Pro: Unions attract new businesses; Con: Unions repel new businesses

The Post-Dispatch ran this interesting debate on Sunday.  Check out our own Paul Rainsberger.

By Steve Giegerich
Like his father before him, Dan O'Leary is a union man — 23 years a member in good standing of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1 in St. Louis.

Each day, countless people benefit from O'Leary's labor as an electrical tradesman whenever they trip a light switch in buildings at Washington University, the Barnes-Jewish health complex and other facilities throughout the region.

By taking advantage of the training facility that keeps Local 1 members in tune with the transition of electrical technology to the era of sustainable energy, O'Leary personifies the highly trained work force leaders tout as a major asset in the bid to lure businesses and industries capable of providing quality jobs to the region.

He also represents a critical question hovering over regional economic development efforts to lure 21st-century industry to St. Louis: Will potential employers view O'Leary and the 120,000 other members of organized labor in the region as a resource? Or a liability?

"Unions have the potential to be helpful to workers, firms and the general public," said University of Missouri-St. Louis economist William Rogers. "But unions have to be focused on improving workers' productivity. If unions are focused on extracting profits from firms and protecting workers from foreign competition, then unions will both be harmful to firms and the general public."

The question: Are unions making that transition?

Stephen Schoemehl, business manager of IBEW Local 1, says unions may edge wages up, but they bring training and dependable expertise. Rick Hafer, chairman of the Department of Economics and Finance at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville, says unions generate a "competitive disadvantage" if they're aimed only at negotiating better pay and benefits.

MEMBERSHIP DROP

Whatever the answer, union membership has dropped. Officials estimate the decline in core manufacturing has depleted the ranks of labor in St. Louis by approximately 10,000 members in the past decade.

But there is no argument that unions continue to be a powerful presence in workplaces, communities and polling places throughout the region.

Representing Teamsters, musicians, sheet metal workers and 21 other organizations, the St. Louis Labor Council currently boasts a membership of 80,000. An additional 40,000 workers are associated with unaffiliated unions, bringing the total area work force represented by organized labor to 20 percent. The national average is 12 percent.

When St. Louis Labor Council president Bob Soutier looks at the 120,000 area residents currently holding a union card, he sees a drawing card for future economic development.

Others see organized labor as a relic that has failed to keep pace with the economic realities of 21st-century business and employment.

Finally, a significant number of people in the economic development field view unions as a serious impediment to regional growth.

Mark Sweeney, a "location consultant" for corporations investigating expansion strategies in states and regions across the country, has a seat at that table.

Sweeney acknowledges that a significant number of corporations conducting business with his firm, McCallum Sweeney Consulting in Greenville, S.C., have no interest in dealing with the higher costs and workplace issues associated — unfairly or not — with organized labor.

"The overwhelming majority of clients on our client list start out with the objective of operating in a nonunion facility," said Sweeney, who has worked in economic development for 20 years.

TAGGED A UNION TOWN

The director of the Simon Center for Regional Economics at St. Louis University, Jack Strauss is arguably the area's foremost authority on local matters regarding business, economic development and job growth.

His vantage point may be slightly different from Sweeney's, but his assessment is equally blunt.

"The tag of St. Louis being a union town has hurt firms from coming in," said Strauss, making a point to single out organized labor for improving the quality of life across the region.

To make his point, Strauss cited the 1986 opening of a Toyota assembly line in Georgetown, Ky., and the decision by BMW, in the early 1990s, to open an assembly plant in Spartanburg, S.C. Both plants are situated in right-to-work states that prohibit union membership as a condition of employment.

Greg LeRoy, the executive director of Good Jobs First, a Washington-based advocate for solid economic growth, counters that foreign auto companies also established a presence in the 1980s in the traditional big labor states of Ohio (Honda), Indiana (Subaru) and Illinois (Mitsubishi).

LeRoy also dismisses the notion that fear of labor unrest drives businesses away from unionized states. In 2009, he points out, unions staged a grand total of five major strikes across the United States — the lowest in years.

"The day in which you could argue that unions deter capital investment are long gone," LeRoy argues. "Because strike activity is down."

'WELL-RUN, REASONABLE'

Even in the days when work stoppages were more commonplace, St. Louis labor coalitions were more inclined than their counterparts in New York and other cities to resolve disputes through negotiations rather than job actions, said Philip Dine, the author of "State of the Unions: How Labor Can Strengthen the Middle Class, Improve Our Economy, and Regain Political Influence" and a former Washington correspondent with the Post-Dispatch.

"They have a reputation for being well-run and reasonable," said Dine.

Even so, there is a risk that gains in regional economic development, when linked to a strong union presence, might wind up collaterally damaged by the broader public perception of unions.

That image is less than positive: In February, the Pew Research Center for People and the Press interviewed 1,400 adults and found only 41 percent of looked favorably upon organized labor, the lowest percentage since 1985.

