Workers, union activists, and community leaders launched a campaign late last week to pass federal legislation guaranteeing the right of working people to form unions at their workplaces and protecting them from harassment and intimidation by anti-union employers.
Wal-Mart believes that its financial success depends on how poorly it can treat its employees. This attitude pervades much of corporate America.
With falling wages, stagnant employment figures, outsourcing jobs overseas, skyrocketing health care costs, corporate policies of cutting labor costs to fatten the pay of CEOs, and growing alarm over sour economic prospects created by Bush’s budget policies and right-wing agenda, millions of workers are looking for a way to stay afloat.
More workers are coming to see that unions are the best way to improve their lives and communities, win dignity at work, and stem the economic tide against them and their families. Research shows that 57 million workers would join a union if they could.
So why is union membership overall in decline?
An important reason is that movement of jobs overseas and plant closings have taken place mainly in industries that are heavily unionized. Rather than pay workers decent wages with good benefits, employers, aided by Bush administration policies of "free trade" and corporate tax loopholes, look for countries that will allow them to pay workers the lowest wages and fewest benefits – certainly with few unions.
Another major reason is that when workers try to gain a voice on the job by forming a union, employers routinely respond with intimidation, harassment and retaliation.
During union election campaigns, management routinely and improperly pressures employees into voting against union representation. According to a survey of NLRB election campaigns in 1998 and 1999, private-sector employers illegally fired employees for union activity at least 25 percent of the time.
Employees who aren’t fired are afraid of losing their jobs in other ways if they support union representation. According to one survey, employers force workers to attend anti-union presentations, called "captive audience" presentations, in 92 percent of all union campaigns.
These meetings take place during work hours, attendance is mandatory, and employees are carefully monitored for their responses to the company’s anti-union message. Workers who aren’t responsive to the corporate line often are subject to retaliation by management
At these anti-union meetings, workers are told that the workplace will close if the workers vote for a union, that the corporations will give their jobs to people overseas, or that unions will provoke work stoppages and workers will be replaced.
A notorious recent example was the attempt to organize a union at a Quebec, Canada Wal-Mart store. When a majority of the employees voted to form a union, the company simply closed the store and everyone lost their jobs.
This action not only prevented the union from forming at that store, but now every Wal-Mart manager across this country is making sure their employees know that this could happen to them too.
Companies like Toyota and Nissan have vigorously fought unionization in their plants throughout the Midwest and South. Workers there have higher rates of injury, are treated arbitrarily and abusively, and have no recourse when they are threatened with discipline or firing.
Non-union private hospitals underpay their nursing staffs, which are also often overloaded with work, risking the health and welfare of their patents.
Everywhere companies like Freightliner, Comcast, Verizon Wireless, Osram Sylvania, Resurrection Health Care in Chicago and DHL employ non-union people who are ill-treated, poorly paid, and are fearful of job insecurity.
Do you subscribe to Political Affairs?
click image to find out how
Even worse, in some states, right-wing governments have passed so-called right to work laws over the past few decades that make unions even harder to organize. Claiming to protect workers’ rights, these laws allow companies to increase their anti-union campaigns and to use fear and intimidation with impunity to block unionization efforts.
Workers in the states that have passed these laws earn an average of 15 percent less in wages, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In fact, states that have passed anti-union laws are mainly in the South and the Plains states where poverty rates are higher than in states that do not have "right to work" laws. It is no wonder that pro-union people call these laws "right to work for less" laws.
Union workers, because of legally binding contracts made through the collective bargaining process, simply do much better in terms of wages and benefits and respect in the workplace than non-union workers.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, union workers earn about 22% more than non-union workers. Union contracts usually help eliminate gendered and racially motivated income gaps and hiring and promotion discrimination.
Union workers have a powerful ally in the fight against racial discrimination. Not only do racial minorities earn more when they are members of unions, but they have recourse against racist treatment in the workplace.
Just last week, for example, the international office of the United Steelworkers (USW) filed a complaint with the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against Imerys Carbonates, a multinational corporation with a plant in Sylacauga, Alabama. The complaint alleges "that African American employees have been subjected to a hostile work environment because of racial epithets and threats made by white supervisors."
Without union representation these workers and thousands of others like them would face abuse and hate alone and without the ability to defend their rights.
As for benefits, 9 out of 10 union workers have medical care coverage, while one in three non-union workers has no coverage at all. Five of six union members have a pension plan, while only just over half of non-union workers have one. In fact, only one in six non-union workers have a defined-benefit plan that is federally insured and guarantees a monthly income during retirement. Seventy percent of union workers have defined-benefit plans.
Studies also show that union workers are more productive and that union contracts help eliminate poverty. Further, union members have a stronger political voice and are more often engaged in civic and political activities that improve their communities and strengthen our democracy.
So if unions are so great, but employers refuse to recognize them and threaten workers into not joining them, how do we change the situation to protect workers’ rights?
One solution is to pass federal legislation that would forbid employers’ threats and enforce an equal relationship between workers and their employers in the process of organizing unions. The Employee Free Choice Act (H.R. 1696 and S. 842) is such a law. It was introduced in Congress last week by Reps. George Miller (D-Calif.) and Peter King (R-N.Y.) and Sens. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Arlen Specter (R-Pa.).
This bill would reform the nation’s basic labor laws by requiring employers to recognize the union after a majority of workers sign cards authorizing union representation. It also would provide mediation and arbitration for first-contract disputes and establish stronger penalties for violation of the rights of workers seeking to form unions or negotiate first contracts.
The Employee Free Choice Act was introduced last year and gained 210 co-sponsors in the House and more than 30 in the Senate, but the Republican leadership refused to allow it to go to the floor for a vote.
To learn more about the Employee free Choice act and to find out how to express your support for the bill click here.
--Joel Wendland can be reached at jwendland@politicalaffairs.net.
