There is no question that union elections often pit worker against worker. Employees at St. Charles voted by a very slim margin to join SEIU Local 49 last year. It was a democratic election and, like elections for City Council or any other public office, majority prevailed. But St. Charles decided to ignore that democratic vote.
Rather than bargain in good faith with its employees for a union contract, St. Charles management decided to take advantage of the close vote. Management knew that if it could stall and refuse to negotiate a contract, a decertification election would be legally possible a year after the initial vote for the union.
St. Charles could have taken the high road and bargained in good faith for a union contract. They have done so many times with their nurses in Bend, Redmond and even Prineville. In Prineville they didinitially refuse to bargain andforced a decertification election. But they quickly agreed to a union contract after nurses there soundly rejected the decert.
If St. Charles had bargained in good faith with its employees in SEIU Local 49, a contract would be in place and tensions would have eased. Instead, St. Charles was willing to ratchet up the tension in order to force a decert and undermine the democratic election held last year.
While it was disgruntled St. Charles workers who filed for the decert, it would be naive to think management didn’t have a hand in pushing it along. In over 30 years of union activism I have yet to see a decert election that wasn’t prodded along by management in one way or another.
When we talk about worker vs. worker at St. Charles it is important to recognize who benefits from this tension. Certainly not the workers themselves, as employees on both sides can tell you. It is management that ultimately benefits. How?
Well, as Lewis and Clark Professor Henry Drummonds notes in the Source article, “When you don’t have that collective bargaining power, through time, you would expect the working conditions for employees to deteriorate.” In other words, withouta contract bargained between the employees and the employer, the employees can expect lower pay, fewer benefits, working conditions that get worse, and – at a hospital – a downgrade in the quality of patient care.
St. Charles management apparently believes it is better to spend thousands of dollars on anti-union consultants than it is to spend money on employees who work hard and deserve better pay and benefits, a voice in workplace decisions, and working conditions that increase the quality of patient care. Keeping employees divided always benefits the employer. Always.
There will always be some employees who want to go it alone and don’t want to work collectively with their fellow employees to improve living standards and working conditions for all. Often, they come around to the union side after a contract is negotiated and they see the benefits of a union. St. Charles knows that and doesn’t want to see that kind of unity in its workforce. Because, if that happens, it won’t be worker vs. worker, it will beemployees working togetherto bargain a contract that benefits everyone. If, however, the prevailing sentiment is to get rid of the union, everyone will pay a price down the road. You can take that to the bank.
Michael Funke, Bend
This article appears in Mar 29 – Apr 4, 2012.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
“While it was disgruntled St. Charles workers who filed for the decert”
Why would they be disgruntled? Are they not voluntarily employed under terms and conditions to which they agreed? And if they don’t like the place they work, for whatever reason, they are under no obligation to stay. However, they should not be entitled to hold an employer hostage to meet their demands. Employment opportunity exists as the result of a corporation or other entity providing a good or service in response to a market demand. Union dogma perverts the process by introducing the polluted notion that these corporations and entities exist to provide people with jobs. The employees exist to assist the corporation in fulfilling that market demand, and it is that individual insignificance that draws out the latent insecurities in union types. It all comes down to personal reaction. A rational person might attempt to work harder than the guy next to him on the line, AKA his competition, gain new skills through training and education, or take his existing skills to a more competitive employer. The union mentality is to demand ever increasing compensation for the exact same market value of work performed, performed only to the minimum standard, and never at a higher piece rate or for longer hours than the next guy. Its a mindset of defiance and mediocrity, the results of which are clearly evident in industries that unions have ravaged such as steel and auto makers, once bastions of American strength, now antiquated shells of their former selves.
“The employees exist to assist the corporation in fulfilling that market demand.” How little you must think of everyone else, Jon. Your rightwing rants do make me chuckle. Perhaps you have a future as a comedian. I urge you to take your show on the road and give it a try.
“”The employees exist to assist the corporation in fulfilling that market demand.” How little you must think of everyone else, Jon. Your rightwing rants do make me chuckle. Perhaps you have a future as a comedian. I urge you to take your show on the road and give it a try.”
Any your point would be…?
His point would be that those of you who dislike Unions must like working weekends or not having sick leave or not being paid equal pay for equal work, or… you get the picture. All the above brought to you by a Union, and against the wishes of business and the rich industrialists, I might add.
“His point would be that those of you who dislike Unions must like working weekends or not having sick leave or not being paid equal pay for equal work, or… you get the picture. All the above brought to you by a Union, and against the wishes of business and the rich industrialists, I might add.”
Wow, there was alot of information in the belittling, derogatory comment that I just didn’t see. I’d rather be able to pay the performers accordingly, rather than be shackled to the lowest common denominator with the organization. Equal work is pipe dream, somebody is always better than another and they should be compensated accordingly and the non-performers should be let go. Just as an aside, what is wrong with being rich?
Joe, I thought I made my point in the original letter. I prefer WITT to YOYO when it comes to community and society.
The problem with WITT is that it is predicated on the idea that the government is the cure to all problems, when in reality; it is the root cause of all problems. I like WITT when the private sector acts together for the benefit of others. Not only is it more effective, it doesn’t involved coercion (my way or else) or theft (taxes and/or higher than market wages).
“Joe, I thought I made my point in the original letter. I prefer WITT to YOYO when it comes to community and society.”
I understood the point of the initial assertion. I was hoping for clarification in regards to your response to Jon’s comment. Mocking is not refuting.
Look, Jon is a champion mocker at this site so I am not gonna take what he says too seriously. Just like I can’t take it too seriously when someone says that “government is the root cause of ALL problems” and that taxes are theft. These are simply not rational statements that require response so far as I am concerned.
I hope Joe enjoys his race to the bottom. Because that’s what that is. Also, good luck to your progeny competing in your non-regulated global free market with Africans, Indians, and the Chinese who have no integrated infrastucture to maintain, don’t have to worry about those pesky little things like worker safety and health, environmental regulations, nor do they have social safety nets for its elderly, disabled, etc. that they must subsidize.
Me? I like the higher living standards that comes with Keynesian economics and I’d rather not set my children on the laissez-faire course because therein lies the route back to Oligarchy and Serfdom…
“These are simply not rational statements that require response so far as I am concerned.”
That’s because Mike doesn’t actually have an answer. It’s much easier to call people names or ridicule their comments.
Sorry, Ed. I have way more important things to do than waste time debating such foolish notions. You are certainly entitled to believe this stuff, but that doesn’t mean that anyone is required to actually discuss them with you. No one required you to reply to my letter and no one requires me to respond to your silliness.
“I hope Joe enjoys his race to the bottom. Because that’s what that is.”
I don’t follow how rewarding top performers and encouraging non performers to find other careers is a race to the bottom. Please show me the model that disproves this. Keynesian macroeconomics has nothing to say about unions.
“…and no one requires me to respond to your silliness.”
And yet, reply you do.
“No one required you to reply to my letter and no one requires me to respond to your silliness.”
That's true Mike but that fact that you did respond but never answered speaks volume about the legitimacy of your ideology.
“I don’t follow how rewarding top performers and encouraging non performers to find other careers is a race to the bottom.”
Really? Read about “comparative advantage” in economic literature and its critiques and if you still can’t understand, I can’t help you.
“comparative advantage: A comparative advantage in producing or selling a good is possessed by an individual or country if they experience the lowest opportunity cost in producing the good.”
Now I am curious how Comparative Advantage is even relevant to this discussion.
“Now I am curious how Comparative Advantage is even relevant to this discussion.”
It’s not. Just as the reference to the Keynesian model is also irrelevant.