Unfortunately for St. Louis, the movers and shakers who make decisions about location tend to agree with the general public.

The annual corporate survey by Area Development — a magazine that covers "corporate site selection and location" — determined that three out of four companies say they look for a "low union profile" in weighing whether to expand operations to a new city or state. But that factor ranked only 11th among 26 others, including labor costs, highway accessibility and tax exemptions.

COST OF BUSINESS

The findings are consistent with Ken Jacobs' assessment of where organized labor fits in the economic development equation.

The chair of the Center for Labor Research and Education at the University of California at Berkeley, he says a number of factors such as access to transportation and energy costs generally overshadow concerns over the presence of organized labor when businesses look to move.

Ultimately, said SIUE's Hafer, relocation decisions hang on a single factor.

"Unions do lots of good things to protect their employees" and elevate the standard of living, he points out. "But that raises the cost of business. And in this environment, anything that raises the cost of business probably means the business will go elsewhere."

Paul Rainsberger, director of the Missouri Labor Extension Education Program at the University of Missouri-Columbia, disagrees, contending that a well-trained, skilled work force pays for itself in terms of quality and services delivered.

Companies that opt for the other path do so at their own risk, Rainsberger cautioned.

"I don't think society benefits from the race to the bottom," said Rainsberger. "Just because something (can be produced) cheaper, doesn't necessarily mean it's better."

Nor, Jacobs added, does nonunion labor automatically translate into less-expensive labor. Some corporations view a skilled work force trained by a union as a viable and cost-saving alternative to a company's training employees in-house, Jacobs said. Training by labor organizations, he explained, also reduces costs assumed by companies that prepare workers for a specific task, only to watch them jump to a competitor.

"One thing unions do well is reduce turnover," he said. "And in doing so, they increase the incentives for firms because they hold on to workers."

ADJUSTING TO CHANGE

Sweeney, the South Carolina location consultant, points to another side of the training calculus.

Right-to-work states, he said, often dangle the incentive of publicly subsidized training programs at community colleges and other work force development centers in front of prospective businesses.

Whichever source provides training for St. Louis workers of the future, there is general agreement that the payroll checks due employees in a post-heavy manufacturing economy will come primarily from the service sector.

And the dominant sector in terms of local employment now and in the future is one that has been historically resistant to union organizing — health care.

California, Ohio and some pockets of the Northeast are starting to see nurses organize, say Jacobs and other sources.

But they agree with Soutier that the movement has yet to gravitate to the middle part of the country.

If unions do move into the local health care sector, Rainsberger foresees the bulk of the organizing taking place in extended-care centers and other medical facilities with a reputation for long hours, low pay and substandard working conditions.

Those are the working conditions the labor movement initially rose to combat. Still, UMSL's Rogers argues that organized labor has basically achieved the core principles that dictated the birth of the movement in the 1920s and 1930s — primarily providing members with livable wages along with adequate and safe working conditions. Now, he contends, the time may be ripe for unions to turn the focus on improving quality in the companies that provide their members with paychecks.

Rainsberger adds the evolution of the American economy — and the work force needed to drive it — to Rogers' argument.

"Organized labor needs to adjust to changes in the economy," he said. "And a big part of that is having relevance to emerging jobs and not just hanging on to the ones that are disappearing."

Delta Flight Attendants Vote 98% For Union -- And Lose

Delta Airlines is the only choice if you want to fly out of Columbia Regional.  There are two things that are troubling about the recent union representation election for flight attendants at Delta.  First is management's disgusting and possibly illegal behavior.  The second is the crazy law that requires the union to get a majority of everyone in the unit, rather than a majority of those voting.  The United States would have great difficulty electing everything from school board members to the president if election law was as nuts as the Railway Labor Act.  It is well past time to bring the RLA in line with modern democratic practices.
From Labor Notesby Rodney Ward
Fifty Delta Airlines flight attendants gathered with members and organizers from the Association of Flight Attendants at the National Mediation Board (NMB) February 1, to witness the vote count for their union representation election. The vote capped a four-year campaign among Delta’s 19,033 flight attendants. It was the largest private sector union election in over 30 years and the largest in the history of the Railway Labor Act (RLA).

In the face of massive company interference and an anti-union campaign that played upon post-September 11 fears and trauma, AFA President Patricia Friend warned ahead of time that pre-count vote assessments bode poorly. Flight attendants and supporters watched quietly as the NMB counted the orange ballots. Finally the count was in: 5,520 for AFA, 89 for other unions, and 36 voided ballots, for a total of 5,609 votes in favor of representation (remarkably close to AFA’s pre-count assessments).

