NLRB Ruling Undermines Workers’ Freedom to Form a Union
October 10, 2006
October 10, 2006
Pres. Gerald W. McEntee blasted the National Labor Relations Board’s decision to grant private-sector employers “a license to deprive millions of workers of their freedom to form a union” by too-broadly defining what it means to be a supervisor.
“The American labor movement has built its reputation on improving the lives of countless workers and will not silently stand by and let the NLRB hand over workers’ rights to opportunistic employers without a fight,” McEntee declared. He said the ruling, published October 3, will motivate workers “like never before” to elect lawmakers in November “who will insist that nominees to the NLRB be fair and impartial and ultimately get this decision reversed.”
Because the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act bars supervisors from joining a union, the NLRB’s decision – expanding the definition of supervisor – could strip collective bargaining rights of potentially millions of workers in a variety of occupations who periodically instruct their co-workers, including those in the construction industry and nursing. Even existing union members could lose their voice in the workplace. Without union protections, workers can be disciplined – even fired – if they speak out.
As many as 843,000 registered nurses nationwide – and more than 100,000 licensed practical nurses – could be affected by the ruling, according to the Economic Policy Institute (EPI). AFSCME represents more than 60,000 nurses in 35 states and the District of Columbia. Many are fearful of what the decision means for patient care. Kathy Sackman, RN, an International vice president and president of AFSCME affiliate United Nurses Associations of California (UNAC)/UHCP/NUHHCE, said that the NLRB’s judgment “gives management the right to challenge collective bargaining agreements.” That’s why UNAC negotiated contracts to ensure that their members were protected “from this Draconian decision.”
Consequently, she explained, about 5,000 members employed by Kaiser Permanente in Southern California are currently protected and will be as long as their contract is valid. Another 8,000 nurses are not so lucky. “We have to work to gain protection for them,” she noted.
Hundreds of UNAC/UHCP members sent e-mails to their members of Congress, asking them to urge the NLRB to hold oral arguments on the issue. The board refused their pleas. Several UNAC members decried the NLRB’s finding:
“This is not just an attack on nursing; it’s an attack on health care,” said Scott Byington, RN, who works at St. Francis Medical Center in Lynwood, Calif. “If we lose our voice, we can’t stand up for our patients,” added Californian Ann Beilby, RN, another UNAC member who works at Bear Valley Community Hospital at Big Bear Lake. “It’s only through the union that we have a strong voice.”
The EPI estimates that more than 200 occupations are likely to be affected by the decision, including cooks and chefs, secretaries, accountants and auditors, electricians, social workers, cashiers, bookkeepers and office clerks.
NLRB press release
NLRB key ruling
