Staff at Coca-Cola’s corporate-owned bottling plant in Fort Worth have voted against union membership, meaning it will not become the firm’s first unionized site in the South.
Events at the Texas attracted widespread media attention upon this basis, but a National Labor Review Board-supervised secret ballot saw 215 votes cast in favor and 191 against.
Teamsters Local Union No.997 had sought the election, Around 400 employees were eligible to vote to join the Teamsters Local Union No.997 in balloting at local NLRB offices on Wednesday.
Union hopes dashed
Teamsters organizer Ben Speight told local newspaper the Star Telegram that if the union achieved a majority it would be“earth shattering”, and prove that it was possible to overcome Coke’s alleged pressure tactics.
The paperreported that pro-union workers at Coke were seeking better pay, an end to what they claimed was favoritism in promotion and shift assignments, lower-cost health plans and better job security.
Demands also centered on increased pay for overtime, fewer temporary workers and less outsourcing; Teamsters Local 997 represented drivers at Molson-Coors and Bimbo Bakeries, the paper added.
The Teamsters failed unionization effort was its second in 15 months, after the firm was forced to call off an earlier planned voted in June 2011.
'Right to work' laws
Unionization rates are non-existent among the Coca-Cola Company’s Southern sites, namely because states such as Texas have ‘right to work’ (RTW) legislation in place.
Where this exists in 23 (mainly Southern) states across the US, it means that union membership or payment of dues is non-compulsory for workers.
Supporters of RTW laws oppose so-called ‘forced unionism’ and a February 2011 Economic Policy Institute (EPI) study found both unemployment and the cost of living lower in such states.
However, in the same EPI briefing paper , authors Elise Gould and Heidi Shierholz concluded that the ‘mean effect’ of working in such a state was a 3.2% reduction in staff wages.
“The fact is, while RTW legislation misleadingly sounds like a positive change in this weak economy, in reality the opportunity it gives workers is only that of working for lower wages and fewer benefits,” they wrote.