So in response, farmers then increased their production of that particular commodity. The resultant surplus drove the price for that commodity down, so farmers lost out again, since they now had too much product to sell at too low a price. They would react by cutting production.

The resultant shortage drove prices up again, and so the farmers lost out again, because they had too little to sell at the higher price, and, sometimes, because the price was so high, people decided to eat chicken instead of pork. And so on and so on.

My professor then launched into a lengthy discussion on the immorality of the uncontrolled marketplace and the need for central control of prices and production to protect the farmers from themselves. Those of you who know me realize I didn't pay much attention after this point.

Why do I bring this up now? Because like the poor farmer, our industry sometimes reacts to the boom and bust of the marketplace by similarly sabotaging our own future – specifically in the number of apprentices we indenture.

We are hearing that because of the economy, many local JATCs are considering reducing the number of apprentices they indenture. We have even heard that some areas will not be bringing in any apprentices this year.

There are seemingly good reasons for doing this. We already have journeymen and apprentices on the book, and bringing in more will only make the problem worse. Some union members fear that so-called "cheap, first-year apprentices" will just replace journeymen and upper class apprentices on what few jobs remain. Employers fear that lack of work means apprentices will leave us and we will have wasted the time and money spent to train them. But to be competitive today, and tomorrow, we must continually indenture new apprentices.

For today, apprentices, mixed with journeymen and other classifications (where available), give us an effective, efficient and competitively priced crew mix to go after our regular customers and to get back into markets where the nonunion has cut us out with their own mix of selectively skilled employees. When you realize that our market share nationally is in the neighborhood of 40 percent, there is a lot more work available to us that we might be doing if we could successfully utilize apprentices to bring down our composite costs.

For tomorrow, apprentices assure us a fully trained workforce. It takes us three to five years to turn out a journey-level worker. I don't know what the market is going to look like five years from today, but what I do know is we are barely bringing in enough apprentices now to meet our replacement needs, let alone grow our market.

Our annual look at the need for apprentices in the inside market segment, "Estimating the Need for New Electricians" produced by the Construction Labor Research Council, indicates we need to bring in over 9,600 new apprentices each year just to replace those who will leave. In 2008, we indentured 9,813.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics projects that the industry will grow by just under one percent over the next few years. If we want to just meet this rate of growth, our need for apprentices jumps to over 12,000 a year. If we want to actually gain market share and grow at double the industry rate, we need to bring in more than 15,000 apprentices a year.

It is tough to indenture additional apprentices when it looks like they might be spending their non-classroom time on the bench. We don't want to be losing them for lack of work and then see them working for the nonunion. But we must be careful that we don't let our caution cripple us.

Local decisions can't be made based solely on long-term national statistics. Unlike my old college professor, I don't believe that we can centrally plan the number of electricians we will need and where we will need them.

On the other hand, local decisions shouldn't be made solely on the basis of how many journeymen are on the book the week the JATC meets. I encourage local parties that when you analyze market needs and future manpower levels, you do so with the mindset of expanding our industry, and of creating more jobs and opportunity, not simply trying to protect jobs we already have.

It is NECA’s opinion that there is no employer obligation to pay for any training under the Code of Excellence Program, unless the local parties agree to mandate specific training in order to be employed.

The Code of Excellence minimum standards establish principles for attendance, attitude, and production among the workers provided by the IBEW. There is no Category I mandate for training.

In fact, the only mention of training in the standards appears in the final item under Employer Responsibilities which says employers must ensure "that proper safety training, equipment, and methods are utilized.” This statement imposes no additional obligation on employers since they are already required by OSHA to provide “proper safety training.”

It is the union’s prerogative and obligation to develop a system that delivers workers who are conversant with, and ready, willing, and able to live up to the minimum standards of the Code of Excellence program.  How the local union does this is an internal union matter. It should not obligate employers to pay for such training, unless the employers agree to jointly impose training requirements as a condition of continued employment.

For example, if the local parties agree that all foremen on Code of Excellence jobs, including current foremen, must take the Effective Project Supervision course, then the time spent in that training would be compensable for current employees. 

