Testimony of Mr. Richard Hermanson

September 30, 2004

Committee on Education and the Workforce
Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations

My name is Richard Hermanson. I am employed as a transportation security screener at San Francisco International Airport. It is a privilege to speak before the subcommittee today.

When Covenant Aviation Security hired me in November 2002, I attended a new hire orientation where company officials introduced themselves and gave an overview of company goals as a contractor to the Transportation Security Administration. Midway in the orientation, a union representative from Service Employees International Union Local 790 was also given a turn at the podium. He spoke briefly, explained what a union security clause is, and that we had thirty days to comply with the security clause. To this day I do not know why the company recognized the union, but it did for a time until a charge was filed with the National Labor Relations Board Region 20, and the company and union agreed to no longer enforce the existing collective bargaining agreement.

United Screeners Association Local 1 was then started by a number of my co-workers who, like myself, were extremely displeased with SEIU representation. A representation petition was passed, and once it was signed by 30% of the workforce, we met to discuss filing the petition. SEIU 790 was also passing representation cards at this time. As we discussed filing the petition, we were stuck on one critical issue - a proper filing would exclude SEIU 790 from the ballot. We did what we felt was the right thing - we filed the petition as a "guard" unit, and Region 20 ultimately approved the filing.

Undeterred, SEIU 790 immediately switched gears, telling screeners that an NLRB election was not the only way to achieve union recognition. They said that they could use signature cards for recognition if a majority of the workforce voted "No" and signed a petition for SEIU 790. They said that they could use political pressure to gain recognition. They also said that they could use the San Francisco Airport Labor Peace Card Check Ordinance to force recognition that is meant to be voluntary under the National Labor Relations Act. Although SEIU 790 was initially successful in their attempt to divide the loyalties of the screeners by suggesting that a federally supervised secret-ballot election was merely a prerequisite to their card count demand for recognition, the ultimate resolution of the campaign is still in doubt.

SEIU 790 has been giving away a lot of food during the campaign. Pizza, chocolate, chicken and burritos are among the items given out. Our organizers on more than one occasion observed screeners ask SEIU organizers for a bite to eat, and saw them directed to a representation petition as a prerequisite to receiving the food. On one occasion, an organizer dangling a lunch cooler in front of me to capture my attention approached me. I looked at him and he asked me if I've signed the petition. I was on the clock but I lost my cool anyway. It was an insult to have merchandise used as an enticement for a representation petition.

The SEIU organizers clearly keep a database on who has not signed a card. They wait after work for the unsigned to clock out and pressure them to "make a commitment" and sign cards. This one-on-one targeting is not merely attempts to convey information about the benefits of unionization - they are attempts to get signatures for recognition without the privacy of a secret ballot.

One coworker of mine has relayed that SEIU organizers showed up at his house unannounced, and that he had difficulty getting them to leave after he let them in the house. The organizers finally left after he threatened to call the police. Organizers have been known to call the same person four times late one evening in the hope that they would give in and commit to support SEIU.

Sometimes these tactics work. We've had coworkers tell us that they just signed to get the organizer or coworker off their back, that they were made uncomfortable by the peer pressure to sign a card, that they signed a fake name to get a free lunch cooler, or even that they believed signing was for the meal.

The decision on whether to be represented by a labor organization is to me the most important decision an employee can make in the workplace. This decision should be determined by a secret ballot election. The campaign has a scheduled election date, and the campaign has the privacy of a secret ballot. Employees are not faced with the pressure of fielding the same questions over and over, questions such as "Are you ready to sign the card?" and the myriad of other coercive tactics that I've seen employed over the past year at San Francisco International Airport. My experience over this period suggests to me that card count campaigns carry the risk of a union being granted recognition while it does not carry true majority support, that there is a big difference between a majority of signatures and majority support.

As an officer of United Screeners Association Local 1, I am not interested in our union being extended recognition where privacy is compromised and support is inherently tainted. These concerns led me to advocate for a secret-ballot election at the workplace well before the introduction of H.R. 4343. I am very fortunate to have fellow officers that are also committed to a secret ballot, and it follows that I support the passage of H.R. 4343. I look forward to the day where we will no longer be disadvantaged by filing for a secret-ballot election because a rival, uncertifiable union has an incentive to divide the loyalties of the workers merely for the opportunity to conduct an inherently coercive card-count campaign.

Thank you.