Workers join together and unionize to improve their wages, benefits, and working conditions. Yet a full year after voting to form a union, 52 percent of new unions still haven't been able to secure any improvements because their employers have used delay tactics to avoid signing a first contract.

It stands to reason that if a majority of workers vote to form a union in their workplace, then a union they shall have! Yet the sad reality is that all too often, employers do not respect the outcomes of union elections. The current labor law is grossly slanted in favor of employers and anti-union corporations who engage in unproductive "bad faith bargaining" or delay tactics to keep workers from getting a fair deal. The resistance to collective bargaining has only gotten worse in recent years. Even in cases when workers do successfully win their union election, over half of of new unions still have no contract one full year later after they are certified because companies refuse to negotiate in good faith. And two years later, 37 percent of workers still have no contract.

Congress needs to stand up for the workers who deserve the chance to gain fair first contracts. As a new ad by American Rights at Work points out, any legislation to reform our current labor system must include an arbitration option to push management to complete negotiations in a fair, timely manner---and stop anti-union corporations from gaming the system.

This is the third ad in the series by ARAW making the case for arbitration as a critical part of the Employee Free Choice Act. The ad will run in Roll Call, The Hill, Politico and CQ. Read more about ARAW's ad campaign and view their first two ads here.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce just released a letter to the Senate, detailing the corporate group's hypocrisy in opposing first contract arbitration in the Employee Free Choice Act. The U.S. Chamber was apparently reeling from recent newspaper ads highlighting their two-faced approach to the issue, and wanted to explain itself to the Senate.

The Chamber's R. Bruce Josten writes:

To justify these provisions, or perhaps to support some type of alleged compromise, the unions have deliberately tried to muddy the waters by arguing that the business community's support for dispute arbitration is somehow inconsistent with its opposition to interest arbitration as envisioned by the Employee Free Choice Act. This is a desperate attempt at smoke and mirrors because the two situations have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

That's correct - for the U.S. Chamber, the situations have absolutely nothing to do with each other. That's because the U.S. Chamber only prefers arbitration when they can stack the deck in corporations' favor. Otherwise, forget about it.

The "first contract arbitration" portion of the Employee Free Choice Act seeks to stop employers from using endless foot-dragging against workers who have voted for a union, but have yet to secure a contract. The legislation says that if employers and workers can't reach an agreement in a reasonable amount of time--120 days--either side can bring in a neutral, private-sector arbitrator to settle the dispute.

In March of this year, the Chamber of Commerce called Consumer Arbitration, "Fair, Inexpensive, and Unbiased."
Many corporations--like the Chamber-- are happy to support arbitration when it's in their best interest, and put arbitration provisions into 75 percent of consumer contracts.

But when it comes to creating a contract that works for workers, companies often refuse to negotiate a first agreement, or use stall tactics and gimmicks to delay the process for years. They praise arbitration when it favors them, but oppose it in settling first contracts--and will use any tactic they can to avoid paying their employees better wages and benefits.

Under the NLRA, 44 percent of new unions still don't have contracts two years after they are certified because companies refuse to even negotiate in good faith. Our current labor system for workers trying to form a union has proven its inability to defend workers' rights in a timely manner time and time again. Supporters of the freedom to form unions are fed up with delays that favor employees, and American Rights at Work has launched a campaign to point out the hypocrisy of Big Business on arbitration.

American Rights at Work launched their first print ad last week demonstrating how corporations are attacking the idea of arbitration when it involves their employees--while supporting arbitration in a variety of areas where it benefits them. Today, the second print ad in their series is out. Here's a preview of the ad that is running in Politico, CQ, Roll Call & The Hill:

Ad text:

Big Business is happy to support arbitration when it's in their best interest. But when it comes to negotiating contracts with their workers, Big Business would rather use delay tactics to avoid paying better wages and benefits. It's only fair that corporations agree to arbitration for workers who are trying to negotiate a first contract after forming a union. Arbitration is a key part of the Employee Free Choice Act that will let both sides reach a fair agreement.

Check out the newest arbitration ad here. ARAW also has a great fact sheet on arbitration here.

Hollywood actor Danny Glover has always used his celebrity to support unions and organizing drives, pro-worker political candidates and the Employee Free Choice Act. Today on the Huffington Post, Glover urges binding arbitration as a path to end to the conflict around the dissolution of the UNITE HERE merger.

Glover, who has lobbied with union members on Employee Free Choice and stood with workers on picket lines in Niagara Falls, first spoke about the failure of the 2004 UNITE HERE merger at the Workers United organizing conference in March 2009. Today, Glover calls for President Wilhelm to accept Workers' United President Bruce Raynor and SEIU President Andy Stern's offer to enter into binding arbitration.

"I will always be a union activist, and I am proud of that," says Glover. Read more on the Huffington Post here.

From the moment they flew people to Washington, DC to lobby against the Employee Free Choice Act, things were just not going the Chamber of Commerce's way...

From bringing a major labor law violator to lobby on behalf of (wait for it...) labor law reform, to getting caught in a lie by Sen. Feinstein, this can't be how the Chamber wanted their lobbying week to go.

TERRIBLE: As one of their main lobbyists on labor law reform, the Chamber of Commerce brings to Washington... a major labor law violator.

One of the Arkansas business leaders that the Chamber flew in was Michael Keck of St. Vincent Health System, where multiple unfair labor practices have been filed against management. (As an executive, Michael is "management.") It took St. Vincent nurses more than 3 years to get a union contract, during which time the National Labor Relations Board had to step in at least twice.  Read the full TPM piece here.

HORRIBLE: The Chamber claims that Sen. Dianne Feinstein no longer supports Employee Free Choice, and is promptly smacked down...by Sen. Feinstein. After a local California Chamber group met with Sen. Feinstein, they put out the word that she was changing her position; she did not support the bill. The only problem? It was flatly untrue. In response, Sen. Feinstein issued this clarifying statement:

"A statement has been put out mischaracterizing my position on this bill. The truth is that I am working to find common ground between the needs of both business and labor in order to reach a bipartisan solution. I believe we must find a way to protect the privacy of individual workers so that they may elect whether to form a union free of intimidation."

The same day, Sen. Johnson came out in favor of Employee Free Choice.

According to Wednesday's Argus Leader, Sen. Tim Johnson told a delegation of South Dakota business leaders Wednesday that he would vote to bring a controversial labor bill to the Senate floor for debate. "His decision to vote to consider the Employee Free Choice Act is a blow to local and national business groups, which have lobbied strenuously against the measure," wrote the Leader. It's "very significant," acknowledges the state Chamber president.

NO GOOD:  According to a Maine small business owner: The US Chamber of Commerce doesn't speak for small businesses any more than Burger King speaks for cows.  In response to a statement by the US Chamber of Commerce that Small Business owners oppose the Employee Free Choice Act, Mainer Ben Wootten said: "The US Chamber of Commerce doesn't speak for small businesses any more than Burger King speaks for cows. While the Chamber works overtime to represent the narrow interests of bloated, wealthy corporations, our nation's small businesses are struggling simply to keep their doors open.  We need common-sense measures like health care reform and the Employee Free Choice Act to help small business owners control costs and ensure that their employees feel truly invested in the long-term future of their workplace."

VERY BAD: Backed into a corner, they're now making misleading claims about the Employee Free Choice Act in a new ad. Many people saw the misleading and hypocritical ad the Chamber of Commerce placed in Roll Call and Politico yesterday. The fact is that -- when it suits them -- companies use binding arbitration all the time. In March of this year, the Chamber called Consumer Arbitration, "Fair, Inexpensive, and Unbiased."  But when it comes to creating a contract that works for workers, companies often refuse to negotiate a first agreement, or use stall tactics and gimmicks to delay the process for years.  Sixty-two percent of workers who form a union lack an agreement one year later and companies refuse to even negotiate in good faith in over 28% of cases.

The goal of workers seeking to form a union is to sit at the table with the employer
and bargain an agreement on their wages, benefits, and working conditions. Gaining
union representation can be a long and arduous process for workers. Even when workers
are able to form a union, the NLRA fails them because so many are denied the right to
collectively bargain with their employer.

A recent study document that only 38% of new unions are able to negotiate a first
contract within one year of NLRB certification and only 56% are able to achieve a
contract after two years. That means that under the NLRA, 44% of new unions still don't
have contracts two years after they are certified, and many newly-unionized workers
never achieve a first contract.

We broke down what these delays mean for several states. Download the individual reports here.

• Arkansas
• California
• Colorado
• Indiana
• Louisiana
• Maine
• Montana
• Nebraska
• North Dakota
• Pennsylvania
• Virginia

---

Sources

1. John-Paul Ferguson, The Eyes of the Needles: A Sequential Model of Union Organizing Drives, 62 Industrial Relations Review No. 1, (Oct. 2008).