Similarly, if employers adopt a policy that in order to remain employed, all workers must attend “Code of Excellence Training,” the time spent in that training would be compensable for current employees.

The training of stewards is an inherently internal union matter, and the fact that the local union (or even the International Office) may choose to require certain training before appointing an individual as a “Code of Excellence Steward” is likewise a union matter. 

It is not clear that making a PowerPoint presentation at a local union meeting constitutes training under the Fair Labor Standards Act. But even if it does, such training and/or requiring attendance at such meetings by its membership, are internal union matters unless the employers affirmatively agree to provisions that would enforce such requirements.

A one-point change could mean something, or it could just be rounding error. A large gain or loss could signal a structural change in the market, or a single event. So as you look at your local numbers, ask yourself a few questions:

1. Does this change represent a change in the overall market that is likely to continue, or was there a large job that started or ended? 

2. Does that change in wage share reflect more work being done union, a lot more overtime being worked, or could it simply reflect the last pay raise?

Remember, too, that the wage share indicator for the organized industry is usually higher than the employment share indicator. But if this gap is increasing, it may indicate more overtime work is being performed. In turn, does that reflect a need to increase apprentice numbers and other recruiting efforts?

Chapters should begin to track significant economic events in their local unions’ jurisdictions and apply them to the market evaluations now and in the years to come. With this kind of information, chapters and their local unions can build a better understanding of how the overall market changes affect our contractors and also track whether the steps taken to recover the market are having the desired effect.

Along with everyone else, I had hoped for a more positive showing. But we shouldn’t feel too bad about these reports either, and we shouldn’t make any snap judgments. Looking at the results in Florida, one could say, “Well, even with the Florida Initiative and all the hype, they’re no better off now than they were in 2004.” But is that true? Sure, their employment share number is only up one percentage point, usually considered to be a statistically insignificant amount. But when you consider where they started  moving from nine percent of the workforce  to 10% is more than insignificant.  After all, a one unit gain on a base of nine equates to an  increase of 11% Most would be quite pleased with an 11% increase in their local areas.

Another way to look at Florida’s employment share is that the number of workers employed by organized contractors rose by 899 individuals, a 20% increase in the period 2004-2006, and one that occurred in the face of the collapse of the condominium market.

The wage share in Florida has remained constant from 2004-2006.   Does that mean no progress has been made, or does it reflect that fact that with a growing number of Construction Wiremen and Construction Electricians at their disposal, our contractors in Florida have been able to effectively lower their cost per man-hour? 

It has been observed (though I don’t think there is any empirical study to confirm it) that whenever the organized industry draws a qualified electrician away from a non-union contractor, that contractor has to hire five or six applicants before he finds one that has the skills to permanently replace the lost worker. Even if that ratio is off by a factor of three, that means that in the first few years that a Construction Wireman/Construction Electrician classification is in place, non-union contractors will have to hire twice the number of workers that we draw away from them into the CW/CE program. The CLRC relies on governmental sources in order to track the total industry employment numbers, and these sources count an individual who receives one hour’s pay in the industry the same as a full-time employee. This means the numbers could be inflated for a couple of years.

Let’s say a market can steadily employ four electricians. Last year, two of the electricians were union and two were non-union, giving the organized industry an employment share of 50%. Recognizing a growing market, the organized industry starts a recruiting campaign and at the first of the year, one of the non-union workers is organized and goes to work for the union contractor. The market grows enough to support a fifth electrician, and the non-union contractor hires another employee. At the end of the year, the organized industry has a 60% employment share (three workers to two workers). 

But if the nonunion employer has, according to the observation above, had to hire and fire two workers to find the third one who actually became a regular employee, the overall employment figures for the year are inflated. During the course of the year, the government will have counted the three individuals who worked in the organized industry, the one non-union electrical worker who worked all year for the nonunion employer, the two workers that were hired and fired, and the final worker who became a regular employee for the nonunion company. That means the government sources will report that seven individuals were employed in the industry in that year, meaning the apparent employment share for the organized industry is only 43%, a seven-point drop instead of a 10-point gain. And in the real world, where there are dozens or hundreds of employers and perhaps thousands of employees, it’s not so easy to track these events. 

