I wrote previously about labor-management neutrality agreements [1] which have been the subject of intense debate among union activists and labor scholars. Under these confidential agreements, union leaders and employers make deals which facilitate union organizing.
“Neutrality Agreements”-- more or less secret deals -- between a union and management involve give and take on both sides. The unions agree to limit their organizing efforts to specific locales, to not campaign against management, and to not strike (under most circumstances). At some sites, Management agrees not to oppose the union’s organizing efforts and to recognize the union where a majority of workers have signed cards asking for union representation. Management gets some stability, some immunity from workplace disruption. Unions get the freedom to organize. Some have charged that such agreements lock out other unions, allow parent unions to dominate locals, and erode workers rights. It’s a difficult balance. At what point does an agreement go too far and align the union with the boss?
To be fair, for a change, I called up SEIU, Unite-Here and a few observer-activists to get their views:
Andy McDonald, an SEIU voice, pointed out that – of the private-sector work-force, 92½% are without union representation. “SEIU is obsessed with addressing the needs of the 921/2 %.” Psychologically obsessed?” Obsessed, he affirmed.
Because the labor law process of getting union recognition is so broken, so stacked against employees, SEIU has begun to use employer neutrality agreements to level the playing field. McDonald said that unions and their workers should focus “their power because the old methods of union organizing don’t work in the new economy”
It’s true that the neutrality agreements are confidential, McDonald said, but all organizing committee activists know about the “neutrality agreements.” SEIU used such agreements in Houston recently, he pointed out. There, in an anti-union, southern city with a janitorial workforce of Latino immigrants, 5,300 new SEIU members effectively doubled their take-home pay. A key to getting organized there was a set of agreements in which the five largest janitorial contractors agreed with the union that they would not fight unionization. Janitorial contracting is a cut throat business. “We keep our agreement confidential so that our employers don’t lose business” to lower-bidding non-union contractors. “I wouldn’t even tell you about Houston, but the agreements were leaked to the Houston Chronicle.” McDonald said.
Disputes over neutrality agreements, the role of parent unions in organizing and bargaining have been the subject of an intense rare public dispute between the SEIU and its giant West-Coast health care local – the 150,000 member United Health Workers (UHW). To get a feel for the UHW side of this dispute, try their dissenting website [2]. The dispute has spawned vitriolic rhetoric which would do justice to a rivalry between Trotskyite factions. Recently 100 intellectuals, including some with long ties to the SEIU, wrote a “Dear Andy” letter to SEIU President Stern [3] about moves by SEIU against UHW.
McDonald denied a claim by UHW that SEIU had tried to dominate the local collective bargaining process. With regard to the letter of 100 intellectuals, he categorically denied that there were plans in place to impose a trusteeship on the local. (A trusteeship would, in effect oust local leaders.) Informed observers tell me SEIU is attempting to remove half the local’s membership and that a Trusteeship seems set for after the SEIU’s June Convention.
If you want to follow the larger context and the finer details of these disputes, you could try consult a balanced, thoughtful but very long Daily Kos post by UMass Sociologist/Labor Studies Prof. Daniel Clawson [3].
The Agreements No One Has Read When I talked to Prof. Clawson, the other day, his take on the neutrality agreements, as reported, was that they “sounded terrible” although he cautioned that he himself had not reviewed any of these agreements. Indeed, no one to whom I’ve spoken has been willing to say he or she has read them. As a result, talking about them is like shadow-boxing.
Amanda Cooper, communications director for UNITE-HERE, the other union partner in these agreements, also took issue with some reports about them. Like SEIU’s McDonald, she conceded the agreements are confidential. But the people involved – workers at the affected plants, staff, leaders, management all are aware of those agreements (but how specifically informed of the details workers actually are remains unclear). It is the fact of the existence of the agreements which allows workers to campaign for the union without fear. Further, some reports were based on a memo that was distributed throughout the union – thus not very secret. Further, she suggested some reports distorted the "no-strike” promises. The agreements, she said, allow for strikes at the end of “an excellent dispute resolving process.” While, she conceded no strikes should take place in advance, if serious disputes remain at the end “strike is still an option” The plan here, I gather, is that the parent unions are imposing, in advance, terms which are designed to structure the union-management process once the union is recognized.
UNITE-HERE’s Cooper said that the 15,000 or so workers organized pursuant to the agreements were part of a new nation-wide joint local the “Service Workers Union.” Members of the SWU belong to both SEIU and UNITE-HERE. The newly chartered local may –because of its dispersed membership –be dominated by its parents.
Cooper suggested you should review the report in the Chicago Tribune [4].
Can you stand even more? For an fairly fair account of how some of these disputes are playing out in the SEIU, try David Moberg’s April article from In These Times [4]
[5] | 
[6] | 
[7] | 
[8] | 
[9] | 
[10] | 
[11] | 
[12] | 
[13]