Feature Story
Civil Rights ...
Even at Work
continued from page one
"There is no freedom of association in the United States, no matter
what our Constitution says. And where it breaks down is in the private sector
workplace," declares Bronfenbrenner. She adds that "free speech, without freedom
of association, means basically that you can only whisper to yourself."
Bronfenbrenner ought to know. Not only does she research employer
intimidation tactics, she’s been a victim of such tactics herself. In 1998, she was
sued by Beverly Enterprises for testifying that the nursing home chain had a record of
union-busting. The suit was, in Bronfenbrenner’s words, "an attempt to
intimidate scholars from publicly criticizing corporate practices." Eventually,
Beverly backed down.
Employers have such an edge over us that we actually have to stop and
think hard about what it might mean to have human rights — like freedom of speech and
association — in the workplace. One thing it could mean, suggests Labor Party
organizer Ed Bruno, is that we could, as Europeans can, form a union whenever we wanted to
— regardless of how many people we had signed on, and without a harrowing union
election. In France, if five people in the office — even two! — decide they want
to be represented by a union, they can be. "Of course five people won’t be able
to achieve what 500 can at the bargaining table," says Bruno. "But at least you
have an organization to build from."
The need for such a right couldn’t be more clear. With all the
resources labor has put into organizing in the past few years, we have barely made a dent.
Bruno points to the statistics in his state of Massachusetts: A recent study found that in
1997, unions in that state managed to organize 819 new healthcare workers. If it keeps up
that pace, Bruno calculates, the labor movement could have every healthcare worker in the
state organized by the year 2487.
A LIBRARIAN’S STORY
Almost anyone who has tried to organize knows why the statistics look so
bad.
Take the experience of Rob Lerman, a librarian and Labor Party member who
lives in the Boston area. He and his dozen co-workers had the audacity to attempt to form
a union at one of the last nonunionized libraries in the area. Every worker in the shop
signed a union card. But in our country, just because you want a union doesn’t mean
you can have one. First, the town, their employer, challenged the composition of the
bargaining unit. Although the issue the employer raised had been ruled out of order
repeatedly in similar cases, the challenge took nearly a year to resolve. During all that
time, Rob and his co-workers stood firm, even though their supervisor’s attitude had,
in Rob’s words, "gone from bad to worse." Finally, they got an election,
and every worker but one voted for the union.
Now, to get a contract. Easier said than done: About a third of newly
certified shops never get a first contract. Rob and his co-workers decided not to aim too
high — they asked for a contract that paralleled that of other librarians in the
area. They were hit by a solid wall of employer opposition, backed up by a vicious
antilabor lawyer who constantly amazed the librarians by shamelessly lying during
bargaining. The employer apparently wanted to use this new and vulnerable bargaining group
to establish a pattern of givebacks it could later try to impose on other employees.
Rob and his co-workers resisted as much as they could, but the process, he
says, was exhausting. And it took about two-and-a-half years. During this time, Rob’s
supervisor’s attitude continued to worsen. Everything became an issue, especially for
the most active union supporters. Rob was not allowed to work an extra evening. A coworker
with health problems was pressured over her sick days. She stuck with the union, despite a
growing fear that her job was in danger.
By the time the workers finally won their decent, if not glorious,
contract, the wind had been taken out of their sails. Several of the workers, including
Rob, had moved on to other jobs. Rob, a lifelong activist who knew when he started that
organizing would be tough, says he was nevertheless "continually surprised" by
how hard it was to organize and how easy it was for the employer to legally delay the
process.
FARMWORKERS HAVE IT BAD
 |
|
The Farm Labor Organizing Committee
uses street heat to get the job done: College students, steelworkers, community groups,
and others join in a March picket at a Kroger store selling boycotted Mt. Olive Pickles in
Toledo, Ohio. İMike Ferner, FLOC |
|
What Rob and his co-workers experienced is a relatively mild example of
employer intimidation. On the other end of the scale are farmworkers, who aren’t
covered by most labor laws. The Farm Labor Organizing Committee (FLOC), a Labor Party
union, is trying to organize migrant farmworkers in North Carolina who pick cucumbers for
the Mt. Olive Pickle Company, the nation’s second-biggest pickle producer. (The union
has called a boycott.) FLOC reports that about 100 workers escaped from a grower’s
field one night. They had been forced to work a 14-hour day with only a half-hour break.
They had no mattresses or sheets to sleep on. The grower, whom workers referred to as
"the devil," required them to wear hats with their "guest worker"
number on it. Despite all this, some 2,000 workers have signed FLOC cards in the area,
overcoming their justified fear of retaliation.