There are a lot of other ways to slice and dice the results, but my point is don’t just look at the bare numbers on a page. Try to dig deeper and find out what they mean, try to take the long view and analyze at the trends. We never intended for these reports to be a club to beat the other side with. They are intended to be one of many tools to help you make sense of your local market place and craft competitive agreements and business plans.

Since the CLRC has recently released the first follow-up report to those numbers, I thought it was worth a column to discuss what they mean. After all, how the organized electrical construction industry is doing in the marketplace is one of the key points negotiators make in trying to establish the “rightness” of their suggested agreement changes.

As you’ll recall from that first column, the chief reason that NECA and the IBEW decided to develop these market evaluation reports was the belief that it is more important for the local parties to work on improving their market share, rather than to struggle over how to define it. I also noted that since the first reports only covered one year (2005), you wouldn’t be able to tell much from it. Once we had several years of data, we could begin to look at trends and that should tell us more of the story. The new release covers three years, 2004-2006, and while that really isn’t a very long time, it does begin to indicate a trend.

Originally, we intended to provide reports back to 2001. Unfortunately, we’ve learned that the data sources we use for this report do not exist prior to 2004, so it is not possible for us to go back any farther without completely revamping of the methodology we use. Since the key to identifying trends is to use the same data sources and methodology over time, it would be of little value in our ongoing analysis of the industry to create a new series of numbers for the period 2001-2003 that would not align with the post-2003 numbers we already have.

Each chapter has received detailed information concerning the results within its own jurisdiction for each local union that it deals with and national, district, and state numbers have been posted on NECA’s website. You’ll need your user name and password to access your region’s information.

I think that there is good news in these reports. Nationwide, employment among IBEW-represented construction workers is up by 7,141 – a 3.9 percent increase. Likewise, the total wages earned by IBEW workers is up. The respective shares of employees and wages commanded by the organized industry and the nonunion are essentially unchanged. But it should also be noted that during two of those years, the residential market, where we have very little presence, was booming. The fact that we held our own in the overall industry while there was significant growth in a segment that we barely participate in would seem to indicate that we maintain a stable and vital core.

Although neither the employment or wage evaluations give us a true picture of “market share,” they do tend to indicate that the organized industry does about 30 percent of all electrical construction performed in the country. If you factor out the residential work, our share of the commercial-industrial market place falls into the 50-60 percent range.

National trends don’t mean much in local negotiations. Still, it’s encouraging that five NECA Districts appear to be trending up, with two unchanged. Of the two with negative results, District 1 suffered the steepest apparent declines, dropping four points in employment share and six points in wage share. But because of reliability questions in data collected from New Jersey, a traditionally strong union state, those numbers are not included in the results. I believe that if they were included, the District 1 results would have been more positive.

Next time, I’ll consider some of the factors you should bear in mind when looking at your local numbers.

Part of the reason I want to touch on some of these issues is because NECA is developing a new five-part series of labor relations training seminars. The first one on “Negotiations” is designed to be a standard course on collective bargaining in the NECA-IBEW world. Protecting employers’ rights under the Category I Management’s Rights clause is a crucial aspect of negotiating for us. Every proposal developed by management or offered by the IBEW should be examined within the framework of “how will this affect the employer’s ability to manage his jobs and company.”  

We get lots of questions about what is the “best” language to put in an agreement concerning a specific topic, like absenteeism or cell phone use. Many times our answer is “the best language is no language.” Often employers already have the right under our standard management’s rights clause to address the perceived problem through a company policy. The management’s rights clause is quite broadly written and says that “the Employer shall, therefore, have no restrictions except those specifically provided for in the collective bargaining agreement . . . in requiring all employees to observe the Employer's and/or owner's rules and regulations not inconsistent with this Agreement. [...]” 

