The Anti-Union Campaign
Watching "Jeopardy" recently on ABC's Bangor affiliate, I was stunned by a visually powerful and virulently anti-labor ad. The ad asked rhetorically "what would happen if labor bosses controlled class elections?" It portrayed a mafialike teen peering over elementary school children about to vote for their class officers.
Produced by "Union Facts," the ad cites an impending threat to workers' freedoms. That threat is the proposed card check legislation under which a union would be recognized if a majority of workers sign a card in support of union representation. The ad suggests that harassment by union bosses would soon replace the long established democratic traditions of the secret ballot in American workplaces.
Union Facts, however, leaves out and distorts many facts not lost on most American workers. Corporate workplaces are hardly models of American democracy. When workers seek to unionize, their efforts are often met with fierce and illegal resistance. Even when employers obey existing labor law, they can engage in practices that violate minimal democratic norms.
Charges of coercion by union bosses make strange reading when one examines the recent National Labor Relations Board reports. Even the most pro-corporate labor board in our nation's history documents an extraordinary run of management abuses. University of Oregon Professor Gordon Lafer points out: "Over the period of 2000-05, there were an average of ... over 19,000 charges filed per year alleging employer violations of federal labor law; of these, 40 percent -- or 8, 500 cases per year -- presented sufficiently strong evidence that the Labor Board either issued a complaint or oversaw an informal settlement ... While both unions and employers violate the law, the vast majority of charges stem from employer behavior. In 2004, for example, 88.5 percent of all complaints issued by the Board, and over 90 percent of all cases tried [by] the full Board, addressed illegal behavior by employers." (www.americanrightsatwork.org/publications)
The anti-union campaign touts corporate commitment to workers' voting rights. Yet many corporations are dedicated to insuring that workers' desires to form union never become the subject of elections. Lafer also points out: "Much of this employer behavior remains hidden." In 2004, a South Carolina manufacturer sued one of the country's preeminent labor law firms for advising illegal tactics in a campaign to oust the union. These included "spying on workers, firing union activists, organizing a bogus 'employee' anti-union committee, writing supposedly employee-authored fliers calling union activists 'trailer trash' and 'dog woman,' and supplying cash-filled envelopes to anti-union employees."
Even when they follow the law, corporate practice in so-called secret ballot labor representation elections falls short of minimal democratic standards. Workers do not enjoy free speech within their workplaces, may be forced to attend workshops where unions are denounced, and face unlimited expenditures by employers to advance their own interests.
Lafer points out that anti-union managers "can force individual employees into repeated, intimidating one-on-one conversations with their personal supervisors to make employees reveal their political leanings. Local supervisors are trained to read employees verbal and nonverbal reactions, and to ask indirect questions without explicitly asking employees how they will vote."
The last quarter-century has seen a well-publicized discussion of the difficult fiscal circumstances of U.S. workers. Corporate CEOs, often unaccountable even to stockholders and paid salaries many times that of any union leader, have mismanaged worker pensions and squandered corporate assets. Less noted has been the assault on the quality of workplace life itself.
Most workers here in Maine and nationally are "at will." They can be dismissed for any reason other than a few protected standards, such as race and gender. Workers who have been fortunate enough to achieve union status and to approve collective bargaining agreements are among the few who enjoy some protection against arbitrary power. Unions are the only worker-controlled organization elected by and accountable to workers. Not surprisingly, most polls over the last decade have shown that large numbers of workers desire an independent voice within their workplaces.
The Employee Free Choice Act gives workers the choice -- not the requirement -- that they can forego abusive, corporate-controlled election processes by pursuing unionization through a majority card check process. There is no union representation unless a majority signs. If a third prefer an election, they'll get an election. Unions will not prevail in such a process if "union bosses" harass reluctant workers. Such a strategy is neither likely nor effective in generating majority support.
A healthy union movement in Maine would neither cost jobs nor destroy progress. Research by University of Massachusetts economist Robert Pollin demonstrates that states with adequate minimum wage standards, public sector bargaining, and full rights to labor organization grow at least as fast as those where labor rights are repressed. In Maine historically many small businesses once depended on the prosperity and free time of their union member consumers. Countering the worst forms of employer attacks and presenting an image of and program for more humane workplaces is a vital task for those committed to a more just and prosperous Maine.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Watching "Jeopardy" recently on ABC's Bangor affiliate, I was stunned by a visually powerful and virulently anti-labor ad. The ad asked rhetorically "what would happen if labor bosses controlled class elections?" It portrayed a mafialike teen peering over elementary school children about to vote for their class officers.
