Labor Relations INK - January 2015

- Tweet0
- 0
- Pin It 0
- 0
- Subscribe to RSS
Subscribe

Subject: Labor Relations INK - January 2015

In this issue:

SEIU’s Felony Fiasco
Right-to-Work Laws - Reality vs. Myth
Annunziata’s Encore
Chattanooga Choo-Choo
SEIU Watch, Sticky Fingers, Scoreboard, Insight and more...

The bottom of each story contains a link to the individual post on our site.

Labor Relations Insight - By Phil Wilson

If unions are so darn good for you why don't people join?
If you knew that the only thing standing between you and a happier life was union membership would you want to join? The New York Times recently reported on a study claiming that people in unions are happier than those who are not. The authors of that study concluded, “union members are more satisfied with their lives than those who are not members and that the substantive effect of union membership on life satisfaction is large and rivals other common predictors of quality of life.” (emphasis mine)

If all this were true then why aren't people joining unions in droves?

I suppose we should start by taking a little closer look at the research than, oh let’s say, the New York Times (I doubt this editor read the study - and given how bad it is I actually hope that’s the case). The “study” is an awful piece of scholarship. It’s a conclusion searching for data to support it.

The so-called “large” impact on satisfaction is nothing of the sort. Let’s start with the fact that the total pool of factors studied only account for 14% of life satisfaction (that’s giving them the benefit of the doubt - a second more rigorous test of the data set shows all of these variables only account for about 4% of life satisfaction). That means that none of these factors can really be said to have a large effect on satisfaction.

Second, the professors don’t even report correlation data in their study. Instead they report a regression. This is pretty unusual, which is why you are reading about this study in a New York Times op-ed piece rather than a peer-reviewed academic journal. The difference is that a correlation actually tries to show a relationship between two variables - let’s say union membership and life satisfaction. A regression tries to show relationships between multiple variables.

I can only assume that the reason we don’t see correlation data is that it doesn’t prove the hypothesis of the study. Even if they reported correlations it is still completely false to say that either regression or correlation data is proof of causation. All this study suggests is that life satisfaction is (loosely) related to factors like marriage, health and perhaps union membership. It is completely false to say that the study proves in any meaningful way that union membership causes happiness.

But let’s once again give the professors the benefit of the doubt and say that these relationships they’ve identified are actual correlations. In their study they report that union membership is associated with life satisfaction at a factor of .12. That’s nothing to sneeze at, but it pales in comparison to marriage, which related at a factor of .46 (about 4 times as large) and health which related at a factor of .57. More significant to me is that the authors of the study (not to mention the op-ed) have union membership take a victory lap around things like attending church or an increase in income, both of which related to life satisfaction at a factor of around .07.

I’ll apologize in advance for a quick little statistics detour. If you’re anything like me this stuff can get a little confusing (after all I’m a lawyer and not a statistician). So when I see studies like this I use a little trick my secret weapon PhD candidate taught me - the Binomial Effect Size Display. BESD works like this: pretend you have a population of 100 people and half are happy and half are unhappy. That would be a zero correlation. Then you adjust this population based on the correlations in the research to determine how many more people would be happy if you changed the variable. Once again, if we pretend that we are dealing with actual correlations, here’s how BESD works out using this study:

Health: 79
Marriage: 73
Unemployed: 63
Union Membership: 56
Income: 54
Church: 54

Does that look like a study suggesting union membership is a huge driver of happiness? I don’t know about you, but based on this research if I was trying to improve my happiness I’d be getting gym membership and not a union membership.

That’s not all. If you look closely you will see that church attendance and income were measured differently than union membership. Union membership is basically binary - you either are a union member or you aren’t. Church membership is similar. But that’s not how they measured it. Instead they looked at how often you attended church, and measured what happens when you increase that frequency by one. So let’s say going to church twice a month versus once a month nets you 54 happy people. What if you compare the once a month people to the once a week people? Is the effect twice as large? If so regular church attendance (as compared to not attending) probably dwarfs union membership as a driver of happiness.

The professors did the same thing with income. A one-step increase in income has a slightly smaller impact on satisfaction than union membership. What about a two-step increase? Looking at the unemployment number implies once again that a two-step or larger increase in income overwhelms union membership as a factor for happiness.

If you compare apples to apples union membership looks to be the least associated with happiness. Further, if you measured from the bottom of the scale to the top of the scale on things like income and church attendance it is very possible that the small increase in happiness attributed to union membership may vanish entirely.

