The UAW says the strike is about making GM pay members back for major concessions made during the negotiations that pulled the company out of bankruptcy 10 years ago. They point to massive profits ($30 billion per year is commonly cited) to say that it's time for GM to pay. They point to announced plant closings to say it is time to protect job security for members. They want to eliminate the two-tier wage system they were basically forced into during the last recession.
GM for its part points to the fact that even with the two-tier system their "all-in" labor costs are nearly 25% higher than competitors outside of the Detroit 3. As they forecast business conditions over the next several years there's not much optimism. The plant closings they've announced are positioning the company for an expected downturn in the global economy along with massive changes in consumer demand for vehicles. Winter is coming.
None of these claims from the UAW or GM are completely right or wrong, and this round of negotiations was bound to require some big moves by GM to avoid a work stoppage. But many of those moves were made. Still 50,000 UAW members are on the street. Why?
What better way to change the subject and divert attention than a historic strike? This new "crisis" puts a huge number of members on the street, going to war against a common enemy. It galvanizes the demoralized. Perhaps this even serves as an example of the "power" of unions the next time they try to organize a new location.
GM employees come out the big losers in this situation. After this contract gets settled make sure to read between the lines of the press releases. Exactly what improvements are gained that weren't on the table before? Plus remember that many times the last-minute offers pre-strike don't get publicized so members never know what they really gained by sacrificing their pay and benefits.
Anyone asked to join today's UAW should seriously consider whether they want to put their livelihood into the hands of "leaders" like this. You probably guessed my answer is no.
Link & Comments
**********
Union Bailout Update
The micro-unit strategy abetted by the Obama-era NLRB just took another blow when the Board ruled against it in the recent
Boeing case. The 2017
PCC Structurals case began to unravel the micro-unit strategy by restoring the Board's prior standard for determining the appropriateness of a petitioned-for bargaining unit. In
Boeing, the Board further clarified the required analysis for this determination,
using a three-step process:
- Step One: Shared Interests Within the Petitioned-For Unit.
- Step Two: Shared Interests of Petitioned-For and Excluded Employees.
- Step Three: Special Considerations of Facility, Industry, or Employer Precedent.
Read here for details on how this played out in the
Boeing case, which dismissed a proposed micro-unit of 178 employees out of the 2700 total production and maintenance employees at Boeing’s South Carolina plant.
Although the issue of independent contractor status is far from resolved, a bit of good news was released by the NLRB. In
Velox Express, the Board determined that
independent contractor misclassification is not a stand-alone violation of the National Labor Relations Act.
Social media policies received scrutiny again when CVS Health’s policies went under the microscope. Two of their policies
were found to run afoul of the Section 7 rights. First, CVS required employees to identify themselves by their real name when they discussed the company and their work on social media. An advice memo released in the case stated, "The board has recognized that requiring employees to self-identify in order to participate in collective action would impose a significant burden on Section 7 rights."
CVS also restricted employees from disclosing "employee information" on social media. In response, the advice memo stated, "While the employer has a legitimate business interest in keeping customers' and employees' personal and medical information confidential, it has no legitimate interest in preventing employees from sharing contact information or discussing wages, working conditions or employment disputes.”
The Board just made it easier for an employer to make changes to the terms and conditions of employment
without first receiving permission from the union. In
MV Transportation, the Board adopted the “contract coverage” standard followed by the D.C., First and Seventh Circuits. If the collective bargaining agreement can be said to “cover” the change, the employer can act unilaterally.
The Department of Labor has proposed reinstating the Form T-1,
requiring more financial disclosure by unions. The reestablishment of the use of the form would block the use of trusts by unions to circumvent reporting requirements in the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act. As the recent UAW training center scandal indicates, the move couldn’t come at a better time.
Two members of the NLRB have signaled that they are ready to reconsider an over 40-year precedent regarding employers’ off-duty employee access rules. The third condition of the 1976
Tri-County Medical Center ruling is problematic for employers because it does not even permit an employer to maintain a rule that allows an employee to return to the workplace for innocuous reasons, such as to pick up a paycheck. Board members Kaplan and Emanuel wrote a footnote in the recent
Southern Bakeries decision that they were prepared to
reconsider this third condition in “an appropriate case.”
