A blog of things I find interesting. Mostly revolving around unions, workers rights, politics, and too much of my amateur photography. I am a Michigan labor union staffer, MSU alum,and a politics junkie.

Posts Tagged: NLRB

Peckham workers protest golf fundraiser

Rockin’ the boat at the bosses golf outing. While workers are pumping out military garments and getting paid minimum wage or less, management gets to golf. The rich folk and the bosses didn’t look to happy to see us. The struggle continues. -PeterWK

Peckham protest

Peter Klein, 25, East Lansing, Volunteer at the Lansing Workers’ Center.

LANSING — The United Peckham Workers Association picketed the annual Peckham Inc. golf outing at Eagle Eye Golf course this morning.

“We just wanted to come out here and expose their (Peckham Inc.) hypocracy, that they are actually exploiters of the disabled and refugees,” said Mike Kolhoff, 53, an organizer and volunteer at the Lansing Workers’ Center, a community group that advocates for individual workers and groups of workers.

Kolhoff is an organizer for United Peckham, an independent union formed in March.

Peckham protest

Brian Owens, 51, of Lansing. United Peckham Employees Association.

Lansing-based Peckham provides job training for people with disabilities who work in manufacturing, warehousing, office cleaning, information technology and other fields. The company is a major supplier of garments for the U.S. Army and other branches of the military.

Peckham officials could not be immediately reached for comment about the protest at the golf course.

About 200 clients have signed union pledge cards since the organizing drive began in March, Kolhoff said. The union has not been certified as a bargaining agent for the workers. He and other union supporters said the layoffs began in April and now number 200 or more.

The union has filed an unfair labor practice complaint with the National Labor Relations Board, Kolhoff said.

“People are being bullied and taken advantage of,” said Brian Owens, 51, who was laid off by Peckham in the beginning of May.

Owens went on to say that the severely disabled make less than minimum wage and workers that don’t speak English are paid minimum wage.

Peckham protest
Michael Grau, 35, of Lansing and daughter Valerye, 4, United Peckham employees association.

NLRB: GOP heavy hitter Adelson must bargain with guards’ union

SheldonAdelson520x300

BETHLEHEM, Pa. (PAI)—The National Labor Relations Board has ordered the Sands Casino in Bethlehem, Pa., owned by GOP heavy hitter Sheldon Adelson, to bargain with the independent union its security guards voted for almost a year ago.

In its 3-0 vote on May 30, the board said management did not raise any issues not covered in its prior campaign against the unionization drive by the Law Enforcement Employees Benevolent Association (LEEBA), an independent union based in Catskill, N.Y. LEEBA won overwhelmingly among the approximately 130 officers.

Adelson owns casinos in Hong Kong and Las Vegas in addition to his small Pennsylvania casino. None of the 40,000 workers at any Sands casino are unionized.

And when Unite Here’s largest local, #226 in Las Vegas, tried to leaflet visitors to his casino there eight years ago during an organizing drive, while its members stood on a public sidewalk, Adelson fought that issue all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. He claimed the sidewalk was private property.

But Adelson is now more widely known as the mogul whose $10 million-plus bankrolled the SuperPAC that kept former GOP House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s bid for the party’s presidential nomination alive. Adelson is now turning his SuperPAC’s giving to funding pro-GOP ads in the fall presidential race and the Senate race in Nevada.

The Bethlehem casino’s management tried to raise a new issue before the board, that the union had “impermissibly delegated” its duties to Local 777 - the LEEBA-adopted name for the organizing effort in Bethlehem, taken from luckiest numbers at a casino. Sands sought a hearing on that, but the board turned it down.

“The respondent (Sands) admits, that on March 2, 2012, the union requested bargaining with the respondent. The respondent admits, that by letter dated March 6, 2012, the union was notified the respondent refused to recognize and bargain. There is no indication that any entity other than the certified union has requested, or will request, recognition and bargaining from the respondent,” NLRB said. So, no new hearing is needed, it added.

