Skip to main content

In 1967, the Supreme Court decided a case called NLRB v. C & C Plywood.  Its principle has become a foundation of fair collective bargaining.  But this week, the House will vote on an amendment to the National Labor Relations Act which will undo the principle entirely.  And the proposed change is stealthy—it doesn’t mention that its purpose is to undermine both the case and the portion of the statute which forces good faith bargaining on both management and the union.  And it’s deceptive in its appeal.

In an April 20 article in The Hill , Indiana GOP Congressman Todd Rokita explained the amendment’s purpose:  

More than 8 million Americans are now prohibited from ever getting a performance-based raise, no matter how well they do their jobs," he said. "We can't expect American businesses to be competitive in a globalized economy under a system that forbids individual raises and discourages hard work.
Well!  [sarcasm on]  Here’s a wrong which needs immediate correction!  And Congressional action to do it! [/sarcasm off]  But look at how Rokita sells it: Good ole American effort deserves a bonus!  And those darn old unions are preventing deserving employees from getting it!  Plus, the bogeyman NLRB is complicit in this un-American wage limitation.

Boy!  If only any of this were true, Rokita might have a point.  But it’s not true.  And the main purpose behind this amendment is to sow discord among employees to encourage them to decertify the union.

Let’s look at the actual facts.  Section 8(a)(5) of the NLRA mandates an employer to bargain collectively in good faith, reach an agreement and embody its terms in a collective bargaining agreement, usually lasting several years.  Both the union and the employer are obligated to honor its terms, meaning that changing the deal unilaterally  (i.e., without the other party’s consent) violates that law.  Labor Board case fact patterns are widely varied, but there are a couple of issues which are sacred cows.  The first is that the union under Section 9(a) is the exclusive bargaining agent with whom the employer must deal when it comes to changes.  Another is that changes in wage levels, hours and terms and conditions of employment must be bargained through that agent—employers cannot skip the union and directly deal with its employees.  Lastly, an employer cannot make changes on its own.

C & C Plywood was the Supreme Court’s imprimatur upon those concepts.  The facts were pretty simple:  A new CBA had established various hourly wage scales for different job classifications in the plant.  Another clause allowed the employer to recognize excellent workmanship by permitting the employer to give a bonus to individual workers who had done something outstanding.  Shortly thereafter, the employer scrapped the job classification wage system and went to an incentivized system whereby the entire crew would get a higher level of pay if the crew as a whole reached a production level established by the company.

The Court held that the group incentive was not in compliance with the CBA, that a unilateral wage change had taken place and that it violated the NLRA.  It also said the new system was not what the parties had in mind under the bonus clause—that the bonus was to reward individual excellent workers.

Here’s Rokita’s proposed amendment to the NLRA:

Section 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act is amended by inserting the following language in Section 9(a):

“Notwithstanding a labor organization’s exclusive representation of employees in a unit, or the terms and conditions of any collective bargaining contract or agreement then in effect, … nothing in [the Act] shall prohibit an employer from paying an employee in the unit greater wages, pay or other compensation for, or by reason of, his or her services as an employee of such employer, than provided for in such contract or agreement.”

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that this is a license for an employer to do what C & C Plywood prohibited.  Beyond that, though is the question of why an employer wants to have the authority to grant wage increases on an ad hoc basis.        

I understand that there are employers who legitimately want to encourage increased production and want to offer a carrot to the workers who do best.  On the other hand, individual bonuses can lead to favoritism, disharmony and a divide-and-conquer strategy aimed at sparking a decertification movement.  (Employee: “Why can’t I get a raise like Jones?”  Boss: “The union says I can’t give bonuses to everyone.”  Employee:  “It’s the union’s fault?”  Boss:  “Yup.  The only way to get you a bonus is to get rid of the union.”  [The last is a bald-faced lie.]

As we have already seen in C & C Plywood, bonus provisions can be put into CBAs.  A union may or may not think bonus clauses are desirable.  In production line industries, bonuses may not really be feasible.  In intellectual industries, they may well be.  One thing is for sure:  a bonus clause can be negotiated.   And many CBAs have such clauses.  So Rokita is basically wrong about the need to modify the statute.  

So what is Rokita really doing?  Keep in mind that the GOP generally opposes regulation of private businesses.  Yet, this proposed amendment butts into the CBA that the company and the union have wrangled out.  So the amendment changes the dynamic and allows the company to disrupt the agreement based on its own motives.  And if the employer's motive is to sow discord, it can do so virtually free of any oversight—“Oh, we just thought that the anti-union employees deserved a bonus for their excellent workmanship.”   Uhhh…right….

Rokita said in The Hill his Rewarding Achievement and Incentivizing Successful Employees (RAISE) Act, H.R. 4385, would not affect existing union contracts but would allow individual pay hikes or bonuses in future contracts.

Sure, Congressman.  What a load of hooey!  You are trying to fix what ain’t broke in order to undermine a union’s representative status.  And you are doing it deceptively.  It has no purpose other than to reverse C & C Plywood in order to give employers a tool to defeat every union’s effort to negotiate a contract for the employees as a whole.

Rokita and his GOP cohorts should be called out and exposed.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Sweet Baby Jesus (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DRo, Renee, JeffW, Rejoinder, Dirtandiron

    Now I am freaking out. No matter where they are, they are always pulling a fast one, in a way that can't be explained without detailed analysis. It's always easier just to look at the surface and be satisfied, huh? Still, just because it passes the house, doesn't mean it's going to pass the Senate, right? And the President can still veto it, right?

  •  Just a comment on the title of the diary (7+ / 0-)

    There's nothing "stealth" about it.  The GOP has been quite overt about working to wipe out collective bargaining and unions since the Gilded Age.

    The test of whether we're willing to stand up to the thugs that wrote voter suppression laws is this: Are you willing to hold hands with someone that needs hand holding in order to qualify to vote?

    by Richard Cranium on Mon Apr 23, 2012 at 09:59:19 AM PDT

  •  It doesn't matter. Power only comes from (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rejoinder, joe wobblie

    organization, particularly with a credible threat to strike.  Unions are weak because they refuse to fight, trying to stick to a legal system that was never on their side.

    •  Actually it took a lot of work to destroy the NLRA (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      joe wobblie, Dirtandiron, brae70

      The NLRA as written is an amazing document. It sounds shockingly radical in its call for employee rights and support of unions as critical to the well being of our country.

      But as soon as it was written, the American Liberty League (headed by the DuPonts and other industrialists) tried to shut the NLRB down and gut the NLRA. They did pretty well at the first during the NLRA's first couple years - until the Supreme Court upheld its constitutionality.

      But then the ALL and its ilk went to work using the Supreme Court to "amend" the NLRA by judicial decision. In the next few years they "amended" and limited remedies and the definition of employee (which is important because only employees are protected by the NLRA). The NLRA protects employees as a class - without regard to whether they stand in the proximate relationship of employee and employer.

      And there's more of the same year after year.

      It's time people who care about justice and equality stood up and fought to take the NLRA back.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site