Campaign Workshop

The Risks of Strikes: A Personal Story

The risk of a strike is, of course, a very strong argument against unionization. In the course of a campaign, management typically informs workers that strikes bring loss of income and significant disruption, as well as the threat of intimidation and violence. Those are facts, but nothing helps a message really sink in more than conveying it with emotion. The following recounting of one woman’s experience in a strike conveys that emotion.

In April 1996, employees of a Virginia com- pany, Abex Friction Products, who were members of the United Auto Workers (UAW) went out on strike. Those who continued working experienced cruel and brutal reprisals. One of the victims was Shucheng Huang. She subsequently testified in a U.S. Senate hearing about her experiences.

“When a strike was called for April 15, I was really worried,” testified the Vietnamese immi- grant, a wife and mother of four.

“I had only worked for Abex for six months. I was not a member of the union, and my family needed my share of income for room and board and the children’s education. . .

“On April 15, I went to work thinking that since I am a U.S. citizen and America is a free country, and I need to work to support myself and my family, I should go to work as usual,” said Mrs. Huang.

For this, her car and home were vandalized. Then, on May 2, she testified, “when I went out

to the car to drive to work, I found the head of a dead cow on the hood. The head was still bleeding. It was a terrible and scary scene. I almost fainted. I had never seen such a thing.”

Months after the strike ended, UAW militants continued t o terrorize Mrs. Huang, posting photos of her with the ominous caption “WANTED-DEAD OR ALIVE” everywhere and shooting out her car windshield as she drove into the Abex parking lot. She told the Senate Judiciary Committee that since these incidents she has “not lived one day in peace. ”

Mrs. Huang was not the only one who was

harassed because she did not support the strike. Her co-worker Eppa Clegg’s work station was sabo- taged so that he was sprayed and burned with hot wax when he went back to work. Strike supporters also often threw things at him while he was oper- ating his machine. He believed they were trying to force him t o quit.

The Risks of “Just Giving the Union a Try”

To allay employees’ anxiety about the long- term consequences ofvoting for a union, organizers and other union supporters may suggest that people should vote for the union with the idea that if they are dissatisfied they can vote it out again. This may seem like a reasonable plan-unless employees are informed as to how difficult it can be t o get rid of a union. The following text can be used in a flyer, brochure, or on the company’s campaign website to explain the hazards of the concept of “just giving the union a try.”

You may have been misled by union organizers o r pro-union employees who may have told you that you can give the union a try and, if it doesn’t get what it has promised you, you can just kick it out. This may sound easy, but you should know that once a union is voted in, sad experience has shown that it is very difficult to get it out. It is usually here to stay.

Once a union wins an election, it may not be ousted except through a formal process called decertification. This may not occur until at least one year after the union was elected. If there is a contract, employees can’t try to decertify for the length of that contract, which could be up t o 3 years.

If employees want to try the difficult task of decertifying a union, they must file a petition with the National Labor Relations Board sup- ported by signatures from at least 30 percent of workers in the unit. The petition must be filed between the 60th and the 90th day before an existing contract expires. If you miss the deadline by even one day, the petition will not be accepted.

In other companies, people have decided they would be better off without the union after their companies said “no” to certain union contract demands and the union failed t o deliver on all the

Management ReportIFebruary 1999

0 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

5

promises it made to them. They faced the difficult problems of raising funds, hiring a lawyer to assist them, obtaining signatures from co-em- ployees in open view, and having to tolerate strong criticism from union officials and pro-union co- workers.

You should also know tha t if the union can’t make good on its promises and you later want to kick it out, management cannot assist you in any way. The law prohibits a company from helping employees to decertify their certified bargaining representative. Unions do not want to lose any dues-paying mem- bers. Employees who become involved in trying to get rid of a union will almost certainly face strong opposition from the union tha t may include ha- rassment, threats, being brought up on union charges of disloyalty, andlor expulsion from the union.

KNOWING ALL THIS, WOULD YOU LIKE TO BE THE ONE TO LEAD THE FIGHT TO GET RID OF THE UNION?

A decision to vote the union in is, for all practical purposes IRREVERSIBLE. Unless you are totally sure you want the union for the rest of your working life here, the best idea is to keep the union out in the first place by voting NO on election day. W

The no-solicitation rule is management’s rule designed to apply to employees only. Because man- agement pays employees to work, it has the right to prohibit solicitation for outside causes (not just union solicitations) by the employees whom it is paying, while they are on working time. Solicitation may not be prohibited during “non-working” time, such as breaks, lunch, etc.

Reflection upon this rule quickly reveals that man- agement may lawfully decide that its supervisors should campaign duringworking time, even though employees are prohibited from likewise doing so. Management can, therefore, waive the rule as it applies to supervi- sors, but strictly enforce it with respect to its employees, who can be prohibited from soliciting during working time. Management can interfere with employees’ work- ing time, since it may choose to pay people for not working. However, employees may not decide for them- selves that they would rather solicit for other, outside causes than work.

Likewise, an employer can hand out pro-company flyers during the pre-election campaign to its employees in work areas, while at the same time applying its no-solicitation rule against distribution of pro-union literature in those same areas. (For a recent case on this point, see Beverly Enterprises, 326 NLRB No. 37.)

Supervisors’ Workshop

Do No-Solicitation Rules Apply to the Company?

No-solicitation rules generally state that “there shall be no solicitation during working time.” It’s not unusual to find that supervisors are confused as to the way in which the company’s no-solicitation rules may properly be applied to election campaigning by management itself. The rule can be misinterpreted as applying to campaign statements made by supervi- sors and managers during working time.

AFL-CIO “Density Studies” Will Influence Allocation of Organizing Resources

At its winter executive committee meeting this month in Florida, AFL-CIO leaders will look at the fourth of a series of “density studies” aimed at giving the federation data to use to better leverage its organizing resources. For a number of cities, the studies show percentages of union membership and union density by union. The fourth study will reportedly show union density in a number of companies.

~~ ~

0 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

6 Management Report February 1999