Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiLabor Law Reform Not Just For Unions
A bill now moving through Congress to expand workers' rights could be the most important legislation in decades to advance the concerns of environmentalists, public schools, higher education, senior citizens, universal health care, housing, women's and gay rights, and civil rights.The bill—called the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA)—is understandably the top priority for America's labor unions. It would mean better wages, benefits and working conditions for all employees. It would also make it more likely for unions to win organizing drives in workplaces.
But why should other constituencies rally behind this effort to reform the nation's labor laws? The reason is simple. The labor movement is still the most effective political force for electing liberal candidates at the local, state and federal levels. Once in office, pro-labor politicians are typically also the strongest advocates of strong environment laws, funding for public schools and higher education, civil rights, women's rights, gay rights, universal health insurance, affordable housing and protection of Social Security. A strong labor movement benefits these other agendas and causes, which have been under attack by conservative forces in recent years.
The Employee Free Choice Act would level the playing field between management and workers, making it more likely that union organizing campaigns will be successful. It would help reverse the labor movement's four-decade decline in membership.
Current federal laws are an impediment to union organizing rather than a protector of workers' rights. Elections held under current National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) rules are bureaucratic, inefficient and put workers and their unions at a disadvantage. Any employer with a clever attorney can stall union elections, giving management time to scare the living daylights out of potential recruits. According to Kate Bronfenbrenner of Cornell University, one-quarter of all employers illegally fire at least one employee during union campaigns. In 2005, over 31,000 workers were illegally disciplined or fired for union activity, according to the NLRB. The lucky workers get reinstated years later after exhaustive court battles. Indeed, penalties for these violations are so minimal that most employers treat them as a minor cost of doing business. Employees who initially signed union cards are often long-gone or too afraid to vote by the time the NLRB conducts an election.
The rules are stacked against workers, making it extremely difficult for even the most committed and talented organizers and workers to win union elections. Big business spends hundreds of millions of dollars a year to hire anti-union consultants who use elaborate strategies to keep unions out. Employers in the United States can require workers to attend meetings on work time where company managers and consultants give anti-union speeches, show anti-union films and distribute anti-union literature. Unions have no equivalent rights of access to employees. To reach them, organizers must visit their homes or hold secret meetings. This is hardly workplace democracy.
Business leaders argue that employees' anti-union attitudes account for the decline in union membership, which was 12 percent last year after peaking at 35 percent in the 1950s. In fact, a December 2006 poll found that 58 percent of non-managerial workers would join a union if they could. But they won't vote for a union, much less participate openly in an organizing drive, if they fear losing their jobs for doing so.
The Employee Free Choice Act would allow employees to form unions by simply signing a card stating that they desire union representation. If a majority of employees in a workplace sign a card, the company would be obligated to bargain with the union the employees choose. The law would also increase penalties for companies who violate worker rights and provide for mediation and arbitration for first contract disputes—a key provision given that employers often drag out negotiations to wear down a new union.
If this law were adopted, the U.S. would match other democracies in the protection of worker rights. In Canada, for example, the "card check" process is in place, and union membership is more than twice that in the U.S.
American workers' rights gained a foothold in 1935 with passage of the National Labor Relations Act, commonly called the Wagner Act. The Wagner Act granted workers the legal protection to organize and set up a democratic process in the workplace to gain representation. The NLRB was set up to oversee the effective functioning of workplace democracy. The frequently violent clashes between workers and owners was channeled into a government mechanism for managing conflict.
After World War II, unions faced a major assault from business and conservative forces. At that point, the labor movement was bigger and more powerful than it had ever been, representing more than a third of American workers. In 1947, the Republican Congress enacted the anti-union Taft-Hartley Act over the veto of President Harry Truman, who described the act as a "slave-labor bill." The new law restricted workers' rights to strike, picket, and boycott.
During the subsequent three decades, business groups used the Taft-Hartley restrictions to reduce union membership and political clout. In 1978, the labor movement sought to restore some of the workers rights that had been eroded by Taft-Hartley. A labor law reform bill was defeated by one vote in the Senate. Pressured by heavy lobbying from business, Democratic Senator Dale Bumpers of Arkansas was instrumental in the failure to override a Republican filibuster.
