Collective Representation Among High-Tech Workers ...

Collective Representation Among High-Tech Workers at Microsoft and Beyond: Lessons from WashTech/CWA DANIELLE D. VAN JAARSVELD* The obstacles that discourage organizing among high-tech workers are well documented in the industrial relations literature. Discussion about factors that help workers overcome these obstacles, however, is sparse. This case study uses interviews and other evidence to analyze how high-tech workers formed the Washington Alliance of Technology Workers (WashTech/CWA). I find that WashTech/CWA improved constituents' working conditions through attempts to engage in collective bargaining, mutual benefit activities, and political action. WashTech/CWA is having greater success using mutual benefits, such as information and training services, and political action in part as a result of the obstacles workers encountered when trying to access collective bargaining.

OFTEN UNIONISM IS SAID TO BE IRRELEVANT TO THE HIGH-TECH

WORKFORCE because these workers possess a significant amount of individual economic power, a high degree of individualism, high levels of mobility, and satisfactory working conditions (Robinson and Mcllwee 1989; Hossfeld 1995; Milton 2003). High-tech firms have a reputation as "one of the most union-resistant segments of the American economy" (Robinson and Mcllwee 1989; Hossfeld 1995). This combination of workforce characteristics and firm resistance helped to produce a low level of union membership among U.S. high-tech workers (Hossfeld 1995; U.S. Department of Labor 2000). Yet some high-tech workers at firms such as Microsoft, Amazon.com, Intel, and IBM, well before the dot-com downturn in 2000, began showing an interest in collective representation. Because these events challenge widely held perceptions about the high-tech workforce, the formation of the * Sauder School of Business, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. E-mail: [email protected]. This research was supported by Cornell University's School of Industrial and Labor Relations. I would like to thank Harry Katz, Rosemary Batt, Kathy Stone, Richard Hurd, Sarosh Kuruvilla, George Gonos, Davydd Greenwood, and Lee Adler for their suggestions and comments on earlier versions of this article. I also would like to thank the individuals who assisted me in the field, especially Andrea de Majewski, Mike Blain, Marcus Courtney, Larry Cohen, Barbara Judd, Jeff Nachtigal, and Gretchen Wilson. INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, Vol. 43, No. 2 (April 2004). © 2004 Regents of the University of California Published by Blackwell Publishing, Inc., 350 Main Street, Maiden, MA 02148, USA, and 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK.

364

Collective Representation Among High-Tech Workers I 365 Washington Alliance of Technology Workers (WashTech) in 1998 and its evolution into Local 37083 of the Newspaper Guild-Communications Workers of America (TNG-CWA) attracted attention. ' This case study of WashTech/CWA focuses on two research questions: What conditions drive some high-tech workers to seek collective representation? and WTiat strategies are effective for representing these workers? I find that collective representation is relevant to high-tech workers and that WashTech/CWA is engaged in traditional union activities, although the mixture of these activities is nontraditional. From Webb and Webb (1920) we know that the traditional union activities are (1) to provide mutual benefits, (2) to participate in collective bargaining, and (3) to design and support political legislation favorable to workers (Stone 2001). This case study shows that WashTech/CWA is pursuing all three of these activities with varying levels of success. WashTech/CWA offers services such as access to accurate information and training, a modern version of mutual benefits, and political action, but it de-emphasizes collective bargaining. The strategies WashTech/CWA uses do not represent a departure from traditional unionism but rather entail a shift in emphasis away from collective bargaining and toward mutual benefits and political action. This union strategy mix emerged in part because of the particular obstacles WashTech/CWA encountered when trying to represent high-tech workers' interests. WashTech/CWA's membership consists primarily of high-tech contingent workers. Their members' work experiences are similar to those of contingent workers employed in other industries, who also have limited access to legal protections, benefits, training, and career advancement opportunities. Although WashTech/CWA's high-skilled contingent workers typically earn above-average wages, the problems associated with contingent work, as evidence from this case study shows, persist. Data for this case study came from three sources: interviews, Internet-based information, and secondary survey data. First, I conducted interviews with Microsoft agency contractors, Microsoft managers, union organizers, academics, and lawyers.^ An interview list is located in the Appendix. Each of ' This article focuses primarily on high-tech workers who create content for the Internet or for software products, with the exception of Amazon.com customer service representatives. However, great diversity exists across the high-tech workforce, with high-level software and database engineers at the top of the skills strata and data-entry and customer service workers at the bottom (Wilson and Blain 2001). ^ Initial interviews were conducted in 1999 in Seattle. Additional interviews with WashTech/CWA organizers and agency contractors were conducted via e-mail and in person during a subsequent visit to Seattle in 2000. WashTech/CWA organizers and members were interviewed again in April and November 2001 when they attended conferences at Cornell University. An interview list is available from the author on request.

366 /

DANIELLE D. VAN JAARSVELD

these unstructured interviews lasted between 1 to 4 hours. I conducted the initial set of interviews in 1999, with some follow-up interviews occurring in 2000 and 2001. Second, I gathered information from the WashTech/ CWA's Web site and its digital bulletin board. ^ The high degree of Internet usage for communication purposes among this workforce made this a valuable source. Third, I used three sets of survey data collected by Microsoft and WashTech/CWA to examine the generalizability of the interview and Internet evidence.

Insights from Previous Literature High-tech workers often have nonstandard employment contracts (temporary worker, independent contractor), and in software firms, nonstandard employment is common (Kanter 1995).'' Features of these nonstandard employment relationships include multiple work sites, short-term assignments, high levels of mobility, and the presence of an intermediary in the employment relationship (U.S. General Accounting Office 2000). These job characteristics make organizing and union representation awkward within the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) framework (Hiatt and Rhinehart 1994; Carré, duRivage, and Tilly 1994; Middleton 1996).^ Nevertheless, some high-tech workers who were dissatisfied with their working conditions have sought collective representation to address economic and noneconomic issues. For example, Batt et al. (2001) examined the factors that motivated new media workers (workers engaged primarily in Web page and digital design) to use professional associations in New York City to help address concerns regarding skill acquisition, health and retirement benefits, and job and income security.* This case study extends the earlier Batt et al. (2001) study by examining an effort by high-tech workers to have their interests represented by an organization affiliated with a labor union as opposed to a professional association. In addition, the two cases differ because the new media workers studied by Batt et al. were classified as independent contractors or full-timers ' WashTech/CWA's digital bulletin board is available at http:llwww.washtech.orglwtlforuml; accessed on January 12, 2001. '' These workers will be referred to throughout this article as "high-tech contingent workers." * The NLRB's decision in M.B. Sturgis. Inc. (331 NLRB, No. 173, August 25, 2000) removed one of the obstacles impeding unionization of temporary workers by permitting a bargaining unit to include temporary workers alongside full-time workers without requiring the dual consent of a temporary employment agency and a client firm if the court recognized that the two were joint employers. ' In India, high-tech workers have created professional forums to address poor working conditions (Bibby 2002).

