|
When Salt is Bad for You
Unions measure their success by growing membership. Prior to the 1980’s, unions typically engaged in traditional methods of organizing which usually resulted in an election. As employers became more active and effective in opposing union efforts, unions needed to find a way to challenge employer success. During the 1990’s unions shifted to a more creative means of organizing. Under the leadership of the AFL-CIO, training programs were established to focus on educating rank and file union members to become organizers and effective campaigners. In the construction industry, union members were encouraged to go to work for nonunion firms for the purpose of gaining a foothold and organizing the contractor’s workforce. With unions now focused on healthcare and seizing upon the shortage of healthcare personnel, unions are finding the tactic of “salting” a valuable strategy.
Salting is the practice of placing a paid organizer inside the workforce for the express purpose of organizing other employees. In effect, a salt is working for two employers – the union and the hospital. The goal of the salt is to infiltrate the workplace, gather as much information about the employer as possible and undermine any goodwill by management. Salts are carefully trained to be patient, subtle and good listeners, so they will not alert management to their dual role nor alienate other employees. A successful salting campaign requires that the individual be patient, subtle, and the have the ability to listen to one’s co-workers.
Even if salts reveal their true agenda, they are protected under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. As defined in NLRB v. Town & Country Electric, Inc (1995), paid organizers or salts are considered employees within the meaning of Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act and therefore are protected from discrimination.
Salts are trained to do the following when going into an organization:
- Establish credibility through relationship building and a good work ethic.
- Identify natural leaders among the workers and get to know them.
- Obtain a list of all employees including home addresses and phone numbers if possible.
- Copy handbooks, policies and procedures, health and safety issues, any other employer materials etc.
- Save all pay stubs.
- Keep detailed notes of employee complaints.
- Profile the supervisory and management team.
Establishing an inside game provides unions with the access that they need to get momentum among the workforce. Essentially, salting is a form of psychological warfare with two objectives: build a case against the company while undermining management activities. Efforts of salts can be diminished with strong communication practices and positive employee relations efforts.
Is your next hire a salt?
back to top
California Staffing Ratio Law: Eight Months And Counting
Eight months into staffing ratio regulations, the California Healthcare Association reports the following impact on hospitals:
- Department of Health Services estimates that the cost to implement the ratios will cost hospitals $486 million for 2004, $652 million for 2005 when ratios are fully implemented and $956 for 2008. This law is an unfunded mandate.
- Since January, there have been six hospital closures in Los Angeles.
- Ambulance diversion in Los Angeles County is up from 24.6% to 36% in first quarter of 2004.
- Surgeries in California have been postponed 963 times as of June 2004.
- Seven Los Angeles hospitals have closed or downgraded their psychiatric units resulting in the loss of 176 beds.
- Nurses are unhappy because breaks and meal periods are scheduled to meet the “at all times” requirement.
Fifteen states now have staffing ratio proposals moving through the legislative process. Not tied to outcomes, ratio language imposes an industrial model on a healthcare model that does not fully take into account patient acuity or the nurses competency. Ranking 49th in the nursing shortage, the ratio law for California represents another serious burden for hospital leaders to overcome.
back to top
NLRB Update
Changes to Weingarten Rights
A recent NLRB decision held that employees in a non-unionized workplace are not entitled to representation at a disciplinary hearing. In a 3-2 ruling, this opinion directly overturned a 2000 ruling that held non-union employees did enjoy this right. The decision was divided on party lines and marks the 4th change by the Board since 1982. This ruling follows a long series of cases and discussions from the 1975 Supreme Court decision now called the Weingarten rule, which stated that an employee represented by a collective bargaining representative has a right to refuse to submit to an investigatory interview that the employee reasonably believes might result in discipline without union representation. A previous ruling, Epilepsy Foundation of Northeast Ohio, 331 NLRB 676 (2000) had extended to unrepresented workers a right to have a coworker present during such interviews. This ruling returns those rights only to unionized workers.
Neutrality Agreements
The NLRB is currently reviewing briefs submitted on the subject of voluntary recognition and whether such recognition preempts employees’ rights under Section 7 and Section 9 to reject a union that their employer chose and to have a secret ballot election. The issue of neutrality agreements is one the Board has identified as a growing concern and an issue that needs clarification in light of recent decisions.
back to top |