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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 24 2016, @02:27AM
Right. Got it. Evil capitalist theft-based system. Accumulation of capital is evil. Except when virtuous workers' cooperatives do it - then it's OK, but riddle me this, o sage: who gets to determine which capital, and how much of that, flows in which directions?
Or, to put it another way, what dispute resolution mechanism do you recommend for the adjudication of rival claims to given capital resources?
To give you a more concrete example, let's say that the Workers' Democratic Ironmongery wants to use the same water as the Soviet Peasantry's Farming Collective? Who decides? On what grounds?
Or, to bring it around to accumulated capital cases, both groups want to use the hydropower output from a wicked capitalist-constructed dam. Who gets how much? Adjudicated by whom? And why? What system of reasoning resolves these conflicts?