Collective Representation Among High-Tech Workers ! 367 and, for the most part, were well compensated.' Many of the high-tech contingent workers represented by WashTech/CWA were classified as temporary workers, and relative to the new media workers studied by Batt et al. (2001) possess lower skill levels, earn considerably less pay, but face similar challenges.^ Bacharach, Bamberger, and Sonnenstuhl (2001) addressed the question of how to elicit member commitment in an economic and politically unfriendly environment. They recommended that unions return to their roots and adopt a "mutual-aid logic" orientation (Bacharach, Bamberger, and Sonnenstuhl 2001). Mutual-aid logic requires members to be intensely involved in union activities and to have a major role in developing activities that lead to mutual benefits (Bacharach, Bamberger, and Sonnenstuhl 2001). In this way, workers come to perceive the union as an organization that is heavily involved in the employment relationship and community, as opposed to an outside organization that provides individually oriented benefits such as access to credit-card services. Other researchers have highlighted how unions can use political action to respond to a reduction in bargaining power, organizing difficulties, and the power of employer interest groups (Aaron 1984; Delaney 1991). A vital component of political action is the formation of coalitions between different interest groups (Delaney 1991). In their examination of political coalitions in the construction industry, Safford and Locke (2002:29) suggested that union revitilization "depends upon how successful they are at (re-)embedding themselves in their respective social, political and economic contexts." These alternative roles for unions—mutual aid and political action—however, are not problem-free. Mutual aid carries with it free-rider problems and difficulties associated with the identification of a coherent agenda (Bacharach, Bamberger, and Sonnenstuhl 2001). Another problem that arises is the possibility that workers can obtain these benefits from alternative providers. Political action, in turn, can be difficult because potential allies may not be supportive as a result of conflicts of interests. An organization trying to represent a new constituency, such as high-tech contingent workers, may encounter resistance from traditional sources of support, particularly when the interests of full-timers and contingent workers diverge. Statutory and legal restrictions also make union-based political action difficult (Delaney 1991). ' Their median annual pay in 1998 was $78,000, and their average pay was $102,154. ' According to a WashTech/CWA study of the high-tech workforce in the Seattle area (King, Pierce, and Snohomish counties), 15 percent of high-tech workers earned less than $16.78 per hour, whereas the median wage was $31.00 per hour (WashTech/CWA 2001).

368

/


Case Study: WashTech/CWA The effort by Microsoft workers to use collective representation assumed two forms, one legal (the Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp. lawsuit) and one associational (the formation of WashTech/CWA).^ In 1990, the Internal Revenue Service (1RS) found that the company was incorrectly classifying commonlaw employees as independent contractors, thereby denying them benefits (Stobaugh 1999). To bring itself into compliance with 1RS regulations, Microsoft converted some independent contractors to full-time status and directed others to sign up with temporary employment agencies, although they continued to work onsite at Microsoft (Stobaugh 1999). Frustrated by their misclassification and this arrangement, some workers attempted to recover benefits such as access to Microsoft's Employee Stock Purchase Plan (ESPP) and the Savings Plus Plan (SPP) they had been denied as a result of their misclassification. Microsoft refused, and in 1992, a group of workers filed a lawsuit against Microsoft. The htigation evolved into a class action: Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp. '" In December 2000, Microsoft settled the case for $97 million." Information about Microsoft working conditions for high-tech contingent workers that surfaced during this lawsuit led some Microsoft agency contractors to believe that they were being treated unfairly and highlighted their lack of voice in the employment relationship. The Vizcaino case laid the groundwork for the formation of WashTech/CWA by verifying worker accounts of Microsoft employment practices with respect to its high-tech contingent workforce. Employment Conditions. Most of the workers who initially formed WashTech/CWA were agency contractors. The term agency contractor refers to workers who are on the payrolls of temporary employment agencies even though the location of their work is at Microsoft.'^ Following transfer of some former independent contractors to agency payrolls, Microsoft continued to hire agency contractors for such positions as "production editing, proofreading, formatting, indexing, and software testing.'"^ The Microsoft workers who initially formed WashTech tended to have skills that lie in the middle to lower end of the high-tech skills strata (Wilson and Blain 2001). ' Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 97 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 1996), modified en bane, 120 F3d 1006 (9th Cir. 1997), and enforeed by mandamus, Vizcaino v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 173 F.3d 713 (9th Cir. 1999) '» Ibid " Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 142 FSupp. 1299 (9th Cir. 2001). " Agency contractors are also referred to as agency temps. " Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 102 F3d 1006 (9th Cir. 1997).

