There were charges of secrecy leveled at the 1.7 million-member Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and Unite Here in recent days after The Wall Street Journal reported that the two major unions reached confidential agreements with two large businesses about methods used to organize employees.

The agreements – which remain secret – allow the companies to say which locations and the number of workers the unions can try to organize, the Journal reported.

The employers are Sodexho Inc. and the Compass Group USA unit of London-based Compass Group PLC, according to the newspaper.

This comes as the U.S. Congress is considering legislation that would allow unions to organize employees by workers simply signing cards backing a union rather than the more traditional use of secret ballots.

It appears that individual employees are losing their individual voices in a flurry of anti-democratic activity. For decades, the decision to go with union membership was confidential. There are many good reasons why it should remain secret. The most fundamental reason is an employee – not a union, not an employer – should be able to decide by himself or herself whether union affiliation is beneficial.

While it’s true that secret agreements such as the ones involving the SEIU and Unite Here may lead to an increase in national union membership, the method is hardly justified. It may be good for the union and its leadership but it doesn’t appear to be good for the employees they claim to represent.

New Jersey has just enacted a family leave law that allows workers to spend up to six weeks bonding with their new babies or taking care of ailing relatives.

The bill has gotten wide praise from labor groups, which call it a “pro-family policy” but has led to much criticism from business groups who worry about its economic impact on the state’s ailing economy.

New Jersey is the third state in the nation to enact a family leave program for workers caring for sick family members, newborns and newly-adopted children. California implemented its program in 2004 while the state of Washington passed legislation last year.

According to New Jersey Gov. Jon Corizine, the program requires no contributions from employers and is 100 percent funded by an employee payroll deduction amounting to about $33 a year, or 64 cents a week. Participating workers will receive no more than two-thirds of their weekly pay, up to a maximum weekly benefit of $524 in 2008.

Larger companies must hold a job for the employee on leave. Companies with 50 or fewer workers will not have to hold a job.

The state estimates that approximately 38,000 individuals or about 1 percent of New Jersey’s workforce will collect benefits annually.

Yet, New Jersey Business & Industry Association President Philip Kirschner issued a statement that called the law “a paid leave mandate on businesses that are already struggling to survive a recession.” He predicts it will lead to lost jobs.

“This mandate will force businesses to pay for temporary workers, overtime, or lost productivity in their workplaces,” he added. “Many jobs simply won’t get done. It will be difficult for companies to find skilled temporary workers to fill positions, if they can find them at all. This will damage businesses’ relationship with their customers, and it will put them at a disadvantage with competitors in neighboring states that don’t have this mandate.”

He said that without this law, employers were able to balance work and family needs of employees. They used sick days, vacation days, flexible scheduling and other methods.

But Corizine said the new law will make New Jersey more competitive economically and the state’s AFL-CIO called the legislation, “much needed and long overdue policy for New Jersey’s working families.” The union hopes that other states, and eventually the federal government, will enact similar policies.

There is some merit in their arguments.

The legislation makes very good sense for employees. Parents need to be able to spend time bonding with newborns. It makes for healthier, stronger families. In addition, workers should not have to be forced to choose between quitting a job and taking care of an ill relative. In addition, if employees are forced to work while their minds are on an ill relative or a new baby, it’s questionable how much they will get done on the job.

It’s true that the New Jersey’s neighboring states do not have a similar law, and the new law can put New Jersey businesses at a competitive disadvantage. But that’s just one reason why the entire nation should enact a similar law.

Perhaps, the state could give businesses some kind of tax relief for money spent on hiring of temporary workers while the permanent workers are on leave.

Overall, though, having a humane workplace tends to encourage employee loyalty and employers may find in the long run they can retain employees more easily without having to increase salaries.

We have three states with a family leave program in place. Let’s watch what happens. It may be a model for the rest of the nation.

