the National Right to Work Foundation propaganda

viral2010 · Aug 27, 2010

what is a "neutrality agreement" and how does it affect workers?

a 'neutrality agreement" is a contract between a union and an employer under which the employer agrees to support a union's attempt to organize its workforce. although these agreements come in several different forms, common provisions include:

gag rule: while most neutrality agreements purport to merely require an employer to remain 'neutral," in reality they impose a gag order on speech not favorable to the union. a company, including its managers and supervisors, are prohibited from saying anything negative about the union or unionization during an organizing drive. employees are only permitted to hear one side of the story: the version the union officials want employees to hear.
no secret ballot election: most neutrality agreements include a "card check" agreement. under such an agreement, employees are not permitted to vote on union representation in a secret ballot election monitored by the national labor relations board (nlrb). instead, the employer pledges to recognize the union automatically if a certain number of signed union authorization cards are collected. experience shows that many employees are coerced or misled into signing these authorization cards, often being falsely told that they are merely health insurance enrollment forms, non-binding "statements of interest," requests for an election, or even tax forms.
access to premises: neutrality agreements commonly give the union permission to come on company property during work hours for the purpose of collecting union authorization cards. this differs from the guidelines set by the nlrb and the courts, under which an employer has no obligation to, and may actually be prohibited from, providing the union with such sweeping access to its employees.
access to personal information: neutrality agreements frequently require that the company provide personal information about employees to the union, including where employees and their families live. armed with a company-provided list of the names and addresses of each employee, union officials can conduct home visits to pressure employees to sign union authorization cards.
captive audience speeches: employees may be forced to attend company-paid "captive audience" speeches pursuant to neutrality agreements. in these mandatory forums, the union and management work together to pressure employees to sign up for the union. sometimes it is announced that the union and company have already formed a 'strategic partnership," making union representation seem a foregone conclusion. in one facility owned by johnson controls inc., it was strongly implied that if workers did not support the union's organizing effort, they risked losing potential job opportunities. (a copy of the text of a captive audience speech is available by clicking here.)

employers are often pressured into neutrality agreements by union picketing, threats, or comprehensive "corporate campaigns." some employers are pressured into neutrality agreements by other companies who are acting at the behest of union officials. a neutrality agreement itself may require an employer to impose the neutrality agreement on other companies with whom it affiliates.

even more ominous, there is a growing trend in which state and local politicians pass laws mandating that employers who wish to do business with the state or locality must sign neutrality agreements. in one notorious case, the san francisco airport authority mandated that any concessionaires who wished to lease space at the airport had to first sign a neutrality agreement. that governmental interference in private labor relations was held to be federally preempted, and was enjoined, in aeroground, inc. v. city & county of san francisco, 170 f. supp. 2d 950 (n.d. cal. 2001). unfortunately, many politicians are still attempting to require neutrality agreements as a condition of contracting with the government or of obtaining grants, even though most, if not all, such requirements are unlawful under federal law.

the bottom line is this: employees' rights of free choice are sacrificed and lost under so-called 'neutrality agreements." instead of being able to freely choose for themselves whether they desire union representation through a secret ballot election, management and union officials work together to impose unionization on workers from the top down.

the foundation has established a neutrality task force to help employees who find themselves forced (or potentially forced) into unwanted union representation as a result of these devices. the foundation stands ready, willing and able to help employees who are victims or potential victims of these schemes. workers who wish to request legal assistance may write us, call us toll-free at 800-336-3600, or send an e-mail message to [email protected].

nicurn001 · Aug 27, 2010

Viral2010 As in previous threads , I have stated my belief in the power of the ballot box , if indeed a union is given bargaining rights as described by card check alone , then as the law stands I would expect that those opposed to the union would use the NLRB and any other legal course to challenge the imposition of the union upon them . I can only go upon my experience of the use of neutrality agreements , which worked as I have already stated .

I would be grateful if you could point to some actual examples of where a neutrality agreement was used to impose a union upon a group of workers , where the union came to represent them solely after a card check and say if that was challenged and the outcome of that challenge .

As I see it , as long as the union comes to represent the workers within the legal frame work we have at present , then I am happy . If however the union comes into being outside of the present legal framework , I would accept the outcome of any legal proceeding undertaken by opponents .

