Further Thoughts on National Security and Unionization

The Kansas City-Star has an article today about the private airport security screeners at Kansas City International Airport whose election is being contested by FirstLine Transportation Security (and the Right to Work for Less Foundation) at the NLRB.

I wrote about the national security concerns about this election here and here. In the KS City Star article, several very smart people make some cogent points about how ludicrous the opposition to organizing screeners really is.

“Saying public and private screeners don’t have a right to strike is very different from saying you don’t have a right to collectively bargain or a right to form a union,” said Vincent A. Harrington Jr., an attorney for the Service Employees International Union who filed a brief in the FirstLine case.

Several union attorneys pointed out that security guards who worked at bomber plants during World War II were allowed to unionize. “National security is an argument for Congress, not something for the NLRB to consider,” said Jim Coppess, associate general counsel for the AFL-CIO. “The law (the Aviation and Transportation Security Act) has nothing to do with private-sector screeners. The federal government got through World War II without making these prohibitions, so all this is sort of a little bit strange.”

Joseph Slater of the University of Toledo said the federal government established the right to collectively bargain because it was viewed as a way to make work more efficient and safe. He doesn’t see how collective bargaining makes the system less safe.“The workers who responded on 9/11 — the police, the firefighters, the emergency medical technicians — those are some of the most highly unionized occupations in the country,” Slater said. “The implication that collective bargaining is inconsistent with public safety is flatly contradicted by past experiences.”

A New Harbinger of Fall

Every February 2, folks gather around Puxatawny Phil to see whether a glimpse of his shadow will send the groundhog back to hibernate for 6 more weeks of winter or not. I've stumbled across a similar harbinger of fall. From now on, if the first "Remember the Real Reason for Labor Day" column appears before Labor Day, summer will end early, and we should imminently expect fall. If the R3LD column appears on Labor Day itself, the summer will last another 6 weeks.

Get your parkas out of storage, kiddies: Here it is. Live from Sheboygan.

A Whole New Way to Get Screwed

This letter to an advice columnist points out a whole new way anti-union employers can screw their workers when they withdraw recognition. The writer's employer is subtracting pension benefits attributable to the union pension from the employer pension benefits, instituted after the employer illegally withdrew recognition. The columnist quotes a "pension rights" attorney (what the hell is that?) as saying its permissible but advises the writer to check the plan document. Does anyone know if the pension-rights attorney is wrong? I doubt it, but I'd love to hear otherwise.

"Big Media" Disses "Big Labor"

Here's your daily round-up of Labor news, and with Labor Day around the bend, the news ain't pretty. In particular, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and the Christian Science Monitor are all picking at the scabs. Geez, what a cruddy pun that is.

In addition to the NYT article, the news that the Department of Homeland Security is asking Judge Conyers to reconsider her ruling suspending new DHS personnel rules is getting a lot of coverage. See here and here. Actually that's not "a lot" of coverage, since those are both government management websites.

Can We Ignore Kentucky River Now?

LaborProf Blog is reporting that the Board has found a foreman not to be a supervisor (Pacific Beach Corp., 344 NLRB No. 140, 177 LRRM 1289 (July 29, 2005)), which is, of course, the correct outcome. But how did the Board get it right? My theory is, since the Union wanted it to come out the other way (i.e. it was the Union's contention that the guy was a supervisor), the Board could not possibly agree.

Rat of the Day Award

IUOE Local 2 is getting attention for their rat balloon in St. Louis.

This article in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch notes that, "Makers of customized balloons say unions are pretty much the only market for their rodent designs."

And speaking of rats, Chairman Battista of the NLRB takes the unusual step of defending the Board's Guardmark decision in a letter to the Washington Post today.

By the way, the General Counsel issued this memo (scroll down to Secondary Boycotts) in 2003 calling Inflated Rats "Signal Picketing" and relied on an episode of the Sopranos ("Calling All Cars (HBO TELEVISION DRAMA SERIES, SEASON FOUR 2002)") for the "legal support" thereof. Your tax dollars at work, folks.

"Union Busting, 21st Century Style"

The New York Times has this depressing article about scab mechanics at Northwest Airlines. The most depressing and terrible part about all this is, most of the scabs were union mechanics at United and Delta before the "9/11 purge". Second most depressing part: the $107 million "contingency plan" Northwest had put in place 3 months before the strike.

