The Union Organizing Policy - Essay Example

Temporary help and staffing agencies and other employment agencies that place or hire workers often claim that there are no fees charged toworkers in exchange for the job that is offered to a job seeker or worker. However, historical experience and research reveal the contrary. This does not only raise the problem of what charges are actually being made as a consequence of being hired, but also its implication on the rightful compensation which workers should receive and the quality of work that they should be placed in. An examination of this problem is made through an analysis of the study conducted by George Gonos. Gonos, in his article entitled “Never a Fee!” explained the historical experience of the effects and consequences of the staffing industry to the real welfare of workers, stating that the few laws existing and the deregulation of the staffing business has further undermined the “workers’ ability to gain self-sufficiency” (Gonos, 2000-01). A further analysis of secret fees charged should therefore be made in order that appropriate policy changes for the protection of workers. Two Policies That Should Be Changed The union organizing policy presented in the article entitled “Never a Fee!” written by George Gonos, which I think should be changed is their reliance on establishing a “national code of conduct” which appeals on all the staffing agencies concerned to make available to workers the information regarding the rate which client employers pay workers (Ziegler, 1999). This policy merely encourages and urges the staffing agencies and do not really oblige or mandate that the “hidden fees” or rates in employment contracts be revealed. Instead of lobbying for a legislation that would truly examine and delve into the fees that are charged especially on temporary and contract workers by either the client firms or staffing industries or both, they have merely settled on having such a national code of conduct (Gonos, 2000-01). The group pushing for this code of conduct consists of groups representing contingent workers and represent other diverse interests such as workers in the construction business, workers belonging to labor unions, professionals belonging to the high-tech industries, graduate assistants from various universities, and some undocumented immigrants (Community Partners, 2009).  There is a seeming lack of follow through or inconsistency on the part of workers’ group to lobby and support such a legislation that would reveal the so-called “hidden fees” in employment contracts which has been a perpetual concern of workers (Gonos, 2000-01). Most often than not, the lobbyists from the staffing industry are more successful in terms of opposing the bill that requires rate disclosure as what happened in the state of Washington where despite the union or worker’s group backing of such rate disclosure, the opposition prevailed (Gonos, 2000-01). Currently, there are claims by agencies that there are no fees actually charged to a job seeker and it is actually the company who pays such (Gonos, 2000-01). Such advertisements make it appear that no fees are being charged on job seekers which is contrary to what is actually reflected in the figures of staffing industries as to the so-called “mark-up rate” or “the billing rate charged to client firms and the workers’ pay rate (Gonos, 2000-01). Through amendments of laws involving state employment agency laws, technical changes in the legal definitions of ‘fee’, ‘mark up’ and ‘employment agency’ were eliminated (Gonos, 1997) to make it appear that no fees were charged by agencies on these temporary workers and other job seekers (Gonos, 2000-01). Other private personnel firms were also deregulated based on their claims that they charged no fees to workers (Gonos, 2000-01). This has then put in place “indirect means of charging fees” that concealed the real amount being charged (Gonos, 2000-01). This was then the start of fees being unregulated and unaccounted for, without revealing the information to workers (Gonos, 2000-01). The staffing industry has also been able to mask the real charges by claiming management savings and that no loss would be assumed by workers (Gonos, 2000-01). But studies reveal that temporary workers bring home around twenty-five to forty percent pay less than what they were supposed to receive (Gonos, 2000-01). Agencies were able to use measures to hide the mark up or the “difference between the billing rate charged to client firms and the worker’s pay rate” (Gonos, 2001). All these have been pushed by the staffing industry through constant lobbying and the worker’s concerned were never able to pursue their opposition in entitling workers to information that is relevant to their pay (Gonos, 2000-01). Workers concerned were not able to pursue their position through legislation which often requires constant lobbying and convincing of legislators. Hence, at best, they were only able to launch a national code of conduct calling on staffing agencies to provide workers with information on the rates that client employers give (Gonos, 2000-01). The very powerful opposition from the staffing industry, agency businesses, private personnel firms and other client firms engaged in such business, being well funded, were able to prevent legislating information on rates of clients or make such amendments in order to legitimize their business through hidden fees (Gonos, 2000-01). On the other hand, those who represent workers’ right to the said information, such as the National Alliance for Fair Employment (NAFFE) founded in 1997, because of the lack of funds and lack of persistence in lobbying were unable to meet for a general meeting until 2004. Negotiations with companies proved to be futile as there was no thorough examination or study of its program or work and its members lost confidence in the agreements and negotiations being conducted (Community Partners, 2009). Hence, their very objective was not fulfilled. The governmental policy, on the other hand, which was presented in the article and which should be changed is allowing fee splitting between the public and the private sector to the disadvantage of the workers (Gonos, 2000-01). Historically, although several regulations were passed in order to set the maximum fees either for temporary or permanent jobs, and to prohibit fee splitting prevailing in most states in the United States, the staffing industry successfully evaded such through their active participation in the legislation and active campaigning not to reveal the true and correct information as to what is really the average mark up being charged, what is lawful and what is exorbitant or unjustified already under current situation (Gonos, 2000-01). The so-called “Public and Private Split” was borne out of the fact that there is a seeming partnership between temporary and staffing agencies with the public employment service (Gonos, 2000-01). The information dissemination that no fees are being charged to workers, justified this practice of fee splitting (Gonos, 2000-01). Fee splitting is a “collusive arrangement” where the employer agrees to hire workers from a particular agent in exchange for a share of the fees retrieved