If the agreement doesn’t address the issue, and the employer’s policy isn’t “illegal,” then the employer has the right to enforce his rules. Sometimes the local union will object and try to turn the management’s rights language on its head, claiming that “employers can’t make specific rules unless the agreement says they can,” or “the law says that any change in the ‘conditions of employment’ must be negotiated.” As usual, there is some truth in these statements, and if we are talking about a “mandatory subject of bargaining” like drug testing of current employees, bargaining must certainly take place. 

But often what the employee or local union would contend is a change in working conditions is simply the enforcement of an existing rule or practice. Our position is that because the management rights clause acknowledges the employer’s right to require all employees to observe the employer’s rules, it presupposes the right to make rules in the first place.  

Even IBEW President Ed Hill has stated that the management’s rights clause is broad enough to cover company rules on a variety of topics not addressed in the agreement, such as attendance policies. NECA employers do not need to bargain over their attendance policy. Employees are expected to be on the job at starting time, every day that they are scheduled to work. You could put language in your agreement concerning the number of absences allowed before discipline is imposed – but why would you? Employers have different needs and perspectives. An employer with most of its jobs in outlying areas might be willing to be a little more flexible than a contractor with a time-critical service business that covers a smaller geographic area. Specific language in the agreement could limit both.  

Another example is cell phone usage. In most cases, this is a topic that shouldn’t be addressed in your agreement. While I understand the instinct to want a policy that addresses the problem, attempting to control cell phone use through agreement language creates at least two new problems. 

First, it legitimizes the presumption that electricians have a right to use their cell phones while being paid to work and, therefore, that employers must bargain to control this abuse. I am surprised by this apparent presumption that because cell phones are prevalent and portable, workers on a job site can make personal calls while they are being paid to install electrical work. No one presumed a worker could walk to a corner phone booth during work hours to make personal calls before. Nothing changes because the phone can now be clipped to a worker’s belt.

Secondly, it limits the employers’ right to develop and/or enforce their own phone policies. Most employers already have rules in place about the personal use of phones during work hours that can be applied to the workers in the field, as well as in the office. 

Sometimes it may seem expedient to put something in the agreement because then the union will have to help the contractors enforce it. But it will always come back to the employer to make sure the rule is followed. Simply putting it in the agreement doesn’t mean the union won’t file a grievance about the application of the rule by the employer in a specific case. In fact, it could even make a grievance more likely now that there is specific agreement language that can be grieved.

There will be times when putting “restrictive” language in the agreement is necessary, even beneficial. While management should never move on something just because the union asks for it, such language could lead to a concession in another area. If that’s the case, then you might want to talk about it. Just remember to always ask if this language will make the agreement more flexible for employers. Or will it just add another restriction on management’s rights?

I grew up (well, at least physically). So I recently watched that first snowfall not from the comfort of my home, but through the windshield of my car. There was no reprieve from the office, and while Christmas was still just a few weeks away, the snow I once found beautiful and exciting now turned the last stubborn highway lane markers invisible and dangerous. Traffic snarled to a crawl and another seemingly endless three hour (plus) commute to the office began. “It’s hard to be patient.”

Thousands of us were out on the roads, just trying to get to work and make a living, and getting nowhere. I guess we were making progress, but it was slow, almost imperceptible, progress.  I wanted to pull out of my lane and try to go around all those other drivers. But, that’s just not the thing to do. Rash actions and decisions based on emotions and expediancy rather than reason, generally lead to even worse traffic conditions. No rational driver would normally pull into a lane with another vehicle barreling down it, but in storms, you see this kind of decision making all the time. It might be tempting to follow an SUV into that unplowed lane, but if you don’t have the right vehicle and the skills to manage it, you’ll only end up stranded, with a line of angry drivers behind.

And, even when you know the right way to go, there are times when the snow has covered the lane markers and signs and your fellow travelers just can’t see the right path. You can’t turn because the cars around you won’t turn, and the drive just drags on. “It’s really hard to be patient.”

Snow eventually melts, and the problems associated with the storm pass. Right now, though, it feels like our industry is in the middle of a never-ending snow storm. So much has changed in our marketplace that we can’t control, yet so many within our industry either can’t or won’t see these changes. Everybody has the same goal -- to get to their destination safely -- but just like driving in a storm, you have to think ahead, understand what you can do right now and what you can’t, make rational judgments, and try, for lack of a better phrase, to cooperate with the other drivers.