The authors do suggest that future research could look at whether other factors, like geography or job type, might impact their research. That seems like a very good idea. I’d humbly suggest another direction for the research: how about looking for factors that account for the other 86% of life satisfaction? To the extent those factors are work-related I’m going to go way out on a limb and predict that the vast majority of those respondents will be in non-union jobs.

By the way, I just did a study. Luxembourg, the country with the 8th highest union density in the world, is also 136th unhappiest country in the world. Therefore I conclude unions are highly related to unhappiness. That’s actually not true either, but it’s as valid a study as this one. I’m anxiously awaiting my call from the New York Times.

Link & Comments

Union Bailout Update

The office of the General Counsel of the NLRB issued consolidated complaints against McDonald’s franchisees, and included the franchisor, McDonald’s USA, LLC as a joint employer. Could this be the opening swell of a tidal wave, or a freshening breeze that will quickly dissipate? At least one district court begs to differ with the NLRB, ruling early this month in Vann v. Massage Envy Franchising LLC that the franchisor is not considered the employer of the individual businesses they contract out to.

The NLRB is going to have to fend off a pair of lawsuits over the Ambush Election rule. It comes as no surprise that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce would file suit, and they were joined by the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), National Retail Federation (NRF), and Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM). The first suit was quickly followed by a second, filed by the Texas chapters of the Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC) and National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB).

The NLRB continues to find more ways to tilt the playing field in the favor of Big Labor. In a recent move (not visible on most folks’ radar screens), the NLRB reversed 30 years of board precedent (no surprise) to change arbitration deferral standards. If you have union contracts, click the link and read the details! The end result: employers will more likely face duplicative litigation in the form of grievance-arbitration proceedings and factually related unfair labor practice charges. According to dissenting board member Miscimarra, the changed standards “effectively guarantee that ... arbitration will not be final and binding.” It also encourages unions to file more ULPs, knowing that regardless of what an arbitrator may find, they are likely to get a favorable decision from the NLRB.

NM State Senator Sander Rue

Another ruling by the NLRB is a reminder that after winning an organizing campaign, business must be careful how they go about restoring a civil employee relations environment. In this recent case, the company attempted to remind employees of and encourage adherence to workplace violence policies that existed prior to the campaign. However, because of the relation to the recently ended campaign, the move was deemed an unfair labor practice.

On the right-to-work front, the recent denial of a rehearing on Sweeney vs. Pence was perceived by labor proponents to indicate that there is “substantial support” for the proposition that right-to-work laws like Indiana’s are preempted by federal labor law.

A poll in Wisconsin found that even where a majority of the population is favorable to labor unions (58%), they are also in favor of right-to-work laws (62%). In the latest move to add states to the right-to-work roster, Republican State Sen. Sander Rue of New Mexico has proposed the latest in the recent rash of right-to-work bills.

Link & Comments

SEIU's Felony Fiasco

Rob Murray - Photo: William Miller

Robert Murray, a top 32BJ SEIU organizer earning a six-figure salary, has been charged with two felony counts and three misdemeanors, including resisting arrest, inciting to riot, and obstruction of governmental administration, for his participation in the December 13 assault of two NYPD police officers on the Brooklyn Bridge.

A week after the incident, Murray turned himself into the police. The union has reportedly put Murray on unpaid leave until the matter is settled. Elaine Kim, a spokesperson for the 32BJ SEIU, said “The union did not organize any official contingent to participate in the protests.”

While that may be true, it is also true that the SEIU has a history of organizing protests without “officially” putting their name on it.

Link & Comments

For What It's Worth

Union membership is at a record low of 11.2 percent of the workforce with only 6.7 percent of those workers in the private sector. When considering why this is the case, Jake Rosenfeld, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Washington, argues that it is because of What Unions No Longer Do.

So what do unions no longer do? According to Rosenfeld, everything that made them good to begin with. “Unions do not equalize incomes; counteract racial inequality; play a big role in assimilating immigrants; or give lower-income Americans a political voice.” Instead, they look for ways to skirt around government policy.

As we know, there are a number of municipalities across the country that have invoked a higher minimum wage than required by the federal government. According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Workforce Freedom Initiative, a number of those municipalities have carved out exemptions for union-represented employees. In other words, if a workforce in unionized, they are allowed to pay less than the minimum wage required by other, non-unionized, organizations in the area. Moves like this are no doubt the reason public confidence in organized labor has been steadily declining.