Lastly, the Board has also signaled it is ready to
curb abusive and profane speech currently protected by the NLRA, and is requesting amicus briefs.
Click here to read the notice and submit briefs.
Link & Comments
**********
Laboring Toward 2020
Obviously the best case scenario for Big Labor would be for the Democrats to take the presidency and sweep Congress. It may seem a pretty big pendulum swing from where we are right now, but with today’s political scene, you can’t rule out anything! With that in mind, it may be useful to take a look at what such a sweep could mean to labor policy.
Here is a list of
legislation supported by most of the Democrat contenders:
- The Protecting the Right to Organize Act, which would ban “right to work” laws that allow employees to opt out of paying union fees in unionized workplaces, even though they get the benefits of collective bargaining.
- The Schedules That Work Act, which guarantees predictable schedules for workers, or extra pay if they have to work irregular schedules.
- The Paycheck Fairness Act, which would bar employers from using an employee’s salary history to determine wages, ensure that workers have the right to discuss wages without retaliation, and require employers to justify any pay discrepancies.
- The Family Act, which guarantees up to 12 weeks of paid family leave to workers, funded through a payroll tax on businesses and employees.
- The Healthy Families Act, which would require most businesses to provide full-time workers with at least seven days of paid sick leave.
- The Domestic Workers Bill of Rights Act would essentially amend federal labor laws to include domestic workers. But it would also extend new benefits to them, such as guaranteed paid time off, privacy protection, and a written employment contract.
- The Raise the Wage Act, which gradually raises the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour and indexes future increases to wage growth. It also abolishes the sub-minimum wage for tipped workers.
One strategy that has emerged in the debate over “labor reform” is sectoral bargaining. SEIU President Mary Kay Henry appealed to the 2020 Democratic candidates to think beyond just amending the rules to make it easier to organize, and instead to consider totally revamping U.S. labor law. In promoting sectoral bargaining, Henry explained, “Bargaining by industry, where workers from multiple companies sit across a table from the largest employers in their industry to negotiate for wages and benefits, is standard practice in almost every developed country in the world.” Although this is really a stretch, both
Bernie Sanders and Pete Buttigieg have folded sectoral bargaining into their labor platforms.
To see where each candidate stands on these and other issues, review their
individual labor platforms here.
Link & Comments
**********
UAW Strike Precursor To A Midwest Recession?
As the UAW strike entered its ninth day on September 24th, GM was forced to
lay off 1200 workers at other facilities not represented by the union. If nothing else, the strike has provided Democratic presidential hopefuls the chance for a little
grand-standing solidarity in an attempt to earn union support.
The Teamsters of course
jumped on the bandwagon already, refusing to deliver any GM products. The two unions have a history of supporting each other’s strikes. GM said it had plenty of inventory, but industry analysts have said they believe that will only remain true for up to two weeks.
Estimates of the financial damage to GM range from $25 million for the first week of the strike, to $400 million per day by some analysts. Closer to home, the $250 per week of strike pay for striking employees doesn’t come close to the approximately $630 per week earned by temporary workers.
Some analysts predict that if the strike continues for very long, the midwest could be
plunged into a recession as the impact is felt by the 10,000 other U.S. companies that supply GM. Some economists expect 300,000 job losses due to the 50,000 striking workers.
With GM’s termination of paid employee health benefits to the strikers, the UAW has stated it’s intent to either pay benefits via COBRA, or make sure basic health needs are met. In addition to the weekly pay, having to make COBRA payments for almost 50,000 workers
could quickly drain the strike fund.
Only about 2% of the contact language was in place by the September 14th strike deadline.
Major unresolved issues involve the wages and status of new workers and temporary workers, who now account for up to half the workforce in the U.S. auto industry.
Link & Comments
