Report submitted to the Commission on the Future of Worker-Management Relations.Report_Cohen_011994.pdf: 669 downloads, before Oct. 1, 2020

Cohen, Larry

English

eCommons (Cornell Univ.)

Employee Owned Organizations vs. Employer Dominated Organizations

DigitalCommons@ILR

Cornell University ILR School 
DigitalCommons@ILR 
Federal Publications Key Workplace Documents 
January 1994 
Employee Owned Organizations vs. Employer Dominated 
Organizations 
Larry Cohen 
Communications Workers of America 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/key_workplace 
Thank you for downloading an article from DigitalCommons@ILR. 
Support this valuable resource today! 
This Report is brought to you for free and open access by the Key Workplace Documents at DigitalCommons@ILR. 
It has been accepted for inclusion in Federal Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@ILR. 
For more information, please contact catherwood-dig@cornell.edu. 
If you have a disability and are having trouble accessing information on this website or need materials in an 
alternate format, contact web-accessibility@cornell.edu for assistance. 
Employee Owned Organizations vs. Employer Dominated Organizations 
Comments 
Report Submitted to the Commission on the Future of Worker-Management Relations 
Suggested Citation 
Cohen, L. (1994). Employee owned organizations vs. employer dominated organizations (Report 
submitted to the Commission on the Future of Worker-Management Relations). Retrieved [insert date], 
from Cornell University, School of Industrial and Labor Relations site: 
http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/key_workplace/430 
This report is available at DigitalCommons@ILR: https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/key_workplace/430 
rTopef ly of 
MARTIN P. CATHERWOOD LIBRARY 
NEW YORK STATE SCHOOL 
INDUSTRIAL AND LABOR R E L A T W 
Cornell Univp.rsitv 
EMPLOYEE OWNED ORGANIZATIONS 
VS. 
EMPLOYER DOMINATED ORGANIZATIONS 
L a r r y Cohen 
A s s i s t a n t t o t h e P r e s i d e n t 
D i r e c t o r o f O r g a n i z a t i o n 
C o m m u n i c a t i o n s W o r k e r s o f A m e r i c a 
J a n u a r y 1 9 , 1994 
US employers routinely interfere in employee efforts to 
establish independent workplace organizations. Yet many of these 
same employers toss around concepts such as worker empowerment 
and workplace participation as if there was no relationship to 
organizational rights. In our union alone, in the past five 
years, we have supported more than 200 worker led organizational 
efforts involving more than 200,000 employees. In a few 
instances, employers negotiated neutrality agreements. In every 
other case, management conducted total war in the workplace, 
sparing no expense, and often blatantly violating the law to 
ensure that their employees had no organization to represent 
them. Effective representation implies an organization that is 
both employee led and self-sustaining. 
It is in that context that we believe the ban on employer 
dominated organizations must be viewed. These are not partial 
steps towards representation, but at best paternalistic efforts 
to increase compliance and raise productivity. Those who would 
measure such efforts by only examining productivity and 
efficiency are effectively holding fundamental workers' rights 
hostage to short term profits. More often, employer dominated 
organizations are cynical efforts to enforce loyalty to 
management and prevent real organization. 
We would argue that Section 8(a)(2) of the National Labor 
Relations Act needs to be strengthened, not weakened or 
abandoned. The current test for employer domination already 
permits most employers to ignore the law. In a recent case 
involving CWA supported organizing at a newspaper in Spokane, the 
NLRB region ruled that the organization in question was not 
employer dominated even though there were no officers, no 
independent funding, no election of representatives, no mechanism 
for employees to initiate or adopt policy positions, or to file 
grievances. The Regional Director found that employee 
representatives volunteered and therefore were not company 
selected, and that a form of "bargaining" did occur. Other cases 
follow a similar line. 
Earlier, we have presented to this commission a series of 
case studies, demonstrating the wide variety of employer abuses 
prevalent throughout our nation. Similarly, our education 
department presented a paper entitled, "Heroines and Hurdles: A 
Look at Women's Struggle for a Voice in the Workplace. . ." at a 
recent conference of the Department of Labor Women's Bureau. 
Today I will focus on two case studies, both involving employee 
efforts to organize in spite of the presence of employer 
dominated organizations. These cases involve AT&T/NCR and 
Sprint. Both are large multinational corporations, and leaders 
in their field. Both involve current efforts by employees 
struggling against enormous odds to build an organization that is 
truly their own. 
AT&T/NCR 
The NCR case study is unusual only in that we are able to view in 
detail the systematic abuse of workers' rights, particularly 
organizational rights at one of our nation's largest corporations 
over a long period of time. Our union's own experience with 
Sprint, TCI, MCI, to name a few, clearly indicates that the venal 
and illegal record of NCR is regrettably accepted corporate 
behavior. NCR is also important because the "Satisfaction 
Councils" established by the corporation provide an excellent 
example as to why protection against company-domination of 
employee organizations should be extended rather than curtailed. 
We would argue that it would be a serious omission if this 
Commission were to avoid detailed descriptions of the terror 
unleashed at its workplaces by NCR and many, if not most, other 
American firms over the last several decades. The truth cries 
out to be told, not only by workers fired and discriminated 
against in their efforts to organize, but now by this very 
Commission. 
We have distributed packets that detail key aspects of the 
NCR case study. First, there is a series of slides used to train 
company supervisors as they created what they called a "Union 
Free Organization (UFO)". As indicated in the material, NCR was 
once a primarily union company, and the UFO campaign was designed 
-3-
to eliminate union representation, plant by plant. In fact, this 
material was provided to us by managers at the last remaining 
union plant in Cambridge, Ohio, about 5 years ago. When that 
plant could not be de-unionized, it was closed, despite its well-
known profitability. 
Next in the packet are the two complaints issued thus far by 
two regions of the National Labor Relations Board, charging NCR 
with violations of Section 8(a)(2). Additional charges have been 
