Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Labor Union Bill Raises Broader Capitalism Issues
WASHINGTON - The Employee Free Choice Act seemed destined to be a relatively narrow clash between unions and employers. But amid the economic downturn, it is turning into a debate over fundamental questions of American capitalism.
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) talks to reporters on Capitol Hill after a news conference to announce the introduction of the Employee Free Choice Act. (Photo by Susan Walsh/Associated Press) After years of girding for this fight, labor supporters and business groups are scrambling after the bill's reintroduction last week to adapt their long-established arguments to suit the crisis. For those opposed to the bill, which would make it easier to form unions, the new message was that it would be a disaster for businesses reeling from the recession.
"In a time when we have an economy that's already struggling, we can't put more burdensome regulations on employers," said Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.). "This is a job killer for our economy when we really don't need it."
The bill's supporters are pointing to the downturn as the ultimate proof of their arguments that labor's decline has helped put the economy out of balance and that only by restoring workers' purchasing power can the nation return to broadly shared prosperity.
"In 1935, we passed the Wagner Act that promoted unionization and allowed unions to flourish, and at the time we were at around 20 percent unemployment. So tell me again why we can't do this in a recession?" said Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), invoking the pro-labor changes of the New Deal. "This is the time to do it. This is exactly the time we should be insisting on a fairer playing field for people to organize themselves."
The bill, first introduced in 2003, gives workers the choice of whether they want to organize by getting a majority of workers to sign pro-union cards, instead of having to hold secret-ballot elections. As it stands, it is up to employers to decide which method is used, and most require elections. The bill increases the penalties for employers who retaliate against employees and mandates binding arbitration when employers do not agree to a contract within three months after a union election.
Unions say the bill is needed because employers intimidate or retaliate against workers before elections, making the votes something less than true democracy; and because employers often merely go through the motions of negotiating, nearly half of new unions fail to get a first contract. Employers say that forming unions without secret ballots violates American notions of democracy and exposes workers to union coercion. Mandatory arbitration, they assert, is an intolerable intervention.
But the environment in which the bill is being debated has further ratcheted up the rhetoric, revealing a divide as wide as that on any other major issue on President Obama's agenda. The two sides put forth starkly different versions of both history and present-day reality, making it hard to imagine how the two sides could compromise.
The pro-labor version of history starts during the New Deal with the Wagner Act (better known as the National Labor Relations Act), which expanded the rights of private-sector workers to unionize. The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 established the minimum wage and 40-hour workweek.
"The truth is that Franklin Roosevelt passed those laws under similar circumstances, and from 1945 to 1974, we had an era where workers' wages and productivity was joined together," said Andrew Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union. "It was probably the most tested economic stimulus of any public policy that has worked for us."
In the telling of labor supporters, the decline in private-sector union membership -- from a peak of 36 percent in the early 1950s to 7.5 percent today, a level not seen since 1900 -- is a result not only of economic shifts but also of an increasingly pro-employer tilt in labor policy. As they see it, the decline of unions has contributed to the growing income inequality over the past three decades, when economic productivity has outpaced wage growth.
Lawrence H. Summers, the National Economic Council director, has long been regarded warily by unions, but in a speech Friday at the Brookings Institution, he made roughly this case for boosting organized labor.
"If we want to propel this economy forward [and] have a sound expansion, it has to be an expansion whose benefits are more broadly shared," he said. That involves tax policy and education, he said, but also "goes to the question of having a healthy and well-functioning trade union movement. . . . It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the way in which our labor laws have functioned, and have been enforced and been acted on over many years, have not been constructive from the point of view of having a healthy trade union movement. And an attempt to redress that balance seems to me something that is appropriate at such a time."
In the other side's version of history, organized labor played a small (and probably negative) role in the climb out of the Depression, and postwar prosperity had far more to do with technological advances and American economic dominance, which allowed manufacturers to reward workers with wage gains and benefits. Globalization produced a much more competitive climate in which unions hamstrung companies and contributed to the demise of industries such as steel and auto manufacturing.
The decline of unions, in this telling, is the result of the decline of manufacturing and of workers' realization that unions are not in their self-interest. To link the current crisis to a slide in labor strength is ludicrous, they say.
