Tag Archives: workers

The Predatory Fight to Keep Workers Temporary and “Independent”

Little Rock      Once upon a time we might have been able to look at the Department of Labor to lead the way in drawing the bright lines that establish whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor, regular or temporary.  If that didn’t work, perhaps there might be some way to look at cases before the National Labor Relations Board that were forced to decide whether a worker was regular enough to vote and be part of a bargaining unit or temporary, casual, and out of luck.  Those were the “good” old days.  You know the 1900s.  The twentieth century.  Now, if you want to try and figure this out, especially given the predatory and pernicious way that app-based companies have hired hundreds of thousands of workers and pretended they are all free as birds, you have keep your eye on California, where legislators, regulators, and the public understand how critical this issue is.

California legislators, after years of struggle with the issue, decided once and for all, that gig workers, not just with the giant predators Uber and Lyft, but across the board, were employees, not independent subcontractors.  In California, as opposed to say, Arkansas or Louisiana or most of the lower forty-right, that actually means something.  A worker has some rights.  Higher minimum wage and paid sick days are a good examples, but that’s just where it starts.  The California Labor Code is extensive and gets over the walls and into the workplace and up in a boss’s face with a long list of “do rights.”

Uber, Lyft, Door Dash, and a gazillion others want to pretend they are tech companies and simply a computerized algorithm application that is linking a customer with some Joe or Jane out in the wild blue who wants to provide a service.  Of course, they want you to overlook the fact that they interview and qualify you, insist on what age and condition your vehicle is, set the rates you can charge, and on and on.  In labor unions, we would say that they set the hours, wages, and terms and conditions of employment.  The only thing they arguably don’t do is set the hours.

These companies aren’t happy with the California law.  They tried to make a deal.  They would agree to talk with their workers.  They would do a little of this and that, but, please, Mr. Golden Bear, don’t say the “e” word and make our workers officially “employees” of our companies.  The reason is clear.  Their business model is based on exploiting their workers and not paying minimum wages, social security, medical benefits, or of course any of the costs associated with the worker’s tools, meaning their car, its gas, and condition or the bicycle, scooter or whatever.  They now have raised a $100 million in hopes the voters of California will let them go back to rip-off the workers world.  That’s a long shot, if I were betting.  Californians are the France of America.  They like their benefits.  Who wouldn’t?

Listening to the radio on the road the other day, the absurdity became clear as I listened to one of the companies claim they were going to make a change in their app that would make their drivers more independent.  They were going to let them know if they picked up a fare on Uber how far they would have to go, so they could take it or pass.  My first thought was holy-moly, you mean a driver was clueless before on whether or not the fare was around the corner or miles away.  Sure enough, a driver was interviewed who talked about having landed a fare from Los Angeles to Bakersfield more than a hundred miles away.  He made money going, but then was out of luck on the way back.

A couple of tweaks are not going to change the story out there.  When you’re working for the man, you’re working for the man, whether you can see him through your app or not.  If the company controls the terms and conditions of employment, you’re an employee and entitled to the pluses or pitfalls that come with it.  Period.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

National Labor Relations Board Twists the Knife in the Heart of Unions and Workers

New Orleans    It may be hard to remember, but the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is supposed to ensure the right of workers to organize and safeguard the stated public policy expounded in the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which favors collective bargaining. Under the Trump administration, the NLRB is going out of its way to attack the Act. We are not talking about the usual thrust and jab common to any new administration. Trump’s NLRB and General Counsel are gutting the Act like a fish and then stabbing that knife into the heart of workers, their rights, and their unions.

During the eight years of the Obama administration, the NLRB had the opportunity to recast some contentious issues more favorably for workers and their unions.  Progress was made, though less than unions and organizers had hoped to see. Elections were processed more quickly.  Employers could not challenge a unit before the election, so they could not run out the clock and extend their campaigns through unnecessary hearings and fake challenges to specific jobs or bargaining unit descriptions.  The NLRB made a long overdue and significant update to the determinations for joint employer status, a key issue for franchises and their overlords like McDonalds.  Acknowledging joint employer control of the workforce would have finally made the primary, deep-pocketed company responsible for the labor practices of their franchisees.  Graduate student unions were allowed to be certified and protected under the Act.  Email communications by workers complaining about working conditions and organizing their co-workers were allowed and were protected, concerted activity within workplaces rather than solely company-controlled property, and Facebook rants were protected.

Three years into the Trump term, the NLRB now has three Republican appointees and only one Democratic appointee on the five-member board, and these Obama-era initiatives have either been rolled back already or are under attack. Things will not get better any time soon.  The last Democrat’s term concludes at the end of 2019, and it’s unlikely that a new member will be appointed in 2020. That leaves a 3-0 partisan board to steamroll over workers’ rights.  The decisions are guaranteed to become worse.

The actions of the Trump NLRB and the proposals of the current General Counsel go to the heart of generations of organizing practices and do so deliberately. For example, the NLRA specifies that “an appropriate bargaining unit” can represent workers. It does not require “a” single unit. But in the recent Boeing case emerging from the efforts to organize their South Carolina plant, the Board ruled against this time-honored definition, blocking the certification of a 178-member unit with the larger Boeing workforce.

Furthermore, the General Counsel Peter B. Robb has also proposed to flip the script on presumption of units in order to proceed more quickly to elections, a move that encourages companies to try to delay elections by challenging the unit and forcing a hearing.  He has also proposed a laundry list of reasons an employer can now use to challenge the majority of an incumbent union, forcing it to hold an election to prove its majority.

The General Counsel has also indicated he wants to stop the practice of unions filing charges to block unfair labor practices, known as “blocking” charges – usually actions by the company that taint the election conditions — during campaigns. This proposal is a total union-buster.  Instead of allowing the Regional NLRB supervising the election to postpone the voting while it investigates the charge, workers would be forced to vote in the poisoned conditions that the union opposed.  The election would proceed and results would be held “in the box.” If the charges were not found meritorious, the election box would be unsealed and the votes counted, presumably to the union and the workers’ peril.

Collective bargaining is also under attack.  One of the rock-solid foundations of bargaining prohibits employers from making unilateral changes once an organizing drive has begun. Any unilateral change could be a potential unfair labor practice and could lead to an election objection if it materially impacted the results.  Once a union was certified, the ban on unilateral changes meant that the company had to bargain with the union.  No more.  The NLRB wants to allow employers more leeway, turning upside down the rules governing what bosses can do under management rights.  The new rule seems to be “anything goes” for employers.

The NLRB reported another 11% drop in the filing of unfair labor practices in 2018.  The General Counsel for the Machinists has reportedly commented that we shouldn’t worry, because a lot of this will go away if Trump wins a second term.  Personally, I’m not feeling as secure about that as my brother machinist is.  Meanwhile, the Economic Policy Institute has suggested that the NLRB and the General Counsel have been following the work order set by the U. S. Chamber of Commerce point by point.

Does it matter?  Yes. However, because nothing better is likely to be legislated anytime soon, we need to hold onto everything we can in the current act.

Many unions and organizers have claimed that the failures to improve the protections of the NLRA are so serious that they are not filing for representation elections before the Board, but the statistics indicate otherwise. 1597 elections were filed in FY18 and another 1588 in FY08.  Workers are still organizing under the Act, and that’s a fact.

Like it or not, the NLRA provides both organized and unorganized workers some protections, despite weak and erratic enforcement.  In the contemporary workplace, workers need those protections more than ever.  The rights that remain are themselves organizing tools.

Published first in the Working Class Perspectives on November 18, 2019 

https://workingclassstudies.wordpress.com/

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail