An investigative report by Reader’s Digest disclosed that Trumka “did not publicly discipline or reprimand a single striker present when York was killed. In fact, all eight were helped out financially by the local.”

In Illinois, Trumka told UMW members to “kick the s**t out of every last” worker who crossed his picket lines, according to the Nashville (Ill.) News. And as the National Right to Work Foundation, the leading anti-forced unionism organization in the country, pointed out, other UMW coalfield strikes resulted in what one judge determined were “violent activities ... organized, orchestrated and encouraged by the leadership of this union.”

Trumka washed off the figurative bloodstains and moved up the ranks. As AFL-CIO secretary, he notoriously refused to testify in a sordid 1999 embezzlement trial involving his labor boss brethren at the Teamsters Union. No surprise. Thugs of a feather: Trumka’s violence-promoting record echoes the riotous Teamsters strikes dating back to the 1950s, when the union organized taxicab companies to target workers with gas bombs, bottles and fists.

And now, Trumka is spearheading a Democratic Party get-out-the-vote campaign by far-left groups — publicized in the revolutionary Marxist People’s World — to “energize an army of tens of thousands who will return to their neighborhoods, churches, schools and voting booths to prevent a Republican takeover of Congress in November and begin building a new permanent coalition to fight for a progressive agenda.”

Take those as literal fighting words. The bloody consequences of compulsory unionism cannot be ignored.

“We needed serious financial assistance from the union,” he said. “We tried to open up discussions six months before the contract was opened up. They weren’t open to talking about it then.”

The contract expired Sept. 30, 2009, but the union of nearly 40 members twice voted down a contract that called for cutbacks in wages and health care benefits.

On Feb. 10, Murray’s declared the parties at an impasse. On March 1, it imposed what it described as its “best and final offer.” That amounted to a 10 percent cut in wages to all but the servers, who already were paid minimum wage.

Murray’s also said it would pay for health care for workers who logged 120 hours a month, up from the previous 75, and would pay no more than $100 a month toward premiums, down from 80 percent previously.

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in its Minneapolis regional office decided there was evidence to suggest Murray’s was engaging in unfair labor practices by imposing its own contract. Murray’s took the matter to an administrative judge.

The two sides had one meeting and were scheduled for a second on Aug. 11. But Unite HERE decided to withdraw its unfair labor charges Aug. 2, ending the process.

Shane McCaffrey, 38, a server for more than eight years, filed a complaint against the union for not properly representing workers, and made a move to hold an election to decertify the union.

“I’m not anti-union, I’m anti-Local 17,” he said. “We like our management team. We like the Murrays. They have a high standard of integrity. They were being ethical and honest. I can’t say the same for the union.”

McCaffrey’s complaint was dismissed by the NLRB, but he has appealed to the general counsel in Washington, D.C.
Kathleen Powers, 66, saw it differently. A server at Murray’s for nearly 20 years, she said she was snubbed by workers and management after she spoke up in favor of the union and its efforts.

She quit in May, a couple of years before she had planned to retire. “I just couldn’t take it anymore. It was so tense and uncomfortable in there.”

Murray said he wants to put this chapter behind him.

“We’ve had a union contract here since the day we opened,” he said. “If we wanted to bust the union, we had many, many chances in the past 64 years to do so. We want to get to work, put this behind us and continue to
run a successful operation.”

The dispute in Ralphs arose when the company opened a new grocery store in Sacramento with a non-union workforce. The store was located in a retail development know as College Square, which included common areas and restaurants where outdoor seating was available. Ralphs, however, owned the sidewalk in front of the store, and that area was not designed or presented to the public as a public meeting place. 

To protest the lack of union representation at the store, union agents picketed and passed out handbills on a privately-owned sidewalk within five feet of the store’s entrance. About eight to ten union agents participated in this activity for eight hours a day, five days a week, on an ongoing basis. 

Ralphs requested that the Sacramento Police Department remove the union trespassers, but the police refused. Therefore, Ralphs sought injunctive relief from the Sacramento Superior Court. The court refused to provide such relief, however, because of a statute designed to protect unions from injunctions. 

