Get the Facts

What They Wrote

Our Response

The proposed Town Hall presumes there are only two stakeholders: management and pro-union employees. All JPLers are stakeholders, whether they support the union, are neutral, or do not support the union.

Our proposal does not presume this. As we made clear in our letter, a Town Hall on the topic of unionization would be open to workers who are supportive of, opposed to, and neutral or undecided about the union. All previous lab-wide communications about unionization have centered the perspectives of JPL leadership, to the exclusion of other stakeholders. We agree that all JPLers are stakeholders in this discussion, and believe that the existing means of communication, under the strict control of lab management, are insufficient to represent the interests of the broader JPL community.

Federal labor law includes significant restrictions on employer speech; there is no similar restriction on union or employee speech (whether for or against union representation or neutral).

We are proposing having a townhall to help JPLers understand the facts about unionization. The "federal labor law" management refers to is most likely Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which prohibits an employer from interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the NLRA. Section 8(b)(1) of the NLRA places similar restrictions on speech by labor organizations. We hope that a town hall would provide factual information from management, JWU organizers, and legal experts.

JPL leadership does not believe that a small number of employees can fairly represent the interests and questions of several thousand.

As we made clear in our letter, the town hall will not be restricted to a small number of employees. It will be open to all employees, regardless of union affiliation or interest, including managers and others currently outside the bargaining unit. Questions can be submitted in advance by the entire JPL community, upvoted, and responded to. Through the existing means of communication about unionization, the small group of individuals in lab leadership and their 3rd party team have presumed to know what is in the best interest of JPL employees and the entire JPL community. This small group has also presented themselves as an authority on the question of unionization, and has exercised strict control over what information is shared and which questions from the JPL community are answered. We believe a town hall would enable JPLers to learn from their peers and legal experts as well as management, so JPL workers can consider all facts and information when deciding to form a union.

The question of unionization at JPL is complex. Our goal is to provide factual information on this website in a manner that allows individuals to learn, research and make their own decisions. A Town Hall format is not the best way to achieve this objective.

JPLers who are undecided about the question of unionization can bring their lived experience and questions to a Town Hall for discussion in an open and uncensored forum. The information on the website presents information in a misleading fashion, based on an agenda that is heavily skewed against unionization. A Town Hall allows for more thorough and nuanced information on the question of unionization that will allow JPLers to make the decision for themselves.

We believe that JPL employees want objective information about possible unionization at JPL. That is why we have invited JPL employees to submit their questions directly to leadership via www.jplbeinformed.com and have posted the answers for all to see, and respect the union’s right to use its resources to do the same. This format not only enables each side to respond accordingly on their respective websites, but also allows every JPL employee to have access to the same information, as opposed to a one-time Town Hall, and digest the information in a manner that works best for them. Finally, this format permits every JPL employee the opportunity to ask questions, and both sides can respond fully without time constraints and support their respective positions with factual evidence and documentation.

The website is not transparent about the questions that were asked, nor does it provide an unbiased and factual perspective on various issues relating to unionization. It troublingly follows the same lack of transparency that has recently come to plague management-organized town halls, where the audience cannot see or upvote questions, and a handful of selected questions are answered. Several questions asked at the Town Hall in August are still unanswered. The best way to provide each side’s perspective is a healthy, respectful and open exchange. One way to do this is to hold a joint town hall where questions are visible to all and upvoted by the audience and a free back and forth is permitted. JPL leadership uses its control over the dissemination of information to amplify the perspectives of a small group of individuals in leadership positions, while excluding alternative perspectives.

We remain committed to providing JPL employees with comprehensive and accurate facts so that they can make an informed decision about whether UAW representation at JPL is right for them. We are confident that, with full and accurate information, a majority of JPL employees will conclude that UAW union representation at JPL is not in their, or the Lab’s, best interest. We don’t want a potentially adversarial Town Hall discussion between JPL leaders and union supporters to impede the provision and free exchange of objective information. In fact, that’s one of our concerns about unionization: It may create an adversarial relationship among JPLers.

We also believe that JPL employees must make their decision with full and accurate information. JPL Workers United aims to be a union made by JPLers for JPLers to represent our interests. We are committed to having a vigorous but respectful and professional debate. At JPL, a debate in good faith based on facts has always been at the core of our technical excellence. The premise that all debate is adversarial is a dangerous supposition that curbs the flow of ideas. By discouraging debate, JPL leaders are impeding the provision and free exchange of objective information that they seek to protect. A union brings JPLers with many different perspectives and backgrounds together to collectively advance their interests. Creating an adversarial relationship among JPLers runs counter to this aim, and those who oppose unionization have more to gain from pitting workers against each other than those seeking to form a union do.