| |
The advantage of publishing a web page is that you can give yourself a
soapbox from which you can express your views or the views of those you agree
with, this is mine.
|
|
|
|
Six Social Security Myths
Alan Greenspan got a lot of people
talking about Social Security last month by pointing out that future funds
won't be enough to fund future obligations. What a surprise! What is far
more surprising, however, is how much the continued fallout exposes our
collective ignorance about Social Security.
By
Robert
Brokamp (TMF Bro)
March 8, 2004
That Alan Greenspan... always causing a ruckus. A couple of weeks ago,
he said that the rebellion in Haiti was a CIA plot, that he found the
Super Bowl halftime show "titillating," and that the Social
Security program will not be able to cover its future obligations.
OK, so maybe he just said the last part. But it got as much attention
as if he had said the other two -- as if he said something scandalous and
controversial. However, he didn't. He just said something that he's said
before, and that everyone already knows. Or at least I thought that
everyone knew.
The media covered Greenspan's comments, and often included
segments that featured "average Americans" and their reactions
-- which were often misinformed. On one level, the lack of knowledge
about Social Security is alarming, given its importance to the average
American. But on another level, it's understandable, given our daily
information inundation. Heck, proper pancreas function is also
important to average Americans, myself included, but I couldn't tell you
what function my pancreas serves.
But from what I read and saw, it's clear that there are a lot of myths surrounding
the pancreas, I mean the Social Security debate. So permit me to
address what I see as the biggest misconceptions about the biggest line
item in the federal budget.
Myth 1: Social Security is a savings account
Don't confuse Social Security with a 401(k), IRA,
or any other type of retirement account. The money in your 401(k) or IRA
is yours -- Uncle Sam can't take it (though he can certainly tax it).
Social Security, however, is not a savings account. You do not have an
envelope at the Social Security Administration in which your taxes are
deposited. The taxes taken out of your paycheck today become a retiree's
benefit check tomorrow. For now, the government is collecting more money
than it is paying out, so a trust fund was established for the extra
payments.
However, in 15 years the flow will reverse, with more money going
out than coming in. At that point, the government will need to dip into
that trust fund. The SSA estimates that by 2042, the trust fund will be
depleted.
Myth 2: These trust funds have money
Instead of leaving the excess Social Security taxes alone --
putting it in a so-called lockbox -- the federal government
"borrows" the money to spend however it wishes. Ask yourself
this question: What kind of nest egg would you have if you kept borrowing
from your 401(k) to pay the mortgage?
So when Uncle Sam slips his debit card into the trust fund ATM in 15
years, he'll just receive an IOU -- from himself. In other words, instead
of billions of dollars' worth of reserves, the trust fund represents
billions of dollars' worth of debt. How will the government be able to pay
this debt, i.e., pay the Social Security benefits that won't be funded by
tax receipts? By borrowing more money! (Perhaps Uncle Sam needs to visit
our Credit Center
and shop for a low-interest-rate credit card.)
Myth 3: Social Security will pay for a swell retirement
Regardless of the future of Social Security, it never was -- and
never will be -- a way to fund the retirement of your dreams (unless your
dreams involve small living spaces and small portions). In 2003, the
average monthly retirement benefit was $895. That's less than $11,000 a
year. So pinning your golden years to Social Security was never a
smart idea.
Myth 4: Social Security is just about retirement
Even if you're not retired, chances are you're already receiving
benefits from Social Security. Those benefits are disability and life
insurance coverage.
According to the SSA, in 2002 the average insurance value of Social
Security benefits to a young disabled worker with a spouse and two kids
was $353,000. For the same year, the average life insurance value to
survivors of a deceased worker covered by Social Security was $403,000.
That may not be much consolation if you never receive disability
or survivor's benefits, but you nonetheless have that safety net. And
since one in seven workers die before age 67, and almost three out of
every 10 of today's 20-year-olds will become disabled before age 67, this
coverage isn't negligible.