Produced by "Union Facts," the ad cites an impending threat to workers' freedoms. That threat is the proposed card check legislation under which a union would be recognized if a majority of workers sign a card in support of union representation. The ad suggests that harassment by union bosses would soon replace the long established democratic traditions of the secret ballot in American workplaces.
Union Facts, however, leaves out and distorts many facts not lost on most American workers. Corporate workplaces are hardly models of American democracy. When workers seek to unionize, their efforts are often met with fierce and illegal resistance. Even when employers obey existing labor law, they can engage in practices that violate minimal democratic norms.
Charges of coercion by union bosses make strange reading when one examines the recent National Labor Relations Board reports. Even the most pro-corporate labor board in our nation's history documents an extraordinary run of management abuses. University of Oregon Professor Gordon Lafer points out: "Over the period of 2000-05, there were an average of ... over 19,000 charges filed per year alleging employer violations of federal labor law; of these, 40 percent -- or 8, 500 cases per year -- presented sufficiently strong evidence that the Labor Board either issued a complaint or oversaw an informal settlement ... While both unions and employers violate the law, the vast majority of charges stem from employer behavior. In 2004, for example, 88.5 percent of all complaints issued by the Board, and over 90 percent of all cases tried [by] the full Board, addressed illegal behavior by employers." (www.americanrightsatwork.org/publications)
The anti-union campaign touts corporate commitment to workers' voting rights. Yet many corporations are dedicated to insuring that workers' desires to form union never become the subject of elections. Lafer also points out: "Much of this employer behavior remains hidden." In 2004, a South Carolina manufacturer sued one of the country's preeminent labor law firms for advising illegal tactics in a campaign to oust the union. These included "spying on workers, firing union activists, organizing a bogus 'employee' anti-union committee, writing supposedly employee-authored fliers calling union activists 'trailer trash' and 'dog woman,' and supplying cash-filled envelopes to anti-union employees."
Even when they follow the law, corporate practice in so-called secret ballot labor representation elections falls short of minimal democratic standards. Workers do not enjoy free speech within their workplaces, may be forced to attend workshops where unions are denounced, and face unlimited expenditures by employers to advance their own interests.
Lafer points out that anti-union managers "can force individual employees into repeated, intimidating one-on-one conversations with their personal supervisors to make employees reveal their political leanings. Local supervisors are trained to read employees verbal and nonverbal reactions, and to ask indirect questions without explicitly asking employees how they will vote."
The last quarter-century has seen a well-publicized discussion of the difficult fiscal circumstances of U.S. workers. Corporate CEOs, often unaccountable even to stockholders and paid salaries many times that of any union leader, have mismanaged worker pensions and squandered corporate assets. Less noted has been the assault on the quality of workplace life itself.
Most workers here in Maine and nationally are "at will." They can be dismissed for any reason other than a few protected standards, such as race and gender. Workers who have been fortunate enough to achieve union status and to approve collective bargaining agreements are among the few who enjoy some protection against arbitrary power. Unions are the only worker-controlled organization elected by and accountable to workers. Not surprisingly, most polls over the last decade have shown that large numbers of workers desire an independent voice within their workplaces.
The Employee Free Choice Act gives workers the choice -- not the requirement -- that they can forego abusive, corporate-controlled election processes by pursuing unionization through a majority card check process. There is no union representation unless a majority signs. If a third prefer an election, they'll get an election. Unions will not prevail in such a process if "union bosses" harass reluctant workers. Such a strategy is neither likely nor effective in generating majority support.
A healthy union movement in Maine would neither cost jobs nor destroy progress. Research by University of Massachusetts economist Robert Pollin demonstrates that states with adequate minimum wage standards, public sector bargaining, and full rights to labor organization grow at least as fast as those where labor rights are repressed. In Maine historically many small businesses once depended on the prosperity and free time of their union member consumers. Countering the worst forms of employer attacks and presenting an image of and program for more humane workplaces is a vital task for those committed to a more just and prosperous Maine.
