![]() |
||||
|
||||
When America’s founders crafted the Constitution, they knew more was needed to ensure the survival of democracy. So they created the Bill of Rights. They made sure that at the top of the list, the First Amendment included such rights as the freedom of assembly. That is, the freedom of all of us to gather together in groups of our choosing. Like, say, unions.
Some opponents of workers’ freedom to form unions seem to have forgotten that forming groups outside government—and corporate—purview is critical to a free nation. In Big Brother-speak, these corporate hacks are attacking the proposed Employee Free Choice Act—which would enable more workers to have the freedom to form unions—as unconstitutional.
Here’s what’s really outrageous:
- Managers following employees to the bathroom and around the workplace to harass them for seeking to form a union.
- Workers so intimidated by employers, they become scared of voting in a ballot for a union so they vote against the union or don’t vote at all, fearing that if they do, they’ll lose their job.
- Employers spending millions of dollars to fight workers’ efforts to unionize, so they won’t have to provide workers with decent health care and retirement security.
- The mindset exhibited by some southern Republican senators to import the low-wages, no benefits, no genuine union representation model of China and Bangladesh to the United States, enserfing U.S. workers in a perpetual cycle of poverty.
In fact, those who assert workers have no freedom of assembly demonstrate the same un-Americanism as those who sought to make middle-class autoworkers the enemy by championing the expansion of lower-paid, minimal benefit jobs generated by foreign manufacturers.
Opponents of the Employee Free Choice Act now are trying to wrap themselves in the notion of "freedom of speech"—that is, employers’ freedom of speech, not workers’. It’s the same tired argument that Big Business used when lobbying for the Taft-Hartley Act. At that time, corporate interests asserted the National Labor Relations Act didn’t give employers enough "free speech." So Taft-Hartley, which passed in 1947, gave employers so much freedom to counter unionization efforts that today, according to research by Cornell University professor Kate Bronfenbrenner:
- Ninety-two percent of private-sector employers, when faced with employees who want to join together in a union, force employees to attend closed-door meetings to hear anti-union propaganda; 80 percent require supervisors to attend training sessions on attacking unions; and 78 percent require that supervisors deliver anti-union messages to workers they oversee.
- Seventy-five percent hire outside consultants to run anti-union campaigns, often based on mass psychology and distorting the law.
- Half of employers threaten to shut down partially or totally if employees join together in a union.
- In 25 percent of organizing campaigns, private-sector employers illegally fire workers because they want to form a union.
So when you hear opponents of the Employee Free Choice Act sniveling about (employer) free speech, beware.
Another argument supposedly showing the Employee Free Choice Act is unconstitutional (this one is so obscure it won’t be getting much steam) is it would violate the Fifth Amendment “takings” clause. The proposed Employee Free Choice Act would require binding arbitration if a contract can’t be reached within a certain time. As Publius points out on Obsidian Wings:
The point of this requirement is to prevent employers from bargaining in bad faith to run out the clock (employers are free to de-recognize the union after a year.)
Bronfenbrenner’s research finds that even after workers successfully form a union, employers do not negotiate a contract in one-third of the instances.
In fact, as Publius further points out, the "takings" argument was rejected in 1937 in NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.
Corporations are running scared. They fear that under the Obama administration, America’s workers might actually improve their chances to form unions on the job and thereby attain or maintain a middle-class standard of living. So Big Business and its minions are throwing out every possible attack against the Employee Free Choice Act, trying to see what will stick.
And showing just how un-American they are in the process.




13 Comments












Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
You mean, the Obama Administration’s Labor Department is going to be pro-Labor? Wow, that’ll cause a few managers’ heads to explode. Owners and managers are quite used to getting their way with Mrs McConnell.
Time for a change.
The McConnells have been quite a pair for management. Combined with Bush/Cheney, they’ve been quite a strong pair for far too long.
But as Mr Dylan sang back when, The Times They Are A Changin’
ironically, Chinese workers are often unionized and have an elective representative system. In the past, this hasn’t helped them much and the protections could be largely ignored since the unions aren’t independence and work entitlements were tied to registered geographies while the labor force itself was mobile and always on the hunt for higher wages. In the last several years, this had started to change, and workers groups are gaining influence. These days, strikes (which are frequent) are often brought to negotiated ends and to the benefit of the strikers.
Yes, and today we wake up to read in the Washington Post a huge puff piece about Chao. Some editor has a twisted sense of what makes for a good feature on Christmas Day…
to make the employee free choice act as effective as possible, we need trade agreements that require our trading partners have similar (or better) rights for labor or some kind of tariff to compensate. the race to the bottom must end
It’s rather remarkable how so many of the denizens of the Bush Administration have had to put out these puff pieces, defending their actions in office these last eight years.
Surely, if they had been doing their jobs properly, there would be no need for these actions. But I think we see in all the day-to-day problems across the country and the world just how many lies and how wrong the puffery is.
Sometimes I just don’t understand that paper. I can’t think of a single person, on either side I the aisle who isn’t a gardcore rethug, who thinks Chao ever effectively represented labor interests in any capacity whatsoever. Her own credentials – as a rethug foil put in her job I serve rethug interests – are impeccable. What’s the point of putting out a puff piece on her now? Kinds about as much point as doing one on Chertie.
Oh, believe me, the Skeletor puff piece will come early next year. Most likely the same week as the new Congress is sworn in with appropriate warnings about how Congress must continue to bow to the wisdom of the Executive and can’t change any of the laws passed by the 109th and 110th Congresses, giving away our rights.
I support unionism. My wife is an 1199 member for years. My concern is corruption which unions are not free of. There are “rumors” of corrupt construction trades unions in the NYC area. I’d like to know the facts about these unions? Where does one go to find the truth?
“enserfing U.S. workers” is a beautiful turn of phrase that I hope gets wider use when describing the aims of the Plantation Caucus.
I wrote it a while back, but there’s a good review of tactics, etc., of the union busters here:
Chao and her husband and travesties. Chao locked mine inspector Jack Spadaro out of his office for failing to sign on to a whitewash of the Martin County Coal Sludge Spill and now we have the TVA spill. At least we have the NYT filing stories this time. In the case of Martin County, the NYT first reported on the October 11,2000 sludge spill was also on Christmas, with Peter T. Kilborn’s story, A Torrent of Sludge Muddies a Town’s Future. Five years later, things looked normal, but they were not. And yet, because of the whitewash demanded of Spadaro which cost him his job, no one prevailed in court. (See the bottom of this post, which also contains a chronology of national coverage)
Pretty bad when The New River Free Press, a Blacksburg all-volunteer alternative monthly, can scoop the paper of record (and just about everyone but the AP and the local KY papers.
And now with have a spill in TN.
oops, here’s the Free Choice Act article, Labor Protections and the Role of Card-Check Agreements
bravo – great piece – sad how this issue has been manipulated