Nathan Newman has this thoughtful piece on the strike, including reflections on the NYT coverage.

Challenge to Right to Work for Free in Virginia

The Right to Work for Free Foundation has set its sights on Leslie Byrne ("First of all, She's Effective . . . "), a candidate in Virginia for Lt. Governor, who they claim hopes to end right-to-work-for-free in Virginia. And by "set its sights", I mean they are writing snarky editorials in backwater newspapers throughout the state. I wonder if RTW lets people stay members in their organization if they don't pay dues?

Good luck Leslie!

News Update for August 24

Union Network International has announced that South Korea will be the first nation where Wal-Mart will be an organizing target, according to the Houston Chronicle. Try as I might, I cannot think of a way to connect this news to the recent news that South Korea has changed its policy on population control, in order to reverse the steep decline in birth rates. I'll work on it. Check back later.

Gate Gourmet, which started a complete debacle for British Airways by firing between 600 and 800 employees, is in negotiations with BA and its employees' union to forestall bankruptcy, plague, pestilence, famine, etc. According to Forbes, BA won't extend Gate Gourmet's contract (i.e. throw them a life line) unless GG makes a deal with their workers.

And the NewStandard has this not-so-fresh news on the AFL-CIO's Solidarity Charters, indicating that "As of yet, there have been no reported takers." For the unfamiliar, Solidarity Charters would be offered to locals of disaffiliated unions, allowing them to belong to state and central labor councils by paying their per capita + 10% "assessment". They cannot hold leadership positions in the CLCs, and the Change to Win Unions oppose them. Just f your i.

Deployed Workers Have No Right to Vote in Union Elections

The National Association of Manufacturers has this oddly astute observation about the fact that the NLRB does not let active military vote in Board elections via absentee ballot:

But what amazes us is that in this world of technology, and in this world of terrorism, where our soldiers are sent around the globe to protect us and advance the causes of democracy, the NLRB's official position is, "We don't do absentee ballots." It's not like these folks are off golfing, for cryin' out loud.

It's also an interesting counter-position to the Right to Work Foundation's, I mean, the NLRB's position that airport security should not be able to form unions. That battle is being fought in Kansas already.

Some Updates to Start Your Week

UNITE HERE in San Francisco is urging brides not to have their weddings at hotels where they have a labor dispute, according to MSNBC. Which is, frankly, hilarious. The Omni claims 3 cancellations already. The Omni manager says, "and the number of people we have had to talk off the ledge, if you will, is probably about six times that." Which is almost as good as a cancellation. A disgruntled bride cannot be easier to deal with a labor union. The SF Chronicle has this editorial on the dispute.

The Detroit Free Press has this Q&A on the Northwest mechanics' strike.

Disney is hiring outside monitor Verite to investigate sweatshop conditions at its factories in China, according to Forbes.

Why Isn't Big Business On Board with Single-Payer Healthcare?

This is a question that I ponder when I read about employer complaints about the rising cost of healthcare. This article on work being done by Labor and the Auto industry to change national healthcare policy (noting that $1500 of ever car and truck GM makes goes to healthcare costs) is interesting, in that it proposes national measures.

But when management complains about their competitors' nationally subsidized healthcare costs (Toyota only spends $186 per vehicle on healthcare), why don't they make the (short) leap and support national healthcare in this country? Is it because they have an ideological problem with government subsidies (except for energy)? Is it because they are somehow secretly beholden to the healthcare industry (even I cannot concoct that conspiracy, but I welcome a reader to try)? I really don't get it.

The Terrorists Will Have Won

The National Right to Work Foundation may seem creative for having floated this argument in a recent amicus brief opposing unionization of airport screeners:

there is a risk that the union hierarchy will be infiltrated by a terrorist agent or that the union will be controlled by someone working with terrorists. The terrorist could then use his influence with the union to make it easier for a terrorist colleague to board a plane or to get a bomb through baggage screening. Or the terrorist could more indirectly weaken national security, by organizing a strike or work slow-down.