Appellate Court’s Decision

This decision of the Court of Appeal includes several important rulings affecting the private property of employers and the expressive activities of labor unions. 

Grocery Store’s Private Property Not a “Public Forum” 

Although the Ralphs grocery store was located in a retail development that included common areas and restaurants where outdoor seating was available, the court found that the privately-owned sidewalk in front of the store was not a “public forum” under the California Constitution because it was not designed and presented to the public as a public meeting place. Instead, the court found that this area was a “private forum.” 

The legal significance of this ruling is that the private sidewalk in front of the store was not subject to the California Supreme Court’s Pruneyard doctrine, under which members of the public (including union agents) have a right to engage in expressive activities in a common area of a shopping center under the theory that the area has become a public forum. Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center, 23 Cal. 3d 899 (1979).

Because the area in question was not a public forum, the court declared that Ralphs, as a private property owner, could limit the speech allowed and exclude anyone desiring to engage in prohibited speech. This remained true, the court explained, even though Ralphs had allowed other groups to use the same area for expressive activities. The court stated that a private property owner may selectively permit speech or prohibit speech in a private forum without affecting the private nature of the forum. 

Furthermore, the court emphasized that “time, place and manner” regulations adopted by a property owner to regulate expressive activities by outside organizations on its property are not subject to legal scrutiny unless the property is a public forum. Thus, the court found that it was irrelevant whether regulations adopted by Ralphs to control such activities on its property were reasonable. 

Two California Statutes Unconstitutional

Unions typically rely on two California state statutes to justify trespassing on the private property of employers—the Moscone Act, Code of Civil Procedure section 527.3, and an anti-injunction statute, Labor Code section 1138.1. The court in Ralphs held that both of these statutes are unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. 

The court first explained that the Moscone Act, as construed by the California Supreme Court, favored speech related to labor disputes over speech related to other matters based on the content of the speech, and therefore it results in a free speech violation under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. 

This ruling was based on two decisions in which the U.S. Supreme Court declared that state-sponsored favoritism with respect to speech is unconstitutional content discrimination—Police Department v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92 (1972), and Carey v. Brown, 447 U.S. 455 (1980). In addition, the court relied on a more recent decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia— Waremart Foods v. NLRB, 354 F.3d 870 (2004)—in which the federal court found the Moscone Act to be unconstitutional in light of these Supreme Court decisions. 

The court in Ralphs also concluded that the state anti-injunction statute suffers from the same constitutional defect as the Moscone Act—the statute favors speech relating to labor disputes over speech relating to other matters by establishing several barriers that make it virtually impossible to obtain an injunction against trespassing by a union on an employer’s private property.  The court explained that this statute is not just a procedural prerequisite, but instead is an impediment designed to prevent an owner or possessor of real property from obtaining an injunction in a labor dispute even though injunctive relief would otherwise be available.

Moreover, the court emphasized that forcing a speaker to host or accommodate another speaker’s message violates the host’s free speech rights, and therefore it was an abridgement of Ralphs’ free speech rights to force it to provide a forum on its private property for speech with which it is agrees. Thus, the rationale of the Ralphs decision is not only that the Moscone Act and the anti-injunction statute result in unconstitutional content discrimination by favoring union speech over other speech, but also that Ralphs’ free speech rights were directly violated by the preference created by those statutes. This ruling was based on Supreme Court precedent established in Hurley v. Irish-American Gay Group, 515 U.S. 557 (1995); and Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, 475 U.S. 1 (1986).