The goal of workers seeking to form a union is to sit at the table with the employer
and bargain an agreement on their wages, benefits, and working conditions. Gaining
union representation can be a long and arduous process for workers. Even when workers
are able to form a union, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) fails them because so many are denied the right to collectively bargain with their employer.

A recent study document that only 38% of new unions are able to negotiate a first contract within one year of NLRB certification and only 56% are able to achieve a contract after two years. That means that under the NLRA, 44% of new unions still don't have contracts two years after they are certified, and many newly-unionized workers never achieve a first contract.

We broke down what these delays mean for several states. Download the individual reports here.

• Arkansas
• California
• Colorado
• Indiana
• Louisiana
• Maine
• Montana
• Nebraska
• North Dakota
• Pennsylvania
• Virginia

---

Sources

1. John-Paul Ferguson, The Eyes of the Needles: A Sequential Model of Union Organizing Drives, 62 Industrial Relations Review No. 1, (Oct. 2008).

In an opinion piece published by the Washington Post this morning, industrial and labor relations scholar Kate Bronfenbrenner writes about the obstacles facing workers today.

Over a five year period, Bronfenbrenner studied more than 1,000 union elections and the behavior employers exhibited during the process.

Here's what she found:

• In 34% of the elections, companies fired employees for union activity.
• In 57% of the elections, employers threatened to shut down their facilities
• In 47% of the elections, employers threatened to cut wages and benefits
• In 63% of elections, supervisors interrogated workers in one-on-one meetings, and in 54% of elections supervisors threatened individual workers in those meetings.

Bronfenbrenner writes that this wasn't always commonplace. In fact, she's seen a "steady decline of workers' rights in the past several decades," where "employers are more than twice as likely as they were in the 1990s to use 10 or more tactics...to thwart workers' organizing efforts." Many of these are "punitive and aggressive," and she has seen a marked shift away from "softer tactics such as social events, promises of improvement and employee involvement programs."

The system itself, she states, is failing "to defend workers' rights in a timely manner" and creates "delays that favor employers." That, in itself, is a large reason to support the Employee Free Choice's "first contract arbitration" section. Bronfenbrenner found that 52% of workers "who form a union are still without a contract a year after they win an election," and 37% "remain without a contract two years after the election." For employers, she notes, "labor law provides yet another means to indefinitely delay unionization."

Bronfenbrenner concludes that "if recent trends continue, there will no longer be a functioning legal mechanism to effectively protect the right of private-sector workers to organize and collectively bargain."

Read the full opinion piece here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/02/AR2009060202967.html

Union Members in Maine and Across the Country Earn Significantly More Than Non-Union Workers. Over the four-year period between 2004 and 2007, unionized workers' wages in Maine were on average 8.6 percent higher than non-union workers with similar characteristics. That means that, all else equal, Maine workers that join a union will earn 8.6 percent more--or $1.54 more per hour in 2008 dollars--than their otherwise identical non-union counterparts. [Unions are Good for Maine's Economy, 2/18/09]

• Higher Wages & Benefits Help U.S. Economy by Giving Workers the Ability to Purchase More Goods & Services: According to the Center for American Progress Action Fund report, unionization is good for the economy overall and "putting more money in workers' pockets would provide a needed boost for the U.S. economy." Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich stated that higher wages and higher benefits would give workers the purchasing power they need to buy more of the goods and services that this economy produces. [Center for American Progress Action Fund, "Unions Are Good for Workers and the Economy," 2/18/09]

Management at the Panolam plant intimidated workers in lead-up to election; Teamsters filed a complaint with the NLRB. In March 2008, the Sun Journal reported that Local 340 of the Teamsters filed an unfair labor practices charge with the National Labor Relations Board against the Panolam plant in Auburn. The vote to certify the union, originally scheduled for March 14, was postponed pending the NLRB investigation. The complaint "specifically states that since on or about Feb. 14 the employer has been engaging in unfair labor practices by: indicating that if the union were certified, the plant might close; spying on employees to determine their support of the union; and other allegations." [Lewiston Sun Journal, 3/5/08]

• Workers hoped to receive increases in wages and health benefits by joining the Teamsters Union. Workers at the Panolam plant wanted to join the union because "the manufacturing workers are hoping union affiliation will produce a wage hike of about $3 per hour and require the company to pay the full amount of medical insurance premiums, among other improvements." [Lewiston Sun Journal, 3/5/08]
• In August 2008, Workers at Panolam voted to join the Teamsters. In August 2008, the Sun Journal reported, "After a 10-month campaign, workers at the Panolam plant agreed to join Local 340 of the Teamsters union by a vote of 163- 109 on Friday, according to Local President Jim Carson... He said the vote was delayed when the union complained to the National Labor Relations Board in March about Panolam's tactics to dissuade workers from joining the union. Carson said the NLRB found in the Teamsters favor and reached a settlement with Panolam." [Lewiston Sun Journal, 8/3/08]

Knight-Celotex Challenged Workers' Vote to Unionize, But NLRB Ruled in Favor of the Workers. In April 2008, workers at Knight-Celotex in Lisbon voted to join the International Association of Machinists, but the company challenged a number of the votes on the basis of worker eligibility. The company "also filed an objection with the NLRB regarding union conduct in advance of the vote." The NLRB ruled in favor of the union and workers in June. [Sun Journal, 6/6/08, 8/2/08]

• Workers Were Inspired to Unionize After Seeing Better Wages, Health Care and Benefits at Bath Iron Works. A union spokesman "said workers at the Lisbon Falls plant were inspired by the contract that machinists negotiated at Bath Iron Works. Workers represented by S6 of the IAM's northeast district were able to get 3.5 to 4 percent wage increases yearly for four years and increased pension contributions without increasing employee percentages for medical insurance." [Sun Journal, 6/6/08]

NLRB Forced Retroactive Pay Raises After Red Cross Staff in Maine Went Over a Year Without a First Contract. In September 2000, the Bangor Daily News reported, "The American Red Cross has agreed to give employees who are members of the Teamsters union a pay increase retroactive to July 1, 2000, it was announced Tuesday. The action came after the National Labor Relations Board upheld charges filed by the Teamsters Local 340 on behalf of 43 people employed in Portland and Bangor facilities... The union charged that Red Cross nonunion workers were offered a
3.5 to 5 percent raise while Teamsters were offered a 2.5 percent wage increase earlier this year... Technicians, mobile unit assistants, nurses and support staff voted to join the union in June and have been trying for more than a year to get their first contract, according to James Carson, secretary-treasurer of Teamsters Local340." [Bangor Daily News, 9/27/00]

Bangor City Nursing Home Employees Waited Nearly Three Years for a First Contract. In 1996, the Bangor Daily News reported, "A nearly three-year effort to craft a first labor contract for 55 health professionals at the Bangor City Nursing Facility is expected to wrap up Monday evening when the contract finally comes before the City Council... The full- and part-time employees voted to unionize in December
1992, and negotiations with the city began in the spring of 1993. Writing the 39-page first contract involved more than 40 meetings and included outside assistance from a Maine Labor Relations Board mediator and a fact-finding panel... As negotiations dragged on, members of Local 5093 held two demonstrations last summer -- one in front of the nursing facility and one in front of City Hall. They protested the lack of a contract and spoke out about the lack of benefits for part-timers, some of whom work 32 or more hours a week." [Bangor Daily News, 2/24/96]

Union Members in Montana and Across the Country Earn Significantly More Than Non-Union Workers. Over the four-year period between 2004 and 2007, unionized workers' wages in Montana were on average 13.9 percent higher than non-union workers with similar characteristics. That means that, all else equal, Montana workers that join a union will earn 13.9 percent more--or $2.23 more per hour in 2008 dollars--than their otherwise identical non-union counterparts. [Unions are Good for Montana's Economy, 2/18/09]

• Employee Free Choice Would Pump Money Into Rural Economies. The League of Rural Voters writes, "Declining worker incomes have meant declining incomes for farmers and ranchers who produce food, fiber and biofuels. And that means less money has been coming into the rural economy. A big reason for shrinking worker paychecks is that big business has made it nearly impossible to join unions and bargain for solid benefits and fair wages (15 - 25 percent higher than non-union jobs). In fact, thousands of people are illegally fired every year just because they tried to organize a union. The Employee Free Choice Act can help level the playing field by making it easier for people to join unions and bargain for a better standard of living. It can give regular working folks the purchasing power to revive the economy - and to buy the products we grow and sell in rural America." [League of Rural Voters, accessed 5/19/09]
• Higher Wages & Benefits Help U.S. Economy by Giving Workers the Ability to Purchase More Goods & Services. According to the Center for American Progress Action Fund report, unionization is good for the economy overall and "putting more money in workers' pockets would provide a needed boost for the U.S. economy." Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich stated that higher wages and higher benefits would give workers the purchasing power they need to buy more of the goods and services that this economy produces. [CAP Report: Unions are Good for the American Economy, 2/18/09]

