Time to Plant Seeds for Labor Law Reform

America’s unions may make a few legislative gains when their traditional allies, the Democrats, who already have a majority in the House, take control of the Senate next month. But their chances of getting meaningful labor law reform are so negligible that they won’t even try.

Nevertheless, this country and its unions need a major overhaul of labor laws to help workers cope with increasingly callous corporations and also to encourage more cooperation between labor and management.

The basic obstacle to reform is the unrelenting opposition to unions of most employers and Republicans--and many Democrats. That opposition was colorfully enunciated shortly after the American Federation of Labor was founded on Dec. 6, 1886.

The then prominent industrialist George Baer gave his firm view of union “agitators” when he declaimed:

“The rights and interests of the laboring man will be protected and cared for not by the labor agitators but by the Christian men to whom God in his infinite wisdom has given the control of the property interests of this country.”

That unequivocating opinion of “Divine Rights” Baer has been tempered substantially over the years. Those opposed to the growth of unions these days rely much less on God and more on their own political influence, even in a Democratic-controlled Congress.

Meanwhile, there are signs that unions are beginning to do more on their own to attract new members to build their strength. In recent months, the AFL-CIO, under its president, Lane Kirkland, has started a series of programs aimed at bringing more unity to an often divided, complacent labor movement.

Significantly, unions in Canada face many of the same problems plaguing U.S. unions. But labor’s strength in the two countries is startlingly different, even though nearly 40% of Canada’s union members belong to unions that are affiliated with labor organizations south of the border--and so share much of the same leadership.

In Canada, 40% of non-farm workers are union members, compared to 18% in this country. And the essential reason for the dramatic difference is legislation.

Even mild reforms to make U.S. labor laws more comparable to Canada’s are almost impossible now. The last big push by U.S. unions for labor law changes was made in 1977-78, when there were 61 Democrats, 38 Republicans and 1 independent in the Senate.

The proposals then included such non-drastic proposals as the swifter imposition of tougher penalties on employers found guilty of violating federal labor laws and speeding up government-conducted elections to see which union, if any, workers want. The mild proposals passed the House and seemed certain to be approved by the Senate but were killed when the Senate, despite a 22-vote Democratic edge, refused by one vote to cut off a filibuster.

Now the supposedly pro-labor Democrats will have only a 55-45 majority in the new Senate, and several of the Democrats are no more sympathetic than the Republicans to labor law reform.

So this isn’t the time to try for labor reform, particularly with the conservative President Reagan still in office.

But it is time to give serious consideration to the kind of labor law this nation needs.

Those interested in developing meaningful labor legislation should review the first real labor law we had in this country--the Wagner Act, passed in 1935.

It had the unabashed goal of assisting workers who want to form unions in their dealings with management.

It isn’t enough to give equal treatment to unequals, which current law is at least designed to do. The Wagner Act was biased in favor of workers because workers as individuals are almost always at a disadvantage in dealing with their employers. And despite Baer’s contention, there is no evidence that this inequality was divinely ordained.

Canadian labor laws should also be considered as a possible model for us.

Michel Cleroux, spokesman for the Canadian Department of Labor, notes, for instance, that Canadian unions can get union representation elections within a few days. A Canadian union can be certified as bargaining agent for a group of workers if a majority simply sign cards saying they want a union, even if the employer objects. In the United States, elections can be stalled for months and even years, giving employers a chance to mount major anti-union campaigns.

All Canadian public workers have the right to strike, unless a strike would endanger the health or safety of the community. If a strike is banned by law, issues in dispute go to binding arbitration by a neutral third party.

There is mandatory collective bargaining for all employees of Canada’s federal government and its 10 provinces.

This means that virtually all government workers are covered by a union contract, and almost all are either union members or pay a fee to the union for negotiating a labor agreement on their behalf.

Canadians take seriously the idea of the right to strike in a democracy. In the United States, workers outside government--and many of those inside--are free to strike, unlike those in totalitarian countries. But here they can be severely punished by permanent loss of their jobs if they exercise that democratic right.

In contrast, many Canadian provinces require employers to rehire strikers after a strike or lockout is ended. Some provinces allow employers to hire temporary strikebreakers, although most outlaw professional strikebreakers--those who try to make a living by working behind picket lines.

Other provinces, such as highly industrialized Quebec, have laws prohibiting employers from hiring any replacements for any workers affected by a strike or lockout.

There are no Canadian “right to work” laws that forbid union shop contracts requiring all workers in a bargaining unit to join the union or pay a fee to the union if the majority of the workers have voted for union representation.

Such provisions are allowed because, as in the United States, a company’s union and non-union workers both get the benefits of a union contract.

When a majority of workers vote to be represented by a union in a Canadian firm, the first contract can be imposed by an arbitrator if the company is found to be bargaining in bad faith.

And if a company is found guilty of using illegal tactics to defeat a union, the union can be certified as the workers’ bargaining agent even without an election. Traditionally, however, employers generally keep out of Canadian union elections.

In addition to studying labor laws of Canada and other countries, consideration should be given to another idea aimed at increasing management-labor equality in the workplace:

As long as management can take part in union representation election campaigns by urging workers to vote for “no union” on the ballot, then workers should be allowed to participate in elections for officers of the companies that employ them.

Surely, despite the current odds against labor law reform now, it isn’t too soon to start formulating proposals in anticipation of a more liberal Congress and President.

Gemco’s ‘Chutes of Lead

Despite months of negotiations, the United Food and Commercial Workers has failed to get an agreement with Lucky Stores on what, if any, severance pay and other benefits former employees of Lucky’s Gemco discount chain should get.

Lucky executives had no trouble, however, deciding what they should get if their own jobs are lost in a takeover battle with New York investor Asher B. Edelman. To avoid the takeover, Lucky sold the Gemco stores, which have now been closed, putting about 14,000 workers in California out of jobs. Proceeds from that sale, and others, will be used by Lucky executives to repurchase Lucky shares and, the company hopes, drive up the price of the stock to make a takeover too costly for Edelman.

Should Edelman or someone else succeed in taking over the company, Lucky Chairman John M. Lillie will get $1.2 million in severance pay if he quits the company. He has been with Lucky for only about eight years, and in the top spot for six. Also, the company’s 50 top executives will share $9 million, including Lillie’s golden parachute, if they lose the takeover battle.

In sharp contrast, some Gemco employees who have been working at Gemco since it began 27 years ago, may get “lead” parachutes worth at most $2,000 and health and welfare benefits through May, 1987, according to management’s latest conditional offer.

Lucky is hiring some ex-Gemco workers for openings in Lucky supermarkets, but few are getting preferential treatment. Some who worked in Gemco’s food sections can get first chance at Lucky job openings, but they get that chance only if they give up the severance pay offer.

The moral seems to be that all workers deserve good parachutes, even if they aren’t quite as golden as those the executives can get.

It is particularly galling at Gemco, because the jobs of thousands of workers were lost when a few Lucky executives sold Gemco in the hope of saving their own jobs.

Without better ‘chutes, the workers are in for some mighty bumpy landings.