California Case Law No Longer Viable

Unions routinely rely on several decisions of the California courts to justify trespassing on an employer’s private property. The court in Ralphs concluded that these decisions are no longer viable as binding precedent. The decisions in question and the rulings of the court in the Ralphs case are as follows:

In re Lane, 71 Cal. 2d 872 (1969). The California Supreme Court held in this case that union agents had a right under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to distribute handbills on a private sidewalk just outside an entrance to a grocery store that was not part of a shopping center. The court in Ralphs found that this decision is no longer viable, explaining that:

• The decision was based on the now-discredited notion that the First Amendment may prohibit private property owners from restricting expressive activities on their properties;

• The decision’s only continuing vitality lies in the liberty of speech clause in the California Constitution; and

• The decision cannot be read to expand the rights of individuals engaging in speech on private property beyond the analysis in Pruneyard and in a more recent decision reaffirming the Pruneyard doctrine, Fashion Valley Mall, LLC v. NLRB, 42 Cal. 4th 850 (2007).

Schwartz-Torrance Investment Corp. v. Bakery & Confectionary Workers Union, Local 31, 61 Cal. 2d 766 (1964). The California Supreme Court held in this case that union agents had a right to picket in front of a retail store leased by an employer at a shopping center. The court in Ralphs found that this decision is likewise no longer viable, for the reasons discussed above with respect to the Lane decision.

Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. San Diego County District Council of Carpenters, 25 Cal. 3d 317 (1979). In this case—which is generally known as Sears II—a plurality of the California Supreme Court relied on the Moscone Act to hold that union agents had a right to picket on a privately-owned sidewalk surrounding a stand-alone department store. The court in Ralphs held that this
decision is neither binding nor persuasive precedent because:

• The Supreme Court did not consider the First and Fourteenth Amendment implications of its decision;

• Sears II was only a plurality opinion signed by three members of the court, and thus it lacked authority as precedent and the doctrine of stare decisis did not require deference; and

• In the Fashion Valley decision cited above, the state Supreme Court omitted any reference to Sears II or the Moscone Act, impliedly recognizing that Sears II was wrongly decided and that the Moscone Act is unconstitutional because it results in content discrimination.

M Restaurants, Inc v. San Francisco Local Joint Executive Board of Culinary Workers, 124 Cal. App. 3d 666 (1981). In this case, the California Court of Appeal stated that the Moscone Act was constitutional, although it upheld an injunction against union picketers who were blocking the doorways to a restaurant, harassing employees and customers, and lying about sanitary conditions in the restaurant. The court in Ralphs dismissed this decision as unpersuasive because: (1) it did not consider picketing on private property; and (2) any pronouncements in the decision about the constitutionality of denying injunctive relief based on the Moscone Act were dicta—discussion unnecessary to the decision—because injunctive relief was granted.

Waremart Foods v. United Food & Commercial Workers Union, Local 588, 87 Cal. App. 4th 145 (2001). This decision was issued by the Third Appellate District—the same court that issued the Ralphs decision. The court had concluded in the earlier case that the state anti-injunction statute was not unconstitutional because it was merely a rule of procedure and did not address
speech. But in Ralphs, the court effectively overruled Waremart Foods, explaining that the decision in that case did not consider the effect of the rule of procedure established by the statute, which differentiates speech based on its content and imposes prerequisites that make it virtually impossible for a property owner to obtain injunctive relief.

Injunction as a Remedy Against Union Trespassing

Besides holding the statutes to be unconstitutional and the foregoing decisions to be no longer viable, the court in Ralphs also clarified the showing needed to justify issuance of an injunction as a remedy against union trespassing. The court held that:

• There is no requirement that an unlawful act beyond the trespass be committed. A continuing trespass is, for purposes of injunctive relief, an unlawful act, and a party seeking an injunction need not establish an unlawful act beyond the trespass.

• A continuing trespass constitutes, as a matter of law, irreparable harm for which damages are not adequate because the continuing trespass itself causes irreparable harm. Thus, an injunction is a proper remedy against threatened repeated acts of trespass, particularly where the probable injury resulting from such acts will be beyond any method of pecuniary estimation, and for this reason is irreparable.

• When a trespasser engages in activities to discourage the public from patronizing a business, the effect of the activity cannot be quantified because there is no way of knowing who would have patronized the business but for the trespasser’s activities.  Therefore, the unquantifiable loss of business caused by the trespasser on the owner’s property constitutes irreparable harm as a matter of law.

