News

February 21, 2008

Expert: Bishop’s message anti-union

Labor professor says letter from Martino mimics moves by firms that aid employers.

By Mark Guydish mguydish@timesleader.com
Education Reporter
Mark Guydish on Facebook   |   @TLMarkGuydish on Twitter

Bishop Joseph Martino’s comments in a recent letter to the Diocese of Scranton faithful echoed anti-union tactics used by some highly paid consulting firms, a Penn State labor studies professor said, and those comments arguably bolster union efforts.

“It seems to me that the actions of the bishop make the case in the most powerful terms as to why these workers need a union,” said Paul F. Clark, head of the university’s department of labor studies and employment relations.

Conceding he has a strong pro-union background that includes doing research for unions, Clark said Martino’s comments included in the full-page newspaper ad were in line with advice consulting firms give to employers trying to fight unions. Stressing he doesn’t know if Martino is receiving any such advice, Clark noted “there is no question there are firms that specialize in union avoidance. It’s a cottage industry that has seen significant growth in recent years.”

Law firms that deal in labor issues range from those sticking to neutral based on each situation to consultants whose “sole reason for existence is not to advise on ongoing negotiations, but to defeat unions and try to get rid of them,” Clark said.

More aggressive tactics of such consultants include “attacking the intentions of the union or the reasons for trying to organize, painting them as being self-interested, that all they want is union dues so the union leaders can be well paid,” Clark said. Martino’s letter claimed union “leaders have reasons based on self-interest for wanting to retain their role in some of our schools.”

Clark said “other tactics would involve implicit or actual threats to individuals or about closing of a facility.”

In his letter, Martino did not explicitly say the unions threatened the survival of Catholic schools, but wrote “labor unions seek to obtain increased benefits for their members. They should also seek, however, to act in a way that does not hinder the apostolic endeavor that provides their livelihood.”

The Scranton Diocese Association of Catholic Teachers has sought recognition as the teacher representative ever since Martino’s 2006 announcement of school restructuring. Martino eliminated the small school boards the union had negotiated contracts with, replacing them with four regional boards.

Last month, three of those four boards rejected the union’s request to represent teachers, opting instead to implement an employee relations program that creates councils for each school with representatives elected by teachers through secret ballot, a move Clark also criticized.

“It’s my sense that that what the bishop is doing would be clearly illegal under the National Labor Relations Act,” Clark said. “There are longstanding court rulings that employers can’t set up de facto unions or things that take the place of unions but are ultimately controlled by the employer.”

Because of a split decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1979, Catholic school teachers do not fall under the National Labor Relations Act. Under the federal law, the teachers would ordinarily be able to petition the National Labor Relations Board to force the diocese to hold a secret-ballot election on unionization. If the majority voted for unionizing, the law would require the diocese to accept it.

Martino’s letter cited the Supreme Court case, as well as Church Canon Law, when he wrote: “A union, then, is not required, essential or mandated.”

The law may not apply to the diocese, but Clark noted – as local union President Michael Milz has -- that “the Church has long held that workers should have the right to unionize if they choose. Basically the bishop is saying ‘We support that right except when it is inconvenient for us, when it creates hardship for us.’ ”

“I took special notice to the bishop’s comments about the mine workers union in the northeast part of the state,” Clark said, adding that he worked with the mine workers union years ago. In public speeches, Milz cited staunch support for United Mine Workers from previous Scranton bishops. In his letter, Martino countered: “Are (union leaders) seriously asking you to equate the situation of our Catholic school teachers today with the deplorable conditions endured by the coal miners, steel mill workers and factory laborers of a century ago?”

Clark said “There is a lot of evidence that unions have played very significant roles for all types of workers, including white-collar employees.”

Diocese officials have steadfastly insisted the new employee relations program will provide ample and fair representation for all employees in the school system, a promise repeated by Martino in his letter.

Clark said that’s just another anti-union tactic. “For over 100 years the anti-union movement has used that same rationale, saying our employees don’t need a union. I’m not sure the church wants to be associated with that type of anti-unionism.”

The bottom line, Clark said, is that if the teachers don’t want to unionize, the bishop’s actions are probably justified. But if many of them seek union representation, they should be given the chance to vote on it.

ON THE WEB

See Martino’s letter and the union response at www.timesleader.com.

Tweet	Follow @TLnews