Myth 5: You won't get anything
Three months before your birthday, you should receive a statement
from the SSA listing your recent earnings history and your estimated
benefits. On the front page of the current statement -- as seen in this
example -- you'll read the following:
Without changes, by 2042 the Social Security Trust Fund will be
exhausted. By then, the number of Americans 65 or older is expected to
have doubled. There won't be enough younger people working to pay all of
the benefits owed to those who are retiring. At the point [sic], will be
enough to pay [sicker] only about 73 cents for each dollar of scheduled
benefits.
So, as you can see, not only is Social Security facing financial
problems, it's also lacking good editors. (Hey, so
are we.) But you get the point: Even without changes, you'll
still receive approximately three-fourths of your scheduled benefit. That
stinks for those of us who will be in retirement by then, but it's not as
gloomy-and-doomy as we are often led to believe.
Myth 6: You can believe the politicians
Here's the real problem with Social Security: The people who can
fix it have no incentive to do so. The solution will entail tough choices,
and -- as Mr. Greenspan found out -- even voicing the options can provoke
a firestorm. So no politician -- whose job relies on short-term
popularity, not long-term responsibility -- will fight for painful
reforms. In fact, within hours of Greenspan's testimony, the candidates in
the 2004 presidential election were denouncing the Fed chairman's
suggestions, promising full Social Security benefits for everyone, and
pledging to personally bring you breakfast in bed. (Except for Ralph Nader,
who was busy staring into a mirror and blowing kisses.)
No, instead of discussing the facts, politicians are using the issue to
poke the other party in the eye. Democrats say that the ballooning Bush
budget deficit exacerbates the problem, while Republicans blame Social
Security's ills on Democratic support for gay marriage... or something
like that.
But we can only blame politicians so much. After all, they didn't put
themselves in office; we did. So behind the myths is the truth: We are
ultimately responsible for what happens to Social Security by making it an
issue -- by making the so-called "third rail"
touchable and electing people who will solve the problem.
And when it comes to retirement, we cannot -- and never could -- rely
on Uncle Sam to make our golden years truly golden. For that, we can
only rely on our ability to forgo current consumption in order
to save for future, in-retirement consumption. Now that's a tough
choice.
Robert Brokamp finds discussions of Social Security
"titillating." He also reminds you that you have only one month
left to contribute to your 2003 IRA. Visit our IRA
Center for details. The Motley Fool is investors
writing for investors
|
Keeping
an eye on your pension
|
|
By Marshall
Loeb, CBS.MarketWatch.com
Last Update: 7:14 AM ET Sept. 9, 2003 |
|
|
|
NEW YORK (CBS.MW) -- After three years of sagging
stock markets and falling interest rates, some American workers and
retirees must worry about growing shortfalls in company pension funds.
The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp, the federal agency that pays workers
whose private pension plans have been terminated, reported last week that
financially troubled companies have underfunded their pension plans to the
tune of $80 billion. This amount far exceeds the normal liability, which
has averaged less than $20 billion for the past 10 years.
PBGC does not cover all losses if a pension fund goes bust. A worker
aged 65 is guaranteed up to $44,000 of his pension per year. A worker aged
55 is guaranteed up to $19,000. All other benefits are not insured, and a
worker in a terminated pension has no further opportunity to contribute to
the fund.
What can workers do if they are concerned that their company's pension
fund may be in trouble? Right now, not much. Currently, companies do not
have to publicly report the financial status of their pension funds. These
numbers are filed at PBGC in what are known as 4010 forms, but are
shielded by law from public scrutiny.
Officials say the secrecy allows companies to hide their mistakes or
inflate assets.
Current proposals put forth by both the Bush administration and ranking
Democrats in Congress would open the PBGC files to the public.
If these measures pass, workers will be able to scrutinize whether a
company's pension is properly funded, and they can use that knowledge to
help ensure their company does more to protect their future.
|
Special overtime pay alert for Illinois
August 26, 2003
The U.S. Senate will begin debate and vote on a measure
to block President Bush's overtime pay cuts shortly
after Labor Day as their first piece of work after
a month-long break. These cuts could take away overtime
pay from at least 8 million workers. You or a member
of your family could be among them. These changes are
being written to give employers lots of leeway in how
they pay, or don't pay, for overtime work that they
can legally require.