"They're trying to wave a wand to explain the origins of a tornado," said University of Chicago law professor Richard A. Epstein, a leading opponent. "If you want to look at the factors that account for the ups or down of the economy, labor policy -- which has been totally constant -- would be 83rd on the list."
Price V. Fishback, an economics historian at the University of Arizona, said both sides overstate their case. The growth of unions did lead to wage gains both in union and non-union companies, he said. But to attribute mid-century prosperity to unions is going too far -- for one thing, union density began to go into decline in the early 1950s, after the passage of the anti-union Taft-Hartley Act.
"It's a much more complex set of things than either side is talking about," Fishback said.
The bill's opponents go on to say that expanding union membership via "card check" would reverse a natural trend when business can least afford it. "It's very clear that things have changed from the 1940s, '50s and '60s, and we need to change, as well," said Pennsylvania building contractor Jerry Gorski, the national chairman of the Associated Builders and Contractors. "Just to go back to the old ways and say unions get a certain amount of pay is not a help to our society."
Anne Layne-Farrar, an economist with the consulting firm LECG who produced a study predicting job losses if the bill passes, said in a conference call organized by employers that increased productivity had not resulted in larger wage gains in recent decades because the growth was mostly the result of technology. "If the productivity of labor went up, then the wages of labor would go up," she said.
Bill Samuel, the AFL-CIO's chief lobbyist, scoffed at this logic. "So, the [business community] no longer believes in the unique power of the American workforce?" he asked. The opponents' shift from emphasizing the bill's alleged undemocratic nature to its job-killing potential, he added, also undermined one of business's long-standing rhetorical stances: that it is not opposed to unions per se but only to corrupt and coercive unions.
"The mask has come off, and now it's clear that the Chamber of Commerce is against unions. Now they're saying they just don't want to see unions grow and have access to collective bargaining," he said. "There are a lot of members of Congress who are not necessarily supporters [of the bill] but recognize there is a problem to be fixed, and the Chamber is going to lose them because of this attitude. The majority of members are not anti-union."
Chamber general counsel Steven J. Law countered by refining the Chamber's argument, saying it is opposed not to all unions but to a sudden surge in union growth. "Rapid unionization would have an economic impact," he said.
The bill's opponents say their case against passing it amid a recession is taking hold in the Senate, where it needs 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. Sen. Blanche Lincoln (Ark.), a key centrist Democrat, questioned the bill's timing, telling the Associated Press last week, "The question is: Is there a need for this legislation right now?"
But House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller (D-Calif.) expressed confidence that most in Congress would reject employers' warnings about further job losses. "The members of Congress who support this legislation know exactly what's at stake and have respect for these workers, and don't think that [the workers] are trying to negotiate themselves out of a job," he said. "Everyone's aware of the economic condition, and everyone understand this proposal . . . is compatible with it."
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
21 Comments so far
Show AllDon't let those corporate scumbags water down EFCA ! Make those pols come clean with the public so that we can see who's honest and who's the closet sellouts.
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota
We can afford millions of Dollars in payouts and bonus payments for the already rich, but we can't afford a living wage for the American worker? Thre is something horribly wrong with this picture and it looks like maybe things started beoming unhinged with the decline of the labor unions and the rise of Corporate power. Their greed is going to be their undoing, and, unfortuneatly, ours, along with them, if some controls are not put in place. The power of the labor unions would be one of those controls, along with some anti-trust laws, etc. Obviously, as has been demonstrated time and again, they cannot be relied upon to regulate themselves!!! At least we could level the playing field a lttle, which seems to be at the heart of the current problem in this country. If Congress really wants to fix things, they had better hurry. Time marches on and 2010 is not that far away.
Pot holes were everywhere on my drive home today. War is a national priority. Roads, education, health care, a living wage----this is called pork.
What ever happened to the government being FOR the people?
it went the same way as "BY the people".