Though 98 percent of the ballots cast were pro-union, they represented 29.5 percent of all eligible Delta flight attendants. Under the RLA, ballots contain only one choice: “Yes” for union representation. Any flight attendant who does not send in a ballot is counted effectively as a “No” vote because RLA rules require a union to receive 50 percent + 1 of eligible votes. This election had not reached the required threshold of 9,517 votes.

Delta management representatives eagerly signed paperwork acknowledging the results, but Friend declined, calling the election invalid due to an enormous and illegal interference campaign by Delta management. Defiantly, Delta flight attendants and supporters broke out with chants of “Union Yes!” and “Shame on You!” (to Delta management).

ILLEGAL INTERFERENCE

As flight attendants and AFA members and staff met to discuss the results and the next steps, the NMB announced that it would open an investigation into charges of illegal interference by Delta management. AFA filed interference charges September 6 (adding more charges February 11, 2002), and the NMB had ruled that enough evidence existed for an investigation (though not pre-balloting measures).

Management engaged in a comprehensive campaign of interference, including formation of a company-dominated fake union (“The Forum”) and post-9/11 fear mongering with statements like “We can’t even think about a union right now. We have to save Delta!” Atlanta-based John Jablonski explained, “Delta illegally interfered with our rights as American workers before the terrorist attacks. But that pales in comparison to management’s exploitation of our national tragedy.”

Management urged flight attendants to tear up their ballots, barraging them with “Give It a Rip” posters and computer wallpaper (although, internally, management referred to those who destroyed their ballots as their “kitchen help”). Anti-union videos, captive meetings, and phone conferences were all part of the campaign. By the end of the voting period, the company (assisted by a 60 percent increase in frontline supervisors) had belabored talk of the union so much that flight attendants were often sick of talking about it by the time union supporters tried to discuss it with them. Many of those who failed to mail in their ballots were simply unsure how to vote. Unfortunately, they counted as “No’s.”

The NMB expressed strong concern, particularly over the company union, and may make a decision within a couple of months. If they call a second election just like the last one, AFA is unlikely to go ahead, as the results would likely be the same. A more fair remedy would be to invoke a “Laker ballot” (named for election violations by Laker Air in the 1960s): Balloting would resemble an NLRB election with a Yes/No ballot.

Unfortunately, the NMB has no authority to sanction management against further interference, and Delta is likely to delay a new election in court. The NMB also answers directly to the White House and no matter how strong legal arguments are, politics will play a part.

At the post vote-count meeting, activists and union leaders made clear that even a Laker ballot will not mean a shoe-in. The organizing committee at Delta will need to be much larger than the first time around for flight attendants to succeed in challenging management’s inevitable interference. Also, AFA resources and those of the rest of the labor movement will need to be focused upon this campaign like never before. Delta flight attendants were to meet again February 13 i Atlanta to discuss the future of their campaign.

LIFE HAS CHANGED

Wherever the road leads next for flight attendants, it is clear life will be different at Delta. When half a dozen flight attendants first started working with a United attendant to build the beginnings of a campaign, Delta management controlled information in the workplace. Flight attendants were spoon-fed what management wanted them to hear. Over time, AFA organizing has broken down the carefully built walls against communication. A network of pro-union Delta flight attendants exists with a relationship to union flight attendants at other airlines.

Fearing a pro-union vote, management has gone to great lengths to generally keep pace with union carriers. Even anti-union flight attendants appreciate the changes brought by the AFA campaign: Susan Nolan of Atlanta told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution: “The best circumstance for Delta is the threat of the union. That makes the company very attentive.” Unfortunately for her, that threat won’t stick around if Delta flight attendants aren’t successful in winning the hoped-for next round.

Nonetheless, 5,609 flight attendants had the courage to stand up to the “Give It a Rip” campaign, the company fear videos, and post 9-11 corporate opportunism. In Friend’s words, “We’ve shone a light on their conditions and how much better they could be. We’ve built a strong network of leaders.”

GO FOR THE BIG ONES

What lessons will the AFA and other unions draw? Some, skeptical of the entire effort, already point to the loss as evidence that such risky organizing endeavors are a hopeless waste of union resources. After all, AFA was a union of about 50,000 members (only 36,000 of whom are working), taking on an organizing drive of almost 20,000 flight attendants. It’s argued that in the midst of layoffs and industry restructuring, member dues would be better spent looking after existing members. And after all, even larger unions, with over a million members, rarely take on organizing drives larger than a few hundred workers!

“Certainly this was an enormous challenge, but somebody had to do it. This is a big anti-union company based in the South and a win would’ve sent a message to Walmart, Coca Cola, and all the other brand names that have prevented workers from having this sort of voice,” argued Friend. Eighty-eight percent of flight attendants are unionized. With Delta, 98 percent of the industry would be organized, translating into the power that comes with virtual wall-to-wall unionization. Airline executives could no longer hold Delta up as a shining example of management flexibility, and flight attendants would be much better positioned to challenge the airlines on issues ranging from safety to industry restructuring.