Sen. Peter Fitzgerald needs to hear from as many people
as possible in Illinois that this overtime pay takeaway
is unacceptable. We're asking people in Illinois to
MAKE PHONE CALLS TO SEN. FITZGERALD over the next two
weeks by following the instructions below.
To call Sen. Fitzgerald:
First, please call the home state office of your senator
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. during the regular workweek.
(See numbers below.)
Second, ask for the staffer who works on overtime pay
issues. If that person is not available, leave a message
with the person who answers the call.
Third, deliver the following message: "I expect you
to vote to support the Harkin Amendment to protect
the 40-hour workweek and block the Bush administration's
overtime pay cuts." Ask the staff person for a written
letter explaining the senator's position. After you've
delivered this message, we encourage you to give the
staffer a polite earful explaining why overtime pay
is important to you and why you oppose any changes
that will take away overtime pay from any worker.
Here is the phone number you will need:
Sen. Peter Fitzgerald
(312) 886-3506 or (217) 492-5089
Fourth, after you've made your call let us know by
sending an e-mail to the following e-mail address:
phonecalls@aflcio.org
Finally, FORWARD THIS E-MAIL to your friends, family
and co-workers in Illinois. If we are going to stop
Bush's overtime pay takeaway, as many people as possible
must get involved.
Look for more news and information on the campaign
to repeal the Bush overtime pay cuts in the next couple
of weeks.
Thanks for all that you do.
--------------------------------------------------
Visit the web address below to spread the word about
this issue.
http://www.unionvoice.org/join-forward.html?domain=wfean&r=-7z5_JS1x716
If you received this message from a friend, you can
sign up for Working Families e-Activist Network at:
http://www.unionvoice.org/wfean/join.html?r=-7z5_JS1x716E
--------------------------------------------------
If you would like to unsubscribe from the e-Activist
Network, visit your subscription management page at:
http://www.unionvoice.org/wfean/smp.tcl?nkey=ws7d6w2a567m
***********************************************
Click on the link below for more information
from your union, online activism and benefits.
http://www.unionvoice.org/wfn/join.html
***********************************************
Minimum wage raised to $5.50
State rate to top entire Midwest
By John Chase and Ray Long, Tribune staff reporters. Tribune staff reporter
Michael Higgins contributed to this report
August 22, 2003
Illinois became only the 12th state in the nation to establish a minimum wage
above the $5.15 federal standard under legislation Gov. Rod Blagojevich signed
into law Thursday.
Illinois workers over 18 will see the minimum wage increased to $5.50 an hour in
January and to $6.50 an hour at the beginning of 2005.
"Because nearly half a million of our state's workers will have more money
in their pockets to spend, businesses will benefit from higher sales,"
Blagojevich said.
But Kim Clark Maisch, state director for the National Federation of Independent
Business of Illinois, said the state "will be basically an island in the
Midwest. No other state in the Midwest will have a higher minimum wage than what
the federal government sets."
"It certainly makes small businesses less competitive in the state of
Illinois, when they have to compete with businesses in surrounding states with
lower wage costs," Maisch said.
Blagojevich said such arguments rang hollow.
"This is the same old baloney those who have been against the minimum wage
increase have been saying since 1938 when Franklin Roosevelt first signed that
into law," he said.
The governor also signed a bill to let Illinois use touch-screen voting in
polling places, a move responding to widespread and pivotal vote counting
problems in Florida in the 2000 presidential election.
The action means election authorities could switch from punch card and optical
scan systems, the types of voting methods already allowed. The law also is aimed
at making it easier for election authorities to tap federal funding for new
equipment and give disabled citizens more privacy in voting, said Cook County
Clerk David Orr, who oversees elections in the county suburbs.