Sands said it would appeal the board’s ruling to federal court in D.C., further delaying bargaining. That disappointed the union, its leaders told media outlets.

“On July 22, it’s going to be a year since we voted to get the union in,” said George Bonser, the guards’ lead delegate. “We were hoping to sit down and negotiate.”

LEEBA membership coordinator Peter Luck added Sands “has the right” to take the NLRB’s ruling to court. “But our members, at the same time, have the right to organize. At some point in this process it becomes frivolous. I think we’re at that point.”

Photo: Sheldon Adelson, chairman and CEO of The Las Vegas Sands Corporation in this Aug. 28, 2008 file photo. Kin Cheung/AP

NLRB’s Flynn Resigns

by Tula Connell

Terrance Flynn

(May 27)Terence Flynn, National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) member, resigned yesterday evening, effective July 24. He has immediately recused himself from all agency business and has asked that the President withdraw his nomination for Board Member of the NLRB.

The NLRB Inspector General earlier this year issued two reports describing how Flynn funneled confidential information about NLRB activities and deliberations, including attorney-client privileged information, to two former NLRB members who have worked to undermine and discredit the NLRB. One of those former members was Peter Schaumber—who co-chaired the labor policy advisory group for Mitt Romney’s campaign.

The Inspector General found additional instances when Flynn funneled confidential information to Schaumber. These included a draft of an NLRB decision, dissents before cases have been decided and other information on the NLRB’s internal operations.

According to the NLRB:

Earlier today, Chairman Pearce informed NLRB employees of the resignation and, on behalf of the entire Board, thanked them for their “hard work and commitment to excellence through even the most difficult circumstances.” He intends to issue a statement after communicating with the staff on Tuesday.

From the New York Times:

In one instance, Mr. Berry found that Mr. Flynn had secretly helped Mr. Schaumber write an opinion column that denounced an N.L.R.B. decision that favored labor unions. Mr. Berry called that action by Mr. Flynn “an abuse of his discretion.”

The Flynn case has been referred to the Justice Department for investigation and to the Federal Office of Special Counsel, which is looking into possible violations of the Hatch Act, which bars federal employees from participating in partisan political activity.

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka called for Flynn’s immediate resignation in March and Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.) called for him to resign earlier this month.

Flynn was sworn in as a Board Member on Jan. 9, 2012. He joined the Board in 2003 as Chief Counsel to Schaumber, and had previously  been in private practice. The letter of resignation, dated May 25, was delivered via FAX and email on May 26.

Tula Connell is managing editor for the AFL-CIO Now blog, where this post first appeared.

Know your rights! #union #NLRB #NLRA #ULP #MayDay  (Taken with instagram)

Know your rights! #union #NLRB #NLRA #ULP #MayDay (Taken with instagram)

Republican Attack on Fair Union Election Rule Fails in Senate

It’s certainly not the Employee Free Choice Act, but this NLRB rule change will help cut out a lot of the legal bullshit an employer can throw at workers when they’re trying to form a union.

“The rule is due to take effect April 30 and it will help alleviate the delays, inefficiencies, abuse of process and unnecessary litigation that plague the current system. Under current rules, workers can be forced to wait months or even years before they are allowed to vote on joining a union and then begin bargaining for a fair contract. The new NLRB rule eliminates many of those roadblocks by reducing current delays and eliminating frivolous litigation.”

From the AFL-CIO:

Congressional Republicans today failed in their latest attempt to roll back workers’ rights. The Senate defeated (45-54) a measure (S.J. Res. 36) to kill a new National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) rule that makes modest changes in the procedures for workers who want to vote on whether to form a union. It also would have banned the NLRB from ever issuing any similar fair election rule.

Before the vote, the White House announced that President Obama opposed the Republican assault on workers and would veto the legislation if it got to his desk.

The administration is committed to supporting the right of workers to join and participate in a union and bargain for fair wages, benefits and a safe workplace.  These rights are fundamental to better conditions for American workers and to an open, just, economically fair and prosperous society.  S.J. Res. 36 attacks these bedrock American values. 

