The labor movement is making a comeback. ...

The labor movement is making a comeback.Labor Law Reform Not Just For

Unions

.

Bring home the National Guard from Iraq to protect the employers from

labor terrorists. That's their regular job--not fighting in foreign

countries for the Empire's oil companies.

Do a search on the history of the Guard. You will be amazed at their

service here in America. Try: "National Guard (AKA Corporate Police)

Strike Breakers .....The 1877 intervention gave birth to the modern

National Guard. This point is agreed upon by the principal histories

of the Guard (Derthick, 1965; Mahon, 1983; and Riker, 1957). As Riker

documents in detail, not only did all of the states establish their

National Guard at that time, but also the appropriations of the new

Guard were almost perfectly correlated with the number of strikers in

that state. He concludes that 'in short it is reasonable to infer that

the primary motive for the revival of the militia was a felt need for

an industrial police' (p. 55).

http://www.culture-of-peace.info/intervention/chapter3-6.html

http://omp.ohiolink.edu/OMP/NewDetails?oid=2586942&fieldname=collection&results=10&sort=title&searchstatus=1&hits=28&searchmark=0&searchstring=Republic+Steel%2C+Warren+Plant+1937+Strike+Scrapbook&searchtype=kw&format=list&scrapid=2458&count=25

Bush no friend of Labor

Bush threatens to use troops against West Coast dockworkers... The far-

reaching threats made by the Bush administration against the

International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) in the event of a

West Coast dock strike or work slowdown reveal the essential class

character of the government's "war on terrorism." In the name of

national security and its open-ended global war, the White House is

threatening to use military force to destroy the basic rights of

workers to organize and fight for decent wages and conditions.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/aug2002/ilwu-a30.pdf

"To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men."

--- Abraham Lincoln:

Labor Law Reform Not Just For Unions

Peter Dreier and Kelly Candaele

May 10, 2007

Peter Dreier is professor of politics at Occidental College and

coauthor of several books, including The Next Los Angeles: The

Struggle for a Livable City . Kelly Candaele, a trustee of the Los

Angeles Community College District, has recently produced the

documentary film,"When Hope and History Rhymed," about the Northern

Ireland peace process.

A bill now moving through Congress to expand workers' rights could be

the most important legislation in decades to advance the concerns of

environmentalists, public schools, higher education, senior citizens,

universal health care, housing, women's and gay rights, and civil

rights.

The bill-called the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA)-is understandably

the top priority for America's labor unions. It would mean better

wages, benefits and working conditions for all employees. It would

also make it more likely for unions to win organizing drives in

workplaces.

But why should other constituencies rally behind this effort to reform

the nation's labor laws? The reason is simple. The labor movement is

still the most effective political force for electing liberal

candidates at the local, state and federal levels. Once in office, pro-

labor politicians are typically also the strongest advocates of strong

environment laws, funding for public schools and higher education,

civil rights, women's rights, gay rights, universal health insurance,

affordable housing and protection of Social Security. A strong labor

movement benefits these other agendas and causes, which have been

under attack by conservative forces in recent years.

The Employee Free Choice Act would level the playing field between

management and workers, making it more likely that union organizing

campaigns will be successful. It would help reverse the labor

movement's four-decade decline in membership.

Current federal laws are an impediment to union organizing rather than

a protector of workers' rights. Elections held under current National

Labor Relations Board (NLRB) rules are bureaucratic, inefficient and

put workers and their unions at a disadvantage. Any employer with a

clever attorney can stall union elections, giving management time to

scare the living daylights out of potential recruits. According to

Kate Bronfenbrenner of Cornell University, one-quarter of all

employers illegally fire at least one employee during union campaigns.

In 2005, over 31,000 workers were illegally disciplined or fired for

union activity, according to the NLRB. The lucky workers get

reinstated years later after exhaustive court battles. Indeed,

penalties for these violations are so minimal that most employers

treat them as a minor cost of doing business. Employees who initially

signed union cards are often long-gone or too afraid to vote by the

time the NLRB conducts an election.

