Recently in Labor-Management Relations Category

Source: Anne Marie Lofaso, Employee Rights and Employment Policy Journal, Vol. 14, No. 1, 2010

From the abstract:
"Talking is worthwhile" - or so preached Clyde Summers. Using that idea as my springboard, I trace the various incarnations of the law's treatment of job security in circumstances of economic distress. In addition to providing unemployment or other post-termination benefits, I demonstrate that the law can have various pre-termination roles that range from least to most cooperative between the parties. These roles include the following: do nothing to notify workers of an impending layoff to furnish workers with information relevant to an impending layoff to compel employers to consult or bargain with employees' representatives with a view to(ward) reaching agreement to compel the parties to co-decide what to do in these situations. After comparing United States federal law (which in many cases mandates advance notification, information exchange, effects bargaining, and sometimes even bargaining) with the European Union's collective redundancies directive (which compels pre-decisional consultation among the parties with a view to reaching agreement), I reason why "talking [before the layoff] is worthwhile." I conclude by showing how my preferred solution - to extend mandatory, pre-decisional bargaining (or at least consultation) over mass layoffs and plant closings to nonunionized workers - effectuates national labor policy as Professor Summers understood it. My simple solution - to give employees voice - also empowers workers to take control of their destinies by helping them to save their jobs and the businesses that employ them when both worker and firm are most vulnerable. Accordingly, my solution both dignifies workers and encourages them to become autonomous agents of their working lives - foundational values in a human-rights approach to labor and employment law.

Source: Walter Leutz, Christine E. Bishop, and Lisa Dodson, The Gerontologist, published online Aug. 19, 2009
(subscription required)

From the Commonwealth Fund summary:
This Commonwealth Fund-supported study looks at a partnership that was formed between a New York City nursing home union and 40 nursing homes to help implement "person-centered care" at the facilities. Results showed an improvement in quality of life, with residents gaining more autonomy and privacy and many employees experiencing greater job satisfaction.

Source: Phillip Dine, Missouri Jobs with Justice Workers' Rights Board, 2009

From the Council 4 summary:
Millions of Americans contribute blood and money to the Red Cross with the belief that the organization is well run and the blood supply is protected. But a new Jobs with Justice report raises serious concerns about donor safety and the security of the nation's blood supply.

The Missouri Jobs with Justice Workers' Rights Board released the report, "Labor Relations at the American Red Cross and Its Impact on Employee and Donor Safety," after hearing from front-line Red Cross workers across the country. The investigative report outlines practices that jeopardize blood donors' safety and the integrity of the blood supply, including long work hours that lead to fatigue and mistakes; sharp pay cuts that cause dramatic increases in employee turnover and hiring non-qualified workers instead of certified nurses.

Source: American Rights at Work, 2009

In the American Rights at Work Education Fund's fifth annual Labor Day List, we recognize successful partnerships between employers and their employees' labor unions that are working well in an uncertain global economy.

Employers showcased in this year's report walk the walk when it comes to respecting their own workers' rights, and now they are going a step further by standing up on behalf of all U.S. workers. Every business profiled in this year's report has spoken out on the need for meaningful labor law reform. By supporting the Employee Free Choice Act, legislation making it easier for workers to choose to form a union, a new generation of visionary employers is laying the foundation for the financial well-being of workers and businesses alike.

Source: Mischa Gaus, Labor Notes, no. 364, July 2009

Big Bother Comes in for a Check-Up

Beyond the whiz-bang applications that will smooth record-taking and make the hospital safer lie more familiar reasons why Shands is spending up to $7 million installing a high-tech backbone in its newest facility.

The sensors can also track the location of each IV stand - and every hospital worker, whose badges will include a tag that registers their location.

Hospitals could also use the technology to defeat organizing drives by identifying union supporters.

Source: Carly Duvall, Journal of Dispute Resolution, 2009

From the Nexis abstract:
While the Kaiser-Permanente bargaining process demonstrated that IB has potential to work in large-scale negotiations, it also illustrated how--when all issues could not be resolved through IB--the parties could successfully merge the traditional adversarial negotiating approach with IB and produce a favorable outcome. ... Rather than fight over positions, the goal of IB is "to create solutions that satisfy needs of the parties." ... B.Difficulties in Unearthing Common Interests in Collective Bargaining Negotiations Though each collective bargaining unit will have its own interests unique to the organization and industry, there are some consistent interests represented throughout collective bargaining in general. ... IB can be a useful tool in formulating collective bargaining agreements that address the interests of both parties (management and union) while fostering positive relationships built on trust and mutual interest for future negotiations. ... The second of theses impediments is encompassed in the fear that switching to IB may be more pronounced among union negotiators as research indicates that IB may have more negative effects on unions than adversarial bargaining, produc ing more union concessions and fewer union gains.

