Labor act change promotes free choice by lay employeess

The following letter to the editor of the Wilkes-Barre Citizens' Voice appeared June 24, 2008:

Labor act change promotes free choice by lay employees

Editor:

The comments of religious organizations such as the Pennsylvania Catholic Conference and the Keystone Christian Education Association and others responding to House Bill 2626 (which would amend the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Act to include the employees of religiously-affiliated schools) demonstrate both the enormous lack of understanding, as well as the anti-union sentiment espoused by these bodies. One assumes a measure of good faith by these organizations in desiring to maintain a religious institution free from government intrusion. Yet the knee-jerk responses they have given miss the mark entirely.

Those familiar with the labor laws in this country know that neither the National Labor Relations Act nor the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Act compel an employer — any employer — to agree to anything in collective bargaining. These laws were never designed to force employers to agree to contract terms that would change the way they conduct their affairs. The labor laws in this country require only the following:

• they permit employees to select a bargaining representative of their own choosing;
• they compel an employer to bargain in good faith with that representative
• they forbid discrimination or retaliation against employees because they have selected a bargaining agent of their own choosing.

When one thinks closely about these requirements, the objections posed by religious organizations evaporate. None have stated publicly that their religious principles forbid them from recognizing or bargaining with a labor organization freely selected by their lay employees.

Where disputes exist over contract terms, our labor laws have always left the parties to their own devices as to how those disputes will be settled. Neither the National Labor Relations Board or the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board dictates how these disputes get settled.

When one then examines the real basis behind the objections to House Bill 2626, it is not because there is a religious objection to bargaining with or recognition of a labor organization. It is simply because they do not wish to be compelled to do so. This is not a religious objection, but a pragmatic objection. These organizations wish to be free to set their own terms and conditions of employment without having to bargain in good faith with employees on an equal footing. Indeed, as has been demonstrated by the Diocese of Scranton, it also leaves these employers free to discriminate against those of their employees who do desire independent union representation. The bottom line is that religious schools are still just employers.

What religious employers may not do is flaunt labor laws that the legislature has deemed to be of general application and paramount to the health and welfare of the public: They may not abuse child labor, they may not employ minors seven days a week, they may not discriminate in employment on the basis of race, they may not pay workers sub-minimum wages, and they may not refuse employees examination of their personnel files. By comparison, religious employers are free from the obligation to pay unemployment taxes only because Congress has exempted them from this obligation, not because the Constitution forbids it.

The proposed amendment to the PLRA will not interfere in the religious mission of churches or church schools. What it promotes is free choice by lay employees who desire independent representation in connection with their wages, hours and working conditions.

Michael A. Milz, President

Scranton Diocese Association of Catholic Teachers (SDACT)