This victory strengthened business' hand even more. Nothing symbolized this more than President Ronald Reagan's busting of the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Association after they engaged in an illegal strike in 1981. Under Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and now George W. Bush, federal agencies designed to protect workers rights—such as the NLRB and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration—have had their budgets cut and their enforcement staffs eviscerated. Meanwhile, business's violations of labor laws have increased exponentially. A new union-busting consulting industry has flourished.
Despite all these setbacks, the labor movement remains the nation's most potent force for progressive change. In recent years, a few unions have become more feisty and effective. For example, in Los Angeles unions have used innovative and aggressive strategies not only to unionize workers, but also to build effective community relationships that connect struggles in the workplace to broader social issues, such as housing, the environment, and immigrant rights. Thoughtful union leaders and rank and file members have built coalitions with churches, college students, environmentalists and affordable housing advocates that link these struggles for justice. Hotel and hospital workers, janitors, nurses, and security guards have used these new relationships to gain support for organizing drives.
It's do-or-die time for the American labor movement. In the next decade or two, unions will either make a comeback or become marginal players in American society and politics. If labor stumbles towards irrelevance, our overall society will become nastier, more unequal and individualistic than it already is. It's not a happy prospect.
The weakness of the American labor movement—compared to its counterparts in other affluent, democratic societies—accounts for many troublesome aspects of our society. The U.S. has the widest gap between rich and poor among democratic nations. It also has the highest poverty rate; 13 percent of all Americans, more than 37 million people, live below poverty. The pay gap between men and women is wider in the U.S. than in other affluent countries. We are the only democratic society without universal health insurance; 47 million Americans lack even basic coverage. We spend less on job training, child care, and affordable housing, and more on prisons, than these other nations. Americans work longer hours, get fewer paid vacation days, and have fewer rights on the job than workers elsewhere. Our environmental and workplace safety laws are weak and poorly-enforced.
Political scientists argue that the decline of union membership in recent decades has contributed to the fall-off in voter turnout, because unions were traditionally the most effective vehicle for mobilizing low income and worker class voters. When labor unions educate and mobilize their members, they are very effective.
Organized labor still has a significant capacity to marshal resources—both money and members—to influence the outcome of elections. Union members are more likely to vote, more likely to vote for Democrats, and more likely to volunteer for campaigns than people with similar demographic and job characteristics who are not unionized. In the November 2004 presidential election, union members represented 12 percent of all workers but union households represented 24 percent of all voters. Despite John Kerry's tepid campaign and upper-crust demeanor, union members gave him 61 percent of their votes over George W. Bush. In the battleground states, where unions focused their turnout efforts, they did even better. In Ohio, for example, union members favored Kerry by a 67 to 31 percent margin.
When voters' loyalties were divided between their economic interests and other concerns, however, union membership was a crucial determinant of their votes. For example, gun owners favored Bush by a 63 to 36 percent margin, but union members who own guns supported Kerry 55 percent to 43 percent, according to an AFL-CIO survey. Bush carried all weekly church-goers by a 61 to 39 percent margin, but Kerry won among union members who attend church weekly by a 55 to 43 percent split.
Among white males, a group that Democrats have had difficulty attracting in recent Presidential elections, Bush won by a 62 to 37 percent margin. But again, Kerry carried white males who were union members by a 59 to 38 percent difference. Bush won among white women by 55 to 44 percent but Kerry won white women union members by 67 percent to 32 percent.
Had union membership reached even 15 percent of the workforce, Kerry would have won by a significant margin.
In this climate, union leaders and their liberal allies are making a new effort to reform the nation's outdated and one-sided labor laws. On March 1, the U.S. House of Representatives approved the EFCA in a 241-185 vote. House Members who supported the bill stood up to heavy opposition by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which launched a costly barrage of radio ads in 51 House districts. Two Southern Democrats—Rep. Dan Boren of Oklahoma and Rep. Gene Taylor of Mississippi—voted against the bill.