or collected from these hired workers (Gonos, 2000-01). Due to extensive lobbying by the concerned industries, there were changes lobbied by private employment agency businesses to allow client paying such fees and public employment offices referring workers to temporary and staffing firms, with a condition that workers are not charged of any fee (US GAO, 1986). Despite such doubtful policy, guidelines for its implementation had been issued (Gonos, 2000-01). Although there is a condition that no fees shall be charged on workers, the states accept that client pay the fees (Gonos, 2000-01). As commented by Gonos, the public service has become labor brokers and public funds are being used to pay private placement agencies that give jobs to those workers referred by the public employment offices (Gonos, 2000-01). Aside from this amendments to the state employment agency laws further bolstered this practice by making temporary help firms as legal employers and eliminated the legal definition of fee as being a markup (Gonos, 2000-01). Hence, without even a public debate (Gonos, 1997), charging of fees and even fee splitting was bolstered by legislation (Gonos, 2000-01). It institutionalized such a practice (Gonos, 2000-01) without examining carefully the internal fee charging and consequences of placement of workers through private agencies versus the pay that these workers receive. Gonos’ Proposal Gonos’ proposal is to have a disclosure of such an information as to the policy of having the right to know who really pays the fees for placement of workers, what fees are being charged and how high these fees are charged to workers (Gonos, 2000-01). As explained in the article, although the notion that no fees are being charged to workers or that client employers are the ones who pay for the fees, there are ways by which workers are charged either through a reduction of wages or through other such means (Kellor, 1971). ‘Client paid fees’, as commented by Gonos, is merely an illusion as any business derives advantage either from “the employer or the worker (ILO Convention, 1933). Gonos further explains that pay rates of workers are adjusted in order that employment agents and those using labor benefit both from the said partnership or alliance (Gonos, 2000-01). There may be some legitimate employers that pay the fees but nevertheless, Gonos comments that in today’s temp and staffing business, the worker is the one who would always pay either “in the form of substantially diminished wages, benefits, and opportunities” (Gonos, 2000-01). Because of the deregulation of labor agents, workers are left in the dark as to what pay they should be receiving and the consequence of having intermediaries as a requisite of being hired. With little or no information regarding this, Gonos says that workers have little or no bargaining power to the benefits and the pay that they should be receiving (Gonos, 2000-01). Gonos’ says that because of the deregulation of the private personnel business, workers, they have little recourse as to the laws which may protect them (Gonos, 2000-01). The public and private splitting on the other hand which is to enable workers to have jobs through placement of agents in partnership of the public sector, has, according to Gonos, further institutionalized fee splitting and have failed to monitor the quality and the duration of jobs for the protection of the workers (Gonos, 2000-01). This also undermined the worker’s ability to be self-sufficient (Gonos, 2000-01). Hence, in all this Gonos has particularly emphasized on the experience of the US through out history on the regulations made on staffing industries and employment agencies (Gonos, 2000-01). He explains that unlike before where there is some form of regulation to protect workers, the current policy now is to deregulate these businesses (Gonos, 2000-01). The negative impact of such deregulation to workers as to the quality of wages that workers receive as well as the quality of work that are given have not been subject to an extensive examination and scrutiny (Gonos, 2000-01). Political pressures are the ones which have put in place such policies that are disadvantageous to workers. Position Favored I mostly agree with the position raised by Gonos in that indeed there is a seeming policy to overlook the idea that there are no fees charged on workers by employment agencies that place or hire workers or job seekers. The capitalist idea that competition will leave behind those which charge such very high fees for placement of workers and thus gives workers and job seekers to choose which employment agency will better serve their needs, is actually contrary to what is practiced in the labor market. I agree that workers indeed have the right to know information pertinent to their work such as unreasonable charges being made despite the low quality of work given to them. I also agree that there must be a study as to the government’s policy of referral to employment agencies for the hire of workers. Indeed, there is little bargaining power by workers if there are not enough laws to protect them as to their right to have a living wage and be assured of a quality or permanent job after having worked for so many years in a particular company. However, in my point of view, there may be more that concerned stakeholders such as temporary workers or other workers belonging to labor unions may be able to accomplish than just campaigning for a national code of conduct. Workers may be able to influence their legislators in lobbying persistently and effectively the laws that should be put in place for their protection. They could propose that a study be conducted as to what fees are really charged, who actually pays for such and its actual effect on the wages of workers. Legislators in their respective states, will not get the support or get to be elected once again especially if they do not represent the position of a particular sector of the society. Hence, this should be the bargaining power of workers who would really want to push for changes in the legislation to protect their rights. Through appropriate legislation, the rightful regulation may be put in place and workers have better laws to protect their rights. References Community Papers. North American Alliance for Fair Employment. Retrieved on 05 June 2009 from http://www.communitypartners.org/home/networks/test-1.html Gonos, G. (2000-01). Never A Fee! The Miracle of the Postmodern Temporary Help and Staffing Agency. WorkingUSA: The Journal of Labor and Society, 4:3 (Winter 2000-01), pp. 9-36. Gonos, G. (1997). The Contest Over Employer Status in the Postwar United States: The Case of Temporary Help Firms. Law and Society Review, 31. pp. 81 – 110. International Labor Organization (1933). ILO Convention No. 34 Concerning Fee-Charging Employment Agencies, Article 1. US General Accounting Office (1986). Employment Service: More Jobseekers Should be Referred to Private Employment Agencies. Washington DC: Report to the Chairman, Committee on Governmental Affairs, US Senate (March). Ziegler, J. (1999). The Contract Employee’s Handbook: Helping Contract Employees Manage Their Careers. Retrieved on 05 June 2009 from http://www.cehandbook.com/ Read More