Christine Owens, executive director of the National Employment Law Project (NELP), said of the Republican proposal:

It is disappointing that in the face of growing income inequality and stagnant wages for all but the highest earners, lawmakers would fail to stand by workers who seek only to exercise their legal rights in an atmosphere free of intimidation and retaliation.

The rule is due to take effect April 30 and it will help alleviate the delays, inefficiencies, abuse of process and unnecessary litigation that plague the current system. Under current rules, workers can be forced to wait months or even years before they are allowed to vote on joining a union and then begin bargaining for a fair contract. The new NLRB rule eliminates many of those roadblocks by reducing current delays and eliminating frivolous litigation.

Contrary to the vitriolic attacks by Republican lawmakers, the new rule does not encourage or discourage unionization and it applies to elections to form a union and elections to decertify a union.

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said the Republican attack on the NLRB,” is just the latest in this relentless series of nationally coordinated assaults on workers and collective bargaining rights.”

In an op-ed today in The Hill, John Logan, professor and director of Labor and Employment Studies at San Francisco State University, wrote:

Never in its history has the NLRB experienced anything quite like the political attacks of the past 15 months. But the root cause of the controversy is not, as [Republicans] would have us believe, that the board has moved to the left. Rather, the GOP has moved far to the right and no longer believes that workers should be free to select representatives of their own choosing and engage in collective bargaining to improve their terms and conditions of work.

In November, House Republicans approved a bill that gives employers new tools to combat and delay elections by workers who try to form unions. It was a direct response to the new NLRB election rule. The Senate didn’t take up the measure.

Congressional Republicans have made nearly 50 separate assaults on the NLRB since last year by holding hearings, issuing subpoenas and proposing bills to gut the agency’s funding and eliminate its ability to hold employers accountable for violating workers’ rights, according to American Rights at Work (ARAW). Click here for a detailed look.

Federal Judge Finds Jimmy John's Guilty of Illegally Firing Whistleblowers in Sick Day Campaign

Long Delay in Legal Process Demonstrates Dysfunction of US Labor Law

Download the decision

MINNEAPOLIS- A federal judge has ordered Jimmy John’s to reinstate six workers fired by franchise owners Mike and Rob Mulligan over a year ago for blowing the whistle on company policies that expose customers to sandwiches made by sick workers. Jimmy John’s workers can be written up or fired if they take a day off without finding a substitute when they are sick. A union survey revealed that this policy, in conjunction with minimum-wage workers’ inability to afford to take a day off, result in an average of two workers making sandwiches while sick every day at the Minneapolis franchise of the chain. The judge’s ruling requires that Jimmy John’s reinstate the six workers with back pay within 14 days, but the employer could manipulate the appeal process to stall resolution of the case for several more years.

While the workers hail the judge’s ruling as a victory for whistleblower rights, they point out that justice delayed is justice denied. “It has already been over a year since we were illegally fired for telling the truth. For all the hard work and dedication of the NLRB’s civil servants, employers like Jimmy John’s prefer to break the law and drag cases through the courts for years rather than let workers exercise their right to win fair pay, sick days, and respect through union organization,” said Erik Forman, one of the fired workers, “The dysfunctional US labor law system gives Mike and Rob Mulligan and their cronies in the 1% carte blanche to trample on workers rights. Jimmy John’s workers, and the rest of the 99%, will only be able to win a better life by taking our fight from the courtroom back to the shopfloors and the streets.”

The story of the unionization effort at Jimmy John’s reads like a cautionary tale about the inefficacy of labor law in the United States. A majority of Jimmy John’s workers demanded union recognition in September 2010, primarily seeking a pay increase above minimum wage. In response, the company spent over $85,000 on a vicious anti-union campaign with the help of outside union-busting consultants. In spite of rampant illegal intimidation, the workers came within a hairs-breadth of victory in an 85-87 vote that the NLRB later threw out due to over 30 employer violations of federal labor law in the election period.

