THE HILL
 

Labor unions battle over rule change

By Ian Swanson - 11/05/09 06:00 AM ET

Business groups and unions are battling over a decision by a federal board that eases the rules for employees at airlines and railways to form unions.

Though many airline and railroad employees covered by the Railway Labor Act are already unionized, the change could have a big impact on companies like Delta, JetBlue and Federal Express that have non-union workers.

The proposed change by the National Mediation Board (NMB) would overturn a rule in place for decades that counts those not voting in union elections as “no” votes.

The AFL-CIO had petitioned for the change, and the proposed rule illustrates the clout labor has with the new administration.

The union coalition argues that a majority of those voting “aye” should be enough for a union to be organized.

If the rules go into effect, employers would lose an advantage they’ve had in fighting unions, said Ed Wytkind, president of the AFL-CIO Transportation Trades Department. He predicted it would ease the ability of workers covered by the rules to organize.

Opponents say the threshold for forming a union should be the votes of a majority of workers.

Republican Reps. John Kline (Minn.) and John Mica (Fla.) issued a release that called it a radical proposal that adds “to a troubling perception that federal agencies have embraced a culture of union favoritism.”

Mica and Kline had written the board urging it to turn down the AFL-CIO’s proposed change.

The NMB agreed with labor in a 2-to-1 decision, which will now be subject to a 60-day comment period. Both sides are likely to call attention to the rule during that period, though it’s unclear whether the NMB is likely to change its proposal.

The two board members who said the rules should be changed, who are both Democratic Party appointees, sided with unions in arguing that most democratic elections are won by the majority of those voting and do not require that a majority of those eligible to vote cast ballots.

Most union elections are covered by the National Labor Relations Board rules, and only require a majority of those voting in favor of forming a union.

The two NMB members backing the change wrote that the current NMB procedure “appears to be at odds with the modern participatory workplace philosophy” as well as with “the basic principles of democratic elections.”

Board President Elizabeth Dougherty dissented, and argued against changing a 75-year-old rule. She said “one-sided rule changes” at the behest of labor or management should not be made by the board regardless of its composition “or the inhabitant of the White House.”

The rule change was expected after the election of President Barack Obama, and his appointee to the board provided the deciding vote.

The trade association for U.S. airlines criticized the decision, as did coalitions representing business groups in the card-check fight in Congress. That legislation would change labor election rules so that an employer could no longer demand a secret-ballot election.

Instead, if a majority of workers check authorization cards indicating their support for a union, the union would be formed.

The Workforce Fairness Institute issued a press release titled “Forced Unionization” in response to the proposed rule change, and criticized the NMB for providing a “bailout” to the AFL-CIO.

The trade association for airlines said NMB does not have the authority to change the rules, saying only Congress has the authority to make the change.

Dougherty also said there is a serious question over whether the NMB has the statutory authority to make the change.

Source:
http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/66413-labor-unions-battle-over-rule-change

Comments (8)

NMB needs to adopt the NLRB election process. It has been done before at Laker Airways I know it for fact because Laker was a client of mine.BY dennis dyszelski on 11/05/2009 at 11:04
This proposed rule is far more democratic. People who can't be bothered to vote should not have their 'votes' counted. Like any democratic election, you show up, you vote, and the majority of voters wins. None of our national elected officials would be in office if they were required to get the a majority of the eligible voters in their district. This debate is just silly. Employers don't want to level the playing field and have a real democratic vote.BY C Petty on 11/05/2009 at 11:42
Show me any other form of orderly voting where not voting constitutes a "no" vote. Show me .Maybe in a vote for the ladies' social group or a men's fishing club, I don't know. If this was the case in our national election, how would we ever declare a winner, given that approximately 50% of registered voters don't show up to vote. The fact that the Railway Act is separate from the rest of NLRB rules is a product of a bygone era anyway and this particular freakness in the voting rules should have been removed years ago.BY rt on 11/05/2009 at 11:43
The standard in place is said by some to be a fair process for workers electing for union representation, but how do those same speakers feel about applying this standard and process to citizens when it comes to federal, state, and local government representation or even representation by Republican, Democratic, or Independent political parties for those governments?If a non vote were construed as a Nay vote, then Mayor Bloomberg would have just lost his recent election campaign by a resounding 93.3% to 6.7%, VA Governor-elect McDonnell would have lost his election bid by a resounding 85% to 15%, and NJ Governor-elect Christie would have lost his election bid by a resounding 87% to 13%.It's a good idea to practice what you preach when it comes to establishing rules for people electing to have representation and to maintain transparency rather than hypocrisy.BY commentor on 11/05/2009 at 12:55
Does the NMB have the power to overturn a rule that is part of an "Act?" Specifically, do they have legal power to change the Railway Labor Act or does that require congressional intervention?BY William on 11/06/2009 at 10:54
RT is comparing apples to cumquats. In those elections there was another choice for those who did vote…the other candidate. Sometimes there is a third candidate. So, one can not accurately state that all those who did not vote voted against a single candidate. The only way this type of voting should be conducted is by secret ballot. Perhaps a way could be worked out that you don't get your pay check until you vote, but that vote is totally secret. Too often, unions rely upon intimidation by a vocal minority to claim they are the majority.BY Bush444 on 11/10/2009 at 08:35
The unions are looking for new sources of revenue and new companies to bleed dry. The union leaders live good on the backs of the workers they care nothing about. I would rather have my work rewarded on its merits than be tied to what the so called majority is doing. If I am not fairly compensated then I look for a new job, not try to get everyone else to stop working.BY Neil on 11/10/2009 at 09:27
This highlights the importance of participatory voting - either "Yea" or "Nay". Not counting no-votes as "Nay" allows a potentially very small minority to establish controlling policy over the majority. And a minority ruling over the majority is hardly "Democratic". Just look at what it's done for our government. At the very least, if you can't get a majority of subjects to participate, the vote should be nonbinding. Leaving a policy unenforcable (or office unoccupied) _isn't_ the worst thing that can happen.BY TooBusyToCare on 11/10/2009 at 11:11

Add Comment

Name (required)

E-Mail (will not be published) (required)

Your Comments

You need Flash Player 8 (or higher) and JavaScript enabled to view this content

Get latest news from The Hill direct to your inbox, RSS reader and mobile devices.