Sophie Scholl-The Final Days
Once again capitalism is facing its age-old problem of what to do w/its capital surplus. Globalization and the neo-liberal policies which took care of this problem (for the capitalist class) from the 1970s through the 90s is no longer working. Capital is once more trying to find a way to consolidate its power interests without labor and common people who they have always referred to as the "meddlesome outsiders" who are to play no role in the political arena but rather to be considered as "spectators." We, the people's only role is to push a lever every 2 yrs. (an election) and after that return to home and watch soap operas but leave the affairs of policy making in the hands of our "betters." See the dean of U.S. journalism Walt Lippman's study of this in the early 20th century. He wrote about all of this and incidentally, was greatly in favor of it. So yes, workers according to this logic, should have no role in the decision making process. However, there is growing anger from labor and even from some sectors of the managerial class re/fallen wages, the health care crisis, mortgage foreclosures etc. and if we, workers and common people were to organize ourselves we may indeed become a viable force for the capitalist class to deal with. If we do nothing but wait around for some savior to do it for us capital will win once again and we will all be in really deep shit this time because this is a crisis of major proportions. WE MUST ACT!
Wake up Americans...it's time to hit the bricks!
Do you think the 40 hour work week, pensions, health coverage, work place safety regulations,overtime pay, sick leave, child labor laws,unjust firing/discrimination arbitration all came from the benevolence of our corporate board of directors? In 1980 management compensation was 40 times hourly worker wages, today it is 400 times that! Our millionaire congressional "for the people" politicians fought tooth and nail to defeat an increase in the chump change minimum wage wailing that such a raise would bring economic disaster to our beloved democracy..golly...fact is that our present economic mess emanated from those very august boardrooms that could do no wrong!
Peace
one suspects that the real intent behind this supposedly pro-labor bill is to co-opt the coming explosion of union organizing. "sure, let them organize, but we will dictate the rules." a completely "legal" union is no union for as long as the bosses define what is legal.
That secret ballot idea when setting up is bullshit. All it allows is union busters to infiltrate and vote down initiatives without getting caught, if you want a union, stand up for it, in the broad daylight and vote for it with your arm raised.
Sophie Scholl-The Final Days
Or sign a card, as the act allows.
Joe
"The Employee Free Choice Act seemed destined to be a relatively narrow clash between unions and employers." It never seemed that way to me. This is a real basic, big, battle that has really always had every person and every organization in the country lined up on one side or the other.
You are so right.
"a relatively narrow clash...."
What conceivable ignorance on the part of a "journalist" could lead to such a notion?
... innocents (!?) posing as reporters .....
Of course, the answer IS, that this entire media conglomerate play-acting as "news organizations", in fact IS both a result and a tactic of this battle against working people.
MacGillis tells us:
"But the environment in which the bill is being debated has further ratcheted up the rhetoric, revealing a divide as wide as that on any other major issue on President Obama's agenda. The two sides put forth starkly different versions of both history and present-day reality, making it hard to imagine how the two sides could compromise."
Where is the surprise here? Of course they have different historical and contemporary views; they've had them for decades! In fact the class and political divide battle lines have always been there.
What gets me most here is the cultural divide between most who pass as journalists (including some "enlightened" progressive folks as well) and Reality -- especially that nasty 'history' part.
The Republicans and others on the Right (one branch of the Oligarchs) have gone after Labor and anything hinting of the "S" (socialism) word since before FDR, and especially so since then. Mere mention of "class warfare" (or anything similar) was itself a declaration of war. Gingrich's "Contract on America" was but a more recent incarnation. Their objective has always been to "put labor in it's place" (under their foot), ceding nothing. So, what's new?
Democrats and more-or-less liberals they claim to represent, cowering and spooked (as it were) by the HUAC and McCarthy reigns of fire, took it upon themselves to quiet any hints of "class", class consciousness or analysis within their own ranks.
Now as Labor fights for a few crumbs after decades of losses and downright thievery, Democrats as well as journalists act surprised by the very organized (and, frankly, re-cycled) reaction by Republicans!!? Hypocrites. They helped strip labor of its organizing ability and significance as much as, or possibly even more than, their erstwhile political enemies. They could and they did because they were "closer" to labor, had connections to its leadership, were a bit more sympathetic to workers, and all in all, not widely perceived as an adversary.
Like "the lesser of two evils" they constantly campaign on, Democrats can only claim to be "the friendlier of two foes" when it comes to the working people in America.