Watching "Jeopardy" recently on ABC's Bangor affiliate, I was stunned by a visually powerful and virulently anti-labor ad. The ad asked rhetorically "what would happen if labor bosses controlled class elections?" It portrayed a mafialike teen peering over elementary school children about to vote for their class officers.
Produced by "Union Facts," the ad cites an impending threat to workers' freedoms. That threat is the proposed card check legislation under which a union would be recognized if a majority of workers sign a card in support of union representation. The ad suggests that harassment by union bosses would soon replace the long established democratic traditions of the secret ballot in American workplaces.
Union Facts, however, leaves out and distorts many facts not lost on most American workers. Corporate workplaces are hardly models of American democracy. When workers seek to unionize, their efforts are often met with fierce and illegal resistance. Even when employers obey existing labor law, they can engage in practices that violate minimal democratic norms.
Charges of coercion by union bosses make strange reading when one examines the recent National Labor Relations Board reports. Even the most pro-corporate labor board in our nation's history documents an extraordinary run of management abuses. University of Oregon Professor Gordon Lafer points out: "Over the period of 2000-05, there were an average of ... over 19,000 charges filed per year alleging employer violations of federal labor law; of these, 40 percent -- or 8, 500 cases per year -- presented sufficiently strong evidence that the Labor Board either issued a complaint or oversaw an informal settlement ... While both unions and employers violate the law, the vast majority of charges stem from employer behavior. In 2004, for example, 88.5 percent of all complaints issued by the Board, and over 90 percent of all cases tried [by] the full Board, addressed illegal behavior by employers." (www.americanrightsatwork.org/publications)
The anti-union campaign touts corporate commitment to workers' voting rights. Yet many corporations are dedicated to insuring that workers' desires to form union never become the subject of elections. Lafer also points out: "Much of this employer behavior remains hidden." In 2004, a South Carolina manufacturer sued one of the country's preeminent labor law firms for advising illegal tactics in a campaign to oust the union. These included "spying on workers, firing union activists, organizing a bogus 'employee' anti-union committee, writing supposedly employee-authored fliers calling union activists 'trailer trash' and 'dog woman,' and supplying cash-filled envelopes to anti-union employees."
Even when they follow the law, corporate practice in so-called secret ballot labor representation elections falls short of minimal democratic standards. Workers do not enjoy free speech within their workplaces, may be forced to attend workshops where unions are denounced, and face unlimited expenditures by employers to advance their own interests.
Lafer points out that anti-union managers "can force individual employees into repeated, intimidating one-on-one conversations with their personal supervisors to make employees reveal their political leanings. Local supervisors are trained to read employees verbal and nonverbal reactions, and to ask indirect questions without explicitly asking employees how they will vote."
The last quarter-century has seen a well-publicized discussion of the difficult fiscal circumstances of U.S. workers. Corporate CEOs, often unaccountable even to stockholders and paid salaries many times that of any union leader, have mismanaged worker pensions and squandered corporate assets. Less noted has been the assault on the quality of workplace life itself.
Most workers here in Maine and nationally are "at will." They can be dismissed for any reason other than a few protected standards, such as race and gender. Workers who have been fortunate enough to achieve union status and to approve collective bargaining agreements are among the few who enjoy some protection against arbitrary power. Unions are the only worker-controlled organization elected by and accountable to workers. Not surprisingly, most polls over the last decade have shown that large numbers of workers desire an independent voice within their workplaces.
The Employee Free Choice Act gives workers the choice -- not the requirement -- that they can forego abusive, corporate-controlled election processes by pursuing unionization through a majority card check process. There is no union representation unless a majority signs. If a third prefer an election, they'll get an election. Unions will not prevail in such a process if "union bosses" harass reluctant workers. Such a strategy is neither likely nor effective in generating majority support.
A healthy union movement in Maine would neither cost jobs nor destroy progress. Research by University of Massachusetts economist Robert Pollin demonstrates that states with adequate minimum wage standards, public sector bargaining, and full rights to labor organization grow at least as fast as those where labor rights are repressed. In Maine historically many small businesses once depended on the prosperity and free time of their union member consumers. Countering the worst forms of employer attacks and presenting an image of and program for more humane workplaces is a vital task for those committed to a more just and prosperous Maine.