Page 17 - THE SOUTH CHINA BUSINESS JOURNAL
P. 17
the last couple of years, this blog has written Likewise, the PRO Act requires employers to allow
numerous times about the Protecting the employees to utilize an employer’s technology
Right to Organize (PRO) Act, which is the wish “including computers, laptops, tablets, internet
list of onerous policies that labor unions and their access, email, cellular telephones, or other
allies hope to pass. Their objective is to hamstring company equipment” for engaging in so-called
employers and facilitate union organizing efforts “concerted activity.” This would mean workers
in the hope that it will help labor unions reverse could use your systems to talk to one another
a 65-year downward membership trend. Some about wages, benefits and working conditions,
employers may be tempted to think that if they and if you tried to limit that activity and maintain
do not have a union or don’t consider themselves control over your technology, a ULP could follow—
a likely target for organizing, the PRO Act won’t again with massive penalties—even if the business
impact them. Suffice it to say, nothing could be was never the target of an organizing campaign.
farther from the truth.
Employers who engage the services of independent
While this legislation may seem obscure—or even contractors might think the PRO Act is of
not relevant—to some businesses, there are specific little relevance to them, but they too would be
provisions that would impact all employers, mistaken. That’s because the PRO Act adopts
regardless of whether they ever become the California’s restrictive “ABC” test for determining
target of a union organizing campaign. For one employment, which would make many of those
thing, the PRO Act would make it an unfair labor independent contractors employees with respect
practice to include mandatory arbitration clauses to labor law. Thus, many independent contractors
in employment agreements, something many would suddenly be covered by the National Labor
employers do to avoid unnecessarily expensive Relations Act (NLRA), and able to file ULPs related
litigation in employment disputes. These clauses to concerted activity and arbitration clauses.
are widely used, and each agreement with an
individual employee could form the basis of a Finally, because of the PRO Act’s language
separate Unfair Labor Practice charge (ULP). authorizing secondary activity, unions would have
incentives to drag businesses that are not the actual
Under the PRO Act, ULPs would include target of an organizing effort into a campaign
significant penalties of up to $100,000 per against their actual target. Let’s say you are
violation. And these penalties can be levied provide food supplies to a hospital that unions wish
personally on individual company officers or to organize. The union may figure that the hospital
directors. These penalties would apply even if you can’t function without food deliveries, so they
are never the target of a union campaign. Making decide to picket at your company to pressure you
matters worse, anyone can file a ULP—it doesn’t to stop doing business with the hospital. In this
have to be an employee. Unions, and just about way, the hospital might be forced to the bargaining
anyone else, could have a field day filing charges table. But your company, which was not the unions
against any employer using arbitration clauses and actual target, is simply collateral damage.
watching those companies and their officers and
directors get hit with penalty after penalty. To put things simply, the PRO Act would affect
practically every employer in the country, and
the business community must focus its efforts
to make sure lawmakers know how bad this
bill is. The opening line to The WHO song Why
Should I Care asks, “Was there something more I
could have done?” All employers should vocally
oppose this bill and ensure that the answer to that
question is “no.”
numerous times about the Protecting the employees to utilize an employer’s technology
Right to Organize (PRO) Act, which is the wish “including computers, laptops, tablets, internet
list of onerous policies that labor unions and their access, email, cellular telephones, or other
allies hope to pass. Their objective is to hamstring company equipment” for engaging in so-called
employers and facilitate union organizing efforts “concerted activity.” This would mean workers
in the hope that it will help labor unions reverse could use your systems to talk to one another
a 65-year downward membership trend. Some about wages, benefits and working conditions,
employers may be tempted to think that if they and if you tried to limit that activity and maintain
do not have a union or don’t consider themselves control over your technology, a ULP could follow—
a likely target for organizing, the PRO Act won’t again with massive penalties—even if the business
impact them. Suffice it to say, nothing could be was never the target of an organizing campaign.
farther from the truth.
Employers who engage the services of independent
While this legislation may seem obscure—or even contractors might think the PRO Act is of
not relevant—to some businesses, there are specific little relevance to them, but they too would be
provisions that would impact all employers, mistaken. That’s because the PRO Act adopts
regardless of whether they ever become the California’s restrictive “ABC” test for determining
target of a union organizing campaign. For one employment, which would make many of those
thing, the PRO Act would make it an unfair labor independent contractors employees with respect
practice to include mandatory arbitration clauses to labor law. Thus, many independent contractors
in employment agreements, something many would suddenly be covered by the National Labor
employers do to avoid unnecessarily expensive Relations Act (NLRA), and able to file ULPs related
litigation in employment disputes. These clauses to concerted activity and arbitration clauses.
are widely used, and each agreement with an
individual employee could form the basis of a Finally, because of the PRO Act’s language
separate Unfair Labor Practice charge (ULP). authorizing secondary activity, unions would have
incentives to drag businesses that are not the actual
Under the PRO Act, ULPs would include target of an organizing effort into a campaign
significant penalties of up to $100,000 per against their actual target. Let’s say you are
violation. And these penalties can be levied provide food supplies to a hospital that unions wish
personally on individual company officers or to organize. The union may figure that the hospital
directors. These penalties would apply even if you can’t function without food deliveries, so they
are never the target of a union campaign. Making decide to picket at your company to pressure you
matters worse, anyone can file a ULP—it doesn’t to stop doing business with the hospital. In this
have to be an employee. Unions, and just about way, the hospital might be forced to the bargaining
anyone else, could have a field day filing charges table. But your company, which was not the unions
against any employer using arbitration clauses and actual target, is simply collateral damage.
watching those companies and their officers and
directors get hit with penalty after penalty. To put things simply, the PRO Act would affect
practically every employer in the country, and
the business community must focus its efforts
to make sure lawmakers know how bad this
bill is. The opening line to The WHO song Why
Should I Care asks, “Was there something more I
could have done?” All employers should vocally
oppose this bill and ensure that the answer to that
question is “no.”