Ostensibly protected by an NLRB settlement agreement that required the employer to abide by the law, workers at Jimmy John’s then began campaigning for the right to call in sick and paid sick days in January 2011. Despite the clear risk to public health of workers making sandwiches while ill, franchise owners Mike and Rob Mulligan stonewalled employee requests for sick day policy reform for more than two months, prompting union supporters to take their message to the public by posting 3000 copies of a poster explaining that workers are forced to make sandwiches while sick. Mike and Rob Mulligan lashed out in retaliation, firing six workers and disciplining others. On the witness stand, Mike Mulligan admitted under oath that he had fired the six workers because he perceived them as the “leaders and developers” of a unionization effort. Mulligan’s credibility was further eroded when he testified to intentionally lying to the press about the franchise’s food safety record.

While Jimmy John’s has been able to exploit the weakness of US labor law to stomp on employee’s right to organize, workers vow to press forward with their campaign for fair pay, guaranteed hours, sick days, and respect and dignity in fast food.

The Jimmy Johns Workers Union, open to employees at the company nationwide, is affiliated with the Industrial Workers of the World labor union. Gaining prominence in recent years for organizing Starbucks workers, the IWW is a global union founded over a century ago for all working people.

##

http://jimmyjohnsworkers.org | http://facebook.com/jimmyjohnsunion

Demand Station Casinos Play Fair

Hey -–

The staff at Station Casinos in Las Vegas need our help.

The billionaires and bankers who own the casinos are playing a dirty, downright illegal game of unionbusting. The company has been firing, threatening, interrogating, and spying on its pro-union employees.

I just sent an email to Station Casinos demanding a fair process to allow the workers to make their own decisions as to whether to choose a union without facing any interference, intimidation, or bullying from management.

Will you stand with the workers too?

http://act.americanrightsatwork.org/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=4245&track=20120424_adv_station_taf

Thanks!

Station Casinos are playing a dirty, downright illegal game of unionbusting. The company has been firing, threatening, interrogating, and spying on its pro-union employees.

Station Casinos has been found to have broken federal labor law 88 times, according to two NLRB Administrative Law Judges. That’s the largest number of unfair labor practices committed by a single employer in the history of Nevada gaming. (The company has of course appealed the judges’ recommended decisions.)

Romney mum on labor leaks

The GOP candidate has not fired an advisor who allegedly received leaked docs from a member of the NLRB

Mitt Romney and Terence Flynn, the NLRB member who allegedly leaked information to a campaign advisor.

Mitt Romney and Terence Flynn, the NLRB member who allegedly leaked information to a campaign advisor.  (Credit: AP)

It’s been almost three weeks since the release of a National Labor Relations Board Inspector General report finding that Republican NLRB member Terence Flynn violated ethics rules. Since then, members of Congress from both parties have said the Justice Department should review the allegations. Flynn has bulked up his defense team with a former inspector general of his own — Glenn Fine, who investigated the Bush DOJ. But there’s been no comment on the scandal from the White House, which promoted Flynn, or from the Romney campaign, whose advisor Peter Schaumber allegedly received secret info from him.

“This is the cronyism and bias that you absolutely don’t want in a government agency,” says Jeffrey Hirsch, a former NLRB attorney who now teaches law at the University of North Carolina. “If [Flynn] found out one of his board staff was giving info to, say, a Democratic former board member,” says Hirsch, “I can’t imagine he wouldn’t fire the person on the spot.” (Spokespersons for the White House and NLRB Chairman Mark Pearce both declined Salon’s request for comment. The Romney campaign did not respond to multiple requests.)

The NLRB, which enforces and interprets U.S. labor law, has become a lightning rod for right-wing attacks. As Salon has reported, the IG found that Flynn leaked info to Schaumber and other conservatives last year, while employed by the NLRB as counsel for a Republican member. After Obama recess-appointed Flynn and two Democrats as new NLRB members in January, Mitt Romney ran a South Carolina TV ad blasting the president for appointing “union stooges.” Schaumber, the co-chair of Romney Labor Policy Advisory Committee, warned at the National Review’s blog that one of those Democrats raised “an appearance of partiality that will undermine public confidence” in his rulings.

