Plain Dealer, March 31, 2009, Tuesday

Copyright 2009 Plain Dealer Publishing Co.

Plain Dealer (Cleveland)

March 31, 2009, Tuesday

Final Edition; All Editions

HEADLINE: Lobbyists tackle bill on union organizing; Labor touts benefits; business fears costs

BYLINE: Sabrina Eaton, Olivera Perkins and Janet H. Cho, Plain Dealer Reporters

BODY:

Jason Kent and his former bosses at Thompson Heating and Air Conditioning in Warren disagree on whether his Dec. 17 dismissal was just another layoff related to Northeast Ohio's recession or an illegal firing related to Kent's drive to form a union at the company.

But both sides in the dispute agree on at least one thing: A bill in Washington called the Employee Free Choice Act would make it dramatically easier for workers like Kent to form unions at their companies, and harder for businesses like Thompson to fight back.

That's why the legislation, slated for a vote later this year, is the focus of heated lobbying by unions and businesses in Ohio and across the country. For both sides, it's a top priority.

"My viewpoint is that it should not be passed," said Tim Wood, a veteran Cleveland labor lawyer who represents Thompson in National Labor Relations Board disputes with Kent and his union. "What they're really trying to do is make it easier for unions to organize contrary to the rights of employees who don't feel they need to pay a union for representation."

Small-business owners say the higher cost of union labor could put them out of business, while larger employers say unionization would boost unemployment because companies that pay more for union salaries and benefits would hire fewer workers.

Kent and representatives of his union, Sheet Metal Workers International Local 33, said current laws make it too easy for employers to harass workers who want to form unions and then refuse to negotiate a contract if a union is formed. They say increased unionization would strengthen the middle class and help revive the economy by boosting workers' purchasing power.

"There is nobody really backing up the working class at this point in time," said Kent, 32, who is trying to support his pregnant wife and 17-month-old daughter by doing odd jobs while the labor board investigates his case.

The Employee Free Choice Act would allow unions to be recognized if a majority of workers sign union cards, and it would remove employers' current right to demand that workers instead hold a secret-ballot election to ratify a union.

Richard Hurd, a professor of labor studies at Cornell University, said the current secret-ballot elections allow employers to campaign against the union in the workplace but shut organizers out of that venue.

Hurd likened it to a political election in which "one candidate could present his view anytime he wants, and the people have to sit there and listen to him. The other candidate could only get his view across if he is able to track down people and talk to them on their free time."

Hurd said employees are fired in at least one of every five organizing campaigns and that companies found guilty of firing workers for union activity only have to pay them back wages, minus whatever the employees made at their new jobs. The Employee Free Choice Act would require guilty employers to pay illegally fired workers triple their lost salaries, as well as civil penalties of up to $20,000 per violation.

Even when unions win an election to organize, getting the first contract can be difficult. Hurd said only 40 percent of companies in which employees vote for unions get collective-bargaining agreements. The proposed law would give employers and workers 120 days to reach a contract before a federal arbitrator steps in to set terms.

Safeyyah Edwards, an instructor at the American Red Cross Northern Ohio Blood Services Region and a steward with Teamsters Local 507, said that when her union started organizing in 2003, workers had to rely on phones, e-mail and weekend meetings, while management met with workers on the job. Though employees voted for a union in 2004, they didn't get a contract until 2007. She says the organization purposely stalled negotiations.

Christy Chapman, a spokeswoman for Red Cross blood services, said her organization did not block employees from hearing all sides. She declined to comment on the contract negotiations.

"We did not comment on how anyone should vote, and we told them we would stand behind their decision no matter what it was," Chapman said.

Battle for bill is in Senate

Labor advocates in Washington have sought the Employee Free Choice Act for years. It passed the House of Representatives in 2007 and is considered a shoo-in for House passage again this year. Every Ohio Democrat currently co-sponsors the bill.

The battle this year will be in the Senate, where Democrats previously fell short of the 60 votes they needed to consider the bill over objections from Republicans. Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid said he believes he can corral 60 votes this year, but he isn't likely to bring up the bill before fall. One reason for the delay is the prospect that Democrats will pick up an extra vote if a contested U.S. Senate race in Minnesota is resolved in favor of Al Franken.

The bill's chances were hurt when Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the only Republican who previously backed considering the measure, publicly announced his opposition last week. Labor leaders said they would continue to push for passage.