The governor also signed a bill to give family members more say over when
severely mentally ill relatives should be hospitalized. The new law maintains
much of Illinois' current standard for forced hospitalization, which requires
that mentally ill persons be proven dangerous to themselves or others or so
disabled they may not survive.
But it clarifies, for example, that in deciding whether someone is dangerous,
judges can consider the person's past patterns of behavior and any conduct a
reasonable person might find threatening.
Blagojevich hopes the law will end situations where "families are left
living in fear, waiting for something to happen," spokeswoman Abby
Ottenhoff said. "This really empowers families to act on their concerns ...
before a tragedy occurs."
Should Semi-Drivers have their own contract
?
This question has been around for some time and it must be addressed. The
problem exists because two groups of workers that do entirely different types of
work with entirely different problems and are paid on entirely different scales
are grouped together under the same contract. Add to this the fact that each
group is voting on the wages and the working conditions that effect the other
group and the fact that one group outnumbers the other 5 or 6 to 1 and you have
an absolutely ridiculous situation that has gone on for too long. The two groups
I refer to are of course the semi and route drivers.
Imagine if you would that you are a semi driver and you want a $1.00 per hour
per year increase to bring you in line with the going rate for drivers in your
area and the company offers you .10 cents per hour, what do you do? Vote against
it? The route drivers outnumber the semi drivers 6 to 1. If the company wants to
sell the contract all they have to do is offer the route drivers something they
will accept and cut the semi drivers short to pay for it.
As a semi driver I do not feel that I should decide how much commission a
route driver is paid, nor do I feel I should decide a route drivers base pay or
working conditions, I also feel that a route driver has no business voting on my
wages or working conditions. I don't think I would find any route drivers that
disagree with me. The premise that the semi drivers'
only bargaining power is in the large
numbers of combined members (route and semi drivers) is false. The power comes
from the scarcity of semi drivers and anyone who does not believe there is a
shortage can't read a newspaper, it is the simple law of supply and demand. One
need only look at our current contract to realize that a semi driver is nothing
more than an after thought in the route drivers contract. Problems have often occurred
because clauses in the contract are argued to apply to only route drivers or
only semi drivers or apply to both when the fact of the matter is that if a
clause is in your contract it should apply to you.
Until such time as the semi drivers have a separate contract we are denied
our rights to vote on and reject wage and working condition offers and the
companies will take advantage of our disadvantage.
Can we move away from unions
and work directly with the companies ?
No. Workers have neither the time or the resources to constantly
watch their own backs from companies that put in a great deal of time and money
to reduce labor costs. The article below demonstrates:
THE CONGRESS
IT TAKES ONLY ONE COOK TO SPOIL THE BATTER
The sweetest morsels in big tax bills, like the ones passed by the House and
Senate last week, are often scarcely noticed. In the House bill, for example,
"bakery drivers" was deleted from the list of occupations to be
treated as employees. Instead, they're to be independent contractors, which
means bakeries no longer need to pay Social Security, Medicare or unemployment
taxes for the guys who deliver croissants and Twinkies. Why distinguish between
them and haulers of veggies or dry cleaning, for that matter?
Part of the reason could be that an ardent supporter of the change, Nebraska
Republican JON CHRISTENSEN, is a chef who knows how to mix the dough of
legislation. His Omaha district is home to a Metz bakery, a Pepperidge Farm
depot and several facilities belonging to the country's largest baking firm,
Interstate Bakeries Corp., maker of Wonder bread. Federal records show
Interstate CEO Charles A. Sullivan and his wife contributed $3,000 to
Christensen in 1996. The American Bakers Association, which gave $46,700 to
House Republicans and $1,000 to Christensen in 1995-96, calls the new rule's
enactment by the Committee on Ways and Means an "immaculate
conception." Now that's real, old-fashioned baking.
--By Chandrani Ghosh
What did Jimmy Hoffa want from the
Republicans in return for Teamster endorsement of Bush ?
