Tactic seems to rely on intimidation

As president of Associated Builders & Contractors of Western Washington, I have monitored the carpenters union bannering campaign against numerous open shop contractors here and in other states. The union's campaign alleges that the targeted contractors don't pay "area standard wages" and should be dismissed by their project owners.

When clients choose not to dismiss the contractors, the union engages in a bannering campaign against the project owners claiming that the client is in a labor dispute and that clients such as Housing Hope "hurt the community." The bannering does not mention the contractor but implies that the client hurts the community due to a labor dispute.

The contractor's first knowledge of the union allegation of a labor dispute comes with a copy of the letter sent to their client. Prior to that letter, the contractors have no knowledge that they are in any dispute with the union. The letter asks that the client cease working with the contractor or the union will conduct a "highly aggressive information campaign" against all of the owners' businesses. In Western Washington, that has meant nonprofits, health care providers, churches, banks, restaurants and educational facilities. The point seems to be to intimidate the owners into stopping work with open shop contractors.

Bannering is currently legal, but the tactic begs the question of ethics and motive. Ask open shop workers if they would prefer to join a union and they will most likely answer that they are well compensated and treated as individuals with their open shop employer. They are free to join a union at any time and have chosen not to.

Even though there is an enormous labor shortage in the construction industry, union membership is on a steady decline.

Is this truly an information campaign or one of intimidation? What is the union's real motivation -- worker parity or market share?

Kathleen Garrity
Mill Creek