WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The House Workforce Protections Subcommittee, chaired by Rep. Charlie Norwood (R-GA), today held a hearing on “corporate campaigns” and whether they are used by labor unions to organize non-union companies and generate union dues. A panel of witnesses, including labor experts and union members, testified on the legal framework in which these corporate campaigns are waged and the practical consequences of such efforts.

     Today’s hearing focused on whether corporate campaigns are a vehicle to organize workers in a company or firm where a majority may not want collective bargaining representation.

     “Today’s workers confront a situation whereby they can be forced to be represented by and contribute to a union that they did not choose, and which they oppose,” said Norwood. “I believe that, with a few exceptions, workers should have the right to choose whether they want union representation. It should not be imposed on them by deals made by other parties.”

     Jarol Manheim, a professor of media and public affairs at George Washington University and author of The Death of a Thousand Cuts: Corporate Campaigns and the Attack on the Corporation, said corporate campaigns usually “center around the media” and “attempt to redefine the image -- and tarnish the reputation -- of the target company until it yields on whatever the issue in dispute might be.”

     “The central idea,” Manheim continued, “is to undermine the company’s relationships with its key stakeholders: customers, employees, shareholders, bankers, insurers, regulators, and the general public.”

     Daniel Yager, senior vice president of the Labor Policy Association -- a Washington, D.C.-based public policy advocacy organization that represents human resource executives -- testified about labor unions’ combined use of corporate campaigns and “card check organizing.” Before a secret ballot union election is held, under National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) supervision, labor organizations demonstrate worker interest though authorization cards, signed by employees who want collective bargaining representation.

     “Unlike a secret ballot election, union authorization cards are signed in the presence of an interested party -- a pro-union co-worker or an outside union organizer -- with no governmental supervision,” Yager explained. “There is no question that this absence of supervision has resulted in deceptions, coercion, and other abuses over the years.”

     Card check organizing, Yager explained, is often used because under current law, if more than 50 percent of employees sign authorization cards, employers may voluntarily recognize a union, without holding a secret ballot election. Corporate campaigns, Yager said, are a means of bypassing a union election and boosting the number of workers who sign authorization cards.

     “The substance of the strategy is now well documented by academics, the courts, and the unions themselves,” he testified.

     Ron Kipling, director of room operations at the New Otani Hotel & Garden in Los Angeles, CA, described a current corporate campaign waged by the union that represents him and his fellow hotel employees. He alleged that the organization employed tactics such as spreading the rumor that the “hotel restaurants and kitchens had insect problems” and numerous other “health code violations”; galvanizing racial tension; attempting to “prevent government agencies from utilizing the hotel for their meeting or overnight needs”; and attacking, through “handouts and news articles” the “credibility of the hotel management and ownership.”

     “It is time that the nation’s labor laws reflected the intent not only to protect workers’ rights, but also to protect their right to choose,” Kipling said.

# # # # #