The Family and Medical Leave Act is one of the nation’s most important laws to protect the rights of workers who are facing difficulties in their personal lives. Enacted in 1993, the FMLA allows an employee who has worked at least 1,250 hours during a 12-month period in an organization of 50 or more employees to take up to 12 work weeks of unpaid leave during a 12-month period for the birth or adoption of a child; the care of a child, spouse, or parent who has a serious health condition; or a serious health condition that prevents the employee from performing the functions of his or her position.

But human resource professionals have been struggling with the precise definitions of the law. It’s supposed to cover serious health conditions not relatively minor ailments. Employers also need to administer unscheduled leaves in a way that’s fair to all employees.

The Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) leads a coalition that has just submitted lengthy comments to the Department of Labor, which is proposing regulatory revisions to the FMLA.

More than 100 associations and organizations co-signed the comprehensive comments submitted by the National Coalition to Protect Family Leave (NCPFL). The group is spearheading an effort to clarify the regulations and improve FMLA administration for both employers and employees.

While some provisions of the FMLA work well for both employers and employees, HR professionals have struggled to interpret other provisions, said Lisa Horn, SHRM manager of health care and chair of the NCPFL. These include intermittent leave, medical certifications, and the definition of a serious health condition. The SHRM wants to ensure that the FMLA regulations strike an appropriate balance between the employer’s business needs, and an employee’s need for time to attend to family and medical issues.

The original purpose of the FMLA, as envisioned by Congress, will never be fully realized until both the employee and employer communities both feel comfortable that an employee is rightly entitled to FMLA leave, said Horn. Unless the Labor Department clarifies the FMLA rules, HR professionals will continue to encounter workplace challenges as a result of these complex regulations.

The National Coalition to Protect Family Leave also wants these issues addressed before Congress considers expanding the FMLA. The coalition strongly opposes any expansion of the original FMLA legislation.

But a word of caution. Revisions to a cumbersome law, doesn’t mean businesses can wiggle out of covering employees who should be covered by the FMLA or any future legislation.

It’s rare that pro-business groups would find ways to cover more employees. It’s obvious the coalition is looking for cover fewer employees and save some money in the process. The coalition says there are unintended consequences of the act, but the Department of Labor needs to remember the act was in fact made to assist employees not employers. Any revisions need to reflect that reality. Cumbersome, confusing rules can be altered to make it easier for employers. But refining the law is not the same thing as a major revision. All sides need to proceed with caution.

AFL-CIO President John Sweeney was quick to criticize the Republican president and the leading contender for the Republican nomination for president after last week’s release of grim unemployment data.

Like George Bush, John McCain has offered “only band-aid solutions for an economy that is quickly bleeding out,” Sweeney says.

But how can the nation’s largest union federation criticize the Republicans without endorsing a candidate among the Democrats?

Enough details have surfaced from Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) campaigns’ for a large organization like the AFL-CIO to make a decision on who to endorse. If unions can’t identify who to vote for, how are their members going to identify who is better for workers.

Sweeney tells us that, “The loss of 20,000 jobs in April plunges thousands more into economic despair and adds new stress to those already out of work.” OK. Both Democratic candidates can agree with that.

Then he says, “Contrary to the claims of President Bush and Sen. McCain who say the recent downturn is simply a bump in the road, the current nosedive is the result of a number of fundamental economic imbalances that have resulted from misguided policies put in place over the past 30 years.”

Does that mean he is criticizing the policies of President Bill Clinton in this three-decade attack. How is Hillary different from Bill?

Sweeney then tells us Congress must pass a second stimulus bill, including fiscal relief to cash-strapped states and an extension of unemployment benefits to help those most at risk as the job market worsens. There should also be an immediate moratorium on foreclosures for sub-prime loans, to keep more families from losing their houses. An aggressive job creation plan needs to put Americans back to work. Infrastructure projects that will rebuild crumbling schools, bridges and roads – and investment in the green jobs of the future are solutions.

Can he also tell us who is going to deliver?

The good news is that it will be easier to find employees in the service and manufacturing sectors during the month of May. That helps businesses looking to fill positions.