The audacity of Delta flight attendants and AFA to take on the third largest airline in the U.S. underscores the challenge that has faced the entire labor movement during its decline in size over the past few decades. Labor must take the risks, step up to the plate and organize not in groups of 20 and 50 workers, but in groups of thousands. If we can learn to win by the thousands, the small shops will follow.

Rodney Ward is an AFA member and laid-off US Airways flight attendant

From our friends at Missouri Jobs with Justice comes a little warning about the petitions that those paid canvassers outside the polling places on April 6 will be asking you to sign.  Don't sign!  Click the link to your left for more information.

Don't Sign the Petition to Eliminate the Earnings Tax

Get the FACTS about the Initiative to eliminate the St. Louis and Kansas City Earnings Tax. Visitwww.unitedformissourispriorities.org
to find out more about the initiative and how you can help prevent drastic cuts in vital city services.

Thank President Obama for his Support

We don't often thank our elected leaders when they do something good - like almost never!  So take a minute to send an email thank you card to President Obama for appointing two union supporters to the NLRB.

President Obama took a stand for America's workers. Send Obama a thank you card, and tell him to keep up the fight. WOW. First President Obama and Congress passed healthcare reform. And then, just this weekend,President Obama took another strong stand for working families. He filled much-needed vacancies on the National Labor Relations board (NLRB) – the agency tasked with protecting workers' rights. So we're putting together a thank you card, to show the president our appreciation. Will you add your name? Send a thank you card to President Obama and encourage him to keep the momentum going for working families. Obama's nominees – Craig Becker and Mark Pearce – are well respected and highly qualified labor lawyers who should have been confirmed months ago. But corporate front groups – including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce – worked nonstop to block the appointments from coming to an up-or-down vote in the Senate.1 President Obama knew working people couldn't afford to wait any longer for the Labor Board to get to work. So he used his executive power to help the NLRB tackle its backlog of critical cases, making "recess appointments" when Congress left town. "I must act in the interest of the American people and exercise my authority to fill these positions," he said, "...I simply cannot allow partisan politics to stand in the way of the basic functioning of government." Click here and send a thank you card TODAY. It's an easy way to say "thanks for standing up for America's workers." Healthcare reform and these NLRB appointments are critical steps that will make a huge difference for millions of workers. But powerful anti-union lobbyists and corporate front groups will continue to fight every step that President Obama takes to help working families. That's why it's so important to show President Obama these actions have our support. Send a thank you card and tell Obama to keep up the fight. Thanks for all you do for workers' rights, Manny, Liz and the American Rights at Work team P.S. Here's what our thank you card looks like: 1http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-23/business-groups-urge-obama-against-naming-becker-to-labor-board.html

VOTE “NO” ON UNWORKABLE MSTA ANTI-BARGAINING AMENDMENT

The Missouri State Teacher's Association continues to try to divide teachers by pushing an anti-bargaining bill in Jefferson City.  Let your representative know that all employees deserve real collective bargaining by clicking the link below.

Missouri NEA Special Legislative Update
Week 12, March 29, 2010
By Otto Fajen
MNEA Legislative Director

The House is likely to debate and vote on an amendment to HB 1543 (Maynard Wallace) to add HB 1905 (Kevin Wilson), the MSTA anti-bargaining bill for teachers on the afternoon of Monday, March 29. The language would still prevent K-12 teachers from having the same right as other public employees to elect an exclusive bargaining representative.
The bill imposes on teachers an untested, unworkable process that would interfere with existing representation, relationships and bargained agreements in districts throughout Missouri and divide existing units that include more than just teachers. This harmful bill will lead to litigation against the state and leave school districts on the hook for designing a process to elect bargaining representation.
The Association strongly opposes HB 1905. An effective bargaining process must have a unified employee voice that can effectively reach an agreement. MNEA supports legislation that would treat all public employees fairly and that is built on broad consensus among public employee groups and public employers. An effective bargaining law must ultimately provide for exclusive bargaining representation, a clear duty for both employees and employers to bargain in good faith, binding agreements with a clear ratification process and a fair process to resolve impasse and grievances.
ACTION NEEDED: Your help is needed. If you haven't already done so, please call, write or e-mail to urge your state representative to oppose Rep. Kevin Wilson's amendment to add HB 1905, the teacher anti-bargaining bill, to HB 1543 (Maynard Wallace). The following link will connect you to the MNEA Legislative Action Center Action Alert on Rep. Wilson's anti-bargaining amendment on HB 1543. The Action Alert contains a brief summary and an editable message box to help you send an email to your state representative on the issue.
http://www.capwiz.com/nea/mo/issues/alert/?alertid=14869721&type=ST