• There is no additional requirement that the property owner show that there would be an injury to its property without injunctive relief.

Remaining Issues

The Ralphs decision is one of the most significant to be decided by a California court in the area of traditional labor law in many years. However, employers should keep in mind the following:

First, the principles of property and constitutional law discussed in the decision coexist with principles of statutory law under the National Labor Relations Act. In most cases, labor unions do not have a right of access to an employer’s private property under that statute, but this is a complex subject that can have serious ramifications for employers.

Second, any employer that has a collective bargaining agreement should be aware that contractual obligations involving union access can override property rights under state law.

Third, the Ralphs decision involved the intentional tort of trespass, and it did not address exemptions for union trespassing in criminal trespass statutes, or the refusal by police agencies to remove union trespassers because of these exemptions. The exemptions under the criminal statutes are subject to attack on the same grounds as those on which the Ralphs decision was premised, but additional litigation will be required to accomplish a similar result.

Fourth, the Ralphs decision does not affect the Pruneyard doctrine, which permits expressive activities in the common areas of shopping centers. This doctrine was recently reaffirmed by a slim 4-3 majority in the Fashion Valley Mall decision cited above.

Finally, the Ralphs decision involved private property. Enjoining unlawful union activity on public property—such as violence and mass picketing—should continue to be possible under the Moscone Act, as that statute has been construed as authorizing injunctive relief against such activity. However, labor unions might contend that this decision does not invalidate the state anti-injunction statute in the event of unlawful activity on public property.

Possible Review by Supreme Court

The union in the Ralphs case has an opportunity to seek review of the court’s decision by the California Supreme Court. If it does so and the California Supreme Court grants review, the ultimate outcome of the issues in this case will not be definitively known until that court issues a decision many months in the future.

******************************************************************************************************
William J. Emanuel is a Shareholder in Littler Mendelson’s Los Angeles, CA office. wemanuel@littler.com

Yesterday as Hawker executives sat down with the same union leadership, it was the same story.

“I think everybody is concerned right now,” said Martin Perline, a professor at Wichita State University who specializes in labor relations. “This is not the normal game we play; this is different than the normal game.”

Perline says these are times unlike he’s ever seen.  And that calls for a different type of negotiation.

“I think they have got to work together, it’s absolutely crucial.”

Agreed say executives and union leadership.

“It’s not about a lot of the issues it has been in the past it’s about creating an environment that allows Cessna to be the most competitive, most productive so we can compete in the global marketplace and win and we have to do that together,” said Cessna CEO Jack Pelton Friday.

But for workers, Perline says, that means concessions.

“Probably pay cuts, probably health; health is getting to be a larger and larger chunk of total cost. So they’re going to want the membership to pitch in more on the cost of health insurance.”
Bottom line this time is survival.  Hawker is threatening to move the plant if they can’t get a satisfactory deal.

No such talk from Cessna but Perline says workers shouldn’t expect that to matter when it comes to the final deal.

“The package may be a little bit different, but the costs? Yes. And the concessions will be somewhat similar.”

Union Leaders say membership is aware of the present circumstances.

Cessna’s contract expires in September.

The Laborers are the second union to come back to the AFL-CIO. Last year, the union of hotel, restaurant and clothing workers known as UNITE HERE also rejoined.

While Change to Win has helped its unions become more sophisticated and aggressive in organizing drives, critics say it never became a viable challenger to the 55-year-old AFL-CIO as a new model for organized labor.

“It’s an organization that never really got off the ground,” said Nelson Lichtenstein, a labor historian at the University of California, Santa Barbara. “Everything Change to Win did could have been done inside the AFL-CIO.”

Stern retired as president of the SEIU earlier this year. This week, his top lieutenant, Anna Burger, left her posts as head of Change to Win and as secretary-treasurer of SEIU.

Lichtenstein said Change to Win was mostly a vehicle for Stern, whose brash ideas clashed with leaders at the AFL-CIO. He predicted that “it’s only a matter of time” before the remaining breakaway unions fall back into the fold.