Montana Tech Professors Ratified First Contract After More Than a Year of Negotiations. In 2007, the Great Falls Tribune reported, "After more than a year of sometimes difficult negotiations, members of a union representing most of Montana Tech's professors have overwhelmingly ratified a collective bargaining agreement. 'This contract is a step in the right direction. ... This is good for both management and the union,' said Montana Tech Faculty Association President John Brower of the 32-9 vote with 95 percent of the membership voting. The union formed nearly two years ago, mainly in response to unhappiness with Tech's administration and tussles over employee selection, retention and promotion." [Great Falls Tribune, 2/11/07] A Year After Voting to Join a Union, Nurses at Roosevelt Memorial Medical Center Still Didn't Have a Contract. In July 2001, the AP reported, "A threatened nurses' strike at a hospital and nursing home here was averted... when the new union agreed to mediation. Nurses and certified nurses aides at Roosevelt Memorial Medical Center and Nursing Home voted to unionize in early 2000 and are negotiating their first contract, RMMC Administrator Audrey Stromberg said. The nurses planned to strike Friday, but will instead begin renew negotiations with the hospital board over issues including pay increases, union security and shift exchanges." [AP, 7/26/01]

• NLRB Found That Roosevelt Memorial Violated Labor Law By Coercively Interrogating Employees Before the Scheduled Strike. In October 2006, the NLRB agreed with Administrative Law Judge Thomas M. Patton's finding that the management of Roosevelt Memorial Medical Center violated federal labor law "by interrogating employees about their intention to participate" in the scheduled strike in 2001. The Board wrote, "the Respondent sent a letter to unit employees asking them to say whether they intended to participate in the strike and followed up by questioning some employees directly." [NLRB Decision and Order, 10/26/06]
• NLRB Found That Roosevelt Memorial Violated Labor Law "By Unilaterally Implementing Its Final Contract Proposals." In October 2006, the NLRB agreed with Administrative Law Judge Thomas M. Patton's finding that the management of Roosevelt Memorial Medical Center violated federal labor law "by unilaterally implementing its final contract proposals for dues checkoff, a no-strike clause, a grievance procedure with nonbinding arbitration, and a 2-year term. As the judge found, because the no-strike provision involves the surrender of statutory rights, and dues checkoff is 'contract-bound,' those terms cannot be imposed on the Union without its consent." [NLRB Decision and Order, 10/26/06]

Southside small business, workers, veterans and faith leaders show need for the Employee Free Choice Act and health care reform

On Thursday, May 28, members of the Martinsville community joined together to show broad support for the Employee Free Choice Act and health care reform. Martinsville has been hit hard by the recession, with 20% unemployment and health care coverage increasingly unaffordable. Against this community backdrop, Virginia Change that Works released a new report that detailing the urgent need for labor and health care reform in Virginia.

Martinsville small business owner Tony Millner said, "Now is the time to pass the Employee Free Choice Act. Southside is hurting, and in this economy, giving workers the chance to level the playing field is exactly the right thing to do. It's time to create an economy where businesses succeed because they make great products, not because they pay their employees the least." A recent study by the Center for American Progress found that if only 5% more of Virginia's workers were union members, it would pump $947 million into the state's economy.

Martinsville resident Mary Minter spoke about her experience as she and other workers faced severe obstacles to joining a union. Additionally she said, "I am a union member, and if more workers had the chance to form a union, Southside would be better off. We are only going to turn this economy around if people are able to feel secure in their jobs, if they have enough money to pay the bills and spend more in stores around town."

Securing a fair contract in a reasonable amount of time is one of the basic principles of the Employee Free Choice Act. The report released in Martinsville shows that 47 percent of Virginia workers who form a union are unable to get a first contract. For those who do secure a contract, it took an average of 314 days between filing the election and a conclusion of the election process.

Southside residents also see the value of health care reform as health insurance premiums in Virginia increased by 82.5 percent from 2000 to 2007. Martinsville veteran Roy Carter said, "We can't afford to wait for health care reform. Veterans are having a hard time finding good jobs and getting affordable health coverage." Comprehensive health care reform, including a public insurance option, will save every individual over $7,000 in premium and out of pocket expenses over the next 10 years.

Union members in Louisiana and across the country earn significantly more than non- union workers. "Over the four-year period between 2004 and 2007, unionized workers' wages in Louisiana were on average 6.9 percent higher than non-union workers with similar characteristics. That means that, all else equal, Louisiana workers that join a union will earn 6.9 percent more--or $1.25 more per hour in 2008 dollars--than their otherwise identical non-union counterparts." [Unions are Good for Louisiana's Economy, 2/18/09]

Unionization rewards workers for productivity growth. "Slow wage growth has squeezed the middle class and contributed to rising inequality. But increasing union coverage rates could likely reverse these trends as more Americans would benefit from the union wage premium and receive higher wages. If unionization rates were the same now as they were in 1983 and the current union wage premium remained constant, new union workers in Louisiana would earn an estimated $471 million more in wages and salaries per year. If union coverage rates increased by just 5 percentage points over current levels, Louisiana's newly unionized workers would earn an estimated $188 million more in wages and salaries per year.13 Non-union workers would also benefit as employers would likely raise wages to match what unions would win in order to avoid unionization." [Unions are Good for Louisiana's Economy, 2/18/09]

• Higher Wages & Benefits Help U.S. Economy by Giving Workers the Ability to Purchase More Goods & Services. According to the Center for American Progress Action Fund report, unionization is good for the economy overall and "putting more money in workers' pockets would provide a needed boost for the U.S. economy." Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich stated that higher wages and higher benefits would give workers the purchasing power they need to buy more of the goods and services that this economy produces. [CAP Report: Unions are Good for the American Economy, 2/18/09]

The Avondale Unionization Fight - Seven-Year Wait for Contract

Although employees of Avondale Industries voted in 1993 to form a union, the company used legal challenges to block the final tally until 1997

Employees Wanted a Union for Safer Working Conditions; Avondale Shipyard Had a High Rate of Fatal Accidents. Workers said that Avondale had a history of poor worker safety. In 1998, the New York Times reported, "Many Avondale workers say they desperately need a union to raise wages at the lowest-paying major shipyard in the nation and to end Avondale's high rate of fatal accidents. According to the union, 30 workers have died in accidents since 1972." [New York Times, 7/10/98]

• Avondale Employees Wanted to Join a Union for Safety Reasons and For Better Benefits. When workers started organizing, The Times Picayune wrote, "workers are concerned about poor health care, cutback on retirement benefits, lack of job security and unsafe working conditions, said a spokesman for the [AFL-CIO Metal Trades] council, which is trying to organize Avondale. Pay is not a major issue, he said." [New Orleans Times-Picayune, 6/2/93]

Avondale Workers Said They Felt Threatened When They Voted. An Avondale worker who did not want to be identified to the Times-Picayune talked about the intimidation at the Shipyard and said that management had "been threatening in certain ways. They might shut it down . . . trying to scare you they might strike. All that kind of stuff makes you think whether you want to vote union or not." When asked if there were any problems or hard feelings, the worker looked across the street at the anti-union sign carriers and said, "This don't look like no party out here. It's hot in there, really." [New Orleans Times-Picayune, 6/26/93]

• Shipyard Employees Were Told That If They Joined a Union, Avondale Would Lose a Big Contract. In order to scare workers so that they would not vote for the union, "Chairman Albert Bossier Jr. recently told assembled workers that unionization would jeopardize a hoped-for $300 million tanker contract with Texaco that the Legislature has just agreed to back. At present, shipyards in the New Orleans area are almost entirely non-union, and Avondale's management wants to keep it that way." [New Orleans Times-Picayune, 6/2/93]

A Delay In the Voting Occurred When Avondale Refused to Agree to the Size of the Bargaining Unit. Avondale attempted to increase the size of the bargaining unit to delay the vote and to decrease the likelihood of a union being formed. The Times-Picayune reported, "Holding up the vote is a disagreement on 'who is eligible to vote and who is not,' Malone said. 'The (National Labor Relations) Act excludes supervisors, office clericals and professionals,' Malone said. Union organizers proposed a unit of 2,600 employees, said Phil Miller, spokesman for the Metal Trades Council and vice president of Steamfitters Local 60. 'The company came up with a list of over 4,300,' Miller said." Miller disputed an earlier Avondale count of 6,500 workers in the main yard. "I don't believe that. We handbill in the morning, and count every handbill. There are no more than 3,300 employees that go through those gates," Miller said. [New Orleans Times-Picayune, 6/2/93]