filed with other regions and we are now seeking a national 
complaint. Complaints were issued since the "Satisfaction 
Councils" did discuss terms and conditions of employment, and 
were in fact, dominated and controlled by the company, including 
the agenda of the meetings.
 v 
Next, we have presented a series of documents describing the 
National Association of NCR Employees (NANE). This organization, 
which now has more than 400 members in 2 0 different chapters 
around the country, is composed of employees who are openly 
demanding change at NCR. Average NCR service of the membership 
is more than 20 years. Most of the members are field engineers 
who install and repair computer and other equipment sold by the 
company. They are highly educated, receiving several months of 
training per year. Compared to the average American worker, they 
are well-paid. Andrew Rivers already testified before this 
Commission at hearings in Lansing, Michigan, and stated quite 
-4-
clearly that NANE members are insisting on, and working for a 
real voice for themselves and other employees in the future of 
the i r c ompany. 
The contrast here is striking. On the one-hand, 
"Satisfaction Councils", dominated by the employer, and on the 
other hand, hundreds of employees establishing their own 
organization at great risk. These employees could participate 
with no pain, and probably significant personal gain in the 
company's "Satisfaction Councils." Yet, their own pride and 
self-esteem has encouraged many of them to fight for their 
organization for a long period of time. The only minimal support 
they have received from the NLRB are the complaints against the 
"Satisfaction Councils." It would be wrong and insulting to the 
courage of these workers to change the law and legitimize such 
entities. Instead, we should toughen up the law and protect 
organizations such as NANE that are owned by workers and work for 
workers. 
SPRINT 
The Sprint case study follows much the same pattern. First, 
we have provided a copy of the "US Sprint Union Free Management 
Guide." Again, the boldness of this material, attests to the 
confidence with which US managers openly attack self organization 
by their employees. Sprint's Human Resource Department develops 
this type of material on a regular basis, also including several 
anti-union video productions. 
The remainder of the Sprint material details the activities 
of the Sprint Employee Network (SEN). SEN has been led by 
courageous women and men despite continuing and intense 
intimidation and hostility from management. For example, in the 
packet, is a reprint of a headline from a Kansas City newspaper 
the day after the Sprint stockholders' meeting in Kansas City. 
The article entitled "Quizzing the Chief" describes questions by 
SEN activists at the stockholders' meeting regarding electronic 
surveillance at the workplace and office closings. 
On the day after the stockholders' meeting, when several of 
the workers returned to Dallas, where they are employed as Sprint 
Service Representatives, supervisors presented them with their 
pictures at the meeting. The supervisors indicated that these 
pictures had been faxed on the afternoon of the meeting for 
identification purposes. The supervisors had been instructed to 
interrogate the employees on their return. 
The other Sprint materials in the packet are examples of SEN 
newsletters, with articles written by employees, and distributed 
both nationally and locally. This "underground" distribution of 
information stands in stark contrast to the company propaganda 
<jlid.mieled by sprint through it's "Sprint Quality" network. 
-6-
"Sprint Quality" committees, like the "Satisfaction Councils" at 
NCR are totally company controlled and dominated. These 
committees, up until now, have not focused on terms and 
conditions of employment largely because our union would 
obviously support the workers in SEN by filing charges. If our 
government were to relax prohibitions on company-dominated 
organizations, "Sprint Quality" would be expanded. 
In the enclosed paper, "Heroines and Hurdles," we detail the 
organizing efforts of Tunja Gardner, who appeared last Fall 
before this Commission. Employees like Tunja are building their 
own organization. The challenge for us, this Commission, and our 
nation, is how to preserve and increase their ability to build 
such an independent organization. 
At a recent "Workplace of the Future" session with top 
management of an AT&T business unit, union represented workers 
argued that management was short-sighted, not growth oriented, 
and simply sought to maximize profits by cutting costs which all 
too often meant jobs. The employees produced information to 
support this position, also demonstrating that managers didn't 
remain long enough in any one position to produce real change, 
but quickly left for a higher paying position elsewhere in the 
firm or in another firm whenever possible. 
Could a conversation like that ever occur at an NCR 
-7-
"Satisfaction Council" meeting? Would Sprint employees feel free 
to raise such concerns during a "Sprint Quality" session? If we 
encourage workplace participation, it should be based on employee 
groups that are confident that they can be agents for real 
change. Such groups need to be independent from management 
control, self-sustaining and able to negotiate their future as 
well as discuss it. 
We can best support real workplace participation not by 
weakening section 8(a)(2), but by strengthening real protection 
for the right to organize. As many previous participants in this 
Commission's deliberations have expressed, we need only look to 
other industrial democracies for the answers. In Canada and much 
of Europe, recognition of independent employee organizations, or 
unions, is expected, and not exceptional. 
Statutory reforms providing for card check recognition based 
on clear majority support, and when necessary, representation 
elections held within a few weeks of petitioning are the single 
most needed changes. Second, we need real penalties such as 
debarment from government contracts when employers violate labor 
laws. Third, workers need speedy relief at the National Labor 
Relations Board, not endless delays that force abused workers to 
accept cash settlements instead of justice. 
American exceptionalism does not explain the low rates of 
organization in this country. We need to confront and prevent 
employer abuse of their own workers, and support the right of 
workers to build their own organizations without fear. 
) 
9-


https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1435&amp;context=key_workplace

Employee Owned Organizations vs. Employer Dominated Organizations

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

eCommons (Cornell Univ.)

DigitalCommons@ILR