|
|
|
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
in article , Michael Legel
at wrote on 06/14/2004 1:33 AM:
> I had assumed you were living in the U.S. My mistake. The U.S., where I
> live, is not "a free society". There are numerous laws which prevent an
> employer from going outside a union contract to fire an employee. My employer
> is not "free" to fire anyone on a whim ... it is not an "open market" ... both
> sides have agreed to abide by a contract under law which clearly states how
> and why people are hired and fired.
Actually, Michael, you're in my opinion being just a bit "too fair."
I say that in response to your statement that employers are restricted by
numerous laws from firing. I don't wish to be argumentative, but that's
just not the case.
In fact, there are relatively FEW laws that prevent employers from firing
employees. Whether on a whim or not.
An employer is prevented by just a few statutes from firing whoever he
wants, for whatever reason he wants. There is an old axiom that is still
used in labor law. It reads, "An employer is free to discipline an
employee, including by discharge, for a good reason, a bad reason, or no
reason at all." No kiddin'! That's still pretty much the law.
The NLRA has for nearly 70 years made it illegal for an employer to
discriminate agianst or discipline, including discharge, an employee for the
reason that the employees has engaged in union activities, or has pro-union
activities, leanings or sympathies, or has engaged in other concerted,
protected activities. But, an employer can discharge an employee for
virtually any other reason that he cares to, at any time, and will not be
held to have violated the law.
Generally speaking, the few other exceptions that lend support to employees
against discrimination by an employer involve such matters as racial
discrimination, sexual harrassment, retaliation against employees who give
testimony in labor law cases, and the like.
All in all, there's not many.
The mere fact that an employee is in a union will not shield him from being
fired. No, instead, whatever protection most workers get from unfair
discharge or other discipline is derived from the terms of their collective
bargaining agreement with the employer.
Such agreements commonly require that the employer's discipline not be
arbitrary or disproportionate, etc. They commonly provide for a procedure
to discuss any grievances of employees over issues of discipline, and
frequently provide that, (in the event that the employer and the union are
unable to reach an agreement concerning the matter), then the matter will be
decided by an arbitrator who is selected by _both_ sides. Then, if the
employer refuses to abide by the decision of the arbitrator, the union can
take that decision into a Federal court and have it enforced if it seems
fair and regular on its face.
It is common to hear a lot about how unions keep employers from enforcing
work rules or fair discipline. That's just nonsense. No matter how strong
a union's contract is, an employer retains the authority to discipline
employees who engage in misconduct. Indeed, it is the norm for collective
bargaining agreements to explicitly provide that in the case of certain
egregious actions by employees, (such as drinking on the job, fighting on
the job, stealing or other illegal or dishonest activities on the job,
revealing the employer's trade secrets, and the like), an employee may be
discharged instantly, without even going through the lower stages of the
contractually agreed upon grievance procedure.
So, please forgive me for simply responding to those who routinely whine
about how an employer loses the right to run his business when a union is
selected by his employees. It's simply not true.
I don't deny that some employers do lose control. But, not the savvy ones.
HH
|