Hundreds of Ballots Were Challenged by the NLRB, the Union and the Company leading to a 6 Month Delay in Certification. Once the Election was held, over 800 ballots were challenged, meaning "It could take till the end of the year before workers at Avondale Industries Inc.'s main shipyard know whether their vote... strongly favoring union representation will be validated because so many ballots were challenged, union organizers and the government agency that supervised the balloting said. Of the 4,060 employees the company listed as eligible to vote, 1,804 voted for representation by the Metal Trades Council, an umbrella of 11 AFL-CIO unions; 1,263 voted against the union; 847 ballots were challenged; and 11 were declared void. Some 640 to 650 ballots were challenged by the National Labor Relations Board, which conducted the vote Friday. The remainder were challenged by the union or the company." [Journal of Commerce, 6/30/93]

A Federal Hearing Examiner Put the Union Within Reach With a Decision to Count the Majority Of Ballots. In 1995, a federal labor hearing examiner "issued a decision that apparently moves the New Orleans Metal Trades Council within 19 votes of winning the right to represent employees at Avondale Industries Inc. Hearing Examiner Bernard Aronstam on Monday recommended to the National Labor Relations Board that 273 votes of 850 contested ballots in a June 1993 election not be opened and counted but the rest should be. If Aronstam's recommendation is upheld, there would be only 577 votes left to be counted. The union would need only 19 to win a majority of all votes cast. Avondale management would need 559 of the 577 votes to block the union. Management would win if there is a tie." [New Orleans Times Picayune, 3/29/95]

The Federal Hearing Examiner Rejected Avondale's Claims That The Union Engaged In "Improper Conduct During the Election Campaign. Avondale argued that "the union engaged in improper conduct during the election campaign, contending the union tried to use race as an issue and that the union tried to intimidate voters. In his ruling, Aronstam wrote, 'It is hereby recommended that employer's objections be overruled in their entirety because they raise no substantial or material issues which require overturning the election.'" [New Orleans Times Picayune, 3/29/95]

Allegations of Unfair Labor Practices

In Addition to the Case Contesting the Avondale Election, the NLRB Held Hearings On Unfair Labor Practices. In 1994, the Times Picayune reported, "NLRB Regional Director Hugh Frank Malone has set a hearing for July 11 on the union's charges that Avondale was guilty of unfair labor practices before and after the election last year. The charges will be heard by an administrative law judge, who will determine if the charges are valid. 'By setting this hearing, we are alleging that Avondale has violated the law, and it's our burden to establish that violation before the administrative law judge,' Malone said. According to the union allegations, some Avondale employees were threatened with reprisals and questioned about their union activities by supervisors and foremen. Seven employees were discharged, the union said." [New Orleans Times Picayune, 3/3/94]

• The NLRB Alleged That 80 Workers Had Been Demoted or Fired for Participating In Union Activities. "The latest union complaints outline incidents in which at least 80 employees claim to have been harassed, demoted without cause or illegally fired for participating in trades council activities. The incidents allegedly occurred between March 1993 and the present, said William Lurye, the union's attorney. 'There's been a long-standing pattern of harassment by the company,' he said." [New Orleans Times Picayune, 3/3/94]

The NLRB Sought an Injunction Against Avondale Ordering Them to Cease Unfair Labor Practices. In late 1994, the NLRB asked "a federal judge for an injunction ordering Avondale Industries to cease alleged unfair labor practices and reinstate or hire 35 pro-union employees. The petition by Gerard Fleischut, the NLRB's acting regional director, accuses Avondale of threatening employees with firing, transfer to less desirable jobs, and other actions because of their union activity on behalf of the New Orleans Metal Trades Council, AFL-CIO. Fleischut wants the court to order Avondale to offer interim reinstatement to 12 discharged employees and interim employment to 23 applicants refused employment." [New Orleans Times Picayune, 10/29/94]

The NLRB Believed That If an Injunction Was Not Ordered, The Union Would Not Be Able to Bargain From a Position of "Equal Strength." "If the injunction is not granted, NLRB attorney Earl Ledford wrote, Avondale's unfair labor practices, including the discharge of a significant number of union supporters, will have so weakened the union that it will not be able to bargain from a position of equal strength if, and when, it is certified. Reinstatement of the 12 employees who were fired and the offer of employment to 23 pro-union applicants who were not hired is necessary to erase the 'chilling impact' that Avondale's discrimination has had on employee support for the union, Ledford said." In January 1995, a District Court ruled against the company's request for an injunction. [New Orleans Times Picayune, 10/29/94; 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1035; 148 L.R.R.M. 2685]

Avondale Employees Attempted to Exercise Their Rights as Shareholders

Avondale Employees Who Own Stock In the Company Attempted to Change Management at a Shareholder's Meeting. Frustrated with the lack of momentum in certifying the union "union members also tried unsuccessfully to push through a series of changes in Avondale's management practices and the make-up of its board of directors at the company's annual meeting. The move failed when other stockholders out-voted union members who own stock via the company's employee stock ownership plan." [New Orleans Times Picayune, 3/3/94]

Federal District Court Found That Avondale Had Unfairly Denied Workers the Chance to Include a Proxy Statement at a Board Meeting. The court decided that Avondale officials could have completely omitted a proposal to reduce the percentage of shareholder votes required to change by-laws, but because they went out of their way by omitting the shareholder's proxy statement, but not Avondale's opposition statement, they are now obligated to make a full disclosure. "Avondale Industries Inc. must call a special shareholders meeting to vote on one proposal by a union-backed committee whose supporting statement - but not Avondale's opposition statement - was omitted from the proxy statement. But U.S. District Judge Henry Mentz refused to cancel Friday's annual meeting of Avondale shareholders to permit re-presentation of proposals backed by the Metal Trades Department, AFL-CIO." [New Orleans Times Picayune, 4/25/95]

• Employees Attempted Again in 1995 to Exercise Their Rights as Shareholders, but Were Unsuccessful. Although the proxy statement was allowed into the record, "Four proposals offered by the union-controlled Avondale Shareholders Committee were heavily defeated at the meeting, Avondale Chairman Albert Bossier Jr. said. Metal Trades Council attorney William Lurye was not discouraged after the meeting. He said Avondale employees are learning to exercise their rights as shareholders. The four shareholder committee resolutions that failed included one requiring all directors to be elected annually instead of in staggered three-year terms and a second making all ballots confidential and vote tabulation be done by independent election inspectors. Lurye said management had the meeting room ringed with security guards, 'trying to create an intimidating atmosphere for the employees.'" [New Orleans Times Picayune, 4/29/95]

1993 Election Was Finally Certified - In 1997

The NLRB Certified the Union at Avondale Five Years After the Election. "After the election on June 25, 1993, the board had said the union led 1,804 to 1,263 with 850 votes disputed. After years of haggling, the board threw out 307 of the disputed ballots and announced Feb. 5 that the remaining votes were valid and should be counted. In the final tally Saturday, the union won 1,954 to 1,632." [New Orleans Times Picayune, 2/18/97]

Avondale's Attorney Said The Company Would Appeal the Decision and Not Bargain With the Union. Admitting to the legal tactics the company was using to stall a first contract, "Avondale's attorney, Horace "Topper" Thompson of New Orleans, said the company will refuse to bargain with the union in order to throw the case into the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. He said U.S. labor law does not permit direct appeals of union-vote counts by the labor board." [New Orleans Times Picayune, 2/18/97]

Avondale Industries Fined For Unfair Labor Practices

NLRB Fined Avondale More Than $3 million In Compensation for Unfair Labor Practices. "Siding with labor in a bitter fight against Avondale Industries Inc., an administrative law judge ordered the Louisiana shipyard to reinstate two dozen workers and pay some $ 3 million in fines for an "outrageous and pervasive" campaign of unfair labor practices." [Associated Press, 2/27/98, Greater Baton Rouge Business Report, 3/31/98]

• The NLRB Ordered Avondale's CEO to Read its Findings Of Labor Law Violations and Pledge to End Such Practices In Front Of All Employees. "In addition to the fines, Evans ordered Avondale's CEO, Albert Bossier, to post a cease and desist order and either read it himself to an assembly of shipyard employees or sit by as a National Labor Relations Board representative reads it to them." [Associated Press, 2/27/98]

• Avondale Violated Labor Law 100 Times. The judge ruled: "Avondale violated labor law 100 times in trying to thwart the organizing drive. Avondale illegally 'discharged 28 employees, suspended five employees, issued 18 warning notices to employees, assigned onerous work to eight employees, denied employment to one employee-applicant and denied eight employees benefits to which they otherwise would have been entitled,' he said." [Associated Press, 2/27/98]

