Workplace Blog

Wall Street Journal:
Unions Forge Secret Pacts With Major Employers

May 10, 2008

From The Wall Street Journal

http://www.seiuvoice.org/2008/05/wall-street-journal-unions-forge-secret.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121038122486582367.html?mod=djemalertNEWS:

By Kris Maher

Two of the nation’s largest labor unions have
struck confidential agreements with large employers
that give the companies the right to designate
which of their locations, and how many workers, the
unions can seek to organize.Two of the nation’s
largest labor unions have struck confidential
agreements with large employers that give the
companies the right to designate which of their
locations, and how many workers, the unions can
seek to organize.

The agreements are raising questions about union
transparency and workers’ rights. A summary
document put together by the unions says it is
critical to the success of the partnership “that we
honor the confidentiality and not publicly disclose
the existence of these agreements.” That includes
not disclosing them to union members.

The agreements involve workers who provide food,
laundry and housekeeping services on an outsourced
basis. The employers are Sodexho Inc. and the
Compass Group USA unit of London-based Compass
Group PLC. The unions are the 1.7 million-member
Service Employees International Union, or SEIU, and
Unite Here. The unions say they negotiated a
similar agreement with Aramark Corp. but that
Aramark broke the deal last year, and they’re
trying to reach a new one. An Aramark spokesman
declined to comment on that.

The unions defend the agreements and their secrecy,
saying they’ve helped workers join unions in
growing industries at a time of declining union
membership in many sectors. Last year, 7.5% of
private-sector workers belonged to unions, compared
with 17% 25 years ago. The agreements have
“resulted in tens of thousands of workers getting
unions” and been a major advance for the labor
movement, said the president of Unite Here, Bruce
Raynor.

He defended keeping them confidential, saying the
companies involved insisted on that for competitive
reasons.

The agreements go a step beyond what are called
neutrality agreements. Those agreements give unions
the ability to organize workers free of employer
opposition. Unions often seek these in conjunction
with an agreement to organize workers via card-
signing — a speedier alternative to secret-ballot
elections, which can drag on and trigger counter-
campaigns by employers. Companies often agree to
neutrality after unions bring pressure on the
employers from investors, local politicians and
community leaders.

Labor experts said agreements such as those the
SEIU and Unite Here reached open a window on a big
debate within organized labor: what kind of
tradeoffs to make when forging neutrality deals,
and whether to let union members know of the
tradeoffs.

The SEIU’s president, Andy Stern, said the unions
sought the agreements after realizing that
traditional organizing campaigns at individual
sites were proving ineffective. “The old ways
aren’t working, and we’re trying to find different
relationships with employers that guarantee workers
a voice,” he said. He dismissed the idea that the
new agreements are undemocratic. “These workers
have no unions; that’s where we start from,” he
said.

In 2005, the SEIU and Unite Here created a
partnership to represent workers that provide food
and housekeeping services. Then they approached the
companies individually. Since 2005, the unions have
organized about 15,000 workers at Aramark, Compass
and Sodexho, which collectively employ more than
300,000 people in North America, according to an
SEIU spokeswoman.

A key question in the agreements is determining at
which sites a union can organize. Unite Here’s Mr.
Raynor said specific sites where unions can
organize are selected jointly by the companies and
the unions.

The agreements reached with Sodexho and Compass in
2005 give the companies “the right to designate the
sites” where unions may try to organize workers,
according to a confidential summary of the
agreements reviewed by the Wall Street Journal. The
companies wouldn’t comment on how locations were
selected for organizing.

The agreements, which expire at then end of 2008,
stipulate the number of employees that the unions
can try to organize: 11,000 Sodexho workers and
20,000 Compass workers.

The Right to Strike

The unions gave up the right to strike and to post
derogatory language about the companies on bulletin
boards. With Compass, the unions agreed to these
restrictions “anywhere in the world.” In exchange,
the companies agree not to oppose union organizing
at the designated locations.

But limits are also set. “Local unions are not free
to engage in organizing activities at any Compass
or Sodexho locations unless the sites have been
designated,” says the confidential summary.

Mr. Stern said that if workers wanted to join a
union at a location the companies had ruled out,
having these agreements would enable a union to
negotiate on the matter. “If workers want a union
we can discuss that,” he said. “Trust me, a lot
more workers are coming in than being excluded by
the agreement.”

The companies said they reached the agreements
because they support their employees’ right to
unionize. A spokeswoman for Compass, Cheryl Queen,
said the agreement “protects the interest of both
our associates and our clients, while allowing us
to develop positive relationships with those trade
unions.” A Sodexho spokeswoman, Jaya Bohlmann,
said, “We pride ourselves on having a very open
dialogue with the union and their representatives.”

The SEIU has added more members in recent years
than any other labor union. But resentment against
Mr. Stern has been building among some in the
union, who see him as too close to management and
too insistent on centralizing power.

Some argue that the SEIU is adding new members at
the expense of current ones. “We really believe
that Stern and the international are putting growth
in numbers ahead of any other consideration of what
a union means in the lives of working people,” said
Zev Kvitky, president of a small SEIU local that
represents food-service and custodial workers at
Stanford University. Mr. Stern, rejecting the
criticism, said the union actually is becoming less
centralized.

‘Not Widespread’

Labor experts said it was highly unusual for unions
to give employers the ability to choose which
employees a union can try to organize. “That’s not
widespread,” said Robert Bruno, associate professor
of labor relations at the University of Illinois at
Chicago. “When you agree to these kinds of
conditions the question is what is lost and what is
gained?”

The agreements enable the unions to organize
workers through a simple card-signing process in
which the companies agree to remain neutral, rather
than a secret-ballot election. The companies agree
to provide the unions with lists of employees and
access to workers. The unions give up the ability
to strike and agree that they will present issues
before a labor-management committee before engaging
in leafleting or rallies.

_____________________________________________

The Guardian: Union accused of reviving academic boycott of Israel

Academics are today accused of attempting to revive the intensely controversial academic boycott of Israel by calling for lecturers to consider their links with Israeli institutions and lobby contacts over the Israeli occupation.

The Universities and College Union (UCU) annual conference will debate a motion that falls short of a full-blown boycott, but asks members to “consider the moral and political implications of educational links with Israeli institutions”.