In an organizing drive, employer intimidation is the rule, not the
exception. A Cornell University survey found that during organizing campaigns, 32 percent
of employers went so far as to fire employees who were encouraging coworkers to organize.
This is illegal, but employers regularly get away with it. And studies have shown that
firing key union supporters is an effective way for employers to stop an organizing drive.
Often, bosses subject workers to compulsory meetings where they try to
undermine support for the union. Anti-union consultants have helped employers turn such
intimidation tactics into a high art. All this was made explicitly legal by the 1947
Taft-Hartley Act, that hated bundle of anti-union amendments to the National Labor
Relations Act. And unfortunately, a series of rulings by the Supreme Court have
effectively insured that unions don’t have a parallel right to get their message
across to workers during an organizing drive. Organizing is hardest in the private sector,
especially in the South, where the union shop is outlawed.
INTIMIDATION ON THE RISE
Bronfenbrenner says her research shows that there has been a "steep
increase" in employer intimidation of workers over the past few years. And
they’re constantly perfecting their terror tactics. One of the tools more and more
employers are using is lawsuits like the one Beverly filed against Bronfenbrenner.
Employers are even using laws that were designed to stop mobsters (the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations, or RICO, Act), to keep unions from putting up
picketlines. They argue that the union is part of a conspiracy, that therefore any
financial costs to the employer represent "extortion," and the union — even
individual members of the union — is liable. Naturally, this strikes fear in the
hearts of union members. And that’s exactly what it’s intended to do.
"These cases don’t actually win," says Bronfenbrenner. "But
they’re used to intimidate, and as leverage against the union. And they’re
becoming more and more common."
If intimidation doesn’t work to stop a picketline, employers can
usually succeed in getting an injunction to limit the number of pickets and move your
picketline to the far end of the block where no one can even see you. Forget the old idea
of actually stopping production by putting your body up as a barrier. All this helps
explain why workers rarely strike anymore: We went from a peak of 424 big strikes in 1974
to just 34 last year.
Employer intimidation appears to be having a major effect on our economy.
If you read the business pages, you know that many economists are scratching their heads
over how our fast-growing, high-productivity economy isn’t seeing an explosion in
workers’ wages. (According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, our real wages are
still almost 15 percent lower than they were in 1972.) Bronfenbrenner thinks she knows
why: "Workers are scared, and we have less security than ever before. I think the
threat of job loss or job degradation keeps people from organizing, it keeps them from
striking, and it keeps them from demanding pay increases."
WORKING OUTSIDE THE SYSTEM
Fortunately, unions are resourceful, and becoming more so. Since the laws
are against us, our fearless organizers are relying on them less and less. In Las Vegas,
unions organized the big hotels by demonstrations, civil disobedience, and other direct
action. FLOC is forced to use such creative tactics just to survive, since the union
isn’t covered by the National Labor Relations Act. FLOC staffer Mike Ferner notes
that there is a silver lining. While the union isn’t protected by the NLRA, neither
is it hampered by it: The Taft-Hartley Act does not apply.
Still, there’s no reason labor should give up the idea that the law
can be used to actually protect or encourage organizing. It’s happened at other times
and other places. Many people believe that the reason Canada has twice the unionization
rate as the U.S. is that in Canada it’s legal to organize. (See: Organizing Facts: At Home and Abroad.)
Many specific reforms could empower workers on the job. Employers could be
required to immediately recognize the union no matter how many employees are organized. At
the very least, American workers should have the right, as Canadians do, to have the union
recognized as soon as a majority of workers sign cards. Binding arbitration to get a first
contract would stymie employers’ delaying tactics.
Repealing Taft-Hartley would mean that employers would no longer be
granted the right to interfere in organizing drives, and unions could again conduct
secondary boycotts. "Right to work" laws should be repealed. All the exemptions
that exclude farmworkers, domestic workers, contractors, and others from labor laws should
be eliminated. Federal workers and railway workers should have the same rights as everyone
else. Workers ought to be able to bargain over any subjects that affect them.
All these rights are perfectly achievable. All it takes is a Congress and
a President who genuinely support fairness in the workplace. Unfortunately, our
politicians, both Democrats and Republicans, don’t (see: Democrats and Workers' Rights). This is not
surprising, of course. The politicians’ corporate sponsors might be able to put up
with a few Dilbert cartoons floating around the office. But not a guarantee of civil and
human rights on the job.
– Laura McClure
<- Previous (page one)
See also:
|
