SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Bosses do not need consent for temps to unionize in mixed bargaining units
Working In These Times reports
[In a 3-1 decision,] the National Labor Relations Board on [June 11] overturned a Bush-era standard that said a union could only organize a bargaining unit of jointly employed and regular employees if both employers consented--even if those employees worked together closely. "Jointly employed" includes temps who are hired through staffing agencies.
The new decision allows jointly employed temps to bargain collectively in the same unit with the solely employed workers they work alongside, ruling that bosses need not consent so long as workers share a "community of interest".
[...] In this new ruling from Miller & Anderson, Inc., the Board returns to a standard set in 2000, during the Clinton administration, in a case called M.B. Sturgis, Inc., which was overruled in Oakwood [Care Center].
[...] In a statement announcing the ruling, the NLRB said, "requiring employer consent to an otherwise appropriate bargaining unit desired by employees, Oakwood has ... allowed employers to shape their ideal bargaining unit, which is precisely the opposite of what Congress intended".
The ruling represents a blow to corporations that have moved forcefully, sometimes overwhelmingly, toward using temporary workers in an effort to block worker benefits and collective bargaining.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 22 2016, @09:20PM
Multiple unions would be OK. If they don't have a monopoly on a body of workers, it would help.
In fact, you could do it like this:
Companies contract with unions for staff. Unions hire people. For extra feel-goods, make the unions cooperatives.
Union members can change unions at any time to follow the work, and working conditions they like. Companies don't get to have a say in who joins which unions, and neither do unions (except for kicking out crooks and malingerers), but unions that are competent at holding it all together get to keep the staff and the contracts. Unions that can't keep things clearly productive lose contracts from companies, unions that can't keep their workers happy end up without workers. Companies deal with whichever unions give the best offers, but can't come down on individual workers - they have to deal with the union. Anybody below the C-suite has the option to join or form a union at any time, for any reason, or no reason at all, or to abandon their union should they choose to do so.
That would eliminate the vast majority of gripes around current unions, in terms of corruption, nepotism, corporate and criminal capture, and political fantasies. You could have unions that prefer specific political approaches, so that workers don't feel their dues are being hijacked by a political approach they hate.