Union-Busting As Stated Policy of the American Government

I just concluded a paper on labor law, especially focused on the agenda-setting and policy-making processes of labor law reform, keying in on legislative and administrative changes to its application in terms of majority sign-up and the makeup of the NLRB. One thing I kept coming across was the nature and degree of change in applied policy from the federal government toward workers, unions, and collective bargaining. In short, we now have a labor law regime that is tilted against these concepts and toward their diametric opposites, management, business, and union-busting; the original intent as per the 1935 Wagner Act and for a while after its codification (even after Taft-Hartley in many respects, although that is subject to interpretation) was to prioritize and favor unionization of workers and collective bargaining as matters of good economic policy and justice for workers.

Now, we have the Bob Corkers (R-Foreign Autos, Jackson Hewitt) and Richard Shelby (R-Union Busting) talking about "getting unions off the backs" of business. There you have it, explicit confirmation that the objective of American economic and labor law policy, at least for one part and one slice of the political pie, is union-busting and anti-worker notions.

This auto industry debate has laid bare the contours, as if 50 years of politics did not do so, of how Republicans and conservatives approach workers, worker rights, and economic prosperity. Bear in mind that the favorability rating of unions stands at 68% favorable to 28% unfavorable. Find me a politician with those numbers and I'll show you a sure re-elect. Further, 53% of the American public as workers would choose unionization today. And the number keep on coming like that, if you look at opinion research from the likes of Pew, Gallup, ANES, and the like.

These folks are just wrong, and they're proving yet again how out-of-touch they are with the American people.

But don't get me started on the false equivalencies of the media, arguably worse, given their supposed role in a democracy, than the Republicans whose frames of approach they adopt. Disgusting. Just not as disgusting as the intent to codify into law and policy the union-busting and anti-worker approach of Republicans.

Wage Frustration

Title of the diary is not about me. Although I would guess that pretty much anyone that reads a blog probably wishes their wages were higher, and is thus frustrated.

A few bits of the ridiculous from this week's latest thrashing over our fundamentally mis-structured economy, relating to wages...

We have corporate executives who make literally thousands, tens of thousands of dollars per hour who run massive companies into the ground because of supremely short-sighted vision, lack of business sense, and the strategic direction of lemmings. They get mildly berated because they didn't fly commercial. And they'll still retire rich after being part of the class and type of thinking that messed up this country's economy and destroyed our productive capacities. But no one is considering the utter absurdity of the existence of this type of 'work' and set of wages.

On the other hand, there are union workers that have been faithfully executing the demands of the corporations who employ them for decades. Along the way, they bargained collectively for what used to be the uniquely American private social safety net and set wage levels for many industries. They gave up concessions left and right as the corporations for which they work sputtered along because of poor management (it has not been labor costs that sunk the auto industry, it's been strategic blindness). Yet we have people lambasting those "greedy" union workers for aspiring to turn work into real gains in the pocketbook.

Does something seem totally off to you about this?

It does to me.

For decades, the American public has been fed a steady diet of anti-union propaganda through the filer of an overarching philosophy of neoliberalism and conservatism. So people are primed to think unions and union workers are part of the problem. Actually, they're part of the solution. Unions capture gains in national wealth for those who create it. And if more people supported labor and labor struggles, all workers would benefit. So instead of blaming unions for the mess autos and other industries are in, we should place blame where it lays, and we should look to what can be done to build a stronger and more robust economy from the ground up. This includes a re-structuring of relationships between markets, government, and people and it includes fostering greater numbers of unionized workers and higher union density rates within industries as well as the workforce at large.

There is a great labor economics argument for how this will help the economy as a whole, but I have neither the time nor capacity to run through it all right now. Perhaps in the future. Suffice it to say for now that we should be outraged nationally on how blame and aspersions are being placed on unions and union workers - while we essentially let off the hook the economic model and real perpetrators of the economic crimes being committed. As a logical corollary, we should not be trying to put together "solutions" to the crisis in the auto industry (and it is industry-wide, not just about Detroit) that place the burdens on the backs of workers. It's foolish and it's wrong.

Making It Easier To Organize or Leveling the Playing Field

Watch and be frustrated:



American labor law is broken. It has been for years. And the evidence isn't just the declining number of union members and union density rate in the private sector (and overall). Although that is troubling in its own regard.

American labor law is a) a relic of the middle part of the 20th century b) subject to years of 'tweaking' by the right and corporate power and c) totally unsuited for the nature of work, our economy, and our social relationships in the 21st century.

Right now, the scales are tilted against unions. An objective observer (which I am probably not) would probably say that the playing field is totally uneven. From the disparity in penalties for unions and business to the structure of the legal regime to countless other facets, the scales tilt toward business and the playing field is badly slanted.

The Employee Free Choice Act is not about tilting the scales in favor of unions, as Dr. Dean adroitly points out. It is about modernizing American labor law and making the playing field even once again. As it turns out, when one gets beyond this simple and perfecly good rationale (not to mention the guarantee of substantive First Amendment rights for workers), one finds that there are tremendous policy, political, social, and economic benefits.

EFCA is a necessary condition for a resurgence in unions and the labor movement, though not sufficient. But right now, we need to be certain that we have a fair game for organizing campaigns.

Card-check means that labor law matches the realities of the 21st century economy, labor markets, and social structures. So get over it Chris Matthews, right wing blowhards, and anti-labor corporate tools.

And by the way, 2008 marked the highest favorability margin for unions in America since the 1960s. 68% of the public is in favor of unions having a strong role in this country while 20% are against it. That's a gap of 40%. Further, recent research has shown that 58% of workers would choose a union if so freely able.

Right now, workers are not freely able to choose unions - EFCA would go a long way in remedying that (though not all the way). And EFCA would align policy with overwhelming public opinion.

Time to modernize American labor law, time to make labor law work. Time to pass the Employee Free Choice Act. President-elect Obama, Democratic Senate, we're looking at you.