But actually, that chestnut is already a stale favorite of the NLRB, who overturned Epilepsy Foundation (giving Weingarten-type rights to non-union workers) with this breathless idiocy:

The years after the issuance of Weingarten have seen a rise in the need for investigatory interviews, both in response to new statutes governing the workplace and as a response to new security concerns raised by terrorist attacks on our country. . . . [B]ecause of the events of September 11, 2001 and their aftermath, we must now take into account the presence of both real and threatened terrorist attacks. Because of these events, the policy considerations expressed in DuPont have taken on a new vitality. Thus, for the reasons set forth below, we . . . hold that the Weingarten right does not extend to the nonunion workplace.

IBM Corp., 341 NLRB No. 148 (2004).

A Banner Day for the Anti-Walmart Forces

And by "Banner Day", I mean that there are two high profile articles about W-M out there today. CNN and Reuters report labor's plans to challenge Wal-Mart's international expansion plans. And the AFL-CIO has intervened to smack down Wal-Mart's attempts to open a bank in Utah. They want this bank for the sole purpose of processing their own financial transactions. But there is easily one article a day about how Labor is taking on Wal-Mart. Thus the preemptive "happy associates" campaign they've been running.

Northwest Strike Looms

The New York Times has this piece on the possible mechanics strike against Northwest Airlines.
Take note of Wall Street's optimistic attitude about the labor dispute: "Jamie Baker, at J. P. Morgan, said there was a 60 percent chance of labor disruption: 'Frankly, we're hoping for a strike.'"

Good News and Bad (Stale) News

Workers at Spirit Aerojet in Wichita voted to keep their union in a decertification election. Apparently, this is the second time in two years that workers have rejected efforts to get cozier with management. See here.

News on the NLRB's Guardmark decision is picking up steam. See here. In this case, the Board found that it was not unlawful for an employer to maintain an anti-fraternization policy that prohibited workers from socializing outside of work. The Union contended that this policy intimidated, harassed and prevented workers from discussing union-related matters outside of the workplace. The Board disagreed. This is a decision so awful for workers that it makes even those of us who are jaded to the Board's anti-union/anti-worker recent decisions sit up and rub our eyes in shock. Nathan Newman writes that he tried to pretend it was a hoax until the steam started to gather.

Could Federal Personnel Policies Be More Unclear?

In the wake of Judge Collyer's ruling, various federal agencies are declaring changes to, or disavowing the effect of the ruling on, their personnel policies. Before I fell asleep reading this article, I learned that the Office of Management and Budget has decided to move forward with their Working for America Act (??) changes, which include giving management the right to redefine "emergency" at any time they need to abrogate collective bargaining rights. Meanwhile, The National Right to Work Foundation is mounting the charge against the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) for seriously considering allowing airport security to have organizing and bargaining rights. They even, Mon Dieu!, call the TSA "Bureaucrats." Will the TSA just take it, or will they hit back by actually bargaining with the workers?

Union demands $1.9 million per month for neutrality agreement violation

Good luck to the Culinary Union in their efforts to get big money out of Boyd Gaming for their violations of their neutrality agreement. See here. The Union claims they would have gotten nearly $2 million a month in benefits if they had been able to organize Boyd.

Houston Janitors Get Agreement

Five janitorial companies in Houston, TX have agreed to a neutrality agreement with SEIU for 6,000 janitors. This means, in essence, that the janitors can organize and vote for a union without anti-union actions by the employers. See news about it here, and SEIU's statement here.

Disney facing charges of sweatshop bookbinding

This press release from the National Labor Committee accuses Disney of using sweatshops to make children's books. This is hot on the heels of Disney surviving a shareholder suit, wherein we were lucky enough to learn that Michael Ovitz's parting gift from Disney was $140 million severance package. Don't get sick on your keyboard; it's pretty hard to clean up.

Evening News Round-Up

Unions met with Michael Chertoff on Monday to discuss changes to the Dept. of Homeland Security personnel rules which were recently slapped down by Judge Collyer (see here), according to the Washington Post. No word on how that went.

The AP is reporting that Bush will not intervene in a possible strike at Northwest Airlines that could begin as early as Saturday at midnight. On a more disturbing note, the AP quickly follows that with news that Northwest shares rose 15 cents on the Nasdaq. Oh that labor unrest were always good for business. It probably is, right?

Not for Gate Gourmet, the TX company who messed with the wrong British Airways workers. Their little pink slip festival comes amid $558 million in debt.

