|
|||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Hammering Employers Online
Unions, attorneys and others are using the Internet more and more to pressure employers, increase unionization efforts, trash-talk companies and seek class-action plaintiffs. HR executives can do some damage control, however, by developing effective methods of employee communication and other strategies.
With names like http://www.doeswackenhutdiscriminate.com/ and http://www.wakeupwalmart.com , there's little doubt the Web sites were not created to praise the employers whose names appear between the www and the dot-com. The Web site as a weapon, it seems, has arrived. And, depending on which side of the desk you sit on, the sites are either a way to educate people about labor practices that are seen as anything but employee-friendly, or they serve as a small part of a larger strategy to pressure companies and stir up workers in an effort to unionize employees. For the Service Employees International Union, the recently launched site dubbed www.doeswackenhutdiscriminate.com speaks for itself. There is nothing coy about it. The site bluntly asks security officers (a.k.a. guards) whether they believe they have been discriminated against by Wackenhut, one of the nation's largest security providers with 38,000 employees. If so, the SEIU asks them to get in touch. And there's www.wakeupwalmart.com, which seems to be from the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (though it's hard to tell). That blog site, subtitled "Join America's Effort to Change Wal-Mart," doesn't mince words about its objective: Force Wal-Mart to change the way it does business, mainly through such employee-related issues as wages, unionization, health care, etc. Finally, there are two other types of related attack sites -- those seeking class-action plaintiffs for potential lawsuits (employment related, product-safety related, etc.), and those started by disgruntled or unhappy employees or former employees. Are these Web sites a serious threat to employers? If so, can human resource executives help minimize the damage sites like these can cause? Yes, says Howard Bernstein, a partner at Chicago-based Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg's labor and employment practice group, which specializes in union activity. "Using the Web for leverage against employers is one of many facets of what unions call 'corporate campaigns,' says Bernstein. "Unions organize in nontraditional ways to get employees' attention. Sophisticated employers can and do employ strategies to make themselves less vulnerable to such types of union activity." Bernstein explains, however, that the Web sites are really only one part of a broader overall strategy, and while not all that new, they are getting more attention in the media these days. "What's happened is union membership has plummeted," he says. "And while unions used to try and organize employees, that hasn't worked very well. So they've started to organize employers." By that, he explains that unions will do whatever they can to bring pressure, and go after every other audience, including the public, customers, suppliers and others. "They try to cripple the business and drive customers to a competitor down the street," he says. "The Web site is just one little piece of overall objective." Seth Borden, an attorney with Kreitzman, Mortensen & Borden in New York, who blogs on the subject at www.union-free.blogspot.com, agrees. Such Web sites, he says, are not intended to bring attention to a "problem" as much as they are about pressuring employers, through the use of negative publicity, to agree to a "neutrality" and card-check provision. "These neutrality agreements make unionizing a workforce remarkably easy," he says. "Once the company cries 'uncle' and signs on, the union discontinues its relentless PR push." What can HR do to combat the negative aspects of these sites? First, Bernstein says, fight fire with fire. "Companies must develop their own intranets, Web sites and effective methods of communicating with their employees," he says. "If they do it well, it will be the first place employees look for information." As important as the Web itself is, another thing to do is be a good employer that cares about its workforce. "If you think you are vulnerable to these attacks, then monitor compliance," he says. "Take a good internal look to see where you are vulnerable, make change and stress the positives. Union sites tend to dwell on the negative, so being defensive feeds into their strategy. The minute you get into that mode, you've lost." As for hostile anonymous sites started by employees with axes to grind, employment attorney Robin Bond says the Web has given them an outlet. "Just like steamy magazines might keep people from acting out their perversions, blogs can be a safety valve for disgruntled employees," says Bond, an attorney whose Wayne, Pa.-based employment-law firm, Transition Strategies, represents employees. "When the corporate communications gurus muzzle what employees can and can't say, and to whom, people feel disempowered -- and angry. Anonymous blogging provides the outlet." Bond recommends employers deploy mechanisms and policies for employees to deal with their frustrations constructively while they are clocked in, such as employee-assistance programs, ombudsmen, e-mail and Internet-use policies, codes of conduct, anonymous complaint systems, etc.
May 1, 2007 Copyright 2007© LRP Publications |
||||||
Print
Email
Write to the Editor
Reprints
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
© Copyright 2010 LRP Publications. All rights reserved.
|
||||