Getting out the crystal ball to look at the possible impact of 4 more years of Bush on labor and employment law

After all the post-election bragging, backpatting, whining, second-guessing, analyzing, and blaming settles down, it’s time to look ahead realistically to assess the election’s likely impact on the workplace issues that are our bread and butter.

Here I collect a few pieces by others on the subject, and contribute some of my own predictions as well.

First, from the Houston Chronicle: “Labor experts see changes during second Bush term” (By L.M. SIXEL)

It’s still too early to sort out the workplace implications of a second Bush term, but it looks as if health care savings accounts and comp time are in.

What’s out? Forget a big increase in the minimum wage, and drop any notion of a reversal of the new overtime regulations. . .

But that’s not the end of the struggle over overtime. With a new Bush term, look for a renewed congressional push that would allow workers to bank compensatory time.

Now, a worker is supposed to take the comp time in the week it’s earned or get overtime pay. It’s been a hot-button issue for Republicans, who contend that many of today’s time-starved workers prefer the flexibility. . . [T]his time the Republicans may win.

Here are some brief bullet points on the type of reform contemplated.

Certainly work schedule flexibility is desired by many employees. With such legislation, though, the flexibility is initially that of the employer, who, as always, can compel performance of overtime work.

Critics who stop with this observation miss the key point that there still is meaningful flexibility in allowing employees to choose additional time off as a new form of overtime compensation. And implementation of such legislative reform might yield the empirically proven benefits of flexibility — “workers who believe they have flexibility are able to work eight hours more a week and still feel they have work-life balance.” As long as the employee can still choose traditional overtime pay, I see no downside.

On another front, the minimum wage will probably go up during the second Bush term. . .

Labor unions will continue to have a rough time up against an employer-friendly National Labor Relations Board. . . Read more

The NLRB is always subject to shifting political winds. The NLRB has historically been much more willing than the courts to reconsider and overrule established precedents. The rules in some areas have flip-flopped back and forth several times.

Some important issues currently kicking around the Board or anticipated in coming years include:

• Permissible scope and application of employer e-mail restrictions that have the effect of making this very convenient and cost-free means of communication unavailable for union organizing or other union purposes.
• Decertification elections where union recognition was based only on a check of union cards, not a secret ballot election (there have also been legislative initiatives both favoring and opposing card-check recognition as an alternative to the secret ballot)
  
• Circumstances under which union “corporate campaigns” may be union unfair labor practices.

(Source: NLRB Watch – subscription only)

One issue with important workplace implications is immigration policy. Hardly at the head of national priorities, perhaps, but potentially important given Bush’s relatively strong showing among Hispanics.

Any reform must face two realities : 1) it is impossible to stop the flow of immigrants from Mexico, given the disparity in living standards between the US and Mexico; and 2) these immigrants are filling a substantial need for low-cost labor in certain sectors.

From the Washington Post (via Yahoo): “Powell Cautious About Immigration Changes” (by Glenn Kessler and Kevin Sullivan)

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell . . . said President Bush would place a “high priority” on pushing his stalled plan through Congress, but he said he did not want to “overpromise” success.

Bush unveiled the plan 10 months ago, but it received a lukewarm reception on Capitol Hill and the administration made little effort to promote it during the election year. In last week’s election, Bush received about 44 percent of the Hispanic vote, up from 35 percent in 2000, exit polls indicated. Mexican President Vincente Fox has made it clear that he hopes to seize the moment to achieve an agreement on migration.

Bush’s plan would make the 8 million undocumented immigrants in the United States eligible for temporary legal status for at least six years, as long as they are employed. But it would not automatically put them on a path to obtaining citizenship or even permanent resident status. Bush has said most “temporary workers” would eventually have to leave the United States. . .

Many Mexicans remain skeptical that the United States is serious about immigration reform, particularly after strong Republican gains in Congress in last week’s elections. Republican lawmakers have been among the biggest skeptics of Bush’s plan. In another sign of American sentiments, Arizona voters approved a referendum cracking down on illegal aliens receiving public benefits. . .

Geronimo Gutierrez, head of North American affairs in the Mexican Foreign Ministry, said Mexico understands that the debate over immigration has changed in the United States since 2001. Immigration is now viewed mainly as a homeland security issue, he said, and Mexico has argued that creating a “safe, legal and orderly” flow of workers into the United States improves security. Read more

Next, from the Washington Post, a discussion of possible changes for federal employees: “Election Results Point to Imminent Battles Over Bush’s Agenda for Employees” (by Stephen Barr)

President Bush’s reelection will sharpen, and perhaps speed up, the administration’s management agenda for the federal workforce, especially in such areas as performance-based pay and competitive sourcing.

Bush’s victory also gives a green light to the departments of Defense and Homeland Security — where nearly half of federal employees work — to move ahead with overhauls of their pay and personnel systems. Regulations to revamp pay, promotions and labor relations in the two departments will probably be published later this year or in January. . .

Looking to Bush’s second term, Colleen M. Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union, said, “I think they will try to decrease the role of unions in the federal workplace.” . . .

One of the first clues to what Bush’s second term will mean for federal employees should come in his fiscal 2006 budget proposal. Bush will be confronting projections of a large deficit and may turn to his management agenda to leverage agencies for savings, including lower payroll costs. . .

Kelley predicted Bush appointees in the next presidential term “will try to speed up the dismantling of the GS pay system and moving more agencies off of the civil service rules as we know them today.” Read more

Finally, see this bitterly anti-Bush preelection labor piece from Labor Research Association: “Bush On Labor – “Worse than Ronald Reagan” (Mar. 27, 2003) (by Cynthia Green)

He promised compassionate conservatism in his 2000 presidential campaign, but for working families, President Bush has delivered anything but since being installed in the White House.

Bush’s labor report card might make his father proud, but labor leaders give him a failing grade, pointing to a fast-growing list of anti-union actions, proposals and tactics emanating from the current administration. . . .

“From end to end, from issue to issue, he’s mounted a direct assault on labor unions and the working poor.” . . . From core labor issues like the right to organize to administrative appointments at the National Labor Relations Board, Bush has swiftly reversed much of the gain unions enjoyed under President Clinton – and has eroded standards that had survived even the preceding 12 years of Republican rule of the White House.

Etc., etc. Read more

I guess from this point of view it’s nothing but more of “screw the workingman.” But the more one can move away from the traditional adversarial model of labor relations and see that what’s good for business often is actually good for employees too — at least if they want jobs – the less clear it is that the country as a whole will be worse off as a result of the types of change that business likes and entrenched old-line labor abhors. Competitiveness and growth trumps the union mentality, and I think most Americans — both Democrats and Republicans — get it. What’s bad for Big Labor is not always bad for “working families.”