We thought this letter in response to the NLRB proposed streamlined elections rule was very well constructed, and the author, a former union member and organizer, gave us permission to share with you: July 27, 2011 Lester A. Heltzer, Executive Secretary National Labor Relations Board 1099 14th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20570 RE: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 3142-AA08 Dear Mr. Heltzer, This letter is to comment regarding the Board’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to “streamline” the NLRB election process. The proposed changes are not simply unnecessary, they threaten workers ability to a freely and fairly decide on union representation. I have been a member of five unions and gone through four representation elections as an employee. I was also party to a number of union elections as a union staff organizer. And later, in my capacity as an organizing director, I trained organizing apprentices on what to say and not say to workers during a union campaign and how to agitate around workplace issues. Now I proudly work as a labor consultant, educating workers during union elections on the laws, their rights, the collective bargaining process and the public record of the union that is asking for their vote. In 2002, I played a central role in organizing a union in my store while an employee of Borders Books. We didn’t know to research the union we were joining. We had no sense how collective bargaining actually works. We placed all our faith in the union organizer and we understood so little about unionization it was beyond our scope to even know the right questions to ask him. (And those who did challenge him were quickly ostracized and no longer invited to our meetings.) I assure you the majority of us voted union believing we were somehow sending a message, not entering into a legally binding representational arrangement. And we were well-educated booksellers in Michigan, many from union families. In my experience as a union organizer it is not unusual for an electorate to be so poorly informed on unionization as to effect their free and fair choice. This is particularly true for unskilled and less educated workers unless the employer (because the union will not) offers fact-based information on unionization during an election campaign. In the public meetings held on the proposed changes, unions brought in activist members to speak, supposedly to provide the perspective of American workers in this debate. As a former union organizing director I know the criteria I would have set for those speakers: must be utterly faithful to the union’s leadership; must have a “compelling story”; must have no history of asking difficult questions; must have an experience that fits the script and be capable of memorizing and delivering it. I write you on the behalf of those workers who unions won’t bus to Washington and who cannot be trusted to follow a union script, and who don’t have an outlier story that suits the union narrative. I ask you to seek out and consider the opinions of those Americans who stand to be most impacted by your decision going forward, workers who may one day find themselves in an NLRB election campaign in their workplace that they never asked for. Before making this decision, the Board should seek the opinions of the potential undecided or “3” in future union campaigns, including those who would sign a card truly only to get more information. Survey non-unionized American workers who fall under the NLRA and ask:
- Were a union to attempt to organize your workplace, should your employer to be required to give that union your personal cell phone number? Your personal email? Your work email?
- If your workplace was going to vote on a union would you prefer more or less than ten days in which to make your decision?
- If faced with a union vote, would you prefer to cast that vote with more or less information? Would you prefer access to information only from the union, only from your employer, or both?
- Do you feel capable of voting only in your own best interest in a secret ballot election, even if your employer strongly opposes unionization?
- Before you vote for a union, would you want to see that union’s financial filings? Charges brought against it by other members? The union’s strike history?
- Before voting on a union would you like to fully understand what a union contract can and cannot do?
- Before voting, do you think it would be important for you and your co-workers to fully understand the legal process for removing a union?
- Can you imagine a scenario in which your coworkers would vote impulsively for union representation and for emotional reasons that might resolve over time and with more information?
When a union files a show of interest it is just exactly that – a show of interest, not a statement of intent. And it should be expected that if workers obtain information from both the union and their employer a significant percentage would decide a union is not in right for them. It would seem there are those who would overhaul the current election process only because it allows time for workers to change their minds. Again, I would call upon the Board to go directly to American workers who fall under the Act and survey them to best understand the impact the proposed changes would have on their free and informed choice. Most sincerely, Nancy Jowske