During a party the Republicans held for James Hoffa in
July 2000
“We’re
already recommending to the Justice Department that this is a new regime, an
honest regime, and they ought to not have to pay those millions of dollars out
to maintain that trusteeship situation,” said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.
Legislation isn’t necessary, Hatch said. All that is needed is for the Justice
Department to acknowledge that the union has purged
itself of corruption.
(If anyone
out there believes this please contact me .... I have bridges and a large canyon
out west for sale.)
Jointly-Employed
Contingent Workers
Can Be Organized Without Employer Consent
By John D. Canoni Bio
email
Nixon Peabody LLP
On
August 25, 2000, the National Labor Relations Board, reversing earlier
precedents, sanctioned for the first time unlimited union organization
of jointly employed workers.
Previous Board decisions, including Greenhout, 205 NLRB
250 (1973) and Lee
Hospital, 300 NLRB 947 (1990), permitted an objecting employer
to block a union representation petition directed at those workers.
Those workers actually have two different potential employers;
the company supplying them (in Board lexicon, the “supplier
employer”) and the company where they worked (the “user
employer”).
Under prior Board law, an objection by either employer required
the Board to dismiss a union petition seeking to represent those
employees.
The Board’s 3-to-1 decision in M.B.
Sturgis, 331 NLRB No. 173, reclassified the two entities
“employing” these referred employees from multiple employers to
joint employers.
Both
employers need to review their referral arrangements.
User employers should audit referred employees to find out what
the actual practices are.
Supplier employers should do the same.
If either employer neglects to do so, the NLRB may conduct that
examination for them.
The
Board determined that henceforth unions should be allowed to show that
two otherwise clearly distinct and independent employers are really
joint employers of the referred workers in question.
The traditional Board joint employer doctrine applies whenever
one employer enters into a contract with a second employer for the
referral of employees employed by that second employer and
retains for itself sufficient control over the terms and conditions of
employment of those referred employees.
A joint employer differs from the Board’s related alter ego
and single employer doctrines where the two employing entities are
deemed to be a single entity.
Joint employers remain two separate employers who share or
codetermine the referred employees’ terms and conditions of
employment.
Employers
can defeat a joint employer finding.
The critical issue is the extent of control over the referred
employees retained and exercised by the user employer.
If the supplier employer retains complete control over those
employees, there is no joint employer relationship.
Indeed, a simple way to preclude a joint employer finding is
for the user employer to hand over the affected operation entirely to
the supplier employer.
For example, turning the operation of your mail room, cleaning
staff or copying room work to a supplier which supplies not only its
own employees and equipment but also its own supervision for those
employees should block a possible joint employer finding.
Employers
need to realize that a joint employer finding can result even though
the supplier employer does many things an employer normally does.
The supplier employer usually pays the referred employees,
provides their benefits, if any, completes their I-9 forms and
employment applications, administers their physical exams and so
forth.
However, all these traditional employer hallmarks can be
overcome if the user employer exercises control over the referred
employees’ day-to-day work, hours, schedules, time off, job
assignments and discipline.
If that happens, the referred employees gain a second employer
and become joint employees.
This
is essentially a fact-specific inquiry.
The user employer should not assign referred employees the same
company uniforms, IDs or badges as its own employees.
It should not give them its own policy manual or handbook and,
where necessary, should provide referred employees with separate or
specially-tailored orientation and safety programs.
The user employer should also monitor the referred employees to
ensure they don’t move from one assignment or project to another
and, as a result, remain continuously employed at or for the user
employer for extended periods of time.
Finally, the user employer should refrain from disciplining the
referred employee.
That is the supplier employer’s function.
The user employer can provide information to the supplier
employer about a workplace incident involving the referred employee
but the investigation and ultimate decision as to discipline must be
made exclusively by the supplier employer.
Contingent
employees come in many different varieties.
At one extreme, completely outsourced operations with
accompanying exclusive supervision by the supplier employer should, as
noted, defeat a joint employer finding.
In that case, the former consent rule applicable to multiple
employers remains the operative legal standard.