The bad news: manufacturing and service sector hiring will drop sharply in May 2008 compared with one year ago, according to a survey of human resources professionals. That makes it harder for folks looking for work.

The forecast comes from the Society for Human Resource Management/Rutgers University Leading Indicators of National Employment (LINE).

LINE data also show that increases in wages for new hires in the manufacturing sector dropped modestly in April compared to one year ago while those in the service sector fell slightly.

The job slowdown will likely continue into May, according to Jennifer Schramm, SHRM manager of workplace trends and forecasting.

The monthly report forecasts changes in national employment by surveying human resource professionals at more than 500 manufacturing and 500 service sector firms.

These numbers simply reinforce the need for the government, working with union and business leaders, to take immediate action to avoid having the economy slipping deeper into a recession. When workers can’t find a job and have less income, it will eventually hurt other sectors of the economy.

The latest twist in the debate over a pro-union bill now before Congress is a TV ad that is being aired by The Coalition for a Democratic Workplace.

The ad pokes fun at proposed, more lenient voting procedures on whether to join a union. It suggests that under the bill, a tough-guy type will watch and harass workers as they vote.

The coalition says that under the proposed “card-check” approach, as part of the Employee Free Choice Act (H.R. 800, S. 1041), a union is organized if a majority of workers sign a card, with the workers’ signatures made public to their employer, the union organizers and their co-workers. This is quite different from secret ballots.

Recent polls in Colorado, Minnesota and Maine conducted by the coalition report that about two-thirds of voters in Colorado (68 percent), Maine (72 percent) and Minnesota (65 percent) oppose the EFCA. Conversely, at least 80 percent of voters in all three states believe that secret ballot elections are the cornerstone of democracy and should be kept for union elections, according to the coalition.

On the other hand, the AFL-CIO says that the EFCA is supported by a bipartisan coalition in Congress and would help the middle class.

In a recent letter to The Wall Street Journal, U.S. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) defended the legislation saying that the Employee Free Choice Act does not abolish board elections. That process would still be available. Instead, it gives workers – not employers – the choice about how to choose union representation: either by having an election or by using employee-signed cards.

Under the current system, Kennedy claims that workers are forced to accept their employer's unilateral decision to invoke a process, in which workers and unions have no right to express support for the union, but employers can, and often do, intimidate, harass, and discriminate against union supporters. Majority sign-up is a fair and simple alternative that's been used lawfully, Kennedy adds.

In addition, the legislation would also set up stronger penalties for violation of employee rights and it would provide mediation and arbitration for first-contract disputes, according to the AFL-CIO.

It’s clear that the proposed legislation would help workers in some ways. However, safeguards do need to be put into place so that an employee’s rights to privacy are protected when deciding whether to join a union.

It’s unfortunate that the coalition chose to use a mobster character in their ad. The coalition says the character is supposed to be a “boss”. It’s much more likely they were thinking of a stereotypical old-fashioned, tough union leader. Union leaders should not have to tolerate this. They are professionals trying to help workers.

As the legislation proceeds in Congress, the government’s goal should be enacting laws that allow employees to make an informed choice on whether to bring in a union at their workplace. The choice belongs to them; not to business and not to unions.

If we learn anything from this week’s Pennsylvania primary when it comes to the field of labor relations, it’s that there’s great concern about the economy among the state’s diverse voters.

The news reports tell us that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) defeated Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) 54.7 percent to 45.3 percent. Clinton won 59 percent of union households, and Obama won 41 percent of these voters, according to exit polls from CNN.

Those numbers really don’t tell us much, except that the Democratic Party continues to be divided on who they want as their nominee. To some extent, we also see that union members are definitely coming out to vote – even though they don’t agree on whom they want to lead the nation.

But let’s look at other numbers. When asked to name the most important issue, some 55 percent of those asked answered, “the economy.” Moreover, 88 percent said that economy is in a “recession.” Both Democrats and Republicans need to look at these responses. Not just the presidential candidates, but the current president, current members of Congress, the Federal Reserve Chairman and the nation’s business leaders. Almost nine out of ten Pennsylvania voters, answered in this survey, that we are in a recession.

