April 29, 2009

Colorado Bill Would Benefit Locked-Out Workers

By
George Anderson

In
1999, the state of Colorado passed legislation that made it impossible
for people locked-out of the workplace by employers to collect unemployment
benefits.

The
law was passed following a decision by Safeway in 1996 to lock out employees
represented by the United Food and Commercial Workers after members of
the union employed by King Soopers (Kroger) voted to strike the chain.
Roughly 3,500 Safeway employees were locked out for 42 days, according
to the Denver Business Journal.

Proposed
legislation in the Colorado Senate would overturn the 1999 law and make
it possible for locked-out workers to receive unemployment benefits. Striking
workers would still not be eligible to receive unemployment checks.

Supporters
of the legislation say it simply puts workers and employers back on the
same footing they were on before 1999. Opponents argue that it could strain
state resources intended for others at a time when the job picture is uncertain.

Colorado
Governor Bill Ritter (D) has vetoed union-friendly legislation in the past.

Discussion
Questions: Should locked-out workers be able to collect unemployment
benefits? Are current labor laws stacked in favor of workers or management
when it comes to the retailing business?

Discussion Questions

Poll

5 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Nikki Baird
Nikki Baird

Well, as a Coloradan, I can say that my state is definitely conservative when it comes to employment and what governs employer-employee relationships.

But I think a harder question, in this age of questions about unions, is not about whether things are stacked for or against business or unions. From my perspective (and as someone basically self-employed, I readily admit I’m biased), we need to have a discussion about how the employment landscape is stacked against independent workers.

Now, it’s relatively well-covered ground, actually, when you’re talking about knowledge workers, but let’s talk about it in the retail context.

One of the hardest things to manage from a staffing perspective is retail hours against employee availability, keeping in mind the coverage the retailer wants and the number of hours each employee wants. In a world where corporate employees are no longer subsidized through benefits–to both employers and employees by the way–then as a retailer, you could simply publish the hours you want worked with the skill sets you want during those hours, and let freelance retail employees bid on the hours they want to work. From the “associate’s” perspective, they could potentially bid for work across multiple retailers, getting all the hours they want during the times they want.

Think that’s too far-fetched? These kinds of things are already happening in graphic design, and a whole host of work options on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. The pieces needed are rapidly coming into place: online/distance learning for training, online schedule/availability management through WFM….

The biggest thing in the way is not the technology to make that happen, it’s the way our employment system works today–which definitely favors working for a big company, whether unionized or not, over working on contract or freelance.

David Livingston
David Livingston

Workers who are locked out as a result of a labor dispute should not be able to collect unemployment benefits. When workers join a union, that is the risk they take. The union has made a personal decision for them and therefore workers should look to the union to pay them strike benefits instead. Current labor laws are stacked in favor of workers. Employers should be able to hire and fire for any reason at any time unless there is an employment contract.

Is it any wonder we outsource work overseas where labor laws are more employer friendly? Our courts are clogged with workers who feel they were unfairly terminated. This is why I only hire 1099 consultants because I don’t want to have to comply with employment laws.

Bill Bittner
Bill Bittner

There can be no doubt that the corporate/labor pendulum has swung to the corporate side over the past few years. Corporations, specifically corporate management, has benefited considerably as more of GDP has come from the financial industry and computers and the Internet have expanded the “span of control” of retail management. Automation enables acquisitions and consolidations that have concentrated retail operations into a few large conglomerates, making it more difficult for SMEs to compete. Large retailers are able to extract concessions as they negotiate individual labor contracts or avoid unions altogether by shutting down locations challenged by labor organizers.

What has been lost is a level of self discipline from all sides. It seems too many senior managers come to the table with an air of entitlement and labor negotiators fail to understand the business’s requirements. Senior manger salaries have become a way they keep score and many have lost all conscience of what they’re paid. This has led to ridiculous compensation plans that bear no resemblance to the fortunes of the company.

On the labor side, unions have seemed to loose track of their role to provide a productive labor force for the business. Yes, they must represent their members in negotiations but they must also be ready to handle the difficult situations when individuals are no longer meeting expectations or existing contracts put the company at a competitive disadvantage. Having the highest hourly wage is no advantage if your hours are cut to zero.

I don’t know how you encourage self discipline. I guess anything you would do to encourage it means it’s no longer spontaneous. The first reaction might be to use regulation to avoid the extremes, but I am also reminded that “you cannot legislate morality.” It really takes a sense of shared consequence that encourages each participant to consider the larger picture as they fight for their individual rewards. Maybe we have the best solution possible as the pendulum swings between extremes and the average supports all.

Gene Detroyer

A strike is initiated by labor. Labor chooses not to work. Therefore, they are not entitled to any benefits. To work or not is their choice, just as if someone quits a job…no benefits.