Across the country, business leaders, the gun lobby, the religious right, and their Republican allies in Congress understand that a resuscitated labor movement would be an effective counterweight to their political influence. That is why they are on the warpath against the EFCA. President Bush has pledge to veto the bill if it passes the Senate and reaches his desk.
All the major Democratic candidates for President support the EFCA. The labor movement is likely to make support for the EFCA a litmus test for targeting its endorsement, money, and ground troops to candidates running for House and Senate in 2008, particularly those in swing districts and states, where Republican incumbents are vulnerable to defeat. If labor's liberal allies (such as the Sierra Club, NOW, ACORN, and NAACP), the do the same—and if Democrats gain more seats in both houses of Congress after the 2008 election— the EFCA has a good chance of passing. A Democrat in the White House will guarantee its victory. But even a Republican president could face a veto over-ride.
America is now closer than it has been in decades to having labor laws that truly protect workers' freedom to make their own choices about union representation, without management interference. If Congress can pass a veto-proof EFCA, it would do more than increase union membership, it could lead to a rebirth of progressive politics in America that would quickly echo across the United States for decades. All liberals and progressives should view the battle over the EFCA as a fight for their own future as well.
Peter Dreier is professor of politics at Occidental College and coauthor of several books, including The Next Los Angeles: The Struggle for a Livable City . Kelly Candaele, a trustee of the Los Angeles Community College District, has recently produced the documentary film,"When Hope and History Rhymed," about the Northern Ireland peace process.
© 2007 TomPaine.com
14 Comments so far
Show AllKim,
Just one request.
In the future can you make your posts shorter - it's difficult to read a long one, and maybe add a line between paragraphs.
It's not only hospitals, it's American barbaric workplace in
general.
Despite the most recent American elections being universally recognized as totally corrupt, I am always amazed when people talk as if the system, and the deeply flawed vote it produced, was actually legitimate. Few outside the US were as easily fooled, which makes the quoted numbers somewhat academic.
I no longer live in the US after I was fired from the "Best Hospital in America" for daring to blow the whistle on what I call "Deliberate Negligent Understaffing." I continue my battle for justice from the other side of the Atlantic with a growing presence on the Internet. Visit the following sites to learn more: my Petition, "Johns Hopkins Hospital Investigation of Whistleblowers's Dismissal;" is on The Petition Site; my (Kim's) Care2 homepage for Medicintegrity on their Care 2 sister site and MedicIntegrity-TEAM.blogger (transparency for Equal Accountability in Medicine).
When I was working in Baltimore Maryland in the OR at Johns Hopkins I was represented by a Union, but it did me very little good as the business friendly laws in the US offer no legal justification for workers to fight for even the most basic of human rights. The complete absence of Whistleblower laws for Hospital workers fails to provide even the most rudimentary protection from retaliation meaning that patient advocates are easily bullied into silence. Consequently US Healthcare is becoming increasingly more dangerous by the day. This is your Healthcare providing for the needs of ordinary American families, but no one is very interested in fixing it. One local newspaper stated that they would not investigate the negligence allegations against my prestigious former Hospital unless people (plural) died!
Meal and rest breaks are "at the discretion of the employer." This allowed Johns Hopkins, my former Hospital, to torture me with 12 hour periods of continuous service scrubbing into the OR during surgery without a break. That meant no water, no food and no opportunity to urinate for twelve hours straight! Could you go without those basic needs and stand for twelve hours while doing an extremely stressful life or death task without loosing your concentration? Is that dangerous for the patient on bypass, unconscious on the OR table? Damn right it is; besides being downright cruel and not permissible for the treatment of POWs under the Geneva Convention!
This type of inhumane practice is horrifyingly common in US Hospitals due to the business friendly "Profits over Patients" mentality. Mandatory overtime, 16 hour shifts, disciplinary action for calling in sick, threats of being charged with "Patient Abandonment" if you dare to take a break; all justified by a so called "Nursing Crisis" that was deliberately engineered to benefit greedy Corporate interests. Most Hospital staff are incredibly conscientious about how they do their job. This has created a full scale "Nursing Exodus" as staff refuse to take unreasonable risks with their patients lives. Why do Hospitals get away with treating their staff worse that third world sweat shop workers? Simple there are no labor laws in the US and the Healthcare of ordinary American is in severe jeopardy unless we act now.