Collective Representation Among High-Tech Workers I 369 Three actors are present in the agency contractor relationship: Microsoft, the agency contractor, and the temporary employment agency. Temporary employment agencies assumed primary employer responsibilities for legal, administrative, and compensation matters for agency contractors who worked onsite at Microsoft and operated as labor market intermediaries between workers and Microsoft (van Jaarsveld 2000). In 2000, Microsoft's high-skilled workforce in Puget Sound (19,400 workers) included roughly 6800 agency contractors (Richman 2000b)."' Worker Demands. While the Vizcaino settlement met one aspect of worker demands for better benefits, Microsoft high-tech contingent workers found legal channels unsuitable for meeting other demands that remained, such as the need for fairer wages and respect in the workplace.'^ To address these demands, some Microsoft agency contractors formed WashTech in March 1998, later affiliating with the CWA to become WashTech/CWA. In terms of economic demands, some agency contractors became frustrated by the disparity in wages and benefits offered to them for doing what they perceived as the same work as their full-time coworkers. More commonly referred to as permatemps, many agency contractors rejected the idea that their positions were temporary. Some agency contractors, however, chose to remain at Microsoft in the hope that they eventually would be hired into full-time positions that would include comprehensive benefits, specifically stock options. The difference in wages and benefits between Microsoft and a temporary employment agency is outlined in Table 1. This side-by-side comparison reveals that Microsoft offered a benefits package to its full-time employees that far exceeded what agency contractors received from temporary employment agencies such as Volt Services Group (Flash 1999). For example, while full-time employees received performance bonuses and stock options, agency contractors received only overtime pay. Training is vital for high-tech workers to remain competitive, and beyond fairer wages, workers identified training as a priority. While Microsoft full-time employees received extensive free training assistance, the agencies provided limited training opportunities; e.g.. Volt Services ''' "Top Microsoft Agencies Sorted by Number of Contractors on Assignment at the Company," http:llwww.washtech.orglrounduplcontractl062900_ms_agenciesl.php3; accessed on June 1, 2000. The number of agency contractors has decreased since Microsoft converted several agency contractor positions into full-time ones, a policy that went into effect in July 2000. '' While the immigration status of high-tech workers is an important issue, it did not emerge as a primary factor driving the formation of WashTech/CWA. In part, this can be explained by the fact that many workers on Hl-B visas are reluctant to challenge their employers because they might jeopardize their immigration status.

370 /


TABLE I A COMPARISON OF BENEFITS PACKAGES FOR M I C R O S O F T F U L L - T I M E EMPLOYEES AND A TYPICAL AGENCY CONTRACTOR

Type of Benefit

Microsoft

Health benefits

Medical, dental, vision, and supplemental life insurance

Performance incentives Stock options

Performance bonuses twice a year Stock purchase plan with 15% discount Stock options of several hundred to thousands of shares 401(k) plan with company match of up to 3% of salary Minimum 2 weeks' vacation annually, 10 paid holidays, 10 days of paid sick leave Training assistance

Retirement Vacation

Training

Volt Services Group HMO medical, vision, and life insurance Employee pays $15.81 per week Overtime pay, sometimes straight time, sometimes time and a half None

401(k) plan with no match Eight paid holidays annually, 40 hours of paid vacation for every 1500 hours worked Free technical training for software testers

SOURCE: Flash (1999).

Group offered free training assistance only to software testers (Flash 1999). In addition to the disparity in compensation between agency contractors and full-timers, various features of the contractual relationship between agency contractors and temporary employment agencies were a source of frustration. For example, a substantial difference existed between the bill rate, the amount an agency charged a client firm for a worker's services, and the pay rate, the portion of the bill rate that the workers received. Furthermore, during wage negotiations between a temporary employment agency and an agency contractor, an agency representative would not disclose the bill rate to a worker. One agency contractor explained the importance of bill rate disclosure: Contractors need to know this info. I think it will force agencies to tell the truth. We hear all the time how they don't make that much of a profit. If we find out exactly what the markup is, we can then demand better benefits. This will hopefully create a healthy competition among agencies. If they are losing all of their employees to another agency, then they need to change their benefits/pay package.'^ " "Awesome!" posted on the WashTech/CWA bulletin board, June 23, 1999, at 06:49 P.M. (Pacific Daylight Time).

Collective Representation Among High-Tech Workers I 371

As a result of this practice, some agency contractors who did the same work received different pay rates—a situation that many agency contractors felt was unfair. Some temporary employment agencies' contracts required agency contractors to agree to a noncompete clause when agencies assisted them in finding a job (interview with manager of a temporary employment agency 17). These noncompete clauses required workers to pay a significant amount of money if they wanted to move to another temporary employment agency, a move that could be accompanied by an improvement in benefits. Benefits offered by temporary employment agencies in some cases differed significantly (Ervin 1999; Flash 1999). In sum, the secrecy surrounding bill rates and the noncompete clauses included in some agency contracts contributed to the decision by some agency contractors to seek redress through collective representation. The ultimate catalyst for the formation of WashTech, however, came from outside the workplace. In 1997, the Washington Software and Digital Media Alliance (WSDMA), a Washington State trade association that includes Microsoft and other high-tech employers as members, proposed the elimination of overtime for computer professionals who earned more than $27.63 per hour to the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries. High-tech workers were the most vocal opponents of this proposal and sent 700 letters and e-mails to the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries in protest. Meanwhile, traditional unions such as the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE) Local 17 and the Seattle Professional Engineering Employees Association (SPEEA) supported the rule because they had negotiated an exemption from the rule for workers covered by a collective bargaining agreement." The decision by the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries to enact the rule signaled to high-tech workers that their individual action had failed and that they needed an organization to advocate on their behalf. While economic disparities fueled resentment among agency contractors, noneconomic issues were another powerful source of anger and frustration. These noneconomic issues included Microsoft policies that targeted agency contractors. Several Microsoft policies were introduced to increase the distance between full-timers and contingent workers to safeguard the company from further litigation (interview with Microsoft manager 13). One such policy was a 31-day "break in service" policy introduced in June 1998 and later extended to 100 days. This "break in service" policy applied to agency " Testimony available at http:llwww.lni.wa.govlnewsll997tpr971231a.htm; 2002.

