Scalia’s Chance to Smash Unions: The Huge Under-the-Radar Case

photograph of the justices, cropped to show Justice Scalia (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Josh Eidelson | Salon | Reader Supported News | November 13, 2013

A Supreme Court case being argued Wednesday could take away a tactic that’s kept unions alive

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear arguments on an under-the-radar case that could deal a major blow to already embattled U.S. unions. As Harvard labor law professor Benjamin Sachs told the New York Times, the case now facing Antonin Scalia and company could be “the most significant labor case in a generation.”

The case, Unite Here Local 355 v. Mulhall, involves the constitutionality of “card check neutrality agreements” between unions and companies they’re trying to organize. That’s the technical-sounding term for agreements that pave the way for unionization by restricting companies from running union-busting campaigns, and by committing companies to recognize a union and start negotiating if a majority of workers sign union cards, rather than holding out for a government-supervised election. In exchange, unions can agree not to publicly shame and slam the company – which means calling off the kind of public pressure campaign often necessary to compel companies to sign away their union-busting rights.

None of this would matter as much if the New Deal National Labor Relations Act, which commits the federal government to encourage collective bargaining (seriously, that’s what it says), actually ensured that it was up to a company’s workers, not its management, whether to have a union contract. But the government-supervised National Labor Relations Board unionization process is, depending on your level of cynicism, either “broken” or “fixed” against workers. It’s rife with opportunities for bosses to delay, gerrymander and intimidate workers – including holding mandatory on-the-clock anti-union lectures full of ominous “predictions” – without breaking the law. And research suggests it’s also marked by rampant illegality – including alleged illegal firings in a third of election campaigns – that’s perhaps predictable given that the worst-case scenario for scofflaw CEOs is usually reinstating an employee months later with back pay. Even if pro-union workers win an election, the law alone doesn’t make corporations offer real contract concessions, and a year after the vote workers are about as likely as not to still be without a union contract.

Read more

Some unions now angry about health care overhaul

SAM HANANEL | Associated Press | Yahoo News | May 24, 2013

WASHINGTON (AP) — Some labor unions that enthusiastically backed President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul are now frustrated and angry, fearful that it will jeopardize benefits for millions of their members.

Union leaders warn that unless the problem is fixed, there could be consequences for Democrats facing re-election next year.

“It makes an untruth out of what the president said — that if you like your insurance, you could keep it,” said Joe Hansen, president of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union. “That is not going to be true for millions of workers now.”

The problem lies in the unique multiemployer health plans that cover unionized workers in retail, construction, transportation and other industries with seasonal or temporary employment. Known as Taft-Hartley plans, they are jointly administered by unions and smaller employers that pool resources to offer more than 20 million workers and family members continuous coverage, even during times of unemployment.

Read more

Average worker in ‘right-to-work’ state earns $1,500 less each year

Elise Gould and Heidi Shierholz | Economic Policy Institute | December 13, 2013

On Tuesday, Michigan enacted a “right-to-work” law, becoming the 24th state to do so. While policymakers in Michigan claim that “right to work” helps workers, our research shows the exact opposite is true. Workers—both union and nonunion— in these states have lower wages on average, are less likely to have employer-sponsored health insurance, and are also less likely to have employer-sponsored pensions.

MORE: Featured EPI research on “right to work”

---

Note: These data are from EPI Briefing Paper No. 299, The compensation penalty of “right-to-work” laws.

Read more