T.A. Frank wrote a very informative article in the recent issue of the Washington Monthly that details the story of trying to organize a union at a Rite Aid distribution center in CA.
The Rite Aid organizers filed their union authorization cards with the NLRB, setting the ground for an election. And then things got ugly—and illegal, too….Eventually, the NLRB racked up so many complaints that it planned to take Rite Aid to trial on forty-nine violations of federal labor law. In the summer of 2007, though, Rite Aid chose to settle instead, agreeing to rehire two fired union supporters with back pay and to post a notice in a common area promising not to engage in thirteen types of illegal anti-union activity.
….[ILWU] won the March election, becoming the sole bargaining representative of the warehouse employees…..By August, thirty-nine more employees had been dismissed….Today, nine months later, Rite Aid and the ILWU have not yet come up with a contract. At meetings, Rite Aid has been pushing aside contract negotiations in order to discuss other things. Legally, Rite Aid is supposed to bargain “in good faith,” but such terms are highly subjective and difficult to litigate. Work conditions for the warehouse workers remain much as before, perhaps even worse. And that works to Rite Aid’s advantage — for when a union fails to deliver, its members may lose faith in it and vote it out.
Frank’s article provides some really useful detail on the process (and obligations) of union organizing, as well as some insight into what motivates people to want a union in the first place. Take very good note on who does the “strong arming” here. Also take note that employees are signing union authorization cards anyway to get their election. At the end, Frank argues that the card check portion of the proposed law is probably the least important of the provisions of the new law — that strengthening the laws and making sure they are vigorously enforced would probably safeguard the process more than card check on its own would. The proposal for card check probably does have its genesis in having a way to get around the kind of abuse that employers can get away with, since the law and current penalties under the law provide no deterrent to that abuse and interference.
I don’t know about dropping the card check addition in favor of stronger laws and penalties coupled with much better enforcement. But like pollution-prevention regulation and law, high penalties, statutory deadlines and rigorous enforcement can provide a deterrent cost of doing business that could go a long way to getting employer’s thumbs off of the scales.
(h/t Kevin Drum)