accessed on October 22,

372

/


contractor assignments and was designed to give the appearance of discontinued employment (interview with Microsoft manager 13). Most agency contractors, in fact, took their "break in service" and returned to Microsoft on a new assignment (interview with Microsoft agency contractor 6). Other Microsoft policies that targeted the firm's high-tech contingent workforce included requiring them to wear orange-colored identification badges as opposed to blue badges for full-time employees (interview with Microsoft agency contractor 5). As a result of this practice, Microsoft agency contractors referred to the transfer from contingent status to full-time status as "going blue." Agency contractors also were prohibited from attending morale-building events, shopping in the company store, and using the Microsoft sports fields.'^ These restrictions contributed to the sense of disrespect and alienation many agency contractors experienced in the Microsoft workplace. Microsoft, however, contended that these measures were necessary to comply with 1RS regulations requiring a clear delineation between full-time and contingent workers (interview with Microsoft manager 13). Access to the company store or sports fields may sound like frivolous issues, but in several interviews agency contractors stated that respect was one of the primary reasons many of them decided to seek collective representation. Collective Bargaining Attempts. The next two examples illustrate how workers encountered significant difficulties when they tried to improve their working conditions through collective bargaining. These experiences encouraged WashTech/CWA to shift its focus to emphasize mutual aid and political action. TaxSaver. In April 1999, support for collective representation surfaced at TaxSaver, a working group within Microsoft, in response to a refusal by their temporary employment agencies to improve their benefits. This group of 18 Microsoft agency contractors possessed significant bargaining leverage because they had a rare combination of skills—a fusion of financial accounting experience and code-writing skills (interview with Microsoft agency contractor 5). The group declared itself a "negotiating unit," and its members became dues-paying members of WashTech/CWA. To be recognized as a formal bargaining unit under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), workers would have had to gain consent from both the chent firm (in this case, Microsoft) and their temporary employment agencies because the TaxSaver initiative occurred before the M B. Sturgis, Inc. (331 NLRB No. 173, August 25, 2000) decision, which eliminated the dual-consent requirement. ' "A Reference Guide for Contingent Staff on Assignment at Microsoft," Puget Sound Edition.

Collective Representation Among High-Tech Workers I 373 Despite the refusal by Microsoft and the temporary employment agencies to recognize the TaxSaver unit, the group continued its efforts to improve its working conditions. The agency contractors had both economic and noneconomic demands: equitable pay across the work group, improved benefits, and agency choice, as well as a change in job classification that would improve their status at Microsoft. The negotiating unit declaration and related pressure tactics did result in some improvements in working conditions. The disparities in pay rates across the group, the benefits issue, and the reclassification request all were addressed. Although some communication between Microsoft and the agencies must have occurred to enact these changes, neither the agency contractors nor WashTech/CWA were invited to the bargaining table. The formation of this negotiating unit captured Microsoft management's attention, and it also focused media attention on WashTech/CWA, helping to legitimize its reputation in the software industry and among high-tech workers in Washington State. Events abruptly shifted, however, when Microsoft sold off the products produced by the TaxSaver group. On March 23, 2000, Microsoft announced its decision to form a partnership with H&R Block. As a result of this partnership, approximately 100 workers, including the TaxSaver activists, lost their jobs.'^ Amazon, com. The experience of the TaxSaver group shows the difficulties contingent workers encounter when trying to form a bargaining unit. Evidence from WashTech/CWA's Amazon.com organizing initiative shows that even full-time workers employed by a high-tech firm find it difficult to improve their working conditions through collective bargaining. The Amazon.com campaign targeted the company's customer service representatives.^" Similar to the TaxSaver campaign, employee demands included a desire for respect and job security. In November 1998, one employee contacted WashTech/CWA in frustration with working conditions (Cohn 2001). Initial efforts to build support for WashTech/CWA, however, were met with little enthusiasm (interview with WashTech/CWA organizer 3). In November 2000, customer service representatives held meetings with WashTech/CWA representatives to plan an organizing strategy in part motivated by Amazon.com's January 2000 decision to lay off 150 workers who were given 1 hour to leave the premises (Cohn 2001). The organizing initiative became known as "Day 2" (interview with WashTech/CWA organizer 2).

" E-mail from Barbara Judd, April 2000. ^ Available at http.itwww.washtech.orgtlrounduptnewstamazon_page2.html; accessed on May 21, 2000.

374

/


The Day 2 organizers began collecting signatures to reach the 30 percent threshold required to petition the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) for an election. However, the campaign ended abruptly in January 2001 when Amazon.com laid off roughly 400 Seattle-based customer service employees, moving those jobs from Seattle to its outsourced customer service center in New Delhi, India (interview with WashTech/CWA organizer 2).^' Both the TaxSaver and Amazon.com initiatives illustrate the problems "new economy" workers encounter when trying to improve their working conditions through collective bargaining. Despite the complications impeding access to collective bargaining, WashTech/CWA has not completely abandoned this strategy. Nevertheless, WashTech/CWA is concentrating more energy on mutual aid and political action because it is in these areas that it faces fewer obstacles to union activity and has had more concrete gains. Mutual Aid. "We are using Microsoft's technology to organize Microsoft's workers" (interview with WashTech/CWA organizer 2). WashTech/CWA uses technological tools to provide information and related mutual aid services to both members and nonmembers. These services are of particular importance to these workers given the characteristics of their employment relationships. Without a formal, long-term attachment to a sole employer, high-tech contingent workers need information about their profession, employers, training, and career advancement opportunities. WashTech/CWA fills these information needs through its tools, such as (1) a Web site, (2) e-mail, and (3) a listserv. Because of the high-tech skills possessed by the targeted workforce, WashTech/CWA's ability to maintain a Web site is viewed as an asset and contributes to its legitimacy. By providing an electronic bulletin board on its Web site, WashTech/CWA facilitates workers' discussions. In particular, WashTech/CWA's Web site has gained a reputation among high-tech workers as a reliable source of current information on Microsoft and other high-tech employers' policies. In several cases, WashTech/CWA has broken a story about policy changes and published the information on its Web site before formal announcement of these policy changes. WashTech/CWA's disclosure of Microsoft's secret personnel files proved to be particularly embarrassing when revealed in the press. In October 1999, WashTech/CWA acquired evidence confirming that since 1995, Microsoft had maintained a set of secret personnel files documenting the performance of its agency contractors and vendors (Greene ^' WashTech/CWA did pressure Amazon.com into providing generous severance packages for the laid-off workers (Wilson and Blain 2001).