But it’s Flynn, not a Democrat, who now stands accused of leaking internal info to private parties with a stake in NLRB cases — including Schaumber. The report alleges Flynn sent Schaumber documents ranging from internal legal advice memos to an email mentioning a precedent the board might revisit. In an emailed statement, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington executive director Melanie Sloan said, “There is no place in government for someone who leaks confidential information and lies to investigators.”

The Romney campaign, which Tuesday devoted a press release to imagining anti-Obama tweets Debbie Wasserman Schultz might have written in 2008, has been silent on the scandal. Not that Romney is above weighing in on NLRB emails: When an internal email came out last fall in which NLRB general counsel Lafe Solomon appeared to make a joke about hurting the economy, Romney called for Solomon to resign. AFL-CIO general counsel Lynn Rhinehart says that contrast is “really outrageous and hypocritical, and tells us a lot about the candidate.” The AFL-CIO launched a Web petition last month urging Flynn to resign, and Romney to cut ties to Schaumber.

Flynn maintains he did nothing wrong. One of his attorneys, Barry Coburn, wrote a letter to the inspector general condemning the report and stating that Flynn’s conduct was “innocuous … a Board member’s or Counsel’s job is not to live in an isolated bubble, but rather to be appropriately available to those outside the agency, and to interact meaningfully with the Board’s constituency.”  Coburn declined further comment.

Former NLRB general counsel Fred Feinstein says he’s not aware of any past allegations of NLRB staff “giving information to specific individuals on one side, but not the other one.” Feinstein notes that he’s not speaking to the merits of the allegations against Flynn, but says that, “The way in which the information flow is handled is an important part of the process, and being careful about that is part of protecting the integrity of the process.” Feinstein adds that when he served as the board’s top prosecutor under President Clinton, “we took that responsibility quite seriously,” because “when it’s compromised, it compromises the ability of the agency to carry out its responsibilities.”

Flynn and Schaumber could face more embarrassing disclosures ahead — from the House, the Senate, and the Department of Justice. Following the release of the IG report, Rep. Elijah Cummings, the ranking Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, wrote to the committee Chairman Darrell Issa requesting that the committee hold transcribed interviews with Schaumber and with Peter Kirsanow, another conservative former NLRB member named by the IG as a recipient of confidential info. A spokesperson says that Cummings has not received a response from Issa.  (Issa did not respond to Salon’s request for comment.)

The IG report also notes that its investigators only had access to Flynn’s more recent emails. Last week, Sen. Tom Harkin, the chairman of the Senate’s Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, wrote to Flynn requesting correspondence from the past five years. Harkin gave Flynn an April 9 deadline; a committee spokesperson says that the senator has granted an extension, at the request of Flynn’s lawyer, to Monday, April 16.

But the real action could be at the Justice Department. Rep. George Miller, the ranking Democrat on the House Education and Workforce Committee, wrote to the attorney general March 23 requesting a review of the IG report. The same day, the committee’s Republican chairman, Rep. John Kline, noted in a statement that the report “had been appropriately referred to the Department of Justice.” Hirsch says the White House may be avoiding comment on the issue to avoid the appearance of interference with any DOJ investigation.  (A DOJ spokesperson declined to comment.)

Meanwhile, the Labor page on Romney’s website still prominently features an essay by Schaumber, bashing “misguided administrative actions by partisans at the NLRB” and promising that Romney will appoint NLRB members who pursue “flexibility” and “cooperative” labor relations. Hirsch says that as former NLRB members, Schaumber and Kirsanow “knew they shouldn’t have taken that stuff, and they clearly kept accepting it.” The situation is “incredibly ironic,” says Hirsch, “given all the criticism that the board has taken by Republicans” for supposed bias. “There’s no question that this was inappropriate. And so the silence is deafening.”

Josh Eidelson is a freelance journalist and a contributor at The American Prospect and In These Times. After receiving his MA in Political Science, he worked as a union organizer for five years.More Josh Eidelson

Text

From American Rights at Work:

The right wing is at it again. And this time, they’ve got fair elections for workers in the crosshairs.