But the four remaining unions in Change to Win have given no indication they are ready to make that move yet. SEIU’s new president, Mary Kay Henry, has steered clear of such talk, saying her union and others have shown they can coordinate on political campaigns and labor’s legislative agenda without being part of the same federation.

“Whether they reaffiliate or not, everyone is trying to make peace and go forward and unite as a labor movement,” said Kate Bronfenbrenner, director of labor education research at Cornell University’s School of Industrial and Labor Relations. “We may see one federation at some point, but right now there’s an effort to be one labor movement.”

First Ms. Henry must douse the fires started by Andy Stern, her controversial predecessor. In 14 years atop the SEIU, Mr. Stern pioneered a new labor strategy: Size brings power, so grow at all costs. He bullied and charmed companies to get them to unionize—often, claimed his critics, in exchange for weak contracts for the workers. He raided smaller unions. And he centralized power around the group’s Washington headquarters. In a decade, the SEIU doubled its membership and became the single biggest contributor to the Democratic Party.

But Mr. Stern made powerful enemies in the House of Labor, which was one of the reasons cited for his surprise decision to step down this spring. California is the most fiercely fought campaign left over from his tenure.

At 60, Mr. Rosselli considers himself “old school” labor. The primary job of unions, he says, is to get the best deal for the members. Active in Bay Area unions for decades, his strong grass-roots support is his best asset in the struggle against the deep-pocketed SEIU. In Mr. Rosselli’s telling, Mr. Stern—too busy playing Washington politics and shaping the Democratic liberal agenda—lost touch with the base and betrayed the Holy Grail of union democracy.

SEIU officials offer a different story. A longtime Stern lieutenant, Mr. Rosselli was happy to see the SEIU’s tactics turn his small northern California local into the second-largest health-care union in the country. Power, they claim, went to his head. He found the religion of “union democracy” only when the SEIU’s Washington leadership decided to split his union and put half of the members in a different local dedicated to home-care workers.

Mr. Rosselli fought the move, arguing that members weren’t consulted, and he was ousted in January 2009. The SEIU put unelected Stern loyalists in place to run the local, installing a “trusteeship,” which remains in place. In the messy aftermath of the divorce, the SEIU accused Mr. Rosselli of misusing union funds and filed a $25 million civil suit. This spring, a federal jury awarded it $1.57 million, finding that Mr. Rosselli and his followers hatched their plans for their new union while still on the SEIU payroll. Mr. Rosselli is appealing.

Speculation about what the SEIU will spend to counter Mr. Rosselli in the Kaiser fight runs from $25 million (as NUHW officials say they hear) to as high as $40 million. As in past elections, Ms. Henry’s group will likely deploy direct mail, phone banks, door-to-door campaigning and advertising. Speaking by phone, Ms. Henry says the $40 million figure “is nowhere near the ballpark,” adding that while she doesn’t know how much the campaign will cost, “our union is committed to making sure these workers prevail.” The SEIU spent $10 million last year on an election involving 10,000 home-care workers in Fresno, and won narrowly.

One bit of good news for the SEIU came last week, when Ms. Henry settled a huge Stern-era dispute with Unite HERE, an apparel and hotel workers union led by John Wilhelm. Mr. Stern tried to raid this international union last year, but Mr. Wilhelm held the stronger cards and won a large cash settlement.

Mr. Wilhelm had embraced his enemy’s enemy, lending Mr. Rosselli his union’s support against the SEIU. As part of Unite HERE’s deal last week, Ms. Henry got the union to end its backing for the NUHW in exchange for a peace settlement otherwise almost entirely favorable to Unite HERE. “For her, that was the bottom line, clearly,” says Mr. Wilhelm, referring to Ms. Henry’s insistence on his neutrality in California. “The support we provided NUHW,” such as giving it office space, he adds, “pales in comparison to what SEIU brings to the fight.”

