ORC Sightlines
June 2007
- U.S. Labor Movement Seeks Federal Legislation to Bolster Organizing Capability
- Assessing Leadership Potential
- ORC Executive Named VP, International, for CIPD
U.S. Labor Movement Seeks Federal Legislation to Bolster Organizing Capability
In March, the House of Representatives passed the Employee Free Choice Act; the legislation was then introduced in the Senate by Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA). While it faces a tough battle in the upper house of Congress, and an almost certain presidential veto, the Employee Free Choice Act is the keystone of organized labor’s survival strategy in America, and the movement is unlikely to give up on it anytime soon. Labor’s strategy rests on four pillars: card checks, mediation and arbitration for initial contracts, employer neutrality during organizing campaigns and a change to the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) definition of “supervisor.” The Employee Free Choice Act concentrates on the first two of these pillars which, if adopted, would have a major impact on labor relations in the country.
Currently, an employer can choose to recognize a union that has obtained signatures on authorization cards from a majority of employees in the bargaining unit (a process known as card check), but it need not do so. Instead, the company can insist on a government-monitored election. The Employee Free Choice Act would eliminate elections. Under the law, the NLRB would be bound to certify a union as the employees’ representative if it found that a majority of employees had signed authorization cards.
Labor unions argue that card checks are fairer than elections because employers too often coerce employees to vote against them. Employers, on the other hand, note that, while elections are secret , card checks are not. Since the union will know who has signed an authorization, employees will be open to peer pressure and harassment.
The bill also requires that if a company and a union cannot reach agreement after 90 days of negotiating for a first contract , either party may refer the dispute to the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) for mediation. Employers point out that this 90-day window to come to agreement is unusually short since most contracts take several months to work out. If the FMCS is unable to bring the parties to reach an agreement after 30 days of mediation, the dispute will be referred to arbitration. More worrisome from the company’s point of view is that the arbitrator may have very little understanding of the company’s business environment and, having no previous contracts to rely on, may base decisions on contracts at other companies that won’t translate well into a different context.
Beyond the measures included in the current bill, are the remaining two pillars of labor’s strategy: employer neutrality and a new definition of “supervisor.” Imposing employer neutrality during organizing campaigns would mean that the employer would not be able to present to employees its case for remaining nonunion. To date, unions have tried to obtain agreements of neutrality through contract negotiations, with limited success. A next step might be to include a neutrality requirement in future labor reform legislation.
Changing NLRB’s definition of “supervisor” would enable many workers who are currently barred from joining unions to do so. In March, Senator Kennedy, along with Senators Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Richard Durbin (D-IL) introduced the Re-Empowerment of Skilled and Professional Employees and Construction Tradeworkers (RESPECT) Act, which would narrow the supervisor category to cover only employees spending a majority of their time on supervisory activities. Proponents of the change believe the NLRB has, over time, expanded the supervisory category and in so doing has unfairly barred many workers from joining unions even though their supervisory responsibilities are limited and they don’t have hiring, firing or disciplinary authority over the people they oversee. Employers object that the RESPECT Act’s new definition goes way beyond righting these extreme cases and would allow many legitimately designated supervisors and managers to join the same unions as their subordinates.
ORC’s Labor Relations practice will continue to monitor these developments for the members of its Networks.
For more information, contact Thomas Connors, +1-212-852-0352.
Assessing Leadership Potential
How to identify employees with the potential to become the company’s future leaders was a topic of lively discussion at the May meeting of ORC’s Talent Management Forum (TMF). In particular, participants debated the pros and cons of assessment centers. the lessons from their combined experience suggest some basic guidelines for improving the predictive value of assessment center exercises.
Following are some of these suggestions.
- Include internal leaders among assessors.
- Design the exercises around case studies rather than “inbox” handling.
- Customize the situations and role plays used so that they relate explicitly to the company’s business.
- Bring assessors together to calibrate results.
- Never base an employment decision solely on assessment centers results; they should be considered just one data point among several.
Participants also shared other methodologies for evaluating leadership potential, such as social network mapping. One company noted that plotting the interactions among employees can help uncover talent that might otherwise be overlooked. This is because the “go to” people—those who show up as the hub of the largest networks—often tend to wield their influence quietly. Network mapping also can be valuable in identifying the individuals who can help others develop.
Defining potential and helping managers differentiate between potential and current performance are continuing challenges in many companies. TMF participants shared their definitions and some of the tools they use to chart and compare potential ratings.
For more information about ORC’s talent management practice and related Networks, contact Susan Carter, Michal Fineman, or Jodi Starkman at +1-212-719-3400.
ORC Executive Named VP, International, for CIPD
The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD), the United Kingdom’s leading association for human resources professionals, has named Siobhan Cummins as Vice President Elect, International. While continuing as Managing Director of ORC Europe, Ms. Cummins will add to her plate the responsibility for leading CIPD’s activities relating to HR management in a global context. Her travel schedule will become even more demanding as she represents CIPD at international conferences and at meetings of sister organizations. She will chair the Vice President’s panel of international experts on various aspects of international personnel and development practice as well as advise the CIPD on research into international subjects. ORC is proud of the confidence CIPD has shown in selecting Ms. Cummins for this important position.