National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) A few days ago, there was a vote on a controversial policy to permit changing workplace election rules regarding votes on union representation. The proposed rule at issue was the shortening of the amount of time between a union filing a petition to hold an election for union representation and the actual vote. While the vote was heavily favored by union and labor lobbyists, it was opposed by most business groups. Because most employers do not hear about the vote until they are notified by the NLRB, the shortening of the amount of time between the petition and the actual vote is very important. Each side has many important actions to take prior to an election. In terms of the union organizers, there is much that they need to do prior to the election. Before the vote can even happen, the union must collect authorization cards from 30 percent of the employees (saying they agree to be in a union). The union must then file a petition with the NLRB who becomes the referee in the process. Once this is done, the employer is notified to address any issues raised by the petition, such as the legitimacy of the petition signatures, which employees to include in the proposed bargaining unit, and so forth. The union must then prove there is an adequate showing of interest for the union (usually done with authorization cards). This is the most important thing the union must do before an election. If the union cannot gather enough interest from employees, then the petition is dismissed and the election will not happen. The time between the petition and vote really comes into play with the employers. In most cases, the employers do not know about the petition and vote until they hear about it from the NLRB. There is much the employer must do if they want to fight the union and therefore the less time they have to deal with the matter, the less likely they are to win the case. Before the vote, the employer may challenge the showing of interest by claiming that the signatures on the cards are not genuine, or that they have been tainted by supervisory involvement in the union’s campaign, or that the union has understated the number of employees in the unit that it seeks to represent. It would then be up to the Board to investigate these claims. The employer can also require a secret ballot election to gage the true interest of employees who may have been pressured into originally voting for the union. Finally, the employer only has the time between the petition being signed and the vote to challenge the appropriateness of the union or raise other issues. Some of these issues include the number of employees in the union, the cause for unionizing, who can be included in the union (independent contractors, etc.), and many others. There is much that an employer needs to do before the election happens and this is why I think the union groups would want a shorter period and businesses want to keep the longer period. There is not a whole lot a business can do once the election is held to fight the problems they see with the union. If they only have a short time to investigate everything on the petition, the business might miss something that could hurt them once the election happens. Likewise, if the election happens and the business misses something, the union could gain a huge advantage when discussing wages, work conditions, and other issues at hand. It may not seem like a huge issue, but in reality this is a very important vote that businesses and unions will both want to pay close attention.
NFL Labor Dispute From the middle of March until nearly the end of July, many people were wondering if there would be professional football played this fall and winter. The labor dispute was very much in the public eye and given that it is the most popular sport in America, there was no shortage of fear that the season would not happen. The list of issues between the owners and players was extremely long which made settlement that much more tedious and difficult to achieve. The number one issue in the dispute, as it is in most disputes, was money. The owners were asking for an additional $1 billion from the league’s roughly $9 billion of total revenue. The union estimated that this would cut its share of revenues by 18 percent. Before the new agreement, the owners got $1 billion to cover expenses associated with running the league and the remaining money was split roughly 60%-40% for the players. Factoring in the initial credit expense received by the owners, the players were receiving about 51%. The owners wanted to take an additional $1 billion off the top for expenses (for a total of $2 billion before splitting up the rest of the revenue). The players, suffice to say, were not on board with this at all. Another issue that needed to be resolved was whether or not to add two more games to the regular season (increasing it from 16 to 18 games). The players resisted this action heavily because of the concerns over health and longevity in the league. The owners say this change as a good thing because it would bring in an additional (estimated) $500 million to be split between both parties. However, the players wanted a reduction of mandatory off-season work and improved health coverage in post-career care. The owners also wanted a rookie wage scale to reduce the huge salaries going to top draft picks. In an open letter to fans NFL Commissioner, Roger Goodell, wrote that without a new CBA, “outrageous” sums will continue being paid to “unproven rookies.” A new deal could leave more money for former players and veterans. Two other smaller issues that needed to be resolved in order for a season to start included financial disclosure and benefits for retired players. The owners were arguing that owning a NFL team was actually losing them money and they needed more in order to keep things running smoothly. The players demanded that the owners open their books to prove they were actually heading for financial disaster. The owners, however, said the players had all the information they needed to understand that owning an NFL team was a “losing gig.” The other issue doesn’t really need much explanation. Many players who are no longer in the league suffer from many different problems, including depression and head issues, and the NFLPA simply wanted more attention to go to retired players. After 136 long days, the lockout finally ended. Football was back. In the end, I would have to say that neither side really “lost” with the new agreement. The owners now will keep 52% of the revenues, not the 47% from the previous collective bargaining agreement, but they also will have to operate with a $120 million salary cap, with an additional approximately $20 million for benefits, and have a guaranteed spend. In the end, the two sides are splitting $9 billion, tough to say there is a loser there. The season will remain at 16 games, which the players like. The rookies may have lost a bit as they will not get as much as before, but this seems fair as some first-rounder picks were getting absurd amounts of money. Finally, the veteran minimum has gone up, which is a good thing, and there will be money set aside for retired players in terms of health care to deal with matters resulting from playing in the league. The NFL is a $9.3 billion business today. Who knows what it will be in the future, but it will not be less. It will be probably be much, much more. There had to be a way the two sides could come to an agreement. There were other small caveats to the agreement, but in terms of the important issues like money and scheduling, I would say that neither side lost. NFL is as popular as ever and it’s only going to get bigger so the fact that it took so long to figure out how to split up $9 billion is a bit ridiculous. Regardless, I am just glad the sport is back in action.