Rumors of the death of The Employee Free Choice Act have been greatly exaggerated.    Today’s New York Times discussed further changes to the bill, including possibly dropping the “card check” provision of the legislation.  But before employers take a victory lap, read carefully.  

For sure, the card check provision -  which has been a central plank of the legislation and would have eliminated secret ballot elections by automatically certifying a union – was a huge concern for employers, and even called un-Democratic for the lack of privacy in voting.  But removal of this provision comes with other compromises - including possibly barring companies from holding mandatory employee meetings during an organizing campaigns, and requiring elections in a very fast timeframe after cards are signed.  It also may be required for Companies to allow organizing right on their property.   These compromises are still significant changes that fundamentally alter the dynamics of organizing efforts.

What does this mean for employers?

• You MUST have a direct relationship with your employees….which included interactive exchange and conversation – not just “messages.” Employees need to understand the benefit to them of a direct relationship with their employer
• Difficult decisions, and those that have an impact on employees, need to be communicated and “sold” – not just implemented.
• Employees must feel they are getting a fair deal…it isn’t enough to treat them fairly – they need to believe and acknowledge that they are being treated fairly.
• You need a campaign in a box before the organizers arrive – this enables you to act quickly to build on your foundation of “exchange” and educate employees before they have to make a choice that will impact them – and you – forever.

Unions count on the fact that big corporations aren’t nimble, and can respond with speed and effectiveness.   The time to think about creating a better foundational relationship with your workplace is now.

Carreen Winters can be reached at cwinters@mww.com

cwinters Employee Engagement Employees, Labor Relations

If you missed the coverage yesterday, Johnson & Johnson’s response to FDA warnings on the dangers of excessive acetaminophen use and its calls for ‘extra strength’ doses to be available by prescription only was a great example of aggressive issues management. 

Acetaminophen is the active ingredient in Tylenol, one of J&J’s biggest sellers.  Rather than assume a defensive posture, go dark and avoid the issue or contest the FDA’s claims with a torrent of scientific facts and figures, J&J took a clear and simple stand.  They took out full-page ads in USA Today, The New York Times, Wall Street Journal and others clearly stating that Tylenol is “the safest brand of pain reliever you can choose”…”if you take more than the recommended dose…you can cause serious liver injury.”

It is refreshing to see a company which has specifically told us how to use their product, stand their ground and hold consumers accountable for their own actions.  If the box says take two…and not to exceed a certain number of doses per day…and you proceed to down half a bottle like they were jelly beans…guess what, you did it to yourself. 

In a perfect world all manufacturers would have products as well-tested as Tylenol and all packaging would include directions as crystal clear as those that J&J provides.  In that same perfect world consumers would actually read the directions and abide by them.  Making something as simple as Extra Strength Tylenol available only by prescription really doesn’t solve the obvious problem here – consumers need to start taking responsibility for their own actions and ownership of the outcomes.  After all, once the CVS pharmacist hands you a full bottle of prescription-grade acetaminophen – you know, the one with the big words on it that says “TAKE TWO” just like the current packaging says -isn’t it still in the hands of the consumer to actually use some common sense.

Bravo to J&J for taking a stand.  Unfortunately, we don’t live in a perfect world.  Most people shun accountability and lawyers abound.  It shouldn’t take long for someone with liver ailments or an aggressive attorney to start dreaming of a new in-ground pool or trip to Paris financed by a class action lawsuit.  Perhaps one day it will dawn on us that “consumer rights” don’t include the right to avoid responsibility.

msacks Crisis Communications Crisis