Link & Comments

Right to Work Laws - Reality vs. Myth

Since right-to-work laws have been in the spotlight for the last year or so, this recent article highlighting some of the misunderstandings (read: union arguments) about such laws is a welcome refresher. In sum, the 6 myths (and the related truths) are:

Myth: Right-to-work laws prohibit unions.
Reality: Right-to-work laws make union dues voluntary.

Myth: Right-to-work laws undermine unions.
Reality: Right-to-work laws make unions work to earn worker’s support.

Myth: Right-to-work laws allow nonunion members to “free ride” on the benefits of union representation without paying its cost.
Reality: Unions voluntarily represent non-members.

Myth: Representing non-members costs exclusive representative unions a lot of money.
Reality: Unions often spend little on representational activities.

Myth: Right-to-work laws provide no economic benefits.
Reality: Companies consider right-to-work laws a major factor when deciding where to locate.

Myth: Right-to-work laws lower wages.
Reality: Workers have the same or higher buying power in right-to-work states.

Read the full article for additional details and insight.

Link & Comments

(Non)confessions of a Big Spender

"Daddy Warbucks" from Annie

You will often hear unions bemoaning the fact that some “rich guy” or “corporate interest” is spending money to advance “right-wing” causes. We’ve also documented that unions spend an enormous amount of money on predominantly one side of the political aisle. What is usually missed in these discussions is the intent behind the source of the funding.

In the case of “big capitalists” spending, the money is theirs to do as they please, and if they desire to promote policy that falls on one side or the other of the political fence (yes - there are liberal capitalists - can you say George Soros?), that is their prerogative.

Unions are a different animal however. They have no “capitalistic” mechanism to generate revenue. Instead, they extract dues from their members. They then spend the money promoting policies and politicians that probably barely more than half of those members would agree with! Remember that a) not everyone that is a union member wanted to be a union member, and that b) among those that wanted to be members, not all of them share the same political views as the union supposedly “representing” them!

Kind of lets the steam out of the union complaint about “capitalist” spending, doesn’t it?

Link & Comments

Union Scoreboard

Who are the winners (and losers) of the labor movement this month? Don't guess, just check the LRI Scoreboard

View this month's scoreboard (archives also located here).

Download a PDF of this month's scoreboard

Annunziata's Encore

Warren Annunziata - Credit: Byron Smion

Warren Annunziata is the founder and former president of United Craft and Industrial Workers Local 91. He was removed from his post as president in 2010 when he was found guilty of “forcibly extracting more than $600,000 in cash payments from bus companies that provide transportation for public school students.” In March 2011, he was sentenced to 33 months in prison. Prison, however, did little to keep Annunziata from conducting business as usual.

A Department of Labor special agent reported that during this time, Annunziata “sought information about and offered advice, guidance and consultation on matters such as negotiations between Local 91 and employers such as the Department of Education, pending lawsuits, hiring and dismissal of employees, office policy, logistics and strategy.” For these services, he was paid $800,000 in “consulting” fees.

According to federal law, union officials or trustees convicted of major corruption offenses are prohibited from participating in any union-related affairs for at least 13 years. Thus on July 1, 2014, Annunziata was arrested…again.

Link & Comments

Teamster Beat

Because of rampant corruption, since 1989 the Teamsters have had to operate under the watchful eye of the federal government. Federal lawyers have recently entered into an agreement with the Teamsters to dismiss the consent order. The order placed the union under federal oversight and required union leaders to be voted in by a secret ballot election. If approved, the agreement will phase out government oversight over a five-year period replacing it with an independent board named by the union.

John Perry

Supporters of the proposal say that it’s important to recognize “the significant progress that has been made in ridding the International Brotherhood of Teamsters of the influence of organized crime and corruption.” Obviously those supporters haven’t seen the news recently: ex-president John Perry and representative Joseph Burhoe of Teamsters Local 82 in Boston have been convicted on various counts of racketeering and conspiracy related to extortion.

In December, president Jim Hoffa called on all Senate members to vote down the omnibus spending bill after a provision was added to it allowing underfunded multi employer pension plans to cut benefits in order to avoid insolvency. One day later, the bill was passed. Since the Teamsters Central States Pension Fund is one of the underfunded multi-employer plans, this means that many of its retired or close-to-retirement members will not receive their full benefits. IBT and Hoffa take no responsibility for their underfunded plans; but rather, place the blame on the government and banking institutions. Go figure.