We must regulate the staffing of our Hospitals and we must protect those who come forward to expose the truth. Sarbanes Oxley (SOX) was supposed to help protect Whistleblowers and many organizations created Compliance Hotlines that were open to employee reporting. At least some of these so called "Compliance Lines" have been manipulated to act as an early warning system for identifying "Troublemakers;" they now provide even better immunity from external scrutiny for corrupt Management. These Compliance Lines need to be properly regulated in the public interest and held fully accountable: a corrupt Compliance Line is worse than no Compliance Line at all.
I will be thrilled to see stronger protections put in place for all abused US workers, but I am not holding my breath. America's treatment of their labor force is a global disgrace that rivals a few third world countries. I remain strongly committed to exposing the truth and causing sufficient embarrassment over the current appallingly dangerous situation in US Healthcare that something will have to be done. Please sign my Petition on the Petition Site and leave your comments, Kim.
collidingrivers
But look at this forum - people talk about anything, but labor, and not only trolls. The establishment was successful in redirecting/brainwashing people. I find some people truly irritating.
Americans need health care and safe civilized workplace where they are treated like human beings, in other words, Americans need a new labor law and universal health care, or in other words again, Americans need new institutions which protect their rights, and not the rights of those cute little babies - the corporations.
It's a must.
All those who tell us that "all you need is love," please buzz off. You've done more than enough to destroy the world.
I find it truly repulsive when all the liberals are shocked, shocked when someone is fired by the government with a possible violation of civil rights, but don't remember that they had fired someone a day earlier with an obvious violation of all human rights. Hypocritical bastards.
collidingrivers, can you make your posts shorter? - to split in two, for example-it would make easier to read
In the quest for the "American Dream", which we are all taught is achievable simply through hard work (hardyharhar), many workers believe blind loyalty to the company, and rejection of unions, will somehow increase their chances of working their way up the "food chain"- that's how a safety manager referred to the workers, when I called 6 months ago to ask why they still aren't protecting the workers from needless injuries (in the tiny, enclosed industrial spray paint booths, not providing the mandatory respirators), two years after my son nearly died working there.
Why... how? Because this factory is WA State's golden factory (because they are a subsidairy of one of the largest manufacturers in the US, big, big money). L&I claims they comply, safety-wise, which is a provable, enormous, stupendous, outrageous lie and yet the Attorney General is on their side too, at Governor's insistence, after I wrote her, begging her to NOT give the factory the "prestigious Governor's award", mentioned in the L&I rejection letters for my son's medical claim, because they just do NOT deserve it. She never responded personally, but the result was the Attorney General was assigned to the case- on the side of the negligent factory!
The local, rural hospital also put my son through hell, including an ER doctor that claimed my son, who was catatonic and couldn't speak, and jerking spasmodically, was instead having a mental breakdown, because he was planning to marry a "Mexican National", even though we told him it was chemical exposure- and then, we found out he prescribed the wrong kind of medication for the diagnosis he made, giving my son meds that were bad for him, either way.
When you have the State on the side of industry, you are screwed. The State admitted, finally, that my son was exposed (his medical bills paid, back pay of maybe 2K, nothing else and not even an apology)- and oh, the agonizing hell and disrespect we went through to get to that point- but get this: they changed nothing at all at the factory, and other workers are still being injured, then swept under the rug... we still try to achieve justice, and it's like bashing our heads against a brick wall. The newspapers in NE, WA region are all afraid to do a story and help expose this awful problem- plus, they get paid for big ads from this factory that has such a huge employee turnover, and they advertise constantly.
We are still trying to organize the injured workers, and should have a kickass class action suit, but WA attorneys, I don't know, they are also afraid to go up against the State (it looks like we have a major, international firm with WA offices willing to take it on- pro bono).
But nothing will ever change in WA, unless the conflict of interests regarding Labor and Industries is resolved- how can they alone determine both if the factory complies, and if workers are actually injured? If the factory in question is the Governor's golden factory, you can guess in whose favor Labor and Industries rules: the factory. Cut and dry.
