Now Eligible to Guest Host at the HR Capitalist - Al Sharpton....

Read this blog long enough, and you probably have a sense of how I must vote.  Pro-business, less government, empower and reward the performers, etc. - it's not really hard to figure out, if you think about it.

Here's the problem with trying to typecast me - and probably a lot of you as well.  I'm a moderate in all things.  When there's an election coming up, I like to hear about the issues and shock of all shocks, I find things to like on both sides.  I'm automatically cynical with the polar extremes of either party, and if you really want to appeal to me, you have to connect me with how your platform is going to help people accept accountability in their lives, while enabling the business community to expand the economy and preparing the local workforce for a global world.

Which brings me to Al Sharpton. I don't know a lot about Al Sharpton, and I've heard people rant about the typecast they claim he represents.  I also would expect him to be a polarized Democrat based on what I heard from people with opinions on him. Like guys who run sites called "The HR Capitalist", Sharpton's got a brand and after a couple of soundbites, most people think they know the platform. 

Based on listening to the opinions of people who claim they know Sharpton, I thought I knew him too.  So imagine my surprise when he went on the record as being against the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) on his radio show.  Here's the transcript from the Al Sharpton Radio Program via the National Review:

"Al Sharpton: Yeah, well, what I don’t understand about it which is why I’m in the campaign is why wouldn’t those of us who support workers being protected, why would we not want their privacy protected.  I mean why would we want them opened up to this kind of possible coercion?

Sylvester: Well, and that’s the 50 million dollar question, Rev. Sharpton, it’s a question we’ve been trying to answer but we think that the heart of this issue is not about protecting workers, the heart of this issue is about the decline of union membership that’s been going on in this country for the past thirty years.  The unions at this point are in a death spiral and much of it’s tied to the exportation of production jobs from this country to other countries and the unions…

Al Sharpton: Yeah, the outsourcing, well I’m all for, and as well for those who don’t believe in the right to organizing, clearly I’m for any legislation to give any state the right to organize, but I’m talking about specifically where workers are not protected from coercion, in terms of these card-checks that you talk about, and as arbitration because explain, Charlie King, to me the whole question that you raised, if you have a federal arbitrator who says that this is the deal, even when the union only established out of card-check, is the deal for two years, and there’s nothing you can do about it, I mean, a lot of the business that we afford for the African American community to get contracts and sub contracts and all.  They could face some very serious problems here.

So, Al Sharpton's a vocal proponent for the African-American community, and instead of falling in line with the Democratic line of thought on the EFCA, he takes a stand for African American business interests and questions the legitimacy of the bill, based on those concerns.  OK - that's pretty interesting...

And poof!!!  All the typecasting I had heard by the opinion mongers is gone.  By doing an analysis of how the bill could hurt his constituency and then opting to raise a voice of concern rather than fall in line with the Democratic party, Sharpton has me listening to the rest of his platform. 

So, the next time I see Sharpton on a news channel or on the radio, I'll stop and listen - and try to understand.  That's what makes America the cool place that it is...

Still don't know what the EFCA is?  Check my full rundown at Workforce early this year here, and be sure to hit the links from others here, here, here, and here.

And Al Sharpton?  He's invited to do a guest post any time he wants.  Go get 'em on the EFCA, Mr. Sharpton...

Comments

[jessica lee]

it's interesting... with sharpton, people have guessed that perhaps he doesn't understand the issue and is therefore come out against it in error... but he hits the issue right on the head and clearly demonstrates he gets it - and it only takes one line to see his point of view.... when he says he wants to ensure that *workers are protected from being coerced into situations they did not choose.* bam! thanks, sharpton...

[karen mattonen]

Chris,
I really enjoyed your articles, and having been on the fence on this topic, I got more "confused" on this matter.
Maybe you can help me here understand a bit more? Prior to 7 years ago, I was never pro Union, but due to my recruiting Desk, have come to recognize many of the pros.

As a recruiter I work in a heavily unionized industry, which some of the Top Corps are Union. They have some of the Best trained employees, and obviously due to the benefits longevity. These companies are also some of the more financially sound companies.. maybe a coincidence? UTC, Trane, JCI, etc..

Individuals who work for these companies have sound health care, and benefits. As we have seen in the "regular" companies, wages have been declining, as well as misclassification, and of course if an employer even considers offering Benefits rather than take away.. well, that would be a rarity.

As a recruiter I have seen many companies discriminate (illegaly) against hiring union employees. They also create tremendous hardships should individuals attempt to organize to improve their situation.

Am I pro Union, no, not really, as it does present a lot of negativity as it does good.. but at the same time it is difficult to be against something that Attempts to represent the good of the people .. and especially when our econonomy has taken such a huge hit by executive greed.. Even currently 1.6 Billion of the Bailout money went to Bank Executives - individuals who helped create the Mess that their companies are currently in, but are still rewarded for their Lack of performance.

Is there a balance that could be found in all of this Chris?
Is it wistful thinking to wonder if the companies, representatives of the employees (non union and union) and the Union Reps (non employees) could manipulate something that they could all agree with? Yes, I guess it would be..

Yet, I wonder, when I read the DOL Stats.. how far down do we have to go before we really wonder what we need to do to fix the mess we are in today..

And in regards to Sharpton, I tend to think that his position is still extreme.. Black (I prefer that word) Employers or White.. what difference should it make.. People are people.. and we should protect us all. To segregate the assistance to one group, is in my mind perpetuating a mindset of Victimization, and "reverse" discrimination (for a lack of better word)..

In my mind, this isn't a cultural issue.. but a national consideration..

Do you have any suggestions?

Karen Mattonen

I really enjoyed your posts, they definitely have me scratching my noggin'

[Kris Dunn]

Hi Karen -

Good question and thoughts. The first place I'd ask you to start is with the confidential vote aspect of the EFCA. Can we agree that employees deserve the right to a confidential vote when deciding whether they want to be represented? If you believe that, then you can't be for the EFCA as currently written. I suspect you don't support the card check aspect of the bill as currently written.

Regarding your thoughts on a lot of good talent being unionized - I agree. There's lots of good talent that belongs to a union, but the primary issue for me is a lot of the strongest unions are in industries that haven't felt the full flex of globalization and hyper-competition, or have high enough margins where they haven't stared into the abyss yet.

Full disclosure - my dad was a 30 year union member in Telecom, but his union is a legacy product - the biggest issue in organizing today is that if a union comes into a union-free organization, they eliminate workforce flexibility and layer costs into organizations that are struggling to compete in a global marketplace. The result is bad news.

The middle ground you mention would be fantastic. A union organizing approach that says "we're going to represent you, and ask the company to invest in your ongoing training and development. In exchange for that, you'll have to be flexible, and as part of the contract, we're going to mandate 20% of your pay is based on the company's performance, but the cool thing is that if we do well, you can earn 120% of what you make now".

The problem with that vision is the union's a business. They want revenue from dues paid now, not later, and they certainly don't want to risk any portion of the dues based on partnering for success with the company in question. Rare is the union that comes into the whole thing with a partnering approach. It's not in their DNA...

Good dialog. Don't have all the answers, but certainly open to discussion from my union-free background.

Thanks - KD