After being forced to pay dues to her employer, Teamsters Local 776, for 18 years with “no contract, no representation, no grievance procedure,” Kimberly Leonard and her co-workers negotiated a collective bargaining agreement with the Federation of Agents and International Representatives. Upon learning of her agreement with FAIR, Local 776 fired Leonard.

“I’m amazed,” Leonard said, “This is what these people do for a living is go out and protect the rights of workers...except their own. I want my job back.”

IBT lost their fifth election to organize employees at various Con-way Freight facilities this month. Greg Luhmkuhl, president of Con-way Freight, said, “We remain convinced that our path to success lies in maintaining an open, respectful and direct relationship with our employees without the interference of a third party.”

Link & Comments

Chattanooga Choo-Choo

The swirling situation at the VW plant in Chattanooga seems to be a bit of dog-chasing-tail. You have the UAW claiming at a minimum enough support to meet the highest bar set by VW for gaining access to managements ear. On the other side, you have the rival employee-led organization claiming that a) it has documents that would invalidate many of the signatures claimed by the UAW, and that b) the company is purposely favoring the UAW in the implementation of the new labor policy.

The effort by VW to seemingly smooth the way for recognition of UAW may jeopardize the planned expansion of the VW plant to add an SUV assembly line to the current Passat manufacturing effort. Not all legislators are pleased with VW’s moves.

TN Gov. Bill Haslam

Last year, Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam announced an incentive package totalling $300 million to expand the Chattanooga plant. However, due to the VW move to support the UAW even after it lost an election last year, support of the package by GOP legislators may be wavering.

“It’s their way or no way. They’ve decided by-golly they want the UAW here,” Sen. Todd Gardenhire, R-Chattanooga, said of VW. “They’re not listening to the community.”

In an interesting side note, one UAW member, a Ford employee and founder and president of Union Conservatives, Inc., speculates on what the UAW must do to regain the trust of its membership. One proposal: voluntarily embrace the seven items in the Employee Rights Act.

Link & Comments

SEIU Watch

Prime Healthcare’s bid to purchase the six Daughters of Charity Hospitals in central California continues to breed controversy – all of which can be traced back to the Service Employees United Healthcare West. It began last summer when Prime Healthcare refused to sign a deal that would have pushed through two ballot initiatives in SEIU’s favor.

Dave Regan

Since then, Dave Regan has done everything he can to keep Prime Healthcare from purchasing the six hospitals; most recently, by coercing state legislatures (most of whom are in his pocket) to ask Attorney General Kamala Harris to reject Prime’s bid (a privilege delegated to her under Section 5914 of the Nonprofit Corporation Law) and by forcing SEIU-UHW members who work for DCHS to file unfair labor practice charges against the company.

If the bid is rejected DCHS hospitals will be forced into bankruptcy and closure causing hundreds to lose their jobs and an underserved, low-income community to lose their medical care.

In other SEIU news:

After the Supreme Court’s Harris v. Quinn decision in October, the state of Illinois enacted a policy requiring home-based caregivers to attend “training sessions” led by SEIU. The state is using taxpayer money to pay the union as much as $2 million to conduct these meetings – most of which are spent with SEIU officials “telling caregivers they will lose all benefits, including health insurance and the Medicaid stipend that helps them care for their loved ones, should they opt out of paying union dues.” Illinois Policy Institute has responded by sending staff members to wait outside most of these meetings in order to inform caregivers that what SEIU is telling them is not the truth. SEIU, of course, complained to the state about Illinois Policy’s presence, creating some situations where staff members have been threatened with arrest.

SEIU is taking advantage of President Obama’s recent executive order to give working visas to some 4 million immigrants. Their hope is that some of these people who have been too afraid to sign up in the past won’t be now.

Mayor Bill de Blasio met with the group behind last month’s New York City protests. Guess where the meeting was held? 1199 SEIU headquarters.

SEIU-UHW is about to lose more members to the National Union of Healthcare Workers. Reportedly 80% of the workers at Garden Grove Hospital and Medical Center have signed a NLRB request for election due to the fact that SEIU-UHW has been completely “MIA” at the hospital. Regan is attempting to stall the election by ordering his attorneys to file bogus charges with the Board.

Link & Comments

Sticky Fingers