Collective Representation Among High-Tech Workers I 375 1999; interview with WashTech/CWA organizer 2). Agency contractors requested that Microsoft permit them to see their personnel files, but Microsoft refused, at first claiming that the files did not exist. The Seattle Times quoted a Microsoft representative, "We do not keep personnel files on employees of other companies" (Greene 1999). This discovery generated an uproar among Microsoft agency contractors because, according to Washington State law, "each employer shall make such file(s) available locally within a reasonable period of time after the employee requests the file(s)."^^ In January 2000, the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries ruled on the personnel files and agreed with the agency contractorsMicrosoft had violated the law by denying agency contractors the right to view the contents of their files (Richman 2000a). WashTech/CWA's investigations in this and a number of other instances have uncovered questionable employer practices, thereby enhancing its reputation. At the same time, misinformation about typical high-tech working conditions has hindered WashTech/CWA's efforts. Newspaper articles during the dot-com boom reported that Seattle high-tech workers enjoyed "$400 restaurant meals, waterfront mansions, Range Rovers and BMWs" and earn, on average, an estimated $350,000 to $400,000 annually distorted public perceptions about high-tech working conditions (Ostrom 2000; WashTcch/CWA 2001). This type of misinformation undermined public support for WashTech/CWA's efforts. To better inform the public about the disparities within the high-tech industry, WashTech/CWA conducted three surveys: (1) the "WashTech/ CWA Survey of Microsoft Contractors," (2) the "Microsoft Conversion Survey" to learn about their constituents, and (3) a survey of Seattle area information technology (IT) employment and training funded by the Ford Foundation. WashTech/CWA also has sponsored a study of high-tech workers in Washington State (interview with WashTech/CWA organizer 2). WashTech/CWA draws on these research projects to help inform its legislative activities. High-tech workers frequently need to upgrade their skills to remain competitive in this rapidly changing industry and to gain access to better-paying positions (Batt et al. 2001). In response to these needs, another service WashTech/CWA provides is access to discounted formal training courses for its members. The importance of training to this workforce motivated WashTech/CWA and its national affiliate, the CWA, to establish a regional training center for high-tech workers in the Seattle area. The center began ^^ Revised Code of Washington, RCW 49.12.240: "Employee inspection of personnel file." Available at http.tlsearckleg.wa.govlwslrcw; accessed on February 28, 2000.

376 /


operations in April 2001 and also supports the CWA's national training partnership with Cisco Systems, which provides workers with both computer skills training and employment referrals. ^^ In the aftermath of widespread layoffs by high-tech firms, WashTech/CWA is also helping members access free training classes financed through state funding at Bellevue Community College (interview with WashTech/CWA organizer 2). While the mutual-aid strategy has resulted in positive outcomes for the WashTech/CWA, this strategy has faced some difficulties. WashTech/CWA, for example, has encountered a reluctance among workers who frequently visit its Web site to become dues-paying members because the nature of WashTech/CWA's Web site facilitates free riders. The public good nature of WashTech/CWA's mutual aid makes it relatively easy for nonmembers to access it. WashTech/CWA is increasing the variety of services for members, such as job listings, and facilitating access to free training classes in order to overcome free-rider problems. Yet WashTech/CWA faces the problem that workers also can obtain these benefits through alternative providers. Without a blueprint to follow explaining what types of organizing strategies will succeed with this workforce, WashTech/CWA tries to develop a coherent agenda that includes organizing workplaces, collective bargaining, mutual aid, and political action. It is difficult, however, to shape a message that resonates with this workforce given its unique characteristics and diversity (interview with WashTech/CWA organizer 2).^"* Political Action. WashTech/CWA also has responded to complications in gaining access to collective bargaining by emphasizing political action. Through this process, WashTech/CWA has sought a broad political base by engaging in legislative and public-policy debates on behalf of contingent workers as a group and by not focusing exclusively on the concerns of high-tech workers. Issues such as the elimination of overtime for computer professionals, relationships with temporary employment agencies, and access to personnel files all were raised in a legislative forum. In January 2000, for example, Washington State Senator Darlene Fairley sponsored a bill that would reinstate overtime for computer professionals.^^ WashTech/CWA also has assisted in " "WashTech/CWA to Open New Training Center, March 19, 20O\." ^ei\\!h\t ai http:llwww.washtech.orgl traininglos 1901 _announce.php3\ accessed on March 20, 2001.

'^* Batt et al. (2001) noted that unions in the motion picture industry already represent workers who have similar characteristics as the high-tech workers discussed here and have used collective bargaining successfully to improve their working conditions. For a discussion, see John Amman, "Union and the New Economy," WorkingUSA 6(Fall):l 11-31, 2002. ^^ "State Bill Would Reinstate Overtime Pay for High-Tech Workers." Available at http: ttwww.washtech.orglroundupllegislatelrestore_ot_bill.html', accessed on February 28, 2000.

Collective Representation Among High-Tech Workers I the development of several bills addressing the practices of temporary employment agencies, such as requiring temporary employment agencies to disclose the conditions of their employment contracts, including pay, work schedules, and the amount the agencies would br paid (Interview with WashTechtCWA Organizer; Kelly 2001).^^ More recently, their legislative efforts have been concentrated on the ofTshoring of information technology (IT) jobs. In 2003, their successful efforts, in partnership with SPEEA, to draw attention to this issue culminated in the General Accounting Office agreeing to undertake a study of offshoring of IT and other white-collar jobs {Interview with WashTechlCWA Organizer). WashTech/CWA lobbies on behalf of legislation that would benefit contingent workers beyond its membership. In March 2002, Washington Governor Gary Locke signed a bill designed to protect public-sector permatemps. The legislation, strongly supported by WashTech/CWA, is the first of its kind in the nation. It prohibits employers from misclassifying public employees or from engaging in any action to avoid providing workers with the benefits they are entitled to under state law, employer policies, or collective bargaining agreements. ^^ WashTech/CWA's political efforts to have bills introduced have yielded some success. However, the employer interests it is challenging, Microsoft and other high-tech firms, have significant financial resources and have stalled many of WashTech/CWA's lobbying efforts (interview with WashTech/CWA Organizer 2). Another aspect of WashTech/CWAs legislative activities involves offering support to political candidates. In a bold effort to draw more attention to the plight of contingent workers, a WashTech/CWA member. Zack Hudgins, a former Amazon.com customer service representative, was elected recently as the Washington State representative for the Eleventh District.'^* From the outset, WashTech/CWA organizers have recognized the importance of coalition building. WashTech/CWA, for example, has managed to gain support for legislative initiatives that have positively affected workers beyond its membership in part because of its coalitions with other interest groups such as the King County Labor Council, the Washington State Labor Council, the Center for a Changing Workforce, and Seattle Union Now at the local and state level and the National Alliance for Fair Employment ^' "A Bill of Rights for Temporary Workers," January 16, 2001. Available at http:ttwww.washtech.orgl roundupllegislatelOI2600_rate_disclosure.html\ accessed on December 4, 2001. " Senate Bill 5264, enacted March 27, 2002. ^' "WashTech Member Pounds the Pavement in Bid for State House Seat," July 19, 2002. Available at http:llwww.washtech.orglwtlnewsllegislativeldisplay.php?ID_Content=352; accessed on September 9, 2002.

