|
The
trade-union movement leadership, in both the AFL-CIO and the Change to
Win Federations, has been engaged in one of the largest lobbying
efforts in recent memory aimed at pressuring Congress to pass the
Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA). EFCA would reform labor law in order
to make it easier for workers to join a union.
Under
EFCA, workers would win union representation when a majority of the
workers sign cards stating they want a union. Employers would be bound
to arbitration for a first contract, and penalties for labor law
violations would be increased.
The
AFL-CIO and Change to Win Coalitions have poured tens of millions of
dollars in direct lobbying, advertisements, and local rallies in efforts
to pass EFCA. In addition, the unions spent hundreds of millions to
elect candidates who declared support for EFCA, including President Obama, in the last election. The legislation has
passed in the U.S. House and is now being introduced in the Senate,
where it faces an uphill battle to get 60 votes to overcome a
filibuster.
Union
leaders have declared that EFCA is central to the future of trade
unions in the United States. As the traditional
industrial base of unions has eroded, several unions have attempted to
organize in traditionally non-union sectors, such as retail and health
care. These organizing efforts have been met with viscous union-busting
campaigns from employers.
Under
present law, workers must file cards and then employers have the right
to demand an election administered by the National Labor Relations
Board (NLRB), even if 100 percent of the workers sign cards stating
they support the union. During election periods, employers routinely
harass and fire union supporters, threaten workers with plant closings,
and file frivolous legal objections to delay elections—sometimes for
years.
According
to a report by The Economic Policy Institute, a worker who is involved
in an organizing drive has a one in five chance of being fired for
union activity. A report by the NLRB found that 50% of employers
illegally threaten to close plants during unionization drives, and 91%
of employers faced with unionization campaigns hold "captive
audience" meetings where workers are forced to hear anti-union
propaganda.
Meanwhile,
union organizers are forced to campaign off company property. Employers
are only obligated to give the union the mailing addresses of employees
two weeks prior to an election.
These
obstacles have made organizing workers an expensive and often
unsuccessful process. While only 12% of the U.S. workforce is unionized, 7%
in the private sector, a recent poll showed 58% of non-managerial
workers indicated they would join a union if given the opportunity.
The
national Chamber of Commerce and several leading corporations have
funded aggressive lobbying and advertising campaigns to discredit the
EFCA. In October, Bank of America hosted a conference call of corporate
executives led by Home Depot founder Bernie Marcus, who appealed for
money to defeat EFCA—which he said would cause "the demise of a
civilization."
The
anti-EFCA campaign has already claimed the support from the one
Republican senator who had supported it in the previous Congress, Arlen
Specter of Pennsylvania. In addition, several senators in the
"friends of labor" Democratic Party have indicated they would
vote against EFCA as well, citing the poor economy as "not the
right time" to change labor law. This has put in doubt the passage
of EFCA in this Congress.
In
reality, the labor tops’ strategy of relying on the Democrats for help
in passing a progressive labor reform was illusionary given that the
Democrats are entirely beholden to the interests of the very same
corporate executives who are funding the campaign against it. Obama and the Democrats talk pro-labor and throw us
a few crumbs, but when it comes to decisive conflicts between labor and
capital, the Democrats take their marching orders from their corporate
sponsors.
While
the entire Democratic Caucus in the Senate voted for and claimed
support for EFCA in 2007, they did so with the understanding that they
did not have enough votes to overcome the inevitable Republican
filibuster or President Bush’s veto. The very introduction of EFCA at
that time was an election stunt to prove their pro-labor credentials.
Now,
with strong Democratic majorities in both chambers of Congress and a
Democrat in the White House, key senators are "rethinking"
their previous support, including the liberal Democrat from California, Diane Feinstein. Now, executives
from Home Depot, Starbucks, and Costco have floated a
"compromise" bill that would greatly weaken the pro-labor
provisions.
Indeed,
the labor leaders’ strategy of sinking all of their resources into the
passage of a quite modest reform of labor law raises important
questions as to how the labor movement can rebuild itself.
The
government is not a neutral arbitrator; it is steadfastly on the side
of the corporations. Under current law, it is illegal to fire workers
for union activity, yet as mentioned before,
it is common practice for companies to do so. Most illegal firings are
rarely investigated, and when they are, they often take years to
resolve—by which time the intended effect of intimidating the workforce
has already been accomplished. In the cases in which workers do win,
employers are only obligated to give them their back pay, minus the
wages workers have earned since the firing.
The
U.S. Labor Department was recently exposed in an investigation by the
Government Accountability Office that found that nine out of 10 cases
had been mishandled by Labor Department investigators. While any
improvement in labor law would be an advance, and the trade-union
movement certainly should utilize the courts when it is beneficial for
them, working people can’t depend on the government to defend them any
more then a farmer can depend on a fox to guard the hen house.
A
troubling part of EFCA is the provision that would force unions into
binding arbitration if the union and company cannot come to agreement on
a first contract. This provision would place limits on the right of
workers to strike if such an action were necessary to force the bosses
to agree to workers’ demands.
The
working class can only make improvements in its living and working
condition through collective struggle that confronts the boss class,
and its representatives in the Democratic and Republican parties.
The
recent victory of the Republic Windows and Doors factory illustrates
the only way forward for workers. When Republic Windows and Doors shut
down last December without notifying its employees, the company was in
violation of federal law. The WARN act requires companies to give
workers 60 days notice before a plant closing, or pay workers 2 months
pay. Instead, Republic gave workers a few days notice, immediately
suspended health-care coverage, and refused to pay out accrued
vacations.
The
workers and their union, the United Electrical Workers (UE), could have
filed charges with the NLRB, a process that could take years and due to
loopholes employers often are let off the hook or at best pay a reduced
settlement. Instead, the Republic workers decided to take their fate
into their own hands. They occupied the factory, and built a solidarity
campaign that inspired working people around the country and the world.
The
militant action and the solidarity of their fellow workers forced the
banking giant Bank of America, who had refused a line of credit to the
company, to pay nearly $2 million to cover two months’ pay and health
insurance coverage, as well as to pay out the workers vacation
time.
These
workers won through struggle what would be impossible to win in the
courts. If these 250 workers, in a small union working for a small
employer, could accomplish what they did, imagine what the million-plus-member
unions such as SEIU and the Teamsters, which have workers organized in
core industries, could accomplish if they used the same tactics.
Whether
or not EFCA is passed, the trade-union movement needs to build a
fightback movement to effectively counter the current offensive of the
bosses and the Obama administration—in which
they are attempting to roll back the gains of autoworkers and other
workers. In seeking ways to fight back, working people can look to the
examples of the great labor battles of the 1930s and ’40s, as well as
to the Republic Windows struggle of today.
A
militant fightback against the pressures
facing working people would be enhanced by the passage of EFCA, but it
is not dependent on it. The only thing that can advance workers’
interests is their own struggle, which, if backed by the full resources
of the AFL and CTW, could have a profound impact and could replicate
the results of the Republic workers’ victory on a grand scale. No law
on the books can substitute for this kind of struggle.
|