And why do employees keep working there, when they are getting sick is because there are few jobs here. One ill worker had to buy his own respirator (though the factory tolod him not to, that he didn't need it- this is after my son's injury was admitted), even though the factory claims all along is they make the respirator's "Available"- which requires a doctor's visit, fitting and training, not a likely investment in mostly temp. workers).
There are employees that can watch co-workers drop like flies, then get swept out the door, and they still don't get it, don't organize to fight for justice, because they want to be the "good workers", for whatever perceived perks. Plus, those that do get it about workers' rights are often afraid, seeing how historically, attempts to organize in support of workers often results in serious consequences, like getting fired- or worse. "Workers are our cheapest resource" is truly the mindset of many companies. It's good to see a major attempt to reinforce US workers' rights.
I thought maybe the one way way this story could make it to the light of day would be if the consumers who buy the very costly products in question knew that they may have safety defects. At least some workers were told to let the products go out without their final safety inspections. I don't know about you, but it would really piss me off to know this, if I paid the four grand one of those items costs! If it malfunctions, it can cause a deadly fire. We have mentioned this fact in all of our complaints- and we even got blown off by the Consumer Protection Agency. We also got blown off by the Dept. of Ecology, when we told them about the illegal chemical releases that went on at the factory- all this info the Governor knows, it's in our many letters and complaints.
I think we could be the poster family of State and Industry citizen abuse, no kidding. We finally came to realize: we aren't even a special case! This stuff goes on all over the place, and all kinds of injustices occur, every day, in the workplace- and since Bush/Co., standards overall in industry are much, much worse.
We make choices all the time that will determine whether we will live in Bedford Falls or Pottersville.
We are rapidly becoming prototypes of a people that totalitarian monsters could only drool about in their dreams." -- Steve Tesich, "The Wimping of America"
The Constitution forbids the promotion of religion, but it does not forbid religion from promoting a government. The evolved effect is we live in a corporatocracy established by a theocratic majority. So now secularists and unionists are the enemy of the state.
"I had never made the connection between strong unions and national politics."
Not only you. I have a problem with the fact that most so called progressives obviously don't care about exploitation,
but find it ever more irritating that almost nobody sees a connection between unions and national politics.
I think I can repeat my observation that American
liberals/progressives work 70 hours a week so their CEOs have more billions, trillions, gazillions to corrupt (among other things), then blame some representatives for corruption, and feel so good about themselves.
Labor and health care are central, the most important issues. Sadly, Americans don't realize what seems to be so obvious.
John
I believe you can have all three. Because the majority of Americans work. They have all become slave labor to corporate and capital interest. Two of the three are "wedge" issues, whereas single payer health coverage for all benefits all the workers of the land.
I have strongly supported the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) since it's introduction to the House. And will do the same in the Senate. I see the ability of workers to join together to pressure corportions to provide fair compensation, a safe work environment, and freedom from discrimination an absolute necessity. Americans will not be able to fight the "race to the bottom" and the outsourcing of jobs without strong unions. That being said, this article gave me another reason for the return of strong union protections.
I had never made the connection between strong unions and national politics. I thought the corporations were doing all the union busting because they were greedy and didn't care about workers rights or safety. I hadn't seen the connection between the decline of unions and the shift of who votes in elections. The fact that our government has moved to the "right" is not just because of greed, corruption (greed) and special interest influence (greed). It is because our elections are bought and sold by the corporate money. At all levels. There are too few worker dollars to put up against this corporate monster because of the decline of unions.
So, there are several things that need to happen before we are going to get a government BY, FOR, and OF THE PEOPLE.
First, we need to support the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) introduced by Sen. Edward Kennedy (S 1041) That means that everyone has to contact their Senators to support this bill. Repeatedly! Also, you can find out more by going to http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/takeaction/efca/updates.cfm.
Next, support electoral and campaign finance reform.
The "Compact for Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote" eliminates the "winner take all" Electoral College and has been signed off on by 47 states. Legislation has already been passed in several states and been signed by their governors. Legislation is before all 47 states in their legislatures. So get going in YOUR state! Go on over to www.nationalpopularvote.com and find out how you can support legislation in YOUR state.
