U.S. union leaders said on Friday
that a landmark U.S. labor board ruling on companies' obligations toward
contract and franchise workers would help them organize manufacturers and
e-commerce companies as well as fast food chains.
U.S. union leaders said on Friday that a landmark U.S.
labor board ruling on companies’ obligations toward contract and franchise
workers would help them organize manufacturers and e-commerce companies as well
as fast food chains.
On Thursday the National Labor
Relations Board (NLRB) ruled the owner of a California recycling plant was a
“joint employer” with the contractor that hired workers at the plant,
essentially forcing both to bargain with the union together or risk violating
U.S. labor law.
Business groups, arguing that the
ruling could lead to higher costs and hurt the economy, are pushing the
Republican-led Congress to overturn it, in part it because the
company named in the decision – Browning-Ferris – cannot challenge it in a
federal court without overcoming a number of procedural hurdles.
Unions see the decision as a breakthrough not just in
efforts to help employees organizes at franchisees of McDonald’s Corp and other
chains but also as a tool to counter the proliferation of subcontracting in
other industries in which workers are one or two steps removed from the
companies indirectly controlling them.
Manufacturers including auto
workers, food processors, steelmakers and aerospace companies are potential
targets for union campaigns, said Elizabeth Bunn, director of the AFL-CIO’s
organizing department, noting that plant workers are often not directly
employed by the parent firm.
“You literally can walk into
almost any non-union manufacturing plant in the United States and you’ll see
workers working on a line and not be able to distinguish who is temp from an
agency and who is a direct employee of the company,” she said.
Big labor has focused much of its resources over the past
few years on pushing for higher wages in the fast-food industry, and the
Browning-Ferris ruling could have implications for an ongoing NLRB case seeking
to hold McDonald accountable as a “joint employer” for alleged violations at
franchisees.
‘GAME-CHANGER’
But union organizers see
Thursday’s ruling as paving the way for gains across a range of industries
given the widespread use of subcontracting by the manufacturing and service
sectors to lower costs.
“It’s certainly a game changer,”
said Teague Paterson, a partner at Beeson Tayer & Bodine, a law firm
representing the union in the NLRB case. “Unions and workers have been
frustrated by these triangulated relations that the board condoned in the past.
It certainly opens the door to more organizing.”
Rand Wilson, a veteran organizer and a communications and
policy director at a Massachusetts chapter of the Services Employees
International Union, said he saw potential in warehousing, cleaning services
and health care.
Another segment widely cited by
organizers and labor experts is the warehouses of companies like Amazon.com Inc, Wal-Mart
Stores Inc and Google Inc, which are often filled with
workers from staffing agencies or contract firms.
The Teamsters union recently won
an election to represent warehouse and shipping workers at Google Express, the
technology giant’s shopping delivery service. The workers are employed through
staffing firm Adecco.
Rome Aloise, president of the
Teamsters in Northern California, said the Browning-Ferris ruling means Google
will now have to be part of the discussions about working conditions with the
union and the contractor.
“This is a classic case. We won
and are going into negotiations and now Google will have to come to the table.”
It was a local branch of the Teamsters that originally
brought the complaint about a union election at the Browning-Ferris recycling
plant to the labor relations board, and the union has been active in organizing
truck drivers and warehouse workers at delivery companies and tech firms.
Amazon, Google and Adecco were
not immediately available for comment. Wal-Mart spokesman Brian Nick said the
company was still reviewing the decision but has concerns.
TOUGH CHALLENGE
Challenging the ruling in court
will not be easy, opponents say, because a court could only take up the case if
closely-held Browning-Ferris refuses to negotiate with the workers’ union.
“This will not be resolved quickly,” said Browning-Ferris’s attorney Stuart
Newman. He declined to specifically comment on the company’s next legal steps.
Trade groups have little to no
legal recourse, since they were not the subject of the NLRB’s ruling.
“The litigation strategy is somewhere between challenging
and nonexistent, and of course the NLRB knows that,” said Michael Layman, a
vice-president at the International Franchise Association on Friday.
Instead, the IFA and other groups
said they would focus their efforts on Congress, which could write its own
definition of employer responsibility for contract workers into law or pass a
resolution blocking use of the new NLRB standard.
The Republican chairmen of
congressional committees with oversight of labor issues, Senator Lamar Alexander
of Tennessee and Rep. John Kline of Minnesota, both pledged to introduce
legislation that would roll back the decision.
But any bill targeting
Browning-Ferris would join other Republican measures aimed at reversing NLRB
decisions that have yet to become law, and would likely face a veto as long as
a Democrat is in the Oval Office, said Walter Olson, a senior fellow who tracks
labor law at the libertarian Cato Institute.
“The politics are such that, even
though Republicans have strong majorities in both houses of Congress, the NLRB
is considered enough of a party-line issue that a bill would get a presidential
veto,” Olson said.