In December, the federal agency that protects workers’ rights issued a rule that cuts back on the delays and red tape that keep employees from having an election on whether to form a union. Now anti-worker politicians in Congress are trying to ram through a resolution to undo this modest step forward for the 99 percent.

The resolution is headed for a vote in the Senate within the week, and we need your voice in this debate. Grab your phone NOW.

The new National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) rule helps ensure that workers have a fair vote by cutting back on opportunities for companies to manipulate the election process with delays and frivolous litigation. From the day they’re hired, companies still have every opportunity to communicate with employees about the pros and cons of having a union. But corporate-backed extremists are pushing a Congressional Resolution that would overturn the NLRB’s new election procedures – They’re trying to pay back their Big Business donors by slashing workers’ rights on the job.

Let your senators know that voters won’t stand for this senseless attack. It only takes 60 seconds – Please make your phone call now to stop S.J. Res. 36!

We know that calls aren’t easy to make, but we need you to weigh in. The stakes are simply too high to stay on the sidelines. If passed, S.J. Res. 36 would:

  • Resurrect the barriers workers face when they want a simple up-or-down vote on forming a union, giving an unfair advantage to law-breaking CEOs.
  • Encourage costly delays and litigation, paving the way for employers who want to retaliate against workers.
  • Make it even harder for employees to form a union and negotiate for fair pay and benefits, weakening the middle class and our chances at a brighter economic future.

This is just the latest in a relentless series of attacks on the NLRB by politicians in Congress who are desperate to dismantle the agency and collective bargaining rights. Rather than working together to create jobs and jumpstart our economy, these legislators are pushing divisive policies that put working families on the chopping block.

They won’t let up until even the most modest workplace protections have been eliminated. But with just one call, you can help stop this attack in its tracks.

Tell Congress not to reverse progress for workers. Urge your senators to vote against S.J. Res. 36.

Thanks for all that you do to stand up for workers’ rights.

Hilary, Kim, Susan, Liz, Zoe, Michael, and the American Rights at Work team
www.AmericanRightsatWork.org

Rising Above the Odds With the National Labor Relations Board Process

by Cory McCray

Corey McCray

A few weeks ago, I had the opportunity to aid the workers of a sub-contractor that Comcast employs. The workers goal was to organize to have a voice at the workplace and obtain a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). On Election Day the final result was 58 Votes No to 40 Votes Yes, with 12 Challenged Votes. How could these results happen if over 65% of the 87 technicians signed authorization cards for representation?

 

Before discussing the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) process, I would first like to discuss the campaign. The campaign started when one of the sub-contractor’s former workers decided that he wanted to better the cable industry and strengthen the wages and working conditions. This former worker was able to gather 12 of his co-workers to join a conference call and discuss the issues within the company. The issues within the company were:

1. Wages – The wages have decreased for the workers, since the beginning of the decade. The triple play package, (installation of telephone, internet, and cable) which is something they often referred to, use to gross $80.00 to $90.00, but they were currently receiving half of that ($40.00 to $45.00).

2. Gas – The workers were given a $10.00 stipend each morning for gas. They were currently being charged with filling up the gas tanks past the $10.00. Many other companies have different gas policies, permitting the use of gas cards because they are all W-2 employees, not 1099.

3. Deductions – Workers had funds deducted from their checks without notifications. These deductions ranged from faulty equipment, logging equipment (dispatcher), or administrative error (administration) just to name a few. Once the worker noticed the deduction they could argue their case and then receive a refund check for the deduction. This happened on a regular occurrence and was a very frustrating system for the workers.

4. Performance Pay Rate – Every job was judged and based off of accuracy and efficiency. If the customer of Comcast called the operations office and complained that their cable, telephone, or internet was inoperable, the worker could receive a demotion in his performance rate pay and may not receive pay for the recall job that he was sent out to do. The problem with this system was that even if it was a customer error, they were still penalized.