The rules are stacked against workers, making it extremely difficult

for even the most committed and talented organizers and workers to win

union elections. Big business spends hundreds of millions of dollars a

year to hire anti-union consultants who use elaborate strategies to

keep unions out. Employers in the United States can require workers to

attend meetings on work time where company managers and consultants

give anti-union speeches, show anti-union films and distribute anti-

union literature. Unions have no equivalent rights of access to

employees. To reach them, organizers must visit their homes or hold

secret meetings. This is hardly workplace democracy.

Business leaders argue that employees' anti-union attitudes account

for the decline in union membership, which was 12 percent last year

after peaking at 35 percent in the 1950s. In fact, a December 2006

poll found that 58 percent of non-managerial workers would join a

union if they could. But they won't vote for a union, much less

participate openly in an organizing drive, if they fear losing their

jobs for doing so.

The Employee Free Choice Act would allow employees to form unions by

simply signing a card stating that they desire union representation.

If a majority of employees in a workplace sign a card, the company

would be obligated to bargain with the union the employees choose. The

law would also increase penalties for companies who violate worker

rights and provide for mediation and arbitration for first contract

disputes-a key provision given that employers often drag out

negotiations to wear down a new union.

If this law were adopted, the U.S. would match other democracies in

the protection of worker rights. In Canada, for example, the "card

check" process is in place, and union membership is more than twice

that in the U.S.

American workers' rights gained a foothold in 1935 with passage of the

National Labor Relations Act, commonly called the Wagner Act. The

Wagner Act granted workers the legal protection to organize and set up

a democratic process in the workplace to gain representation. The NLRB

was set up to oversee the effective functioning of workplace

democracy. The frequently violent clashes between workers and owners

was channeled into a government mechanism for managing conflict.

After World War II, unions faced a major assault from business and

conservative forces. At that point, the labor movement was bigger and

more powerful than it had ever been, representing more than a third of

American workers. In 1947, the Republican Congress enacted the anti-

union Taft-Hartley Act over the veto of President Harry Truman, who

described the act as a "slave-labor bill." The new law restricted

workers' rights to strike, picket, and boycott.

During the subsequent three decades, business groups used the Taft-

Hartley restrictions to reduce union membership and political clout.

In 1978, the labor movement sought to restore some of the workers

rights that had been eroded by Taft-Hartley. A labor law reform bill

was defeated by one vote in the Senate. Pressured by heavy lobbying

from business, Democratic Senator Dale Bumpers of Arkansas was

instrumental in the failure to override a Republican filibuster.

This victory strengthened business' hand even more. Nothing symbolized

this more than President Ronald Reagan's busting of the Professional

Air Traffic Controllers Association after they engaged in an illegal

strike in 1981. Under Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and now George W.

Bush, federal agencies designed to protect workers rights-such as the

NLRB and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration-have had

their budgets cut and their enforcement staffs eviscerated. Meanwhile,

business's violations of labor laws have increased exponentially. A

new union-busting consulting industry has flourished.

Despite all these setbacks, the labor movement remains the nation's

most potent force for progressive change. In recent years, a few

unions have become more feisty and effective. For example, in Los

Angeles unions have used innovative and aggressive strategies not only

to unionize workers, but also to build effective community

relationships that connect struggles in the workplace to broader

social issues, such as housing, the environment, and immigrant rights.

Thoughtful union leaders and rank and file members have built

coalitions with churches, college students, environmentalists and

affordable housing advocates that link these struggles for justice.

Hotel and hospital workers, janitors, nurses, and security guards have

used these new relationships to gain support for organizing drives.

It's do-or-die time for the American labor movement. In the next

decade or two, unions will either make a comeback or become marginal

players in American society and politics. If labor stumbles towards

irrelevance, our overall society will become nastier, more unequal and

individualistic than it already is. It's not a happy prospect.