Yet the SEIU’s heft can be a disadvantage in the People’s Republic of California, exposing the union to flak from an unlikely flank—the farther reaches of the left. Here sympathy tends toward Mr. Rosselli, who looks more like a traditional labor leader. The latest charge: that the SEIU is fighting the NUHW with tactics perfected by business, which is probably the worst insult in the book for this crowd.

Earlier this week, Dolores Huerta, a co-founder of the United Farm Workers and a historic labor figure in California, published an “open letter” to Ms. Henry on the Huffington Post that accuses the SEIU of intimidating Kaiser workers. Saying that she visited four Kaiser hospitals to talk to workers about the NUHW, Ms. Huerta wrote that at each, “SEIU staff surrounded them and began chanting and yelling insults, refusing to let workers talk.” Ms. Huerta called on the SEIU to put “an end to a mistaken campaign of aggression.” In its defense, the SEIU says the workers recently struck a new labor contract with Kaiser, which would be endangered if another union took over.

The outcome at Kaiser is hard to call. But the SEIU can remain a political powerhouse and the leading patron of Democratic candidates only as long as it keeps membership rolls strong and growing.

“There’s a reason why we nominated people to the National Mediation Board that would ensure that folks in the rail and air” industries can organize, said Mr. Obama, referring to the board’s overhaul in May of a decades-old rule that had made it harder for airline and railway workers to unionize. He also cited the Democrats he nominated to the National Labor Relations Board to “restore some balance” to the group, which supervises union elections and referees disputes between private-sector employers and employees. One nominee—former union lawyer Craig Becker – initially faced a Republican-led filibuster in the Senate, but Mr. Obama chose bypass a congressional vote by using his recess appointment powers.

After Obama spoke, business groups fired back, seeming to be unmoved by the president’s call that labor and business find common ground so that together, the U.S. can “knock down trade barriers in other countries.”

Glenn Spencer, an executive director with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, challenged Mr. Obama’s continued support of the Employee Free Choice Act. “We welcome the president’s call to rebuild our economy,” said Mr. Spencer, but “imposing government-dictated union contracts on employers won’t help.” He added that “overbearing regulations” from the Department of Labor or “a slanted” NLRB would only discourage America’s job creators from putting people back to work.

The Workforce Fairness Institute said Mr. Obama is siding with labor at the expense of supporting businesses. “It is hard to take seriously Obama’s claims concerning his commitment to getting America’s economy hiring again when he has decided to stand with Big Labor bosses over job creators,” said Katie Packer, executive director of the organization. “Worse yet, Obama supports going around the legislative branch and using unelected members of regulatory agencies to enact Big Labor’s agenda of forced unionization,” Ms. Packer said.

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka praised Mr. Obama’s message. “I think he helped light the fire under the base,” he told reporters afterwards.

King praised those companies for building U.S. plants and creating jobs here, going as far as calling them an “essential part” of the nation’s manufacturing base.

As the newly elected UAW president, King has made recruiting new companies to the union a priority.

King’s speech came after manufacturing chiefs for Ford, General Motors and Chrysler praised the union and workers for helping to restructure their companies.

When GM begins building the subcompact Chevrolet Aveo in Michigan next year, it will do so at a profit, said Diana Tremblay, GM’s manufacturing vice president. Building a profitable subcompact in the United States is something no other automaker has been able to do. Tremblay said the UAW’s cooperation has been a big part of that.

“You’re going to see some creative solutions there,” she said.

In a statement, John W. Wilhelm, Unite Here’s president, said he was proud that the agreement called for his union to retain its exclusive jurisdiction in the hotel and gambling industries. Both unions are to retain some jurisdiction in the food service industry.

Mary Kay Henry, the service employees’ new president, said, “The reason we reached this settlement is we agreed that we want to return both our organizations to focus on organizing nonunion workers and fighting the income stagnation that is hurting so many working people in this country.”

Under the agreement, Unite Here will have jurisdiction to unionize food-service workers at stadiums, convention centers, businesses, airports and airline caterers. The service employees will have jurisdiction to organize food-service workers at health-care facilities, prisons and government buildings.