They are living it. They do not need more rhetoric from politicians. They need relief from: rising gas prices, home foreclosures, soaring health care costs and other issues that they must face daily. Real solutions need to come soon, much sooner than after the new president takes office. Hopefully, unions can work with business leaders to bring health back to the economy. The voters are waiting.

If you’re a woman in the workplace, chances are you’re earning far less than male counterparts. According to the AFL-CIO, women in the United States are paid 77 cents for every dollar paid to their male counterparts. It's estimated that over a course of a lifetime of work, the average 25-year-old working woman will lose more than $523,000 to unequal pay during her working life.

For women of color, the pay differentials are even more disturbing. According to the AFL-CIO, African American women are paid 63 cents and Latinas 52 cents for every dollar received by a man.

To help remedy the injustice, Equal Pay Day was established in 1996 by the National Committee on Pay Equity. This year, Equal Pay Day falls on April 22. Activists will lobby legislators, hold rallies, and write letters to try to close this pay gap.

This year, equal pay advocates are focusing on urging the U.S. Senate to pass the Fair Pay Restoration Act – which unions say would help U.S. workers sue for pay discrimination. The House passed the legislation in 2007 – following a landmark ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court about a woman employee, Lilly Ledbetter, who says she was paid less than her male counterparts at a tire plant.

Equal pay makes sense for business, too. Inadequate pay does not encourage loyal, hard-working employees. Instead, underpaid employees will soon look for jobs elsewhere. It also sends the wrong signal to male employees – that women are not as important as men in the workplace. That can only lead to further problems.

It’s noteworthy that many of the activists choose to wear red on this day, to symbolize how women are in the red compared to the salary earned by their male counterparts.

Let's end the disparity. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act was enacted to ensure there is equal pay between men and women but more needs to be done. This Equal Pay Day let’s hope that salary parity will soon become a reality – and salaries will be determined fairly for both men and women.

There's some troubling news about mine safety coming from a report by the Department of Labor’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) regarding the responsibilities of the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) on the August, 2007 Crandall Canyon tragedy where nine miners and/or rescue workers died.

An audit released by the Inspector General's office concludes that the Mine Safety and Health Administration was "negligent" in its actions surrounding the approval for the Crandall Canyon mine plan.

“This report validates what the UMWA has maintained from the very beginning of the investigation: MSHA did not follow its own regulations and procedures, was bullied by the mine operator, and did not take all the steps required to keep miners safe underground," United Mine Workers of America International President Cecil E. Roberts has stated.

“We’ve argued for years that many at the upper levels of MSHA are more interested in helping mine operators increase production than they are in helping miners stay safe," he adds.

The Bush administration has remained quiet on the audit report while the U.S. Senate will soon resume hearings into the Crandall Canyon disaster. Questions are expected about the operation of the Utah mine as well as the government's response. The families of the miners and rescue workers need some answers.

Coal mining remains one of the most dangerous jobs in America. The government, while it encourages alternative energy sources from oil, also needs to provide adequate oversight of mine safety and worker safety. Tragedies like Crandall Canyon need to be prevented.

As the proposed U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement (FTA) gets debated by politicians one thing remains clear: Colombia is a dangerous place to be a trade union member.

Thirty-nine trade unionists in that country were murdered in 2007, and another 17 have been killed in 2008—a rate of more than one a week, according to the AFL-CIO. Of the more than 2,500 murders of trade unionists since 1986, the government has successfully prosecuted less than 3 percent of these cases, the U.S. union adds.

These concerns have to be addressed by the federal government before the trade agreement gets enacted. This is not just a political issue; it is an issue fundamental to U.S. human rights policy.

Unions have been cautious or critical of other trade agreements, such as NAFTA. These accords may have helped the U.S. economy on the macro-level but also have led to job loss for individual workers. Now, even more is at stake. The concerns expressed by the AFL-CIO and others about the proposed trade agreement with Colombia are fundamental to the United States and all that it stands for.