The Boston Globe reports that 260 nursing home workers who've been locked out for 2 weeks from a nursing home in CT are set to ratify a new contract.

From the home of the Port Huron Statement comes this tale of woe about hurting union machinists in MI.

Machinists and Boeing, however, are set to hammer out a new deal for workers in Wichita, Portland and Seattle. Also in WA state, SEIU is stepping up organizing efforts of daycare workers. Andy Stern was in Seattle yesterday to support protesting Swedish Medical Center workers. I mention only because I think it's wierd that Stern's day to day movements are now making the daily news, as though he were a presidential candidate.

CA farmers are reporting a shortage of farm labor, which they blame on the burgeoning construction industry in the Central Valley. Labor activists blame it on the low wages ($6.75 per hour). Toss in the sweltering heat, sub-human working conditions, and pesticide poisoning, and I cannot imagine why the farmers are surprised.

Enemy Chatter - Littler Edition

Here's what Littler Mendelson has to say about the AFL-CIO/Change to Win split. Not too different from Jackson Lewis's take, but with more "helpful hints" for employers.

We Stand Corrected

The Union Lawyer is happy to report that Nathan Newman has been carrying the Labor Blog torch. We'll put a permanent link to his blog up as soon as we can.

Homeland Security Employees in from the Cold

U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer has ruled that Department of Homeland Security rules on collective bargaining and employee appeals could not be implemented because they did not ensure the rights of unionized workers in the department. The Washington Post reports,

"The regulations fail in their obligation to ensure collective bargaining rights to DHS employees," the judge said. She said federal unions would be bargaining "on quicksand, as the department would retain the right to change the underlying bases for the bargaining relationship and absolve itself of contract obligations while the unions would be bound."

You can also find news on this in the New York Times, the Seattle Times, and plenty of other places.

Enemy Chatter

Here's what Jackson Lewis is telling its clients about the AFL-CIO/Change to Win Coalition Split. I gather Jackson Lewis has been at the forefront of management chatter on this topic, probably in hopes of grabbing some nervous clients up in their protective arms.

Which brings me to a quick point about how we plan to handle the Current Unpleasantness here at The Union Lawyer. We don't have any intention of taking sides in this dispute, since we represent unions, and want union folk of all stripes to feel welcome here. But it seems like it would be nearly impossible to avoid discussing the split at this time. That several unions have left the AFL-CIO is probably the biggest news for labor, inside and outside of labor, that has happened in quite some time. We don't want to spill a lot of net-ink over the news, but we want our readers to be informed. If you feel that any of our coverage seems biased one way or another, let us know and we will engage in some harsh self-criticism. In the meantime, send us tales of labor victory so cacophonous and wonderful we won't have time to write about anything else.

That Didn't Last Long.

British Airways workers are back on the job after a brief strike supporting catering employees of Gate Gourmet, a Texas company. I am still looking for an explanation about what resolved the strike. What's interesting about the posted article is that its quotes are all from disgruntled passengers and management, until the very end, when there is brief mention of the Gate Gourmet employees being pleasantly surprised by all the support they received. The sole supportive passenger remained unnamed in the article.

Here's the first round of news

The Boston Globe reports that labor and other groups have called for a boycott of Wal-Mart school supplies. It's also been reported in the Chicago Sun-Times, LA Times, Houston Chronicle, San Jose Mercury, Salt Lake City Tribune, and uhhh, 51 other news outlets...

The Wall Street Journal has this article about Republican governors in Missouri, Indiana and Kentucky eliminating collective bargaining rights for public employees.

MarketWatch has this news on the Northwest Airlines mechanics' negotiations and possible strike. In other labor news in the airline industry, The Seattle Times reports that British Airways flights are grounded because British Airways' employees have stopped work in sympathy with employees fired from the carrier's caterer, owned by a TX company. . . .

The Inaugural Post

We are Union lawyers who thought we could create a useful tool for folks who actually work with Unions and in Unions. We have not seen a blog that regularly brings together news and legal information updates about Unions in a useful and informative format. We hope to do just that.

We welcome submissions (unionlawyer@gmail.com) and comments.

We will not post legal advice or answer legal questions directly on our blog, and none of our posts should be construed as legal advice. If you think one of our posts raises a legal issue for you or your union, we suggest you contact your attorney or us personally.