When the snow swirls around us, staying home is not an option, and plowing on through, pretending nothing has changed won’t work. We all have to adjust our way of getting there.

Our markets have changed, but do the guys in the other lanes understand the full extent of that change? Sometimes it seems they want to fiddle with the air pressure in the tires when they should be installing chains. But you know, sometimes we just want to keep driving the convertible when we should get out the 4-wheel-drive truck. Sometimes getting through the storm means staying on a familiar path a little longer, and sometimes it means trying a new road. It involves some give and take. It involves recognizing the needs and rights of our fellow travelers. And sometimes it means taking advice from outsiders -- just because the guy in the traffic copter isn’t down on the streets slogging his way through the traffic doesn’t mean he lacks the knowledge, experience, and expertise to see the problems and offer effective solutions.

To some, the talk of the NECA-IBEW partnership and working together to achieve our joint goals has become just background noise, like the holiday songs played in the malls. But as we close this year, I believe we have made good progress toward making our industry and our members more competitive and successful. We will continue to do so in the coming year and beyond.

“It’s hard to be patient . . . but, sometimes it’s necessary.”

The “age ratio” appears in a number of NECA-IBEW agreements. It is classified as “Category II” language. What  does that mean? Unlike Category I language which is affirmed by NECA’s Board of Governors and which must be included in all local NECA-IBEW agreements, Category II language “reflects provisions which the IBEW International Office recommends but which NECA National has not endorsed. These provisions need to be negotiated locally. If adopted, this language must be inserted verbatim into the collective bargaining agreement.” 

In plain English, it means that you don’t have to put Category II provisions in an agreement, and in fact, at NECA’s national office, we recommend that you do not put it in your agreement. But if you do include these provisions, for legal reasons, you have to use the exact Category II language that was drafted by the attorneys. These provisions can cause enough trouble without a poorly worded version getting you sued, as well as grieved.

So is the age ratio clause legal? It depends on where you are. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act does not prevent employers from favoring older workers at the expense of younger workers – even younger workers in the protected class (General Dynamics Land Systems Inc. v. Cline). The court found that the law was designed to protect “older” workers, so, under federal law the age ratio clause is fine. But the story can be different under state or local law.

For example, the Minnesota legislature passed a law  that essentially says it is illegal to discriminate against anyone over the age of 18 on the basis of age. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit found that the age ratio language does violate this state law (Ace Electrical Contractors, Inc. v. IBEW Local Union 292). Since in the application of anti-discrimination laws, the one that gives the individual the most protection usually prevails, the age ratio clause cannot be used in Minnesota.

Does this ruling in Minnesota affect your local agreement? First of all, all agreements should contain a “separability clause.” The separability clause is Category I language specifying that any provision in the agreement that has been declared illegal by a court of competent jurisdiction is null and void. This means that the separability clause deeming age ratio provisions null and void will only kick in on Minnesota agreements that contain the provision.

If your agreement contains the age ratio clause, your chapter may want to investigate if the clause violates any applicable state or local laws in your jurisdiction. If so, the chapter should attempt  to negotiate the language out. It won’t just disappear because you think it is against the law. The separability clause only comes into play if a court rules, not because your attorney or even a state agency has rendered an opinion. 

You should be prepared for the local union to resist removing the provision. Protecting older workers is something the IBEW feels strongly about.

Town Hall Meeting

While I found the exchange to be encouraging and reflective of the cooperative feeling at the core of the NECA-IBEW relationship, I know that many members were put off by Ed Hill’s comments on portability, journeyman call-by-name, and making the Construction Wiremen and Construction Electrician classifications Category I. Contrary to Ed’s viewpoint, I believe that all of these would be positive steps.

It’s also worth remembering that there are a lot of positive things going on. For example, the Board of Governors reaffirmed two improvements to the Category I language: one that makes the Code of Excellence the standard nationwide, and the other allowing the local parties to negotiate lower premiums on shift work so we can better meet our customers’ needs and be more competitive.