378

/


(NAFFE) at the national level. WashTech's founding members also considered possible alliances with traditional unions such as the National Writers Union (NWU/UAW), the CWA, and the IFPTE. Toward the end of June 1998, when Microsoft introduced a "break in service" policy, WashTech members recognized the need for some significant resources, such as staff, office space, and financial support. WashTech members then voted to affiliate with the CWA.^' Affiliation with the CWA did raise some concerns among WashTech members who felt that the AFL-CIO did not effectively support high-tech workers (interview with WashTech/CWA organizer 1). In addition, suspicions fostered by the fact that some unions supported the overtime rule change were not easily forgotten (interview with WashTech/CWA Organizer 1). While some WashTech members questioned whether the CWA would be an appropriate partner based on its lack of experience in the software industry, others described the union affiliation decision as a double-edged sword (interview with WashTech/CWA organizer 1). They needed resources to challenge Microsoft, but some WashTech members worried that allying with a union might discourage some high-tech workers from joining their organization. WashTech has gained some significant tangible benefits from the CWA, such as financial support and advice about how to provide mutual aid services and engage in coalition politics. WashTech/CWA members also can participate in its benefits program. Union Privilege, and the CWA, in partnership with WashTech/CWA, established a high-tech training center in Seattle. The CWA, meanwhile, benefited from its relationship with WashTech/ CWA because it established the CWA as a leading union in the struggle to represent high-tech workers. As a result, other groups of high-tech workers seeking assistance linked up with the CWA.^° For example, in response to IBM's conversion of defined-benefit pension plans into defined-contribution pension plans, "IBMers" filed a class-action lawsuit. Cooper v. IBM Pension Plan, Case No. 99-829-GPM, September 17, 2001 (on behalf of 140,000 employees, ex-employees, and retirees), to address the pension change through the courts and formed a workers' advocacy group, IBM/Alliance, that also has affihated with the CWA, becoming CWA Local 1701.^' Coalition politics is not problem-free, as this case study shows. For example, unions representing workers covered by a collective bargaining ^' "Microsoft to Mandate Forced Time Off for Some Contractors," June 24, 1998. Available at http: llwww.washteckorglrounduplcontractlbreak.html; accessed on April 28, 2000. In February 2000, Microsoft amended the "break in service" policy to require a 100-day break. '" The CWA developed a Web site, http:llwww.techsunite.orgt, which is an online community and information resource for high-tech workers. ^' Available at http:llwww.allianceibm.orgt; accessed on October 20, 2001.

Collective Representation Among High-Tech Workers I 379 agreement, such as the IFPTE and the SPEEA, supported the elimination of overtime for computer professionals because their members would be unaffected by the rule. The fury generated by this incident undermined discussions between the IFPTE and WashTech regarding a potential merger. It is also possible that WashTech's decision to affiliate with the CWA exacerbated tensions between WashTech and employers. High-tech employers and temporary employment agencies may have been willing to build a relationship with WashTech if it had remained a professional association, a more benign alternative. Beyond conflicts of interest, WashTech/CWA's opponents, high-tech firms, affect their ability to build coalitions (interview with WashTech/CWA organizer 2). Prior to the economic downturn, high-tech firms were a valuable source of employment for the Washington State workforce and contributed in various ways to the surrounding communities. Therefore, challenging them was a politically unpopular position and may have undermined support for WashTech/CWA's legislative initiatives.^^

Three Key Challenges Facing WashTech/CWA WashTech/CWA has become an advocate for high-tech workers both in the Seattle area and on a national level as high-tech jobs increasingly are being moved offshore. It now faces three major challenges to create a sustainable organization with a broad membership. First, WashTech/ CWA offers many of its services to nonmembers, so workers have a weak incentive to join because they can remain free riders. Currently, the organization has roughly 365 members, whereas 16,000 individuals subscribe to its listserv. Resistance to unionism from high-tech firms clearly hampers WashTech/ CWA's efforts and is a second key problem. For example, Microsoft policy changes aimed at reducing vulnerability to WashTech/CWA attacks have threatened a major source of new members. Similarly, the transfer of customer service jobs from Seattle to India by Amazon.com shows how antiunion behavior on behalf of high-tech firms discourages organizing efforts. Beyond organizing, WashTech/CWA's political efforts are discouraged by the lobbying power of high-tech firms in Washington State. '^ According to the "Disparities Within the Digital World: Realities of the New Economy" Report (WashTech/CWA 2001), the IT industry in King, Snohomish, and Pierce counties directly employed approximately 65,000 workers in 2000 and provided additional work for thousands of self-employed and contract workers.

380 /


A third problem for WashTech/CWA is the persistence of antiunion attitudes among potential members. Some Microsoft agency contractors were satisfied with the working conditions at Microsoft and did not support WashTech/CWA's efforts. Antiunion sentiment among these high-tech workers is, in part, a result of a dearth of information about workers' rights and the benefits of unionization.