Negotiations Only Began When New Management Came In

Avondale Industries Was Taken Over By Litton Industries in 1999, And Only Then Did The Company Begin to Deal With the Union. "The tone changed in October 1999 when Avondale was taken over by Litton Industries Inc., which has a unionized shipyard in nearby Pascagoula, Miss." Although the relationship between management and the union was hostile for decades, "new owners and management at the shipyard have changed the nature of the relationship with the yard's blue-collar workers." [AP, 12/7/00, New Orleans Times Picayune, 11/2/99]

• Labor board Upheld unfair labor practices finding. Even though a new company had purchased the shipyard, the NLRB upheld the original decisions of the administrative law judge and ordered the new owners to "reinstate more than two dozen workers, fired before the company's takeover by Litton Industries Inc. The workers were found to be the victims of unfair labor practices by the previous management. The board upheld an administrative law judge's order issued in January 1998 that the company, then known as Avondale Industries Inc., give back pay to the workers." [AP, 11/11/99]

One Day After the Retirement of the Longtime Avondale CEO, Litton Agreed to Allow a Petition Process and Contract Negotiations. The bargaining situation at the shipyard changed immediately after Bossier stepped down: "A day after the retirement of longtime Avondale chief Albert Bossier Jr., a union opponent, Litton agreed with the Metal Trades Council to allow a petition process, certified by an arbitrator. Contract negotiations began in February, two months after an arbitrator ruled that the Metal Trades Council would represent the workers." [AP, 12/7/00]

Seven Years After the Original Election, Avondale Employees Overwhelmingly Approved a Contract. "More than 4,000 Litton Avondale Industries workers got an early gift from Santa Tuesday when company and union officials inked the first labor agreement in the shipbuilder's history. The formal signing of the collective bargaining pact put an end to a labor battle dating back to the 1940s. The contract takes effect Jan. 1 and runs 45 months. Litton Avondale's 4,200 blue-collar employees approved the pact Dec. 6 by a 4-1 margin." [Baton Rouge Advocate, 12/20/00]

• Under the Contract, Workers Received a 3 Percent Pay Hike Immediately. Under the first contract, Workers received wage increases including a "3 percent pay hike Jan. 1 - part of a 9 percent overall increase paid in three increments over the life of the pact. It also allows for additional pay increases based on work skills and seniority, and improves overtime practices and expands vacation time." [Baton Rouge Advocate, 12/20/00]

Additional Example of Delays in First Contract Arbitration

Pilots for Petroleum Helicopters Inc. Waited Nearly a Year for Their First Contract. In June 2001, Petroleum Helicopters Inc. announced "that the membership of the Office & Professionals Employees International Union (OPEIU) Local 108 voted overwhelmingly to ratify all terms and conditions of a three (3) year collective bargaining agreement between PHI and its domestic pilots. This agreement is the result of more than 10 months of bargaining between PHI and representatives of the OPEIU." [Business Wire, 6/14/01]

Union members across the country earn significantly more than non- union workers. Over the four-year period between 2004 and 2007, unionized workers' wages were on average 11.3 percent higher than non-union workers with similar characteristics. That means that, all else equal, American workers that join a union will earn 11.3 percent more--or $2.26 more per hour in 2008 dollars--than their otherwise identical non-union counterparts. [Center for American Progress Action Fund, "Unions Are Good for Workers and the Economy," 2/18/09]

Employee Free Choice Would Pump Money Into Rural Economies. The League of Rural Voters writes, "Declining worker incomes have meant declining incomes for farmers and ranchers who produce food, fiber and biofuels. And that means less money has been coming into the rural economy. A big reason for shrinking worker paychecks is that big business has made it nearly impossible to join unions and bargain for solid benefits and fair wages (15 - 25 percent higher than non-union jobs). In fact, thousands of people are illegally fired every year just because they tried to organize a union. The Employee Free Choice Act can help level the playing field by making it easier for people to join unions and bargain for a better standard of living. It can give regular working folks the purchasing power to revive the economy - and to buy the products we grow and sell in rural America." [League of Rural Voters, accessed 5/19/09]

Higher Wages & Benefits Help U.S. Economy by Giving Workers the Ability to Purchase More Goods & Services: According to the Center for American Progress Action Fund report, unionization is good for the economy overall and "putting more money in workers' pockets would provide a needed boost for the U.S. economy." Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich stated that higher wages and higher benefits would give workers the purchasing power they need to buy more of the goods and services that this economy produces. [Center for American Progress Action Fund, "Unions Are Good for Workers and the Economy," 2/18/09]

Arc Bridges Unionization Fight

It took 6 Months for Caregivers in Gary to Receive an Election After a Petition was Filed. When workers at Arc Bridges, a non-profit caregiver for mentally disabled people in Gary, Indiana, decided they wanted to join a union, "The union filed a petition with the government in mid-May 2006 to have an election at Arc Bridges. An election wasn't held until mid-November 2006, which is a time frame at least four times longer than the median time between a petition and an election, according to government data." [Chicago Tribune, 1/11/09]

• During This Period, Arc Bridges was Charged With Worker Intimidation. The Chicago Tribune reported that during the election campaign, "the union filed charges against Arc Bridges, claiming the company threatened pro-union workers, including bringing up the specter of layoffs, onerous working conditions and reduced benefits. In a settlement with the National Labor Relations Board, Arc Bridges posted handbills in the workplace saying it wouldn't do such things or interrogate employees about their union sympathies." [Chicago Tribune, 1/11/09]

In Spite of Charges of Intimidation, Arc Bridges Employees Voted to Form a Union When The Election Was Finally Held. Six months after a petition for a union was filed with the government, "Arc Bridges residential and supportive-living workers... elected to affiliate with the American Federation of Professionals union by a vote of 73 to 39. The National Labor Relations Board-sanctioned election was held by mail-in ballot with its results tallied Monday, said Jennie Moreland, AFP international secretary-treasurer." [Munster Times, 2/13/07]

Arc Bridges Employees Still Do Not Have A Contract - More Than 2 Years After The Election Was Certified. In January, the Chicago Tribune reported, "After the union won the election, the battle continued over a first contract, with the union filing another volley of charges, said Jennie Moreland, an organizer with the union. The union, which represents about 300 Arc Bridges workers, still doesn't have a contract. And 'they have no intention of giving us a contract,' Moreland said. That's because if a contract isn't in place one year after an election, she said, a new 'decertification' election can be held to boot out the union. And a decertification election has been requested at Arc Bridges but not yet approved by labor regulators." [Chicago Tribune, 1/11/09]

Other First Contract Arbitration Delays in Indiana

ATA Mechanics Waited More Than Three Years For First Contract After Voting to Join a Union. In August 2004, the Indianapolis Star reported, "Contract talks between ATA Airlines and its mechanics were cut short this week as union leaders charged the company with not negotiating seriously and raised the prospect of a strike... The union, representing about 600 mechanics at the financially troubled airline, has been negotiating with ATA since October 2002 on its first-ever contract." Finally, in February 2006, ATA and its 200 flight technicians reached a tentative agreement. The Pioneer Press reported, "If approved, the agreement would end more than three years of negotiation and be the first contract for the airline's technicians who are represented by the union." [Indianapolis Star, 8/28/04]

It Took ATA Flight Attendants More Than Three Years to Get a First Contract After Voting to Join a Union. In June 1991, about 1,100 flight attendants at ATA voted to join the Association of Flight Attendants. They didn't ratify their first contract until December 1994. [Indianapolis Star, 1/14/03; Association of Flight Attendants Press Release, 12/14/94]

Nearly Five Years After Voting to Join a Union, Workers At Uniroyal Technology Corp. Finally Got Their First Contract. In 1999, the News-Sentinel reported, "Union members are stepping up the pressure to obtain a contract for a Warsaw plant that makes thermoplastic parts for the marine recreation industry. The Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Energy Workers International Union was certified to represent hourly workers at the Uniroyal Technology Corp. plant four years ago after a successful organizing election. But the parties still don't have a labor contract because the company insists any agreement include provisions that would weaken a union local, union officials said. 'Four years is outrageous to be negotiating for the first contract,' said Joe Drexler, special projects director for the international at its Nashville, Tenn., headquarters." The first contract was finally ratified in December 1999. [News-Sentinel, 11/15/99; South Bend Tribune, 12/28/99]

Union members in California and across the country earn significantly more than non- union workers.