We have secured other improvements to our agreements over the last few years – most notably the CW/CE classifications, but other significant changes as well. Local parties now have the option to expand the apprentice-to-journeyman indenture and job-site ratios to utilize as many apprentices as can be reasonably employed in their market areas. The Repeated Discharge (“two-strikes”) language has been adopted as Category I, giving the industry a valuable tool in helping underperforming workers to get help or get out. And Substance Abuse testing is now mandatory throughout the industry. Contractors can choose not to require “drug-free” workers if they wish, but a testing program must be instituted in all areas which directly meets the desires of most customers across the country.

Ed Hill is fond of saying that the IBEW has “given” us these things. That is true in the sense that NECA at the national level didn’t “give” a quid pro quo in return. But Ed knows that contractors are giving at the local level all the time in the form of wages, benefits, and jobs. He knows that unless he agrees to the changes our members need, his members will ultimately lose those good wages, benefits, and jobs. So Ed isn’t “giving” us anything – he’s doing what is right and necessary.

So the good news is that we are making changes. If you have a copy of the Category I language from 2000, compare it to the current version. Chapters now have the ability to negotiate an agreement with a lot more flexibility and opportunity for our contractors than they did seven years ago.

We know that there are a lot more changes that we still need to make. Ed Hill hears this from me all the time. I think that it was great that he heard it directly from NECA contractors at the Town Hall meeting as well.

Paul Lauesen wrote, “It is my understanding that CIR's labor members meet a week prior to CIR (and) have had ample time to read their briefs and formulate a pro-labor strategy on the cases being heard. Can you confirm or deny this?” 

The answer is: No, they do not get the briefs a week ahead of time. In fact, many times, all the briefs and supporting documents are not even received by the CIR office a week ahead of the session. But there is a little more to it than that.

CIR typically calls its first case for each session on Monday morning. NECA’s members of the Council arrive on Sunday and receive their briefs Sunday afternoon. We usually go to dinner as a group, so our panel members have some time before and after dinner to read their briefs for the next day. Personally, I usually get up early on Monday (and each morning of the session) to go over the briefs.

On the other hand, the IBEW panel members come in on Saturday and receive their briefs Saturday afternoon. Each member is “assigned” certain cases to read. On Sunday, the group meets and each member reports on “his” cases. While there is undoubtedly some discussion of which side has the better case, we have been assured that there is no effort to arrive at a consensus that the IBEW side will then hold out for. I have been invited to attend these meetings, but I have declined.

Are the IBEW panel members better prepared? Not in my experience. Frankly, it has appeared to me on numerous occasions that this system encourages some (though certainly not all) IBEW panelists to only read their assigned cases and use a “Cliff Notes” version for the rest. They don’t get into the details of each case, and if their assigned reader has missed something, they all might miss it. Time and again, I have seen a NECA panel member make a statement about the case, be challenged by the IBEW, and go to the brief to prove his point. A slightly embarrassed-sounding “Oh, I guess I didn’t see that” is often the response.

Does this Sunday meeting give the IBEW a tactical advantage? No matter what outcome one side or the other might agree to in advance, it still takes a unanimous vote of the 12 sitting members to decide the case.

It’s also worth noting that the briefs make up only a fraction of the information that Council uses to determine a case. The parties in the dispute get the opportunity to offer additional oral testimony, rebut the other party’s brief, and answer questions. Adopting a rigid position ahead of time based only on the brief is a fool’s game. It could blind you to the facts of the case that may become apparent in the oral testimony or question and answer period and obscure a resolution that is truly beneficial to both parties. NECA knows this, and the IBEW knows it, too. That’s why I don’t believe that they do so.

Many cases touch on sensitive issues, and union representatives often share the same opinions on these matters. I understand how this could give the appearance of an agreed-upon resolution. One such issue is the discharge of a steward. Business managers rely on their stewards to assure the agreement is being adhered to. It’s a tough job and often hard to fill because the members feel that being a steward puts them on the fast track to a layoff. So the business managers almost universally think the employer is at fault if a steward is terminated. Until, of course, we demonstrate otherwise. 