In fact, Greenhout, a true multi-employer case, was not
overruled for this reason.
At the other extreme, leased employees remain employees of the
user employer since the supplier employer, the leasing company, simply
provides pay, workers’ compensation coverage and benefits.
There is only one employer, the user employer, in an employee
leasing case.
The
M.B. Sturgis case actually involved two separate cases that
were consolidated for decision, M.B. Sturgis, Inc, 14-RC-11572,
and Jeffboat Division, 9-UC-406.
Each case presented a common fact pattern involving contingent
employees.
In both cases, the Board’s regional offices found the user
and supplier employers were in fact joint employers.
Now that the Board has abolished the previous employer consent
obstacle in such cases, both unions can proceed to hearings that will
determine if the referred employees (the employees jointly employed by
the supplier and user employers) and the employees exclusively
employed by the user employer constitute a combined appropriate
bargaining unit.
The
fact that both cases have been sent back to the regional offices means
there will be no immediate court of appeal review of this Board
decision.
Employers and unions must fight over the real meaning of this
new decision at the regional office level.
The Board’s decision holds that the unit determination will
be made applying the Board’s traditional community of interest
rules.
That is an oversimplification.
Separate units and separate self-determination elections,
particularly for professional employees, may be necessary.
In addition, there will be an important related question in
such hearings because another Board doctrine generally excludes
“temporary” employees from bargaining units.
The
two cases combined for decision were a representation case with a
non-union employer (Sturgis) and a unit clarification case with
a unionized employer (Jeffboat).
They were among the oldest Board cases since the Board granted
review in November 1995 and May 1996, respectively.
The Board heard oral argument in these cases on December 2,
1996.
Of course, the Board members who heard that oral argument were
long gone when the decision issued on August 25, 2000.
In
Sturgis, Local 108 filed a petition seeking to represent “all
employees” at a 35 employee gas hose plant.
The employer’s surprising response was to claim that the
bargaining unit be expanded to include 10 to 15 temporary employees
referred by Interim, Inc., a national temporary help provider.
Those were very “temporary” jobs; 50 different referred
employees occupied those 10 to 15 positions over a period of several
months.
Both Local 108 and Interim objected.
Since Interim’s objection is no longer legally relevant, the
Board’s 14th region will now hold a hearing to determine
if the expanded unit (now including the conceded joint employers’
employees) is an appropriate unit.
The answer will likely be “yes” since the employees
referred by Interim worked side-by-side, did the same work, were
supervised by the same supervisors that supervised the Sturgis
employees and were often hired by Sturgis as its own employees after a
few months.
At that point, a representation election can finally, after
more than five years, be held.
While Sturgis has already conceded the combined unit is
appropriate, Interim can presumably challenge any Local 108 election
victory and certification by refusing to bargain.
Jeffboat
involved the largest inland waterway shipbuilder in the United States.
Teamsters Local 89 had been certified as the exclusive
representative of approximately 600 production and maintenance
employees since 1971.
The parties could not agree on subcontracting in their most
recent negotiations in May 1995.
Jeffboat insisted it had the right to subcontract under the
contract and had consistently done so without union objection.
This issue came to a head when, immediately following the
union’s unsuccessful effort to restrict further subcontracting
through negotiations, Jeffboat contracted with T.T.&O which
referred thirty welders and pipefitters to this Indiana shipyard.
These two job classifications were expressly mentioned in the
Local 89 contract.
T.T.&O paid these referred employees $10.00 per hour plus
$50 per diem which was probably much less than the wage rates for
these two classifications under the Local 89 contract.
Local
89 did not file a grievance under its contract protesting Jeffboat’s
“subcontracting”.
Instead it filed a unit clarification petition seeking to add
those T.T.&O employees to its existing bargaining unit.
That was a clever move.
Unit clarification petitions can be filed during the term of a
current contract and the Board will not defer to arbitration.