Over the four-year period between 2004 and 2007, unionized workers' wages in California were on average 12.7 percent higher than non-union workers with similar characteristics. That means that, all else equal, California workers that join a union will earn 12.7 percent more--or $2.87 more per hour in 2008 dollars--than their otherwise identical non-union counterparts. [Unions are Good for California's Economy, 2/18/09]

Latino Union Workers Earn More & Have Better Benefits. The most recent data suggest that even after controlling for differences between union and non- union workers --including such factors as age and education level -- unionization substantially improves the pay and benefits received by Latino workers. After controlling for workers' characteristics, the union wage premium for all Latino workers is 17.6 percent or about $2.60 per hour. The union advantage for Latino workers is even larger with respect to health insurance and pension coverage. Unionized Latino workers were about 26 percentage points more likely to have health insurance and about 27 percentage points more likely to have a pension than their non-union counterparts. [CEPR Report: Unions and Upward Mobility for Latino Workers, 9/08]

• The Janitors for Justice campaign in California produced wage increases of 22 to 26 percent for mostly Latino workers. In April 2000, "some 8,500 janitors represented by the SEIU won raises of 22 percent to 26 percent after a highly publicized three-week strike." The janitors were "mostly immigrant Latinos making less than $ 7 per hour." [The Daily News of Los Angeles, 11/5/00]

This salary increase affected not just the workers, but also had a dramatic affect on families. In June 2000, Harold Meyerson editorialized on what a wage increase of about 26 percent, spread over 3 years, would mean for the workers: "The janitors...will see their hourly pay rise from just under $8 to just over $10. (At that rate, it's possible that one parent in a two-working-parent family could afford to work just one job -- and actually get some time with his or her kids.)" [The American Prospect, 6/19/00]

Security guards in California received a 40% increase in salary and benefits after unionizing. In 2008, the security guards and SEIU "sought to bring the guards' hourly pay and benefits in line with those of janitors represented by the SEIU. Currently, janitors working in the same buildings and for the same management companies make up to $6 per hour more than guards -- who average around $8.50 per hour with no health insurance, paid vacation or other benefits...The deal results in a 40% increase in overall salary and benefits, according to Faith Culbreath, local head of the security officers' branch of the Service Employees International Union." [Los Angeles Times, 1/21/08]

The majority of the security guards were black men, and an increase in their salaries increased the amount of money going back into the black community. Faith Culbreath also provided the statistic that "Up to 70% of local private security jobs are filled by black men, and...the new deal would bring an estimated $50 million more per year in wages and benefits, "the vast majority of that going into the black community." [Los Angeles Times, 1/21/08]

• Higher Wages & Benefits Help U.S. Economy by Giving Workers the Ability to Purchase More Goods & Services: According to the Center for American Progress Action Fund report, unionization is good for the economy overall and "putting more money in workers' pockets would provide a needed boost for the U.S. economy." Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich stated that higher wages and higher benefits would give workers the purchasing power they need to buy more of the goods and services that this economy produces. [Center for American Progress Action Fund, "Unions Are Good for Workers and the Economy," 2/18/09]

California Employers Stall Before Giving Workers a First Contract
Workers at Alan Ritchey Inc. Waited More Than Two Years to Get Their First Contract. In 2002, the Contra Costa Times reported, "Natasha Lyles said she's still waiting for a contract from Alan Ritchey Inc., more than two years after she and colleagues at the company's Richmond plant voted to unionize by a two-to-one margin. A contract and a little respect. 'They don't treat us like humans,' Lyles said. 'They don't talk to us with respect.'" In July 2002, the Richmond City Council passed a resolution calling on the company to "negotiate an agreement without further delay." "The workers' frustrations were largely validated by a decision handed down in April by an administrative law judge with the National Labor Relations Board. In his decision, Judge Burton Litvack found that the company engaged in unfair labor practices and failed to negotiate in good faith with the union. He also said that the company had unlawfully fired 16 employees, and he ordered the company to offer them their jobs back and to pay back wages with interest." Workers initially voted to join the International Longshore and Warehouse Union in April 2000. [Contra Costa Times, 7/14/02; West County Times, 4/15/00]

Management of Enloe Medical Center Refused to Negotiate First Contract For Nearly Three Years After Workers Voted to Join a Union. Employees at Enloe Medical Center "first voted to form a union with United Healthcare Workers in April 2004, but the prior hospital administration challenged the election results. After every legal challenge was rejected, Enloe management finally agreed to negotiations in early 2007." The first collective bargaining agreement for the service workers at Enloe Medical Center was finally ratified on December 9, 2008. [Health Insurance Week, 12/21/08; Enloe Medical Center Press Release, 12/9/08]

More Than a Year After Voting to Unionize, Rite Aid Workers Said Management Refuses to Even Discuss Key Items Like Pay Scales. In December 2008, the Los Angeles Times reported, "Carlos Rubio, a Rite Aid warehouse worker in Palmdale, said negotiations with his employer over a first contract have dragged on since he and his co-workers voted to join the International Longshore and Warehouse Union in March. 'There are 35 articles on the table. We've agreed to four of them,' Rubio said. Rite Aid has agreed to minor provisions, such as what happens if an employee is called into military service, he said, but has not even begun to talk about pay scales and other more meaningful issues." In March 2009, union officials still argued that management was trying to "run out the clock" and refusing to work out a contract. [Los Angeles Times, 12/27/08; Michigan Chronicle, 3/11/09-3/17/09]

Inland Valley Medical Center Refused Good-Faith First Contract Negotiations for Two Years, Hoping the Delay Would Make the Nurses Give Up on the Union. In September 2008, the Press Enterprise reported, "Leaders of the California Nurses Association said, and a federal judge agreed, that a pattern of threats, intimidation and stalling happened at Inland Valley Medical Center in Wildomar, where registered nurses voted to unionize in 2004. Initially the hospital attempted to hold up the vote by asking it to include nurses in a hospital in Murrieta owned by the same corporation, King of Prussia, Pa.-based Universal Health Services Inc. The NLRB disagreed and ordered the election to go forward. Nurses ratified the union in May 2004, but almost two years passed with no contract and nurses, with nothing to show for their union membership, voted to decertify CNA." One year later, a judge tossed out the decertification election "after agreeing with union supporters who filed charges accusing hospital officials and outside consultants of surveillance, harassment and intimidation during the weeks leading up to that election," but CNA decided not to continue the fight, arguing that they were protecting nurses from the "outrageous anti-union campaign." [The Press Enterprise, 9/1/08, 8/23/08]

Workers at TXI Riverside Cement Voted to Join a Union in 2005, and Still Didn't Have a Contract At Least Three Years Later. In August 2007, the Press Enterprise reported, "The union representing workers at TXI Riverside Cement plans to mark the holiday weekend with what it calls an 'Angry Labor Day' rally Saturday, protesting the lack of a contract nearly two years after employees voted to unionize. About 80 workers at the plant at 1500 Rubidoux Blvd. voted in August 2005 to join United Steelworkers Local 12-48. But after nearly 30 meetings between the union and management, no contract has been reached... The union contends TXI is seeking to delay negotiations on a first contract in an effort to undermine workers' support for the union. For example, union leaders say negotiators met 26 times in the year after the union vote before TXI made its first complete economic proposal." As of April 2008, the San Bernardino County Sun reported that there was still no contract at the Rubidoux plant. [The Press Enterprise, 8/31/07; San Bernardino County Sun, 4/30/08]

Caregivers at Stockton Retirement Home Voted to Join a Union In 2005, But Management Stalled on a First Contract for Years. In April 2008, The National Labor Relations Board "recommended a new election be held at the O'Connor Woods retirement home in Stockton, after finding management violated federal law by threatening and misleading workers in the days prior to a previous union election in November... Workers at O'Connor Woods were pleased with the decision. Caregivers first voted to become members of SEIU United Healthcare Workers-West in 2005, but years of stalling tactics by management prevented them from winning a first contract." [SEIU Press Release, 4/16/08]

Nurses at Providence St. Joseph Medical Center Waited Years For Their First Contract. In September 2007, the San Fernando Valley Business Journal reported, "Two area hospitals--Antelope Valley Hospital and Providence St. Joseph Medical Center--have reached agreements with Service Employees International Union, United Healthcare Workers-West." Nurses initially voted to join the union in September 2002, but the results were challenged. The NLRB subsequently certified the union at Providence St. Joseph Medical Center in 2003. [San Fernando Valley Business Journal, 9/17/07; Los Angeles Times, 10/17/02, 6/4/03]

After an Initial Struggle to Join a Union, Nurses at Antelope Valley Hospital Had to Wait More than a Year to Get a Contract. In September 2007, the San Fernando Valley Business Journal reported, "Two area hospitals--Antelope Valley Hospital and Providence St. Joseph Medical Center--have reached agreements with Service Employees International Union, United Healthcare Workers-West. For Antelope Valley Hospital, settling on a contract marks the end of a five-year struggle." According to the Daily News of Los Angeles, "Negotiations started in July 2006 between the hospital and Service Employees International Union United Healthcare Workers West. In February 2006, the union won the right to represent about 1,200 eligible licensed vocational nurses, technicians, food service workers, clerical staffers and other support-service workers." The union had worked for three years just to get the initial vote to unionize. [San Fernando Valley Business Journal, 9/17/07; Daily News of Los Angeles, 1/13/07, 2/23/06]