Discussion of "the Broader Capitalism Issues" raised here have been stifled by both corporate parties, the corporate media, the so-called education system in a stunning case of mass censorship for decades -- leading, in fact to America's inability to react or do anything but rollover when the Heist of All Times took place in recent months.
Far from being participants in a democracy, as the military recruiting posters still love to claim, we are a nation of "consumers" with no recent history of acting as citizens except for participating in regularly staged light dramas labeled "elections" where corporate lobbyist-enriched "representatives" get shuffled from time to time.
The scum bags in Washington don't give a shit about you. wake up the one party system is a joke. It's time to vote these scum bags out. The Scum bags in Washington give AIG 170 billion dollars,and AIG gives out 165 million in bonuses. And you want to keep sending these bottom feeders back to Washington so they can keep shoving it up you rear. Wake up.
See:
http://open.salon.com/blog/david_brin/2009/03/13/uplift_deep_cheating_and_the_ceo_cartel
Uplift, Deep Cheating, and the CEO Cartel
quote:
...Ironies abound. Though I consider myself something of an open market libertarian, I have long warned that we've been slipping into a putsch-coup by a conspiratorial oligarchy. There is, of course, no contradiction. The patron deity of capitalism, Adam Smith, declared that the very worst enemies of markets (far worse than socialism), are conniving aristocrats and top lords of finance........
at times of adam shmit's limited thinking the economy served 4% of the population, now it's 8% and still 92% short to be conidered as sane
/edweg
To have any prospect of working "The Employee Free Choice Act" would have to be supported by "Free Trade Compensatory Fee" paid on every item imported
edweg
This is not some "narrow" issue.
People spend their entire useful lives at work. The only reasonable compensation for decades of life is a decent workplace, a living wage, and most importantly, a means to ensure the cumulative years of toil wasn't in vain, some form of control over one's work environment. (Just like how citizens lose their political freedoms when their rights to choose their leaders are compromised, workers lose their quality of life when their rights to unionize are compromised.)
Most employers oppose this because they oppose ceding power or money to workers (whom they consider dehumanized costs). In fact, they made the same arguments against unions during better times in the last few decades. Hence, their arguments are excuses; covers for their/the system's selfishness.
However, this is only the first step. Next, we need to address the foreign competition, technological changes, and stockholder pressures that weakened the unions in the last generation. Instead of free trade summits, perhaps a means to improve unionization, especially in the Third World? Another idea would be to make the workers, as a whole, a large shareholder as well.
The War on Unions, started in 1980 by Ronny Raygun, has been won. I think today, the unionized percentage of the labor force is what - about 11-13% or so? In the private sector I believe it is a paltry 7.5% or so?
It is obvious how the opposing sides will push their viewpoints and, as usual, this will descend into the Land of Dis-Information. I find it virtually inconceivable the non union backers have managed to convince an entire generation of our lowest paid workers that unions are "bad" for them and should be avoided at all costs - just a stunning feat in convincing those who would be best served by a union to become vehemently opposed to unions.
ronald union baster regan imported the program via margaretta tacherowa from englandia /
edweg
The corporatists and their lackeys do not want the Employee's Free Choice Act because to allow a card signing to legitimize a union would not give them the time they need to call each employee into the office and intimidate them into voting for the company to continue screwing the workers.
If it weren't for labor unions in this country, we wouldn't be sending work to Bangladesh or China to do that work for 17 cents and hour. The corporatists would only be paying us 17 cents an hour. If we complained, they would send in the cops to beat on us like they do in China.
Ask any woman who's ever been raped. Getting screwed is not the same as being loved.
Is it me, or does anyone else cringe when Senators from the Slave States speak on labor unions?
In this news piece on Employee Free Choice Act, "centrist Democrat," Senator Blanche Lincoln, Arkansas, questioned the bill's timing, "The question is: Is there a need for this legislation now?"
The Repubs and the "centrist Democrats" from the Slave States still don't get it. After 150 years, they still don't get that workers shouldn't be treated like slaves.
Similar complaints about US labor unions surfaced three months ago during the UAW flap; the UAW was expected to continue to compromise itself right out of existence by southern Repub senators, nicknamed "the senators from Toyota".
Iowa's Senator Tom Harkin, "This is exactly the time we should be insisting on a fairer playing field for people to organize themselves;" and I agree.