Also, if Local 89 can satisfy the higher standard (an
overwhelming community of interest) that applies to accretion cases
(see Compact Video Services, 284 NLRB 117, 1987), a favorable
Board ruling on its unit clarification petition could automatically
add the T.T.&O employees to its existing unit and contract without
an election and without those employees ever expressing their views, McDonnell
Co., 173 NLRB 225 (1968).
Jeffboat
had subcontracted on many prior occasions.
It had brought in contractors with their own independent
supervision.
For some reason, Jeffboat did things differently in this case.
There was a T.T.&O representative on site but there was
“no recorded information” concerning his/her duties and “no
evidence of any assignment or direction” by this representative.
The Jeffboat supervisors provided supervision, determined daily
assignments, applied the Jeffboat rules, regulations and manual,
required the Jeffboat orientation program and safety meetings,
required that Jeffboat tools and equipment be used and, most
important, disciplined the referred employees
“as they see fit”.
Moreover, the contract Jeffboat and T.T.&O negotiated
provided the referred employees “will be subject to direction of [Jeffboat]
as to the assignment of work including shift hours and overtime and to
the direction of Jeffboat managers, supervisors and foremen.”
This contract actually confirmed the joint employer status the
9th Region found, 1995 NLRB LEXIS 1245.
A
joint employer determination followed by an appropriate unit finding
is only the beginning.
Numerous questions immediately arise in the Jeffboat
unionized employer situation.
We are likely to have a bargaining unit that combines employees
exclusively employed by the user employer with employees jointly
employed by the user and supplier employers.
How is seniority calculated?
Service with which employer?
Will seniority lists be dovetailed?
Which employer’s benefit package applies?
Which employer’s grievance procedure?
What if the supplier employer already has a union contract?
What if there are multiple suppliers?
A
brand new issue is that the cancellation of the contract between the
user employer and the supplier employer now likely becomes a mandatory
bargaining subject for both the user employer and the supplier
employer as a subcontracting decision instead of a managerial decision
not subject to decision bargaining.
The Board cites, with approval, Ford
Motor Co. v. NLRB, 441 U.S. 488 (1979), which held that an
employer’s decision to change vending machine suppliers including
the new supplier’s prices to be charged to employees was a mandatory
bargaining subject.
An unresolved issue is whether, when a new supplier is chosen,
if that new supplier is a successor employer which can set its own
initial terms and conditions of employment or is bound by the terms of
the joint employers’ contract.
Representation
case strategy issues are also raised in the non-union context.
The Board will notify all “interested” parties to avoid due
process issues.
Will user employers, like Sturgis did, demand that
petitioned-for units be expanded to include referred employees?
The supplier employer may be on the union’s side on this
issue as Interim was.
That will certainly delay any representation election as, if
the union objects, a hearing is necessary.
And, if unions are indeed wary of representing contingent
workers, then unions intent on gaining a quick election may offer
concessions to the employer on other unit issues (such as confidential
or supervisory status) as a condition to the employer’s abandonment
of the expanded unit.
Bargaining
issues also abound when the two joint employers come to the table.
Can the union strike one of the two employers comprising the
joint employer without violating the secondary boycott rules?
Can the union strike the supplier employer over an issue that
solely applies to the user employer’s exclusive employees?
What happens if the supplier employer agrees to the union’s
demands but the user employer does not?
Will the first (and last) union demand to the joint employer
always be “get rid of the temps and expand our regular bargaining
unit by hiring your own union employees?”
The
issues outlined above are just some of the complex issues raised by a
joint employer situation where two separate employers must, by Board
edict, deal with a single union.
Things were much simpler under the former Board rule which
treated the separate employers as multiple employers.
User employers have a strong incentive to avoid a joint
employer finding.
They should closely examine their supplier contracts and,
particularly, the terms and conditions of employment of referred
employees to make certain that they have not retained impermissible
joint control.
Supplier employers have the same interest in structuring their
arrangements with user employers so they will not be drawn into a
combined bargaining unit.
Both user and supplier employers must immediately examine their
current contingent employee arrangements before this sudden change in
Board policy puts those arrangements under a legal floodlight.
|
|