Yesterday a new study [PDF] was released that offers up yet more evidence of why reforming union organizing law is a good idea. During organizing campaigns from 1999 to 2003 (the latest available data), here is what management did:63% interrogate workers in one-on-one meetings with their supervisors about support for the unionThe New York Times let the business side criticize the study without actually providing any evidence that the study was inaccurate. People at the Chamber of Commerce are also suggesting that this is an attempt to "demonize" business. But that's not the case, either. The point of this study isn't that businesses are evil, it's that laws are being broken by some people and we need more robust protections for people exercising their right to organize. Speaking of those robust protections, Employee Free Choice Act floor leader Senator Tom Harkin is now threatening to force a vote on the original bill if reluctant legislators won't even come to the table for compromise discussions. This would put wobbly Democrats who are trying to play it both ways -- folks like Arlen Specter, Blanche Lincoln, Tom Carper or Jim Webb -- in a tight spot. Ideally, they'd placate unions with talk of a difficult political atmosphere while pleasing business by taking no action. If Harkin forces them to choose, they'll have to tick off somebody. This may be the stick needed to force a compromise, since business isn't interested in any bill at all. But these plans will all likely to wait until Al Franken is seated, hopefully in June, to ensure that every Democratic vote -- and particularly a progressive like Franken -- can be mustered.
54% threaten workers in such meetings
57% threaten to close the worksite
47% threaten to cut wages and benefits
34% fire workers
Even when workers succeed at forming a union, 52 percent are still without a contract a year after they win the election, and 37 percent remain without a contract two years after the election. ... Although the use of management consultants, captive audience meetings, and supervisor one-on-ones has remained fairly constant, there has been an increase in more coercive and retaliatory tactics (“sticks”) such as plant closing threats and actual plant closings, discharges, harassment and other discipline, surveillance, and alteration of benefits and conditions. At the same time, employers are less likely to off er “carrots,” as we see a gradual decrease in tactics such as granting of unscheduled raises, positive personnel changes, promises of improvement, bribes and special favors, social events, and employee involvement programs.
-- Tim Fernholz
