Keeping employers from using their leverage over the lives of employees to lock unions out of most work places is a key benefit of "neutrality agreements." Whether unions win and workers join union is a vital question in a number of ways.

I’ve written here and here about the attempts of union to organize unorganized workers using “neutrality agreements” in which employers agree to not campaign against unionization.

As Ed Ott, NYC Central Labor Council Director, said at Demos while ago, unions are the engine for helping lower income people to financial security. This was shown to be true recently in an interesting study by the Center for Economic & Policy Research . The study by John Schmitt compared the wages of unionized with non-unionized workers. Union workers make more (yawn?) But a surprising finding – low-wage union workers make much more – 20% more than non-union workers. (Hat tip to Jonathan Tasini for finding this first, by the way).

In addition strong unions help further the progressive agenda in other ways: unions campaign for affordable housing, for education funding and fair tax. The last 7 & ½ years of Mr. Bush’s class war on low and moderate income people harmed all of us: less money for affordable housing, education, higher gas & food prices and stagnating wages and of course, no start on sustainable energy policy. No matter who’s elected president, the struggle to reverse the impacts of the years of Bush looting will require serious struggle. Strong unions would be helpful in that effort and yet –as Andy McDonald of the Service Workers International Union (SEIU) pointed out -- 7 ½ % of private-sector workers are represented by unions; 92 ½ % are not. .

In that context, I looked more at “neutrality agreements.” In the first place, anti-union organizations hate them. Check it out your self – the National Right To Work Foundation hates neutrality agreements . So does the Union Free America . So the enemies of unions hate these agreements.

I talked to and emailed Cornell U. Labor Relations Professor Kate Bronfenbrenner who has been studying the union organizing process over her career. She has been looking at union recognition, the nlrb elections and neutrality agreements. I asked her about neutrality agreements. She said:

"This is not an issue about SEIU or any other individual union. If, in the course, of a campaign for union recognition, an employer uses its full force, it can create a toxic work environment, terrify workers and persuade them to vote against the union. To the degree that the neutrality agreements gain for workers and unions a non-coercive environment, they can be a useful part of the repertoire of organizers or strategic campaigners (but not just campaigners).

"What works and what doesn't? Through my research, I am just looking at that now so I cannot give complete answers but my educated intuition is that neutrality agreements can be a useful tool to organize workers in an ever more hostile organizing environment. But in and of themselves, such agreements cannot and do not build unions. [my emphasis, not Prof’s B’s’].

"The more the workers are involved in the recognition process and believe they are stakeholders in the union's success, the more likely they can build a strong, resilient union. But neutrality agreement campaigns that fail to involve the workers as genuine stakeholders are much more likely to result in weak unions and watered down collective bargaining agreements"

SEIU’s use of these agreements has been controversial and to talk about that I called up one of the signers of the "Dear Andy" Letter Clark University Sociology Professor Robert J.S. Ross who said:

" As I understand it, from a distance SIEU is trying to curb the influence of the United Healthcare Workers local by splitting it – taking some of its workers and putting them (without their consent) in a Southern California local.

"In addition, as I understand it, SEIU's action before the May 1, letter, were completely consistent with an attempt to impose a trustee on the local. There were charges of misspending, demands for an accounting, a lawsuit. I believe and hope that the May 1 letter has helped SEIU rethink the collision course they were on with UHW"

"I agree that the NLRB process is broken. Unions cannot effectively use the current election mechanism in the labor law to organize workers. Neutrality agreements, properly carried out, can be an essential tool for unions. Indeed, I think some really good union organizing has been carried out using these agreements. However, I've read a fair amount about the use of these agreements by SEIU and some of it does not reflect favorably on the parent union.”

For a sympathetic, yet unflinching and detailed, look at structural limits on worker democracy in the SEIU, try reading this new, thoughtful essay by UMass Sociologist Daniel Clawson .

SEIU spokesperson Andy McDonald told me the focus of the union and its June convention would be "Justice for All" Not Just For Us. Certainly the union's steps in this direction have impressed me like green union contract clauses" and fighting unequal access to health care .

Bookmark/Search this post with:

| | | | | | | |