Source: Kate Bronfenbrenner, Economic Policy Institute, Briefing Paper #235, May 20, 2009

This study is a comprehensive analysis of employer behavior in representation elections supervised by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The data for this study originate from a thorough review of primary NLRB documents for a random sample of 1,004 NLRB certification elections that took place between January 1, 1999 and December 31, 2003 and from an in-depth survey of 562 campaigns conducted with that same sample. Employer behavior data from prior studies conducted over the last 20 years are used for purposes of comparison. The representativeness of the sample combined with the high response rate for both the survey (56%) and NLRB unfair labor practice (ULP) charge documents (98%) ensure that the findings provide unique and highly credible information. In combination, the results provide a detailed and well-documented portrait of the legal and illegal tactics used by employers in NLRB representational elections and of the ineffectiveness of current labor law policy to protect and enforce workers rights in the election process.
See also:
- Fact Sheet
- Press Release

Source: Lea S. Vandervelde, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 138, No. 437, 2009

From the abstract:
The conventional understanding of the Thirteenth amendment is that it abolished the particular antebellum southern institution that subjugated black persons as slaves. Yet, the congressional debates reveal a much more expansive vision of labor reform. This theme has largely been lost in modern interpretation. Historical events rarely result from a single cause, and a single idea rarely drives legislative action. Nonetheless, beside the more religious abolitionist arguments, one finds numerous speakers who focused on labor conditions. Consequently, this Article aims to recapture the strong pro-labor theme that runs consistently through the debates.

As a whole, the Reconstruction debates reflect a desire to improve all workers' status by recognizing the dignity of labor, guaranteeing workers a wide range of opportunities for advancement, and raising the floor of legal rights accorded all working men. The pattern of discourse in the debates reveal a structure formed by three types of statements. The first addresses the historical need to rid employment relations of the master's patriarchal dominion over all laborers in his household and to accord the employee a realm of family and personal privacy free from employer control. The second describes the core concept of autonomy for laborers in their social and economic relations with employers. The final group targets certain specific labor practices as inconsistent with the spirit of labor autonomy. This three part configuration is useful in exploring the amendment's reach in restructuring baseline rights in the modem employment relation. The Reconstruction debates constitute an important resource because they record the original attempt to mandate constitutionally a minimum level of worker protection.

Source: Amanda Cuba, HR News, Vol. 75 no. 4, April 2009
(subscription required) (scroll down)

As recently as 50 years ago, labor relations in the U.S. public sector were extremely disorganized, said Walter Pellegrini, who is on the board of the National Public Employer Labor Relations Association, which has more than 2,900 members and provides networking opportunities for HR professionals. A public sector management advocate for 30 years, Pellegrini said that a mere half century ago, "any labor relations that went on was by forward-thinking employers. In the public sector any recognition and formal dealing with unions was
done predominantly by Democratic politicians as another source of bloc votes."

Unions were rare but not unheard of in the public sector until a few decades earlier. While the National Education Association was established in 1857 and the Fraternal Order of Police started in 1915, former NPELRA general counsel James Baird said the early days of government employee organizing were a rough time for employees everywhere. Most workers had few real options for seeking better benefits, pay increases and many of the other amenities they desired.

Source: Robert Bruno, School of Labor and Employment Relations, University of Illinois, 2009

In the spring of 2009 the School of Labor and Employment Relations (LER) at the University of Illinois conducted a study of the state's nearly six-year old mandated majority authorization process for organizing employees in the public sector. The project was inspired by the national debate surrounding the proposed federal Employee Free Choice Act. Corporate allegations that the national law will allow employees to be coerced into signing "card' or "petitions" motivated LER to conduct an objective assessment of how Illinois' law is working. The results of the study unambiguously revealed that the majority sign-up provision was used extensively without hint of union or employer abuse.