“Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. The
great Oz has spoken,” the actor Frank Morgan thundered in the famous 1939
movie. Once Toto pulled back the curtain, and we saw the white-haired man
frantically pulling levers and turning cranks, we knew who was really
talking. Viewers can argue about whether the Wizard of Oz was an
enterprising charmer with brains, heart and courage to spare, or a cynical con
artist. But you can’t make an informed decision if you can’t see behind
the curtain.
When the message is heard but the speaker is hidden, the
result can be confusion. That’s what often happens in today’s workplaces when
workers try to organize. Workers may perceive that trusted managers and
supervisors are speaking their own minds, when in fact these co-workers are
reciting a message crafted by professional consultants called “persuaders.”
New rules from the Labor Department will now provide transparency
to workers and the public. We have refreshed an outdated statutory
interpretation, putting in place a simple, common-sense reporting requirement
for when employers pay for persuader services during union organizing efforts.
The rule in no way limits what employers or consultants can say. It
just means that workers will know who has crafted the message.
Basic fairness dictates that workers know who is
responsible for the information that is being shared with them during union
organizing efforts. If someone was trying to persuade me about something as
personal and direct as my job and my workplace, I’d want to know all of the
sources for their messages. Only then would I feel I could judge for myself the
content of the messages.
In many cases, unions already have to disclose
information about how they spend their money, including during organizing. But
on the employer side, workers have had little if any information, as the prior
interpretation of the statute made it easy for paid consultants to influence
and persuade workers without their involvement ever becoming known.
Persuaders often have employers tell their employees that
a union is an outsider or a “third party.” Sometimes this message is taken even
further. Workers are told that they and the employer are a family and the
family will be harmed by the intrusion of the third-party union. But many
employees might give this “intruding union” argument less weight if they knew
that the employer itself brought in an outside third party. In addition,
workers who are told that there is no money for raises that the union might
push for may be interested in knowing how much money their employer is spending
on outside consultants.
The reporting requirements put into place by the revised
rules are minimal. Employers and consultants will file a brief form with
checkboxes when they have entered into persuader agreements. Consultants will
also file a form when they present union avoidance seminars for employers.
That’s it. Plus, the form already exists. Employers and consultants already
file it in some cases, when persuaders themselves directly communicate with the
employees.
The new interpretation simply applies the statute to
circumstances when it’s most needed: when the consultant is hidden. The rule
only applies to agreements entered into after the rule becomes effective. This
is a small change that will result in a meaningful increase in the amount of
information available to workers and the public.
For all the rhetoric that has flown forth during the years
the department has worked on this regulation, let’s face it: many employers
engage consultants when there is a union organizing effort. If an outside
expert drafts communications for you to share with your employees, and if
you are willing to pay the outsider to prepare what you tell your
employees, then all this rule tells you to do is to draw back the curtain and
reveal who scripted the message and managed its delivery.
Michael Hayes is the director of the department’s
Office of Labor-Management Standards.
Source: Department
of Labor
No comments:
Post a Comment