Sorry, Leo Gerard, Employers Can and Do ‘Bribe’ Union Bosses by Helping Them Seize Monopoly Power Over Employees
Six years ago, then-U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens recognized, in writing for a 7-2 majority in U.S. Chamber of Commerce v. Brown, that under federal labor law employees have an “underlying right to receive information opposing unionization.” Â This is a right Big Labor bosses like Leo Gerard are loathe to acknowledge.
The fact that employees have a right to hear why unionizing may not be in their best interest does not mean employers have to supply such information. Â Employers, like everyone else, have a First Amendment right to refrain from speaking. But any reasonable interpretation of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) precludes employers from colluding with union bosses to prevent, if they can, employees from hearing both sides of the story about union monopoly bargaining before they are subjected to it.
Arguing on behalf of independent-minded Florida groundskeeper Martin Mulhall before the High Court last week, National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorney Bill Messenger contended that employers may not legally furnish material support for Big Labor efforts to secure monopoly-bargaining power over employees. Â Messenger noted that organizing assistance from employers is at least as apt to influence union officials to act contrary to workers’ best interest as gifts of money or free perks furnished directly to the officials.
In the commentary linked below, United Steel Workers (USWA) union czar Leo Gerard scoffs at Messenger’s argument. Gerard implies it’s simply unthinkable that union bosses would agree to unfavorable contract provisions for employees in exchange for employers’ organizing assistance.
Gerard should check the record in the Adcock v. Freightliner case, decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit nearly five years ago.
The court in this case, also argued by Messenger, found that employers may materially help union bosses organize their employees in a wide array of ways. Â (The pending Mulhall case aims to overturn Adcock.) Â But the Fourth Circuit panel had no trouble understanding that union bosses had granted concessions regarding employee pay and benefits in exchange for the help Freightliner gave them. Â Once Gerard has a quick look at the summary of (not atypical) union concessions in the Adcock record pasted below, he also should acknowledge the truth: Â It’s perfectly possible for employers to “bribe” (using the layman’s definition, at least) Big Labor with organizing assistance.
In the Preconditions Agreement, the Union made commitments as to its conduct if it were recognized as the exclusive bargaining representative of Freightliner’s employees.   Notably, the Union agreed that:  (1) there would be “separate consideration in terms and conditions of employment for each Business Unit because of industry differences (trucks, parts, busses, fire and rescue, chassis) including competitive wage and benefits packages within comparative product marketsâ€;  (2) there would be “no guaranteed employment or transfer rights between Business Units or Plantsâ€;  (3) there would be “no provisions for severance pay ․ in the event of a layoff or plant closureâ€;  (4) there would be “no strikes during the term of any collectively bargained agreementâ€;  (5) there would be “no subcontracting prohibitions, provided economics reflect non-competitivenessâ€;  (6) future “benefits cost increases, in excess of normal inflation, will be shared between the Company and the employees proportionately at a rate to be determined between the Company and its employeesâ€;  and (7) in consideration of Freightliner’s financial turnaround objectives, there would be “no wage adjustments provided at any newly organized facility prior to mid-2003.â€Â
Steelworkers union kingpin Leo Gerard is terribly upset that, thanks to a U.S. Supreme Court case argued last week by a National Right to Work Foundation attorney, employers may lose their “right” to collude with union bosses to prevent employees, to the extent they are able, from hearing about why unionization may not be in their best interest. Image: atlanticeyeinstitute.com