Compromise on Union Bill?

[akupetsky]

I think most Americans are of two minds on these types of union issues and would welcome a compromise rather than wild rule swings based on succeeding administrations.  What do you think?

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Cos-looking-at-options-to-apf-14707703.html

[GG]

It sounds reasonable to me. 

[we vs us]

Given that 1) unions aren't going anywhere -- no matter how much the GOP and the Chamber of Commerce might like -- and 2) that in protracted downturns there's more, not less agitation for worker's rights, I'd say these companies are on the right track. 

It's not a surprise to see Starbucks, Whole Foods, or Costco at the vanguard of a negotiated labor bill.   All three are known for the respect and benefits they give to their employees.  They're smart to see that a card check bill is almost inevitable at this point, and realize that it's in their interest to negotiate rather than play all-or-nothing. 

[cannon_fodder]

The proposal seems reasonable.  But I still have a few questions, these questions come from my own ignorance I realize.

1) I still don't understand why a ballot process run by the Department of Labor Relations is anti-union.  A group of workers wants to form a union at Super Mega Corp, the DLR holds an election.   There is X days in between for the Union to work and attract people and for the company to promise up and down they will do better.  Seems simple, I must be missing something that makes this a bad system (and how everything else is done).

2) In a state that requires workers to join a union to work at a unionized company, does that mean the other 30% get fired or that they are forced to join the union?  (70% sign a card union = ok).  Or are they just not covered by the contract?  Does the union then take over hiring at the company (can't get into the union, can't work)?

3) Can the company de-unionize in a similar fashion?  Ie, if the union gets 70% and sets up a union shop, can the company organize a campaign to get 70% signatures to get rid of the union if it isn't working out well?

4) When workers unionize under these provisions what is the companies options?  Is it forced to accept a union contract or is it forced to negotiate with the union if it wants to retain those workers?  Can it just say "no, you aren't worth any more" and put out a sign looking for new workers?


Also - the entire system seems entirely too formalized.  If X% of the employees at a Wal-Mart want to form a "union" (I realize it would not be a formal union) and walk off the job for better pay then why can't they or why shouldn't they be able to?  I realize Wal-Mart can just fire them, but if they have skills the company wants or the labor market is tight then it really isn't a viable option.

I'm not against a formal system and appreciate why it is in place.  But is someone better versed in labor relations law than I that can explain if the above would be an "illegal strike" or somehow against the law?

These companies are smart.  As I continuously say labor relations needs to be a two way street.  If one side has all the power and refuses to discuss things with the other, it ends in disaster for both sides (company shutting out workers or union dictating terms to company).  A well run union can look out for the company as much as the managers do (seems like a basic concept, but it is missing from many union-company relationships).  By embracing workers early on and starting meaningful dialogue (instead of only negotiations) they might be able to facilitate a better relationship.