• What is a customer error?

If the customer moves the station from channel 4, when it is suppose to be on channel 3, than that system can be considered inoperable, but that is a customer error, not a technician error.

5. Hours – Cable technicians work 6 days a week, and sometimes 12 hours a day. Many of the workers were intimidated to ask off on Sunday for personal reasons, in fear of retribution or that they may not have a job on Monday when they returned.

6. Insurance Policy – If a technician was in an “at fault” accident or even a “non at fault” accident, the technician had $1,000.00 deducted from their check. They had to prove they were not at fault in order to halt the deduction, even though these were company trucks, not their own trucks. Some workers only make $800.00/bi weekly, so that may mean their entire check was deducted.

7. Parking Ticket – Technicians utilize a great amount of equipment including pocket tools, meters, extension ladders, and etc. Many of these jobs require them to park close to the job site. If there isn’t any parking available for three or four blocks, sometimes they have to park illegally to drop off the equipment and can acquire parking tickets. The company policy is that the technician is solely responsible for all parking tickets.

These were some of the main issues that the workers organized around. The aforementioned reasons are why over 25% of the 80 plus technicians came out on Sundays at 8pm over a 12 week period to be involved in the Volunteer Organizing Committee (VOC). This is why over 65% of the technicians decided to sign authorization cards for representation. After developing an education for the NLRB process, understanding what Unfair Labor Practices (ULP) are, becoming prepared for company retaliation and intimidation, the VOC decided that it was time to file a petition to have an election.

The election process started off great and the workers were motivated and encouraged that they had organized and unified their forces to have a voice in the workplace and bargain collectively to fix some of the issues. After the first week, the company returned with a vengeance and swift action to break up the VOC’s momentum.

The first action by the company was to water down the bargaining unit. For those familiar with the NLRB process, before an election date is set, a bargaining unit has to be established. This was also discussed at the VOC meetings, so the workers were very aware of the delay tactic that the company would try to utilize in order for the workers to lose momentum and it gives time to intimidate workers. For those that are not familiar with this part, here is a breakdown:

1. If the bargaining unit isn’t established, a hearing date is established 7 – 10 days after the petition is filed.

2. At that time the company can ask for a postponement which buys the company another 7 – 10 days.

3. Next the hearing could possibly begin.

4. After that time the hearing judge will deliver a verdict which could be a few days later.

During this course of time the company delays the election process by fourteen or more days. If they are experienced with the process and brought in a union buster or Lawyer that practices in Union Avoidance, the process just explained would be strongly encouraged.

So now that the VOC understood what they were up against, they had two decisions which were:

A. Accept that the company wanted to add 23 dispatchers, 6 warehouse workers, 4 administrators, and 1 router. Note: All of these positions worked in the office or at the headquarters, and do not have to endure the same conditions that the technicians had to work under.

B. To go to a hearing and face intimidation by the employer, constant captive audience meetings, work place threats, and lose the momentum that they were building as a unified force.

Well, the VOC decided to choose option A because they had more cards signed, then people that were being added, and they were under the assumption that some of the classifications may be sympathetic to their issues, even if it was only two or three workers.

The date was agreed upon, and it was three weeks away. The momentum was building because they felt as though they had just gotten a victory with a 21 day election, instead of the company flexing the use of a 45 day waiting period for the election to happen.

After the election date was set, the Union Avoidance lawyer that the company brought on staff went into full force. They pulled all of the supervisors into a closed door meeting and discussed the strategy for the election. Over the next few weeks, there were captive audience meetings held every day until 48 hours before Election Day. Rumors were spread amongst the workers that the company was going to close down the day after the Union won. One rumor was started that Comcast had a clause in the agreement where if a sub-contractor’s employees unionize, then the contract goes void. The employer immediately started giving out checks for the mistaken deductions and trying to correct their errors. Several employees informed me that there pay rate was bumped up from a C Pay Rate to an A Pay Rate. Another rumor was that if the company closed, the technicians would be able to find jobs with other companies, but the dispatchers would not be able to find jobs as easily. Days before the election, the workers were scared that they were going to lose their jobs, instead of feeling as though their employer was responsible it was now Comcast that mandated the unrealistic policies. Some workers even talked about not voting because they believed or theorized that if they didn’t vote, then the company wouldn’t be able to blame them if the workers were successful in organizing. Even though the momentum was lost with some, the VOC still felt as though they had their core.