I strongly believe that when our panel members sit down at the table, they are as familiar, if not more familiar, with the contents of the briefs as their IBEW counterparts. And this belief is affirmed at almost every session. 

I’ve always felt that way, and having just completed the August session, I agree even more.

First, I want to tip my hat to our panel members. The first two days of this session were quite long, with the panel staying in session until after 10 p.m. on Monday and Tuesday (without a dinner break) and then setting a very early start time on themselves for Wednesday morning, with more briefs to be read and prep work to be done in between presentations. Anyone who believes CIR service includes a few easy days out of the office and nice meals would be advised to re-think their position: there’s a whole lot of work going on and not a lot of time to do it in.

Despite their dedication, time, and sincere effort, as well as the broad range of knowledge and experience that our contractors, chapter managers, and regional directors bring to the table, Council members can never know as much about what is going on in a local area as the two parties involved. This means that some important information just isn’t going to make it into the Council’s discussions settling the case. Also, a locally achieved agreement is far more likely to gain local buy-in than one “imposed from afar.” A “good” decision may lead to negative results when one or both sides feel that they are being forced into something they really don’t want.

So, local decisions are clearly better. However, when you can’t reach a settlement locally for whatever reasons, Council is much better than the alternatives.

Many people have asked, “since Council usually settles cases the same day they hear them, what takes so long for me to get my decision?” After Council discusses the case and a solution is indicated, a motion is made by one side and seconded by the other. The motion may be discussed further and the chairman calls for a vote. The motion must receive a unanimous vote to carry. Then Council moves on to the next case. Council makes every effort to decide cases the same day they are heard.

There are distinct differences between the shorthand form of a motion and the formalized style of a decision. Therefore, the motions must be transcribed into that familiar format by NECA and IBEW staff. At the end of the session, these draft decisions are checked against the original motions to ensure that each decision captures the motion fully, and if correct, they are sent for transcribing at the NECA office. Once all the decisions are typed up, NECA and IBEW staff get back together to proof the typed versions against the original drafts and the motions. If any errors are found, they are corrected. Once this process is completed, the “Preliminary Decisions” are ready for mailing.

Recognizing the desires of the parties for a quick decision, Council now asks them if they will agree to receive the preliminary decision via email. If they both agree, the emails are sent as soon as the proofing is complete. This has cut several days off the turnaround time. Preliminary decisions are usually emailed by the Wednesday following a session, and often sooner.  About three weeks later, the numbered and signed decision is mailed to the parties via first class mail.

Preliminary decisions are authentic and may be relied upon by the parties. The parties are to implement them immediately or as called for in the decision itself. The reason Council sends out preliminary decisions is to identify typographical or clerical errors or other correctable mistakes made in the writing before the “final” numbered decision is mailed. It is not to allow either party to reargue the case. If the preliminary decision has someone’s name misspelled or shows the wrong date, those items can be corrected. But beyond that, Council decisions are final and binding on the parties and not subject to appeal or re-hearing.

Have any thoughts on CIR decisions? Use the "Send Feedback" link below.

I’d like to do that, but there are no magic words or tips that can ensure that you will receive the exact result you want. There are, however, some very important things the chapter can do to help the NECA members of the Council in making its case with the IBEW side.

1. Be Prepared – Get the administrative stuff right and make sure the submission form states the correct issue(s). If the issue isn’t clearly stated on the form, the Council can’t consider it. Also, know the case, and where applicable, know the market, the economy, the people, and the history. Most importantly, know your agreement, inside and out. The Council may ask questions about all of these areas, and “I don’t know,” probably isn’t the best answer. Of course, if you really don’t know, say so – don’t make things up!

2. Be Complete – The panel is made up of industry veterans, but they don’t necessarily know everything about how business is done in your area. Look at your brief and presentation from an outsider’s viewpoint. Are you assuming knowledge on the panel’s part that they might not have? An undesirable outcome may be traced back to “bad” or missing information. However, don’t be repetitive and don’t weigh the Council down with extraneous information.