The agreement will allow both unions to unionize workers at universities as well as elementary and secondary schools.

Mr. Wilhelm said that as a result of the settlement, “Unite Here is in a strong position to represent our members effectively and to bring hope to nonunion workers in our industries.”
In recent years, the two unions, like most other unions, have had difficulties unionizing workers in the private sector, often because of intense employer opposition.

Bruce S. Raynor, the former president of Unite, the apparel workers’ union, and now an executive vice president of the service employees, praised the settlement. “This has been a bitter divorce,” he said. “I’m looking forward to putting this bad chapter, this bad merger behind us.”

The agreement calls for an arbitrator to determine which of the two unions that several thousand members of the breakaway Workers United union should belong to. The two sides are disputing which unions those workers have chosen to be in.

For more than a year, Mr. Wilhelm and Andrew Stern, the service employees’ recently retired president, had unsuccessfully negotiated to settle their intra-union feud.

The scene of the Colgan Air plane crash in 2009.
.A federal probe into the Feb. 12, 2009, crash of Colgan Air Inc. flight 3407, operating for Continental Airlines Inc., portrayed the two pilots of the flight from Newark, N.J., to Buffalo as distracted and ill-equipped and brought attention to the issue of pilot fatigue. Mr. Kuwik and families of the victims want, among other things, rules mandating that pilots have 1,500 flight hours of training before they may operate a commercial flight and requiring longer periods between shifts to allow more rest.

The FAA is drafting its own proposals to set more-stringent pilot-training standards and modify work conditions, including rest time, based on scientific research, a spokeswoman said.

The labor issue involves a provision that would make it easier for workers to unionize at FedEx Corp. That initiative is backed by House Transportation Committee Chairman James Oberstar (D., Minn.) and unions, including the Teamsters, which represents employees at FedEx rival United Parcel Service Inc.

FedEx has lobbied against the provision. A draft Senate version of the FAA bill circulated earlier this month excludes the provision that would affect FedEx.

FedEX says the unionization proposal would improperly place the company under a labor law that isn’t intended for the kind of integrated ground and air network it employs. FedEx spokesman Maury Lane said the bill is an effort to reduce the company’s reliability by allowing work disruptions, such as strikes, in key locations of its network.

Jim Berard, a spokesman for Mr. Oberstar, said the FAA legislation is a “comprehensive bill.” He added that the legislation “is the proper vehicle for any change in regulation.”

The Obama administration hasn’t taken a stance on the FedEx provision or the full bill.

Ken Hall, vice president and package-division director of the Teamsters, which is pushing for the FedEx provision, which would allow employees to unionize locally instead of just on the national level, said the provision would address a serious issue. “We’re talking about disenfranchising the rights of 100,000 employees in this country,” he said.

Rep. Christopher Lee (R., N.Y.), who took office weeks before the Colgan crash and lives about three miles from the site, has worked with victims’ families on the safety issue.

“The frustrating part for me,” he said, “is that there’s issues like labor positions and unionization of workers—not even pilots, but drivers—that have nothing to do with safety on airlines, and this is what’s holding up the matter.”

Online postings recruit paid activists for everything from stopping offshore drilling to defending the Constitution.

In California, one group is offering to pay $10 and up per hour to activists to hold signs in demonstrations against foam cups and plastic bags.

In Bellevue, Wash., the Faith and Freedom Network plans to hire activists for about $10 an hour next month to promote statewide candidates with Judeo-Christian values for the fall elections, says Gary Randall, the group’s president. Recruits will knock on doors and will be dispatched in large groups, hoping to draw media attention, he says.

Pierce Hutchings, a Chicago businessman and baseball fan, staffed a rally at Wrigley Field on the Cubs opening day in April by posting an ad on Craigslist offering $25 of his own money to anyone willing to show up.

The cause? To protest plans to erect a big Toyota advertising sign in left field. The sign drew criticism from many Chicago residents and merchants who said it would impede their rooftop views of games.

