> Many of these battles, Crowther observes, have been lost because the newly unionized workers can't get the company to agree to a first contract. The workers then feel the union isn't doing anything for them and, reasonably, don't want to pay dues out of their low wages. Meaningful labor-law reform in both Canada and the United States, he says, would allow a labor board to impose that first contract if a company is not bargaining in good faith.
Typically newly unionized workers don't pay dues until the first contract has been signed and ratified. The article is correct, however, that winning a union election is only half the battle in the struggle to organize; getting management to agree to a good first contract that captures a good part of the workers' desires and goals is crucial if the union is going to survive.
Management's typical tactic is to stall, delay, "surface bargain," in other words do anything except agree to sign off on something during contract negotiations that's a victory for workers. The idea is to create a sense of futility, an understanding that nothing can be done to improve working conditions and that the whole unionization effort was a mistake in the first place. First contract fights can last years, usually much longer than the initial union vote drive. A decent EFCA bill will have something which addresses this problem, with recourse to some administrative body if a new contract is not signed within a given period of time.
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 2:21 PM, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
> <http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/history-lesson/2008/12/30/wal-marts-great-fight-north?page=0,0>
>
> Wal-Mart's Great Fight North
> Even in labor-friendly Canada, unions have a tough time with U.S. companies.
> By Liza Featherstone
> Posted Tuesday, December 30, 2008 - 12:27pm