3. Be Specific – Tell the Council exactly what you want the decision to be: dollars and cents; yes or no; up or down. If you want new agreement language, write it! It’s much easier to get 12 people to agree to adopt a proposed clause than it is to ask 12 people to write the language themselves.

4. Be Observant – Pay attention to what the other side’s brief says, what they say in oral testimony, and what they say in rebuttal. Listen for clues to what the panel is thinking in the questions they ask as much as you listen to the answers given by the other side. And remember, erroneous or misleading statements that aren’t corrected become “facts” so far as the Council is concerned for that case’s deliberations.

5. Be Professional – Stay on point in your presentation and during the questions and answers. Don’t wander off topic or air out your dirty laundry. Offer the facts that support your position and leave the personalities out of it. The other side may be the biggest assortment of liars, miscreants, and ne’er-do-wells since Edison lit his first lamp, but unless it bears directly on the facts of the case, Council doesn’t need nor want to hear about it. 

6. Be Realistic – CIR was instituted to resolve disputes over wages and grievances without strikes. And it has been tremendously successful in this role. However, CIR’s charter does not normally include miracles. It was never meant to simply impose one side’s viewpoint on the other side. Both sides have their allies on the Council, and being seen as unreasonable in your demands or conduct simply reinforces the argument of your opposition in the minds of the panel members.

** Do you have a tip for going to CIR? Use the "Send Me Your Comments" link below to share it.

It’s my goal here to offer background, insights, and additional information that will help you understand and better use the agreements negotiated between your NECA chapter and IBEW local union, as well as the national agreements negotiated directly between NECA and the International Office of the IBEW. Between the Lines is also a place where I can add my perspective on other information and events.

A recent mailing from National NECA and the International Office of the IBEW to chapters and local unions gives me the opportunity and the subject for my first column: Market evaluation.

What is it? Who’s got it? How do we track it? These questions have plagued contractors, chapters, and local unions for years – and, unfortunately, there is no single, perfect method to determine it. 

Because NECA and the IBEW share the belief that it is more important for the local parties to work on improving their market share than on defining it, and because many areas can’t or won’t try to determine their market share jointly, and, frankly, because those who serve on CIR grow weary of having one side tell us their market share is 80% and the other say it’s closer to 12%, the national organizations decided that we would provide some market strength indicators to the local parties.

By now you may have heard that NECA and the IBEW have sent out the “employment share” and “wage share” reports to the chapters and local unions. You may have also heard that the numbers are right on, or that they are way too high, or even that they are too low. I’d just like to take a moment here to explain what we are trying to do with these reports.

First of all, the reports are offered as a tool to analyze the past, gauge the present, and plan for the future – not as a club to beat the other side with at negotiations.

The reports were developed by the Construction Labor Research Council (CLRC) and the methodology it used is fully explained in the report. This first round of reports covers only one year, 2005, so you really can’t tell too much from them. When the federal government releases statistics for 2006, CLRC will issue a second report. A report covering 2004 will also be released soon, followed by yearly reports back to 2001. 

Does this mean these are the only numbers you can use? No – if your chapter and local have agreed on a way to measure market share, you can continue to use it for your local efforts. (However, understand that the national organizations may still consider these reports for market share purposes.) If you haven’t already jointly agreed on how to measure local market share, we believe that these reports will, over time, allow you to track the health and direction of the electrical construction industry in your area. 

Will the CIR use these numbers if local negotiations are stalled?  Yes, the CIR will consider these reports in its deliberations, along with any information that the local parties have developed.

Whether or not you agree with the numbers in this first report, please remember that it's not necessarily the percentage of wages or employment we have in any one year that counts.  What's important is the change in those percentages of the years and the trend these changes create. From the national level, we can’t see the effect of a single large job or contractor on your area, or whether success in one market segment obscures weakness in another. That’s why the local parties must review these reports in good faith and with their intimate knowledge of local conditions.

Members can contact their chapter to get a copy of their local market evaluation report. Also, feel free to use the feedback button on this page to share your experiences with market evaluation reports.