Ongoing Struggle for Unionization: The Santa Barbara News-Press
The Santa Barbara News-Press Votes to Unionize, but Management questions the Legitimacy of the Vote The Santa Barbara News-Press has been involved in a 3-year controversy over the unionization of its workers. Wendy McCaw purchased the Santa Barbara News-Press in 2000, and the paper has been "embroiled in controversy since July 2006, when several top editors quit, saying publisher Wendy McCaw meddled with news coverage. The paper countered that the former employees had let their personal opinions influence news decisions." [AP, 8/18/07]

Employees overwhelmingly voted to join a union in September 2006. The newsroom employees voted to form a union in September 2006 but "have been fighting with the newspaper since then over the legitimacy of the vote, which has been certified by the NLRB." [AP, 1/27/09]

• The NLRB certified the September 2006 union election and unanimously rejected arguments made by newspaper management regarding unfair organizing tactics. After the election was disputed by newspaper management, "The National Labor Relations Board on Thursday unanimously rejected arguments made by newspaper management that unfair organizing tactics were used during a September election in which newsroom employees voted 33-6 in favor of joining the Graphics Communications Conference of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. The ruling means the union can bargain with the newspaper." [AP, 8/18/07]

This decision meant that the newspaper must negotiate with the union. Many of the reporters who voted to unionize had since left the paper, either voluntarily or were terminated. The newspaper appealed the election: "Despite the exodus, the newspaper must negotiate with the union, said NLRB spokesman Tony Bisceglia. However, the paper can ask for decertification in a year if a deal isn't reached and the current employees don't want to be represented by a union, Bisceglia said." [AP, 8/18/07]

Santa Barbara News-Press Illegally Fired Reporters

In addition to the appeal over the certification of the NLRB election, there was also an ongoing dispute over the firing of eight reporters. The NLRB's decision to certify the union elections at the Free-Press came "amid charges by the NLRB that the newspaper improperly fired eight reporters, six of whom hung a sign over a highway overpass earlier this year urging passers-by to cancel their subscriptions." [AP, 8/18/07]

• When the newspaper would not agree to settle the case against the reporters and re-hire them, the NLRB issued a complaint against the newspaper charging unfair labor practices. "The National Labor Relations Board served a complaint to the News-Press on Wednesday to begin the process of presenting its case against the newspaper. At issue is the paper's imposition of gag orders, which impeded employees' rights to communicate with each other and the public, and the Oct. 27 firing of senior writer and union supporter Melinda Burns, a 21-year News-Press veteran....The NLRB tried to settle the case with the News-Press, said Byron B. Kohn, acting regional director of the board. Resolution would require immediate reinstatement of Burns and a formal notice to the employees that the News-Press would not engage in similar conduct in the future, he said. When the paper didn't agree to settle, the NLRB issued the complaint and charged the News-Press with unfair labor practices. The board investigated the case by taking sworn affidavits from witnesses." [Ventura County Star, 12/29/06]

A judge ruled that the Santa Barbara News-Press "committed flagrant violations of federal labor laws when it fired eight journalists for engaging in union activities." Although managers testified that Melinda Burns and other reporters were fired for writing biased stories and disloyalty to the company, a judge "ruled that all eight were illegally fired for engaging in union activity. He also ruled that Davison and three colleagues were given poor performance reviews and denied bonuses for the same reason, and that Starshine Roshell's column was dropped because she supported the union." The judge ordered that the paper rehire the former employees. [Los Angeles Times, 1/1/08]

Despite an NLRB judge's finding that the employees were unlawfully fired, a federal judge refused to reinstate them. Following an appeal of the NLRB decision that the reporters were fired illegally, "A federal judge has denied a request by the National Labor Relations Board to reinstate eight workers fired from the Santa Barbara News-Press, according to a ruling made public Wednesday. The board claimed the workers were wrongfully terminated for union activity and other reasons. U.S. District Judge Stephen Wilson said in his ruling that an injunction calling for the workers' reinstatement would prevent the paper from exercising what it's asserting as its First Amendment right to combat union efforts to limit its exercise of editorial discretion." [AP, 5/28/08]

Santa Barbara Free-Press Continues to Delay Bargaining and Bring Unsuccessful Suits Against Employees

In a suit against the Teamsters Union, the newspaper unsuccessfully claimed the union interfered with sales. In the conclusion of the first of several lawsuits brought by newspaper management against the union and employees, the result was that "A federal agency has dismissed a claim brought by the Santa Barbara News-Press against an employees union, concluding the newspaper failed to provide sufficient evidence that the union tried to interfere with newspaper sales. In an April 3 ruling, the National Labor Relations Board rejected arguments by newspaper management that the Graphics Communications Conference of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters coerced or threatened employees and others to hurt sales of the paper at the Santa Barbara Farmers Market. The newspaper claimed Teamsters members impeded pedestrians at the market from buying the newspaper." [AP, 4/8/08]

The NLRB ruled that union representatives did nothing wrong when they organized an advertising boycott of the newspaper. Newspaper management also sued union representatives for organizing an advertising boycott of the Santa Barbara News-Press, but the NLRB ruled that the union representatives "did nothing wrong when they called for an advertising boycott of the Santa Barbara News-Press as part of an ongoing labor dispute. Lawyers for the newspaper had accused union officials of failing to bargain in good faith. In a letter dated Jan. 23, the National Labor Relations Board said it found no evidence the union had violated any labor law when it sought to discourage businesses from advertising in the newspaper." [AP, 1/27/09]

Union members in Arkansas and across the country earn significantly more than non- union workers. "Over the four-year period between 2004 and 2007, unionized workers' wages in Arkansas were on average 7.7 percent higher than non-union workers with similar characteristics.2 That means that, all else equal, Arkansas workers that join a union will earn 7.7 percent more--or $1.26 more per hour in 2008 dollars--than their otherwise identical non-union counterparts." [Unions are Good for Arkansas' Economy, 2/18/09]

Unionization rewards workers for productivity growth. "Slow wage growth has squeezed the middle class and contributed to rising inequality. But increasing union coverage rates could likely reverse these trends as more Americans would benefit from the union wage premium and receive higher wages. If unionization rates were the same now as they were in 1983 and the current union wage premium remained constant, new union workers in Arkansas would earn an estimated $166 million more in wages and salaries per year. If union coverage rates increased by just 5 percentage points over current levels, Arkansas' newly unionized workers would earn an estimated $127 million more in wages and salaries per year. Non-union workers would also benefit as employers would likely raise wages to match what unions would win in order to avoid unionization." [Unions are Good for Arkansas' Economy, 2/18/09]

• Higher Wages & Benefits Help U.S. Economy by Giving Workers the Ability to Purchase More Goods & Services: According to the Center for American Progress Action Fund report, unionization is good for the economy overall and "putting more money in workers' pockets would provide a needed boost for the U.S. economy." Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich stated that higher wages and higher benefits would give workers the purchasing power they need to buy more of the goods and services that this economy produces. [Center for American Progress Action Fund, "Unions Are Good for Workers and the Economy," 2/18/09]

It Took Over Three Years - And Multiple NLRB Rulings - For Nurses At St. Vincent Health System to Get Their First Contract.

• Nurses Voted to Join a Union in 2000, After NLRB Found That the Hospital Had Threatened Some Nurses. Nurses at St. Vincent Health System "began their unionization drive in 1999, winning a vote in 2000, after an earlier defeat was overturned by the National Labor Relations Board amid charges that St. Vincent officials improperly tried to influence staff." [Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 2/18/06]

• There Were Numerous Charges of Unfair Labor Practices Against Hospital Management Filed in 2002. In May 2002, St. Vincent Nurse Dana Downes asked for an election to decertify the union, "but the petition was dismissed by the National Labor Relations Board in Memphis over claims of unfair labor practices by St. Vincent. By the end of 2002, the regional director in Memphis agreed with union members about several charges against the system, including that management had illegally lobbied nurses to end union representation. The nurses settled the charges with St. Vincent in January 2003, a day before the two sides were to meet before an administrative law judge." [Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 4/24/07]

• Management and Nurses Finally Ratified First Contract in 2003. The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reported that the 2000 vote by nurses to join the union "set the stage for contract talks that dragged on for nearly three years. The union rejected St. Vincent's contract offer in August 2001. The labor board found in November 2001 and December 2002 that the health system had violated labor laws. Nurses threatened a strike in February 2002." Finally, in March 2003, nurses at St. Vincent Health System ratified a first contract, "ending years of tumultuous contract talks, strike threats, legal challenges and demonstrations." [Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 2/18/06, 3/23/03]

• In 2007, Nurses Killed an Effort to Decertify Their Union. In April 2007, nurses at St. Vincent Health System voted 334-224 to remain in the Office and Professional Employees International Union. [Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 4/24/07]

NLRB and Appeals Court Found that the Hardesty Company Violated Multiple Labor Laws, Including "Surface Bargaining."

