Workplace Democracy Is Threatened
Relatively few people have heard of a union leader named Bruce Lee, but the outcome of his effort to be reelected could have an impact on the future of democracy in the workplace.
And few people have heard of Electromation Inc., a small Elkhart, Ind., firm. But it is now embroiled in a legal test case that also could affect the increasingly important role workers have in corporate decision making.
Lee’s bid to retain his job as western regional director of the United Auto Workers will measure opposition only by UAW members to close labor-management cooperation, which is essential if workers are to have a meaningful voice in running companies.
However, if Lee is defeated, foes of the valuable concept of cooperation and power sharing would be spurred on--not only in the UAW but in other unions too. His loss would indicate widespread worker opposition to the idea, and even a close vote will encourage more opposition.
Those trying to dump Lee say he and other top UAW officers are too cozy with management these days. There is no evidence of that, but it is strong ammunition to use in a political campaign among workers who are suffering because of job losses at many UAW-represented plants.
Several leaders of the giant UAW Local 148, which represents workers at Douglas Aircraft Co. in Long Beach, are convinced Lee and many of his allies will be defeated at the UAW convention next year.
Behind them is a nationwide UAW faction called New Directions, which charges that most of the union’s leaders have been co-opted already by management of such giant corporations as McDonnell Douglas and General Motors.
They unfairly charge that top union leaders are destroying the role of unions, which they believe is to fight greedy corporate managers.
Lee is a leading advocate of shared decision making and cooperation. He and others like him realize management is primarily concerned about profits, and not about making a better, more prosperous world for workers.
But in the current system of adversarial relations between workers and management, workers usually get the short end of the stick. They have to fight not just corporate managers, but the anti-union Bush Administration that is following the policies set by two of his predecessors, Richard M. Nixon and Ronald Reagan.
To try to partially equalize the odds against them, many unions, including the UAW, are encouraging the trend toward sharing power in the workplace. They want to end both the traditional totalitarian way most companies operate and reduce the inherent rivalry between workers and their employers.
It is true that many companies try to trick workers into believing that management wants to achieve cooperation through joint labor-management committees. Their real goals, though, are often to keep out unions, keep wages down and speed up production regardless of the physical harm to workers.
That trick is called “sham unionism,” which is illegal, and that’s where Electromation comes into the picture.
The company has been accused of illegally setting up joint labor-management committees that were really shams designed to thwart efforts of workers to get a legitimate union.
The National Labor Relations Board is now deciding whether the accusation is true. An NLRB administrative law judge in Indiana has found the company guilty, but the NLRB in Washington can overrule him.
The 1935 National Labor Relations Act was based on the philosophy that employers and workers are natural enemies, and workers are the underdogs. To increase their strength, the law established the right of workers to form unions to cope with the power of management.
To prevent unions from becoming tools of management, employers were prohibited from creating or dominating any labor organization. But what about the joint labor-management committees that are supposed to let workers and managers share in the decision-making process?
If the idea comes from management, the committees operate on company time and property and final decisions are made by the companies, are the committees almost automatically management dominated? No, but that is a real danger, as is alleged in the Electromation case.
Most major employer associations and unions presented arguments to the NLRB in the case, debating mainly whether federal law that prohibits sham unions should be changed.
Employers generally want it changed. They argue that a strict interpretation of the law as it now stands could force most non-union employers to disband the cooperative, labor-management committees they already have, because the NLRB may say they are employer-dominated.
Worried about the outcome of the Electromation case, employer groups are backing a bill proposed by 33 Republican members of Congress to amend the law to say joint labor-management committees can be set up “with or without the participation of representatives of labor organizations.” That would be a mistake. We need to protect workers from sham unions and the NLRB can do just that under the law now.
A fair interpretation of the law in the Electromation case will not foil legitimate worker participation programs, whether or not a union represents workers.
If the NLRB finds Electromation not guilty, it would encourage other companies to create phony labor-management committees as a “union avoidance” scheme to fool workers into believing that they have a voice in company operations.
The NLRB may rule that Electromation did not try to set up a sham union. Lee and his allies may lose the UAW election. If those things happen, they will retard the moves being made toward increased democracy in the workplace.