The weakness of the American labor movement-compared to its

counterparts in other affluent, democratic societies-accounts for many

troublesome aspects of our society. The U.S. has the widest gap

between rich and poor among democratic nations. It also has the

highest poverty rate; 13 percent of all Americans, more than 37

million people, live below poverty. The pay gap between men and women

is wider in the U.S. than in other affluent countries. We are the only

democratic society without universal health insurance; 47 million

Americans lack even basic coverage. We spend less on job training,

child care, and affordable housing, and more on prisons, than these

other nations. Americans work longer hours, get fewer paid vacation

days, and have fewer rights on the job than workers elsewhere. Our

environmental and workplace safety laws are weak and poorly-enforced.

Political scientists argue that the decline of union membership in

recent decades has contributed to the fall-off in voter turnout,

because unions were traditionally the most effective vehicle for

mobilizing low income and worker class voters. When labor unions

educate and mobilize their members, they are very effective.

Organized labor still has a significant capacity to marshal resources-

both money and members-to influence the outcome of elections. Union

members are more likely to vote, more likely to vote for Democrats,

and more likely to volunteer for campaigns than people with similar

demographic and job characteristics who are not unionized. In the

November 2004 presidential election, union members represented 12

percent of all workers but union households represented 24 percent of

all voters. Despite John Kerry's tepid campaign and upper-crust

demeanor, union members gave him 61 percent of their votes over George

W. Bush. In the battleground states, where unions focused their

turnout efforts, they did even better. In Ohio, for example, union

members favored Kerry by a 67 to 31 percent margin.

When voters' loyalties were divided between their economic interests

and other concerns, however, union membership was a crucial

determinant of their votes. For example, gun owners favored Bush by a

63 to 36 percent margin, but union members who own guns supported

Kerry 55 percent to 43 percent, according to an AFL-CIO survey. Bush

carried all weekly church-goers by a 61 to 39 percent margin, but

Kerry won among union members who attend church weekly by a 55 to 43

percent split.

Among white males, a group that Democrats have had difficulty

attracting in recent Presidential elections, Bush won by a 62 to 37

percent margin. But again, Kerry carried white males who were union

members by a 59 to 38 percent difference. Bush won among white women

by 55 to 44 percent but Kerry won white women union members by 67

percent to 32 percent.

Had union membership reached even 15 percent of the workforce, Kerry

would have won by a significant margin.

In this climate, union leaders and their liberal allies are making a

new effort to reform the nation's outdated and one-sided labor laws.

On March 1, the U.S. House of Representatives approved the EFCA in a

241-185 vote. House Members who supported the bill stood up to heavy

opposition by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which launched a costly

barrage of radio ads in 51 House districts. Two Southern Democrats-

Rep. Dan Boren of Oklahoma and Rep. Gene Taylor of Mississippi-voted

against the bill.

Across the country, business leaders, the gun lobby, the religious

right, and their Republican allies in Congress understand that a

resuscitated labor movement would be an effective counterweight to

their political influence. That is why they are on the warpath against

the EFCA. President Bush has pledge to veto the bill if it passes the

Senate and reaches his desk.

All the major Democratic candidates for President support the EFCA.

The labor movement is likely to make support for the EFCA a litmus

test for targeting its endorsement, money, and ground troops to

candidates running for House and Senate in 2008, particularly those in

swing districts and states, where Republican incumbents are vulnerable

to defeat. If labor's liberal allies (such as the Sierra Club, NOW,

ACORN, and NAACP), the do the same-and if Democrats gain more seats in

both houses of Congress after the 2008 election-the EFCA has a good

chance of passing. A Democrat in the White House will guarantee its

victory. But even a Republican president could face a veto over-ride.

America is now closer than it has been in decades to having labor laws

that truly protect workers' freedom to make their own choices about

union representation, without management interference. If Congress can

pass a veto-proof EFCA, it would do more than increase union

membership, it could lead to a rebirth of progressive politics in

America that would quickly echo across the United States for decades.