During the 21 day period leading up to the election, the company not only used the tricks of rumors, fear, and temporarily correcting their actions, they also transferred five employees that could be “yes” votes to another location and allegedly told those employees that their votes would not count and that they couldn’t vote in the upcoming election. The employees at that other station organized and got 65% of their cards signed and filed a petition to hold an election two days before the first location was scheduled for theirs.

The last ploy of the company was to email the NLRB and let them know that they inadvertently left a name off of the excelsior list. An excelsior list is a list of employees that the company has to submit to the NLRB in order for them to recognize who is eligible to vote in the election. The names are usually submitted with a recognized pay period as a cutoff date.

So, the big day comes, and the workers are ready to vote. The VOC would challenge 6 of the workers, the Router and administrators, on the basis that they held supervisory positions. The company challenged the five workers that they transferred to a new location. The NLRB challenged the 1 worker that was left off of the excelsior sheet, and three other people that would come into the voting facility, but their name wouldn’t appear on the excelsior list. Two out of the five workers that the company transferred were brave enough to exercise their right to participate in the election. One of the supervisors would harass the observer representing the VOC during the election process. Ultimately the VOC would endure a tough, but hard fought loss of 40 people that voted yes, and 58 people that voted no, with 12 challenges.

Following the election, there would be a brave worker that would file an Unfair Labor Practice Charge on the basis of the following:
On or around January 2012, and at all times thereafter, the above-named employer, by its officers, agents and supervisors, by the following conduct and by the other acts and conduct, has interfered with, restrained and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act:

• Soliciting grievances from employees;

• Interrogating employees about their support for the Union;

• Telling employees that the Employer would lose contracts or work if employees voted for the Union;

• Implying that supporting or engaging in activities on behalf of the Union was futile;

• Telling employees that they were not eligible to vote in the election;

• Advising employees to remove union paraphernalia; and

• Intimidating employees because of their support for and activities on behalf of the Union.

The petition for the second location would be extracted, after the company postponed the union determination hearing and the workers viewed the loss from the first location. They were already subjected to captive audience meetings before the organizing drive and NLRB process initiated. In so many words these workers were more fearful than the workers at the first location and decided against having a voice at the workplace and bargaining collectively. They settled for having a job and less employer intimidation.

The reason for this blog wasn’t to have people sympathize for the workers, but to understand that organizers and workers are going to have to work twice as hard to defeat or overcome because the NLRB process is an arduous undertaking. Often times it is hard to find workers that will stand up and risk job loss to confront the injustices against workers. Over time the companies have figured out ways to manipulate the NLRB process without inquiring real penalties that will hold them accountable for their actions. This brings me to the importance of passing legislation such as the Employee Free Choice Act, yes the card check was the important part of the bill, but there were also other critical pieces that should be entertained, such as:

 Quicker election dates, instead of 30 – 45 day election dates there should be 7 – 10 day election dates

Tougher fines for companies that commit Unfair Labor Practices, the reason why they commit the offense is because the fines aren’t handed out enough or they aren’t steep enough

First Contract Negotiations would be more obtainable with mandatory arbitration

My advice for my fellow organizers and workers is that sometimes we have to play the cards that we are dealt. I personally know that this is a David versus Goliath story. So make no mistake, we have no opportunity to miss a move or be careless because our industry needs us, workers need us, and America needs us. For corporations and companies that treat their workers unfairly, I would like to leave you with a quote from Elizabeth Warren “There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. You built a factory out there? Good for you, But I want to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did. Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea? God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”

Cory McCray is a member of IBEW Local 24 and a founder of the Young Trade Unionists of Baltimore. Check out his website.