Chico David, BSN, RN · Aug 28, 2010

what is a "neutrality agreement" and how does it affect workers?
a 'neutrality agreement" is a contract between a union and an employer under which the employer agrees to support a union's attempt to organize its workforce. although these agreements come in several different forms, common provisions include:
gag rule: while most neutrality agreements purport to merely require an employer to remain 'neutral," in reality they impose a gag order on speech not favorable to the union. a company, including its managers and supervisors, are prohibited from saying anything negative about the union or unionization during an organizing drive. employees are only permitted to hear one side of the story: the version the union officials want employees to hear.
no secret ballot election: most neutrality agreements include a "card check" agreement. under such an agreement, employees are not permitted to vote on union representation in a secret ballot election monitored by the national labor relations board (nlrb). instead, the employer pledges to recognize the union automatically if a certain number of signed union authorization cards are collected. experience shows that many employees are coerced or misled into signing these authorization cards, often being falsely told that they are merely health insurance enrollment forms, non-binding "statements of interest," requests for an election, or even tax forms.
access to premises: neutrality agreements commonly give the union permission to come on company property during work hours for the purpose of collecting union authorization cards. this differs from the guidelines set by the nlrb and the courts, under which an employer has no obligation to, and may actually be prohibited from, providing the union with such sweeping access to its employees.
access to personal information: neutrality agreements frequently require that the company provide personal information about employees to the union, including where employees and their families live. armed with a company-provided list of the names and addresses of each employee, union officials can conduct home visits to pressure employees to sign union authorization cards.
captive audience speeches: employees may be forced to attend company-paid "captive audience" speeches pursuant to neutrality agreements. in these mandatory forums, the union and management work together to pressure employees to sign up for the union. sometimes it is announced that the union and company have already formed a 'strategic partnership," making union representation seem a foregone conclusion. in one facility owned by johnson controls inc., it was strongly implied that if workers did not support the union's organizing effort, they risked losing potential job opportunities. (a copy of the text of a captive audience speech is available by clicking here.)
employers are often pressured into neutrality agreements by union picketing, threats, or comprehensive "corporate campaigns." some employers are pressured into neutrality agreements by other companies who are acting at the behest of union officials. a neutrality agreement itself may require an employer to impose the neutrality agreement on other companies with whom it affiliates.
even more ominous, there is a growing trend in which state and local politicians pass laws mandating that employers who wish to do business with the state or locality must sign neutrality agreements. in one notorious case, the san francisco airport authority mandated that any concessionaires who wished to lease space at the airport had to first sign a neutrality agreement. that governmental interference in private labor relations was held to be federally preempted, and was enjoined, in aeroground, inc. v. city & county of san francisco, 170 f. supp. 2d 950 (n.d. cal. 2001). unfortunately, many politicians are still attempting to require neutrality agreements as a condition of contracting with the government or of obtaining grants, even though most, if not all, such requirements are unlawful under federal law.
the bottom line is this: employees' rights of free choice are sacrificed and lost under so-called 'neutrality agreements." instead of being able to freely choose for themselves whether they desire union representation through a secret ballot election, management and union officials work together to impose unionization on workers from the top down.
the foundation has established a neutrality task force to help employees who find themselves forced (or potentially forced) into unwanted union representation as a result of these devices. the foundation stands ready, willing and able to help employees who are victims or potential victims of these schemes. workers who wish to request legal assistance may write us, call us toll-free at 800-336-3600, or send an e-mail message to [email protected].

actually, every single piece of the above is false.

i am participating as a volunteer in an organizing drive right now under an election procedures agreement that is fairly typical of such agreements and has nothing in common with the imaginary description above.

both sides get to campaign under such an agreement, but under rules that limit both sides in what they can do and say. the goal is to allow nurses to have access to information from both sides, but under rules that limit the acrimony and allow the election to take place in a calm and mutually respectful atmosphere. management is prevented from bringing in the kind of professional union busters that are often brought in to terrorize nurses into voting no. the union has limited access to the facility - in the case of the agreement we are operating under right now, each side gets to screen the other's literature, each side is limited in the amount of literature they can put out. there is an expedited arbitration procedure to settle disputes about the implementation of the agreement. at the end of a prescribed period there will be a standard secret ballot election, supervised by the nlrb, a federal agency. this is the case in all of the elections i've been around.

under the agreement that i am involved with right now, the union has access to one small conference room at the hospital during certain hours, where nurses may choose to visit if they wish to obtain information. the union does have nurses addresses so that information can be mailed, but the agreement bans home visits. there are no captive audience meetings of any sort by either side. there are never such meetings for the union in any election, though in standard elections they are a normal part of the anti union campaign.

the idea that management campaigns for the union under such agreements is absurd. they are limited in what they can do in their anti campaign, just as the union is limited in what it can do or say under the agreement, but management definitely still campaigns against.