Call, write, or e-mail your Congressional representatives and get them to support/co-sponsor the U.S. House Bill 3099 "Clean Money, Clean Elections". In the Senate, get them to support/co-sponsor the Durbin/Spector bill "Fair Elections Now Act".
Then, march on over to www.fairvote.org or www.commoncause.org and see what other actions you can take to make further election and campaign finance reform a reality!!
Next, if you still have the energy, check out the National Initiative site at http://nationalinitiative.us/ What these folks are doing is returning power directly to the people. This on is REALLY exciting!
Thanks for all you do.
"You can choose gay rigths and abortion or a one payer national healthcare system, but not all three."
This is absurd from my perspective, but apparently, people
can't deal with three, and most choose the sexy ones.
If you look at some progressive forums (like this one) not to mention liberal ones, you will see how "unattended"
labor/universal health care threads are.
If you, like me, have witnessed countless genital demonstrations in New York, but not a single one in support of workers rights/universal health care, you know the answer.
As always, I am talking about reality, and frankly, I think
that circumstances don't allow now to have lengthy philosophical discussions, or sing endlessly something like "America the Beautiful."
Like Stan..., I think that the situation is grave. Frankly,
I often think that's too late.
"You can choose gay rigths and abortion or a one payer national healthcare system, but not all three."
This is absurd from my perspective, but apparently, people
can't deal with three, and most choose the sexy ones.
If look at some progressive forums (like this one) not to mention liberal ones, you will see how "unattended"
labor/universal health care threads are.
If you, like me, have witnessed countless genital demonstrations in New York, but not a single one in support of workers rights/universal health care, you know the answer.
I don't know if the statement that follows is correct or not but I would like to read some comments on it if anyone is willing to comment.
You can choose gay rigths and abortion or a one payer national healthcare system, but not all three.
It was many things, including imperial arrogance and ignorance.
It's just unbelievable how dumb people are.
A decade ago, a friend of mine, a liberal, graduate of Barnard, asked me with a trembling voice, if I was a communist when I just mentioned universal health care.
Yes, she was abroad, did some wining, dining and sleeping,
but never went beyond that.
More interesting was my conversation (more or less at the same time) with a guy who had taught HISTORY in a public school for some quarter a century.
I talked about European Social-Democratic countries with health care, workers' rights as human rights, etc.
He listened politely, then said (politely again) that what I was telling him was interesting, asked (politely again) where he could read about it.
Hard to believe. I just wanted to strangle the guy (very impolitely).
"It is true that there is a lot of ignorance around, however even illiterate people know that it is better to have guaranteed health care than nothing."
Well, every American knows that one day he/she will win a lottery and then he/she won't need universal health care.
Eurobelle,
It is true that there is a lot of ignorance around, however even illiterate people know that it is better to have guaranteed health care than nothing.
Still many of them voted directly against National Health Care initiatives in the past.
The population in every other industrialised nation does not do that, they all have voted already for guaranteed Universal Health Care.
ragnarok,
I haven't read the article yet, but I glanced a the number of comments in different threads and here.
I don't think the world has a chance with population so
brainwashed.
It is not only 13 %, it's enslavement of hundreds of millions of other employees, it's export of slavery, it's destruction of the world etc.
It's really disgusting. There are only two or three topics which can get to so called progressives excited (genitals, civil liberties). Most are so dumb that they don't know (well... anything), particulalry how interconnected everything in a society is. They memorized their checks and balances stuff (not much to remember or understand), are happy to believe that this sooooooooo much, and they don't need to know/do anything else, and only people in other countries are so dumb that they study such useless subjects as ancient history, labor history, history of other countries in general, etc.
The world doesn't have a chance now.
"...13 percent of all Americans, more than 37 million people, live below poverty.... We are the only democratic society without universal health insurance; 47 million Americans lack even basic coverage..."
However the majority of US voters (including many among the millions without health insurance) elected Reagan, Bush, and voted against previous attempts to improve all that.
Please anyone explain how so many can vote against their own interest so often.