• Employees of Hardesty Company Voted to Join a Union in 1995. "The Hardesty Company distributes ready-mix concrete to its customers through 27 facilities throughout Arkansas and Oklahoma. On August 21, 1995, following an organizing campaign and an election supervised by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), Teamsters Local 373 was certified as the collective bargaining representative for the drivers, batchmen, mechanics, and front-end loaders of the company's Fort Smith and Van Buren facilities. In October 1995, the union and the company began negotiations on a collective bargaining agreement (CBA)." [Arkansas Employment Law Letter, December 2002]

• Hardesty Proposed Freezing Wages and Changed Health Insurance Provider Without Consulting Union. In February and March 1996, "Hardesty introduced a series of proposals that would have frozen wages, eliminated overtime, bonuses, and the 401(k) plan, and reduced the amount of vacation time. Also, effective June 1, 1996, the company switched health insurance providers without consulting with the union. The parties met for their last bargaining session in September 1996 and never signed a CBA." [Arkansas Employment Law Letter, December 2002]

• Judge, NLRB, and Appeals Court Found Numerous Labor Law Violations at Hardesty Company. The union filed a number of unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board, and an NLRB judge ruled against the Hardesty Company "on nearly all of the counts." The judge's decision was upheld by the full NLRB and years later by the U.S. Court of Appeals For The Eighth Circuit. [Arkansas Employment Law Letter, December 2002]

• Among Other Violations, Appeals Court Found That Management Wasn't Bargaining in Good Faith. "The NLRA makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer to refuse to bargain collectively with its employees' representatives. The Act defines "collective bargaining" as meeting at reasonable times and conferring in good faith with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment. The Act clearly notes that the obligation to negotiate in good faith doesn't compel either party to agree to a proposal or make any concession. But it does prohibit negotiations conducted as a sham, in which the real intent is to never reach an agreement -- i.e., 'surface bargaining.' The Eighth Circuit noted that determining whether good faith was used is based on an examination of all the circumstances. Clearly, a court looks at not only the bargaining behavior at the table but also the behavior away from the table. In this case, the court affirmed the NLRB's determination that Hardesty's behavior at the table was lacking." [Arkansas Employment Law Letter, December 2002]

Kimberly-Clark Employees Waited A Year and a Half To Get a First Contract After Joining a Union. In January 2003, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reported, "Kimberly-Clark Corp. and about 100 unionized employees in Conway ended a year and a half of labor discord this week when the workers agreed to a contract that gives them small raises, a cash payment and a panel made up primarily of their peers to settle labor grievances. The 102 maintenance employees at the plant have worked without a contract since they joined the Arkansas Regional Council of Carpenters in July 2001." [Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 1/25/03]

In today's Washington Post, political columnist Harold Meyerson explains the importance of first contract arbitration in the Employee Free Choice Act, which is the second main plank of the legislation.

"But the kind of democratic choice that business favors is choice without consequence -- a position made clear by its opposition to the other key component of EFCA: binding arbitration between company and union if they've been unable to agree on a contract within 120 days of a union winning the election. A study of first-contract negotiations by John-Paul Ferguson and Thomas A. Kochan of MIT's Sloan School of Management makes clear why such arbitration is needed. After surveying 22,000 unionization campaigns between 1999 and 2004, the authors found that even after a majority of workers voted for a union, they actually reached a contractual agreement with management (which is currently under no legal obligation to come to an agreement) only 56 percent of the time.

"Heads, management wins. Tails, the employees lose."

It's ironic that businesses rely on arbitration all the time as a means of resolving differences; in this regard, arbitration is a tool for business success. Yet when it comes to giving workers recourse to an arbitrator as a means of getting a first contract between their newly-formed union and the employer, big business is suddenly opposed to arbitration. They praise arbitration when it favors them, but oppose it in settling first contracts.

In a new round of attacks against the Employee Free Choice Act, corporate lobbyists and executives are showing their true, greedy selves.

In recent weeks, corporate lobbyist groups such as the Center for Union Facts, the Chamber of Commerce, and conservatives like Newt Gingrich, have waged war to prevent workers from enjoying what CEOs take for granted: a contract.

In a Wall Street Journal op-ed today, and in a Politico op-ed from Newt Gingrich last month, anti-worker groups have attacked the "first contract arbitration" portion of the Employee Free Choice Act. That provision seeks to stop employers from using endless foot-dragging against workers who have voted for a union, but have yet to secure a contract. The legislation says that if employers and workers can't reach an agreement in a reasonable amount of time - 120 days - either side can bring in a neutral, private-sector arbitrator to settle the dispute.

Besides the foot-dragging, this assault on first contract arbitration is particularly disturbing for another reason: Corporations use arbitration all the time, because they say it's a fast, inexpensive way to settle disputes.

Here are just some of the quotes that opponents of Employee Free Choice have said about arbitration in the past:

"For more than 80 years, arbitration has helped Americans settle disputes fairly, quickly and inexpensively, without having to file a lawsuit or navigate the court system." - Lisa Rickard, president of the US Chamber's Institute for Legal Reform (4/2/08)

"Arbitration is mutually beneficial, which is what we have always thought." - Arne Wagner, assistant general counsel for Bank of America [ABA Journal, December 1994]

"[F]ederal policy... favors the use of arbitration as an efficient, effective, and less expensive means of resolving disputes...Arbitration, has served as an essential valve for the nation's overburdened civil justice system." - Letter to Senate Judiciary Committee signed by US Chamber of Commerce, Retail Industry Leaders Association, National Retail Federation, National Association of Manufacturers, Jackson Lewis, et al (2/7/08)

Just a little bit of a double standard, no? Arbitration is the best thing ever when it comes to protecting their wallets, but when it comes to adding the safety net of first contract arbitration during collective bargaining, it's the devil incarnate that must be stopped at all costs.

There's one position that CEOs have been fairly consistent on, however: if it allows them to hold on to their corporate power against working families, then they're all for it. Even if it means being a little "flexible" in their public stances.

It took nearly four years, but unionized workers at a Saint-Hyacinthe, Quebec Wal-Mart store have finally won their first collective agreement. Although Wal-Mart has 1.4 million employees, the workers at this store are the only Wal-Mart employees in North America to be represented by a union.

The employees first voted to certify the union in 2005, only to encounter years of resistance in the form of legal challenges, negotiations, and mediation.

"It's time for Wal-Mart to start walking the talk. It describes itself as a socially responsible company committed to environmental sustainability and helping people to 'live better'. Those are important things, but so are workers' rights," said Wayne Hanley, national president of UFCW Canada. "The St-Hyacinthe contract challenges Wal-Mart to truly demonstrate that it's serious about being a community partner and a positive force in Canada and the world."

Sometimes actions speak a lot louder - and truer - than words.

Here's an example...

The corporations and their front groups that oppose the Employee Free Choice Act say that the use of arbitration to help workers and companies reach agreements will hurt business and put federal bureaucrats in charge.

That's what they say.

Now here's what they do: in fact, companies use arbitration all the time to resolve disputes because they like that it's fast, fair, and inexpensive.

It turns out that the corporate rhetoric on the Employee Free Choice Act's arbitration provisions is simply another example of misinformation they're spreading about the bill.

Here's what the Employee Free Choice Act does: it gives both workers and companies the option of requesting an independent, private-sector arbitrator to help reach a fair agreement.

No one's really opposed to arbitration as a process. It's used all the time. The anti-employee free choice corporations and their front groups are just opposed to workers having the option to use it to help reach fair agreements. That's a tough position to defend publicly, so it gets disguised as concern about "hurting business" and putting "bureaucrats in charge."

Corporate opposition and misinformation on this is not surprising. Today, even when a majority of workers say they want to form a union, companies can refuse to negotiate a first agreement, or stall and use other tactics to delay the process for years. One third of workers who form a union lack an agreement one year later and 28 percent of the time companies refuse to negotiate at all.

By giving workers and companies the option of requesting an independent, private-sector arbitrator, workers who make the majority decision to form a union are able to secure an agreement without delays or stall tactics -- and companies are guaranteed provisions that match industry standards to ensure competitiveness.

Ensuring that workers have the freedom to form unions and negotiate contracts with their employers is a key way workers are able to share in the prosperity they help create and win a stronger voice in the services they provide.