All liberals and progressives should view the battle over the EFCA as

a fight for their own future as well.

Happy Labor Day

"Raymond" <Bluerhymer@aol.com> wrote in message

news:1188860047.063839.108990@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

> The labor movement is making a comeback.Labor Law Reform Not Just For

> Unions

<snipped excess....>

> Bush no friend of Labor

> Bush threatens to use troops against West Coast dockworkers... The far-

> reaching threats made by the Bush administration against the

> International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) in the event of a

> West Coast dock strike or work slowdown reveal the essential class

> character of the government's "war on terrorism." In the name of

> national security and its open-ended global war, the White House is

> threatening to use military force to destroy the basic rights of

> workers to organize and fight for decent wages and conditions.

>

> http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/aug2002/ilwu-a30.pdf

"basic rights of workers to organize and fight for decent wages and

conditions"

What do these rights consist of?

Note I'm thinking back to the trucker strikes of the 1970's. Striking Truck

Drivers used shotguns to shoot at non-striking truck drivers from freeway

overpasses. Right to fight against those who choose not to fight or to

otherwise protest? And recently, Democrats heavily promoted allowing union

organizers to use coercive measures to force co-workers to vote for

adoptance of labor unions. As to vote fraud, a union organization effort at

my employer at the time yielded over 100 signatures in favor of the union.

This despite the fact the company had far less than 100 employees and many

including myself never signed.

"YES", decried the labor organizers! We have more signatures than the

company has employees! There's no way we can loose the vote now!

Fact is, anytime you endorse protectionism, you place yourself and everyone

else at risk. Protectionism should be temporary, not permanent. Once laws

become emplaced to protect moral accomplishments and those accomplishments

become embedded as a fabric of society, the Labor Union becomes redundant.

You don't keep fighting a war after it's been won. And if you didn't win,

then there's something seriously wrong with your approach. This doesn't

mean you quit fighting. It does mean you change your approach. With that

in mind, in order for Unions to accomplish their objectives, they must

change their corrupt approach. How have Labor Union's changed their

approach to achieving the protection of basic rights of laborers over the

past 60 or 70 years?

In the same manner people are adamant in their aversion towards any

possibility of a declaration of martial law by government, so should they be

critical towards the formation / adoption of Labor Unions. Labor Union

issues should be mandated by law, not by limited term union contracts which

are designed for one singular purpose; with that purpose being to ensure a

continued need for the corrupt Union bosses who thrive by milking millions

of members of the labor force of their hard earned money. Labor Unions

promote continued dependence upon labor unions, not independence through the

promotion of improvements in the moral fabric of society. If Labor Unions

spent as much time striving to solve the employee / employer dilemma as they

have in filling the pockets of Labor Union Bosses, Labor Unions would have

become obsolete many decades ago.

The stock market resulted in the removal of all human values from the

decision making process of corporate America. Labor Unions should pursue

governmental regulations to compensate, regulations which dictate

corporations adhere to the needs of society, a society from which if it did

not exist, neither would the corporation.

But heed my warning. Protectionism is a two-edged sword.

Protectionism should be treated just like martial law. Only use either for

short term objectives. Objectives designed to enable the masses to gain a

strong enough foothold in society that they would then be able to survive

without Labor Union or Martial Law sustenance. Look to those who promote

Labor Unions or Martial Law. Ask yourself these questions:

1) Are the promoters more interested in the Labor Union as a permanent

solution?

2) Or are the promoters more interested in the Labor Union as a temporary

evil to overcome a primal weakness?

In referring to the Labor Union as a 'temporary evil', I equate Labor

Union's with Martial Law. Both should be treated as "Evil's" to be used

only as extreme measures to overcome a negative trait of society and to

fulfill the immediate and dire needs of that society with the ultimate goal

of enabling the members of society to have an equitable chance to survive on

their own within newly adopted reforms to that society.

<snipped excess...>