"I think it has a good chance to become law," said Ohio Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown, who believes it would strengthen the middle class by boosting unionization. "This is a high priority for all of us here."

Ohio Republican Sen. George Voinovich said he opposes the bill because secret ballots ensure that workers aren't joining unions because of peer pressure. He also believes it's unfair to set a 120-day deadline for contract negotiations before arbitration kicks in.

"Traditionally, the parties to a contract come to a meeting of the minds on the contract's terms and conditions - after significant give and take," Voinovich explained. "Having a third party with the ability to impose terms and conditions that neither party may want turns this long-standing principle on its head."

Outlook changes with administrations

U.S. Chamber of Commerce Vice President Randy Johnson said many members of Congress are reconsidering their support for the bill because they saw it as a "free vote" in 2007, when they knew former President George W. Bush would veto it if it passed. Now that President Barack Obama - who backs the bill - is in the White House, Johnson said the business community has launched a huge grass-roots effort against the legislation that includes ads and outreach by business leaders throughout the country.

"This is certainly the biggest turnout of solid opposition from the business community I've seen in a long time," Johnson said. "We are not going to turn over our workplaces to have government-appointed arbitrators tell us how to run our businesses."

Although Johnson said he doubts the bill's backers will obtain the 60 Senate votes, AFL-CIO government affairs director Bill Samuel is optimistic.

"The state of the economy has helped focus attention on the plight of workers and the fact that declining union membership has made it difficult for workers to keep up," Samuel said.

Although unions say they expect the business lobby will outspend them, Samuel said unions will mount a grass-roots mobilization effort for the bill "picking up where we left off in the campaign leading up to the November election."

In the Cleveland area, those

activities included a 100-person demonstration Monday on Public Square and planned door-to-door canvassing in Lakewood, probably in April, said North Shore AFL-CIO Federtion of Labor head Harriet Applegate.

Local business owners, including Stewart Unsdorfer, president of Central Heating and Air Conditioning Co. in Richmond Heights, have mobilized against the bill. Unsdorfer has written letters and e-mails to his legislators and signed petitions against it.

He said any unionization effort at his company "would probably put me out of business" because he would have to hire a lawyer, a major expense for a 13-employee business like his.

A. Malachi Mixon III, chairman and chief executive of Invacare Corp., said his company is one of the largest "union-free" companies in Northeast Ohio, with more than 6,000 employees worldwide and about 1,400 workers in Elyria and North Ridgeville. "We've always been a union target," he said.

"We provide very competitive wages and benefits in one of the cleanest and safest facilities in Northeast Ohio," Mixon said. "Our people don't feel they need a third party involved.

"I've always said that if a company has a union, it's because it had bad management somewhere in its history."

To reach these Plain Dealer reporters:

seaton@plaind.com, 216-999-4212

operkins@plaind.com, 216-999-4868

jcho@plaind.com, 216-999-5069

BOX

Aspects of the act

Under the Employee Free Choice Act, if a newly recognized union can't agree to a labor contract with an employer within 120 days, the dispute would be referred to arbitration. The contract arrived at by the arbitrator would bind the parties for two years.

The act would require employers who illegally fire workers for union activity to pay the workers triple their lost salaries, as well as civil penalties of up to $20,000 per violation. Currently, guilty employers only have to pay those workers back wages, minus what the employee made at his or her new job.

What supporters say

Allowing workers to form unions through a sign-up process is fairer than secret balloting, because employers manipulate the elections by keeping union organizers from campaigning at their companies while managers make unlimited on-the-job overtures to employees.

Its arbitration provision would guarantee that companies can't drag their feet in negotiating an initial contract.

Increased penalties would prevent employers from illegally harassing and firing employees who want to form unions.

What opponents say

The National Labor Relations Board's secret-ballot election process already is democratic.

Without a secret ballot, union organizers can bully workers into signing union cards. Allowing card checks would violate the rights of workers who don't want unions.

It would be unfair for an arbitrator to impose an employment contract on a company after just 120 days of negotiations.

The higher cost of union labor would hurt businesses.

BOX

What is the Employee Free Choice Act?

The Employee Free Choice Act would make it easier for employees to form unions by giving them a choice of a majority sign-up or a secret-ballot election and would eliminate employers' current power to decide which process is used.

How the law would work and what both sides say.

LOAD-DATE: April 1, 2009