A lockout is initiated by the employer. The employees are willing and able to work. If so, of course they are eligible for unemployment benefits just as anyone who is furloughed, laid-off, or terminated with or without cause.

Craig Sundstrom
Craig Sundstrom

The RW Pannel is to be congratulated: in a mere 4 postings, they’ve given every possible response!

On purely technical grounds, I have to agree with Gene; as to the broader issue of which “side” has too many–or too few–rights, I’m not sure. (But I’m still solidly opposed to repealing the 13th Amendment…however much some people might seem to favor that.)

5 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Nikki Baird
Nikki Baird

Well, as a Coloradan, I can say that my state is definitely conservative when it comes to employment and what governs employer-employee relationships.

But I think a harder question, in this age of questions about unions, is not about whether things are stacked for or against business or unions. From my perspective (and as someone basically self-employed, I readily admit I’m biased), we need to have a discussion about how the employment landscape is stacked against independent workers.

Now, it’s relatively well-covered ground, actually, when you’re talking about knowledge workers, but let’s talk about it in the retail context.

One of the hardest things to manage from a staffing perspective is retail hours against employee availability, keeping in mind the coverage the retailer wants and the number of hours each employee wants. In a world where corporate employees are no longer subsidized through benefits–to both employers and employees by the way–then as a retailer, you could simply publish the hours you want worked with the skill sets you want during those hours, and let freelance retail employees bid on the hours they want to work. From the “associate’s” perspective, they could potentially bid for work across multiple retailers, getting all the hours they want during the times they want.

Think that’s too far-fetched? These kinds of things are already happening in graphic design, and a whole host of work options on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. The pieces needed are rapidly coming into place: online/distance learning for training, online schedule/availability management through WFM….

The biggest thing in the way is not the technology to make that happen, it’s the way our employment system works today–which definitely favors working for a big company, whether unionized or not, over working on contract or freelance.

David Livingston
David Livingston

Workers who are locked out as a result of a labor dispute should not be able to collect unemployment benefits. When workers join a union, that is the risk they take. The union has made a personal decision for them and therefore workers should look to the union to pay them strike benefits instead. Current labor laws are stacked in favor of workers. Employers should be able to hire and fire for any reason at any time unless there is an employment contract.

Is it any wonder we outsource work overseas where labor laws are more employer friendly? Our courts are clogged with workers who feel they were unfairly terminated. This is why I only hire 1099 consultants because I don’t want to have to comply with employment laws.

Bill Bittner
Bill Bittner

There can be no doubt that the corporate/labor pendulum has swung to the corporate side over the past few years. Corporations, specifically corporate management, has benefited considerably as more of GDP has come from the financial industry and computers and the Internet have expanded the “span of control” of retail management. Automation enables acquisitions and consolidations that have concentrated retail operations into a few large conglomerates, making it more difficult for SMEs to compete. Large retailers are able to extract concessions as they negotiate individual labor contracts or avoid unions altogether by shutting down locations challenged by labor organizers.

What has been lost is a level of self discipline from all sides. It seems too many senior managers come to the table with an air of entitlement and labor negotiators fail to understand the business’s requirements. Senior manger salaries have become a way they keep score and many have lost all conscience of what they’re paid. This has led to ridiculous compensation plans that bear no resemblance to the fortunes of the company.

On the labor side, unions have seemed to loose track of their role to provide a productive labor force for the business. Yes, they must represent their members in negotiations but they must also be ready to handle the difficult situations when individuals are no longer meeting expectations or existing contracts put the company at a competitive disadvantage. Having the highest hourly wage is no advantage if your hours are cut to zero.

I don’t know how you encourage self discipline. I guess anything you would do to encourage it means it’s no longer spontaneous. The first reaction might be to use regulation to avoid the extremes, but I am also reminded that “you cannot legislate morality.” It really takes a sense of shared consequence that encourages each participant to consider the larger picture as they fight for their individual rewards. Maybe we have the best solution possible as the pendulum swings between extremes and the average supports all.

Gene Detroyer

A strike is initiated by labor. Labor chooses not to work. Therefore, they are not entitled to any benefits. To work or not is their choice, just as if someone quits a job…no benefits.

A lockout is initiated by the employer. The employees are willing and able to work. If so, of course they are eligible for unemployment benefits just as anyone who is furloughed, laid-off, or terminated with or without cause.

Craig Sundstrom
Craig Sundstrom

The RW Pannel is to be congratulated: in a mere 4 postings, they’ve given every possible response!

On purely technical grounds, I have to agree with Gene; as to the broader issue of which “side” has too many–or too few–rights, I’m not sure. (But I’m still solidly opposed to repealing the 13th Amendment…however much some people might seem to favor that.)

More Discussions