Conclusions The high-tech workers who filed the Vizcaino lawsuit and those who formed WashTech/CWA were dissatisfied with their wages and benefits, a lack of voice in their employment relationship, and the level of respect they received in the workplace. Some Microsoft high-tech contingent workers formed WashTech to improve their working conditions and sought support from a traditional labor union through their decision to affiliate with the CWA. This shows that "new economy" workers still have "old economy" demands for fair wages and benefits and respect in the workplace. Collective representation was relevant to these high-tech workers; however, it took a different form as a result of barriers that undermined a more traditional collective bargaining-centered approach. WashTech/CWA continues to pursue collective bargaining, but it has found more success in improving working conditions for its constituents through mutual aid and political action. As this case study shows, mutual aid and political action strategies also face difficulties, yet they have yielded concrete improvements in working conditions for high-tech contingent workers in Washington State. WashTech/CWA uses a variety of methods to provide members and nonmembers with mutual aid-type benefits. It has fostered a community among these workers by maintaining a Web site that encourages interaction and exchange between high-tech workers and also assists workers by disseminating accurate information about employers, terms-of-employment contracts, and working conditions. The establishment of a training center in partnership with the CWA has helped workers gain access to discounted high-tech training classes. Through political action, WashTech/CWA also significantly improved working conditions for high-tech contingent workers in Washington State. WashTech/CWA was a key force behind the passage of legislative bills that improved working conditions for contingent workers in Washington State. To take on Microsoft and other high-tech firms, WashTech needed access to resources, motivating it to affiliate with the CWA. WashTech/CWA's relationships with other organizations—the Center for a Changing Workplace,

Collective Representation Among High-Tech Workers / 381 Seattle Union Now, the King County Labor Council, and NAFFE—contributed to WashTech/CWA's legislative successes. The strengths of WashTech/CWA's approach lie in its willingness to experiment with innovative strategies to address the priorities of high-tech workers despite the absence of a blueprint for organizing them. Instead of focusing its efforts solely on providing services to members, WashTech/ CWA devises strategies that take into consideration the interests of both members and nonmembers. For example, both members and nonmembers can enroll in the classes offered by its training facility. WashTech/CWA has developed creative strategies that go beyond collective bargaining-based actions and are rooted in mutual aid logic and political action. WashTech/CWA has faced a number of problems. When trying to represent workers through collective bargaining, it has encountered legal obstacles, employer resistance, and a lack of support from workers. Mutual aid carries with it the problem of free riders, the possibility that workers can get access to training and other services from an alternative provider, and difficulties convincing this workforce that unionization is necessary. Political problems include the difficulty in forging effective political coalitions in the face of wide variation in professional workers' interests and lobbying efforts that are countered by powerful employer interests. This case study has a number of limitations. With regard to access, the existence of the Vizcaino lawsuit led some individuals to refuse to be interviewed for this study. Also, many workers feared the possibility of repercussions from employers, so most of the worker interviews were conducted with WashTech/CWA members and sympathizers. This project could have offered a richer understanding of why WashTech/CWA members are in the minority if more non-WashTech/CWA members had agreed to be interviewed. While the Microsoft survey data referred to earlier provides valuable information about contracting practices at Microsoft, Microsoft administered this survey, and this may have biased the survey responses. The surveys conducted by WashTech/CWA also suffer from certain problems. WashTech/CWA supporters are more likely to know about and respond to the surveys than are non-WashTech/CWA members. The high number of WashTech/ CWA members responding to the survey may bias the results. Increasingly, as workers find themselves confronted by job and income insecurity, a corresponding growth in advocacy organizations can be expected. The affiliation of WashTech with the CWA suggests that collective representation does hold some relevance for the high-tech workforce. Because the employment classifications of these workers limit the effectiveness of collective bargaining, strategies based on mutual aid and political action increase in importance as a viable means for improving working conditions for these workers.

382

/


REFERENCES Aaron, Benjamin. 1984. "Future Trends in Industrial Relations Law." Industrial Relations 23(Winter):52-7. Amman, John. 2002. "Union and the New Economy; Motion Picture and Television Unions Offer a Model for New Media Professionals." WorkingUSA 6(Fall):l 11-31. Bacharach, Samuel B., Peter A. Bamberger, and William J. Sonnenstuhl. 2001. Mutual Aid and Union Renewal: Cycles of Logics of Action. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press. Batt, Rosemary, Susan Christopherson, Ned Rightor, and Danielle D. van Jaarsveld. 2001. Net Working: Work Patterns and Workforce Policies for the New Media Industry. Washington: Economic Policy Institute. Bibby, Andrew. 2002. "Indian IT's New Union Mould." The Financial Times, February 26. Carré, Françoise, Virginia duRivage, and Chris Tilly. 1994. "Representing the Part-Time and Contingent Workforce: Challenges for Unions and Public Policy." In Restoring the Promise of American Labor Law, edited by Sheldon Friedman, Richard W. Hurd, Rudolph A. Oswald, and Ron L. Seeber, pp. 314-23. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press. Cohn, Jonathan. 2001. "Amazon.com and the Return of the Old Economy." The New Republic, February 19; available at http:llwww.tnr.comt021901lcohn021901.html; accessed on June 20, 2001. Delaney, John T. 1991. "The Future of Unions as Political Organizations." Journal of Labor Research 12(Fall):373-87. Ervin, Keith. 1999. "Microsoft Changes Temp Benefits." The Seattle Times, April 3. Flash, Cynthia. 1999. "Permanently Temporary and Not Pleased at the Prospect." The Tacoma News Tribune, February 21. Greene, Jay. 1999. "Microsoft Kept Files on Temporary Workers." The Seattle Times, October 27. Hiatt, Jonathan P., and Lynn Rhinehart. 1994. "The Growing Contingent Workforce: A Challenge for the Future." Labor Lawyer lO(Spring): 143-59. Hossfeld, Karen J. 1995. "Why Aren't High-Tech Workers Organized?" In Working People of California, edited by Daniel Cornford, pp. 405-32. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Kanter, Rosabeth Moss. 1995. "Nice Work If You Can Get It." Ameriean Prospect 6(23):52; available at http:llwww.prospect.orglprintlV6l23lkanter-r.html; accessed on November 11, 2001. Kelly, Christina, E. 2001. "Bill of Rights for Temps Offered." Seattle Post-Intelligencer, January 19. Middleton, Jennifer. 1996. "Contingent Workers in a Changing Economy: Endure, Adapt, or Organize?" New York Review of Legal and Social Change 22:557-620. Milton, Laurie. 2002. "An Identity Perspective on the Propensity of High-Tech Talent to Unionize." Journal of Labor Research 24(l):31-53. Ostrom, Carol M. 2000. "Should We Fret When Microsoft Takes A Hit?" The Seattle Times, April 9. . 2000a. "Microsoft Ordered to Show Contractors Their Personnel Files." Seattle Post-Intelligencer, January 26. . 2000b. "Microsoft May End Up Hurt By Own Temp Rule." Seattle Post-Intelligencer, June 30. Robinson, J. Gregg, and Judith S. Mcllwee. 1989. "Obstacles to Unionization in High-Tech Industries." Work and Occupations 16(May):115-36. Safford, Sean, and Richard M. Locke. 2002. "Unions on the Rebound: Social Embeddedness and the Transformation of Building Trades Locals." Cambridge, Sloan Working Paper No. 4175-01, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Stobaugh, David. 1999. "An Employee By Another Name Is Still An Employee." Testimony on September 8, 1999, before the U.S. Department of Labor. Stone, Katherine V. W. 2001. "The New Psychological Contract: Implications of the Changing Workplace for Labor and Employment Law." University of California Los Angeles Law Review 48(February):519-661. U.S. Department of Labor. 2000. Occupational Outlook Handbook 2000. Washington: Bureau of Labor Statistics; available at http:llstats.bls.govlocolocos042.htm; accessed on April 18, 2001. U.S. General Accounting Office. 2000. "Contingent Workers: Incomes and Benefits Lag Behind Those of Rest of Workforce." Washington, Report to the Honorable Edward M. Kennedy and the

