campaign to decertify the union Company settled back claims for $7.75 million. However, it has closed the plantJZJ>v IV. Impact on UnionizationIncreasing acceptability of employers deliberately violating the law Hypocrisy of employers as guardians of free choice Unions have tried to avoid NLRB election process  Next Time(Size and Structure of the Union Movement/  X0 0,(  0^ 0 S      0 c $D k 0I   "H 0 0޽h/ ? 3380___PPT10.!@O:0 @J(  @^ @ S      @ c $` k 0I   @PH @ 0޽h/ ? 3380___PPT10.! 0 D,(  D^ D S      D c $d k 0I   "H D 0޽h/ ? 3380___PPT10.! 0 ~ H(  H^ H S     x H c $S k 0I   H H 0޽h/ ? 3380___PPT10. fw 0 @P((  PX P C      P S  k 0I   *PH P 0޽h/ ? 3380___PPT10.# `]r(^ 0 Os :1 Oh+'0 `h   Unions, Employers and the LawdonnDonn34Microsoft PowerPoint@@Q@ !@`6՟ Gg  f.  y--$xx--'@Arial-. .2 0Unions, Employers and the ."System:-@Arial-.  2 <GLaw.-@Arial-. 2 KGClass,.-՜.+,0     ~On-screen ShowLe Moyne College/ ' ArialDefault DesignUnions, Employers and the LawAdministrativeReviewToday<I