About 50 people showed up, put on yellow “No Sign @ Wrigley” T-shirts supplied by Mr. Hutchings, and urged passersby to call their local elected officials. The sign was put up anyway.

While the money offers some relief for the unemployed, plugging a cause, even one that seems worthy, can be dispiriting.

“I told one guy today that I was fighting global poverty, and he looked me in the eye and said, ‘I don’t care,’” says Stephen Borlik, a new college graduate posted outside a D.C. subway stop recently as a
$13-per-hour street fundraiser for CARE, the antipoverty nonprofit organization in Atlanta.

Mr. Borlik moved here in May after graduating from Central Michigan University in Mount Pleasant. He is living with his brother while looking for a job. “It can be extremely frustrating sending out résumé after résumé and getting no response. It almost makes you not want to do anything.”

To keep his job at CARE, Mr. Borlik says, he must hit a weekly quota of new donors giving a minimum of $20. A CARE spokeswoman says “team members” in the organization’s “Face-to-Face” fund-raising program have a goal of two new donors per day.

In Atlanta, Timothy Baker, a 40-year-old unemployed warehouse worker, says his money-making strategy has been to walk picket lines for $8.50 an hour for the Southeastern Carpenters Regional Council. “It’s something to do until you find something better.”

While many big unions, including the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, frown on using nonmembers in picket lines, “we’re not at all ashamed,” says Jimmy Gibbs, director of special projects for the Southeastern Council. “We’re helping people who are in a difficult situation.”

For four hours at the recent Mid-Atlantic carpenters’ union protest in D.C., about 50 picketers-for-hire—some smoking cigarettes, reading the paper, or on their phones; a few leaning on canes—walked in a circle outside the McPherson Building. The place is home to a Starbucks, a spa and offices. “Some days, the beat is very good,” said James Harff, chief executive officer of Global Communicators LLC,
a public-relations concern, tapping one foot in his second floor office. Other days, he can hardly hear himself think.

“Low Pay! Go away!” and “That Rat Gotta Go!” the union stand-ins chanted as other workers banged cow-bells and beat on a trio of empty plastic buckets. Eric Williams, a 70-year-old retiree who said he needs extra cash to buy groceries, wore a sign saying that Can-Am Contractors, a nonunion Maryland drywall and ceiling concern, “does not pay area standard wages & benefits.”

The target of the campaign is the Chicago School of Professional Psychology, which is opening new classrooms on the second floor of the McPherson Building, and is having renovations done, including dry-walling by Can-Am.

“It is bizarre,” says Lynne Baker, a school spokeswoman, about the union’s hiring of nonunion picketers.

Inside, Juan Flores, Can-Am’s foreman, said his nonunionized workers are paid fairly. Of the protesters, he said, “I don’t blame them—they need the money, but they look like they are drunk or something.”

The union’s Mr. Garcia sees no conflict in a union that insists on union labor hiring nonunion people to protest the hiring of nonunion labor.

He says the pickets are not only about “union issues” but also about fair wages and benefits for American workers. By hiring the unemployed, “we are also giving back to the community a bit,” he says.

The shippers want to use new computer programs giving customers online access to shipping schedules, a move that the union has said would endanger jobs. The union is seeking contract provisions against outsourcing.

The shippers claim they have already offered protections against layoffs and is accusing the union of unreasonably demanding guarantees that would force the shippers to hire temporary and permanent workers regardless of whether there is work for them to do.

Several labor and worker-advocacy groups, including United Farm Workers, support the bill. A long list of agricultural and other business groups, including the California Farm Bureau Federation and California Chamber of Commerce, oppose it.

Labor leaders last year cited the recent heat-related deaths of farm workers as reason for urgency in making it easier for workers to organize.

Voters knew firsthand how costly and destructive this favoritism could be. In 2006, the developer Gaylord Entertainment announced plans to build a hotel and convention center in Chula Vista, only to cancel the project after two years in part because of union intransigence. With unemployment somewhere in the double-digits and cities statewide worried about bankruptcy, project labor agreements were an indulgence Chula Vista could no longer afford.