Collective Representation Among High-Tech Workers / 383 Honorable Robert G. Torricelli (GAO/HEHS-00-76), U.S. Senate, U.S. General Accounting Office. van Jaarsveld, Danielle. 2000. "Nascent Organizing Initiatives Among High-Skilled Contingent Workers: The Microsoft-WashTech/CWA Case." M.S. thesis, Cornell University. WashTech/CWA. 2001. "Disparities Within the Digital World: Realities of the New Economy." Report prepared by the Worker Center, King County Labor Council, AFL-CIO. Webb, Sidney, and Beatrice Webb. 1894. The History of Trade Unionism. New York: Longmans, Green, 1920. Wilson, Gretchen, and Mike Blain. 2001. "The Campaign to Organize Amazon.com." WortcingUSA 5(Fall):32-58.

APPENDIX

Titnelitie for WashTech/CWA Case Study 1990—1RS investigates Microsoft employment practices and rules that Microsoft misclassified independent contractors. December 1992—Eight former independent contractors file a lawsuit against Microsoft claiming benefits denied to them as a result of being misclassified. June 1997—Microsoft imposes a 5 percent salary cap on agency contractor raises. December 1997—The Washington State Department of Labor and Industries enacts the Computer Overtime Exemption to the Washington Minimum Wage Act, eliminating the right of "computer professionals" who earn more than $27.63 to be paid overtime. March 1998—Official formation of WashTech. June 1998—Microsoft introduces a 31-day break-in-service policy. August 1998—WashTech's leadership signs an affiliation agreement with the CWA and receives a charter as WashTech/CWA Local 37083 (TNG-CWA). April 1999—Microsoft introduces minimum standard for benefits packages offered by temporary employment agencies to agency contractors. April 1999—Microsoft's TaxSaver group attempts to form a bargaining unit. June 1999—Greg Maffei, Microsoft's chief financial officer at the time, presents his keynote address to the 1999 Institute of Management Accountants 80th Annual Conference. September 1999—Microsoft announces its plan to convert many permatemp positions into full-time ones. September 1999—The WashTech/CWA discloses agency bill rates.

384

/


October 1999—The Seattle Times publishes an article based on information provided by the WashTech/CWA confirming that Microsoft had maintained a set of secret personnel files documenting the performance of agency contractors since 1995 in violation of Washington State law. January 2000—The Wage and Hour Division of Washington State rules that Microsoft illegally denied access to personnel files. February 2000—Microsoft extends 31-day break in service to 100 days, to be implemented by July 2000. December 2001—Microsoft settles Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp. with an award of $97 miUion. April 2001—The WashTech/CWA opens a training center in partnership with the CWA and Cisco.

Interview List Mike Blain (WashTech/CWA organizer), former Microsoft agency contractor, July 13, 1999, Seattle Marcus Courtney (WashTech/CWA organizer), former Microsoft agency contractor, July 13, 1999, Seattle; October 30, 1999—telephone interview; August 2000, Seattle; April 2001, Ithaca; November 2001, Ithaca Andrea de Majewski (WashTech/CWA organizer), July 13, 1999, Seattle; September 1999, telephone interview Gretchen Wilson (WashTech/CWA organizer), July 13, 1999, Seattle; August 2000, Seattle; November 2001, Ithaca Barbara Judd (Microsoft agency contractor), July 14, 1999, Seattle; August 2000, Seattle Jeff Nachtigal (Microsoft agency contractor), July 13, 1999, Seattle Paul Henry (Microsoft agency contractor), July 12, 1999, Seattle Jamie Myxter (Microsoft agency contractor), July 12, 1999, Seattle Maria Rolling (Microsoft agency contractor), July 14, 1999, Seattle Jim Galasyn (former Microsoft agency contractor), July 14, 1999, Seattle Larry Cohen (CWA director of organizing), September 1999—telephone interview

Collective Representation Among High-Tech Workers I 385

Amy Dean (head of the South Bay Labor Council), September 24, 1999— telephone interview Microsoft manager, July 16, 1999, Seattle Microsoft manager, November 1999, Ithaca Microsoft manager, November 1999, Ithaca Jonathan Rosenblum (AFL-CIO representative), July 13, 1999, Seattle Manager of a temporary employment agency, July 15, 1999, Seattle Manager of a temporary employment agency, July 15, 1999, Seattle Manager of a temporary employment agency, July 15, 1999, Seattle Laura Freeman (human resources manager, Visio), July 16, 1999, Seattle Miriam Harline (Microsoft independent contractor), July 12, 1999, Seattle Margaret Levi (professor of labor studies. University of Washington), July 14, 1999, Seattle Steven Stobaugh (lawyer at Bendich, Stobaugh and Strong), July 13, 1999, Seattle Steven Strong (lawyer at Bendich, Stobaugh and Strong), July 13,1999, Seattle David West (The Center for the Changing Workplace), November 1999, Washington George Gonos (assistant professor of economics, SUNY, Potsdam, NY), November 1999, Washington Ken Hamidi (FACE/INTEL), e-mail, September 6, 1999 Richard Hurd (professor of labor and industrial relations), April 2000, Ithaca Barbara Kempf (former Microsoft agency contractor), November 2001, Ithaca

Copyright of Industrial Relations is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.