Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace

Can Labor Revive the American Dream?

By Esther Kaplan, The Nation. Posted January 19, 2009.


The financial markets are in tatters, but corporate America is keeping its eyes on the prize: crushing organized labor.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

    The financial markets are in tatters, consumer spending is anemic and the recession continues to deepen, but corporate America is keeping its eyes on the prize: crushing organized labor. The Center for Union Facts, a business front group, has taken out full-page ads in newspapers linking SEIU president Andy Stern to the Rod Blagojevich scandal. The Chamber of Commerce is capitalizing on the debate over the Big Three bailout to claim that "unions drove the auto companies off the cliff," while minority leader Mitch McConnell and other Republican senators insist on steep wage cuts. A December 10 Republican strategy memo revealed their central obsession: "Republicans should stand firm and take their first shot against organized labor," the memo read. "This is a precursor to card check" -- a clear reference to the Employee Free Choice Act.

      This simple amendment to federal labor law, which would, among other things, allow workers to unionize when a majority sign cards rather than requiring a bruising election, has galvanized the business community in a way even the $700 billion bailout couldn't. "I get the sense that this is more important to them than even taxes or regulation," says the AFL-CIO's director of government affairs, Bill Samuels. "This is about power. And the business community is not going to give up power willingly." Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott said as much to a meeting with analysts in October. "We like driving the car," he told them, "and we're not going to give the steering wheel to anybody but us."

      In the lead-up to the election, the co-founder of Home Depot, Bernie Marcus, called Employee Free Choice "the demise of civilization." Wal-Mart summoned store managers into mandatory meetings to warn them against it. Industrial launderer Cintas launched a website to oppose it. The retail industry associations paid blue-chip lobbying firms to block it. The Chamber of Commerce hired Bush Labor Secretary Elaine Chao's chief of staff to run its opposition campaign, which trashed the bill as antidemocratic because it allows workers to bypass a formal election. Business groups spent tens of millions on ads attacking Democrats in tight Senate races, including $5 million targeting challenger Jeff Merkley of Oregon, a supporter of the bill who was smeared with a mailer accusing him of doing the bidding of corrupt labor leaders and trailed at every campaign appearance by a grim reaper claiming "Merkley kills democracy." "I've never seen anything like it," says Merkley's campaign manager, John Isaac, "where a group spent so much money to insert their issue into a campaign."

      At first glance, Employee Free Choice looks like little more than a technical fix. In addition to allowing unionizing through majority sign-up, it stiffens penalties for intimidating or firing union supporters and imposes arbitration when a company refuses to bargain a first contract. But as the leading corporate lobbies recognize, the bill could have far-reaching effects. By reviving unions, it could push up wages, realigning the broken economy so that company profits are spread beyond CEOs. It could help rein in corporate power and, perhaps most threatening to a business community that has enjoyed decades of deregulation, sustain a progressive majority in Washington in the years to come. If progressives aren't doing the math, conservatives are. "Unions don't spend money to elect Republicans," Senator John Ensign told a group of executives this past fall. "They spend money to elect Democrats. From our perspective, this would have devastating consequences."

      Throughout his run for president, Obama was explicit in his support for Employee Free Choice and his understanding of the forces arrayed against it. "If a majority of workers want a union, they should get a union; it's that simple," he told union members in Pennsylvania in April. "Let's stand up to the business lobby." Since his election, he's sent other friendly signals: supporting a factory takeover by pink-slipped glass workers in Chicago and tapping Representative Hilda Solis as labor secretary. While her predecessor stacked the labor department with experienced unionbusters and gutted regulations and workplace safety inspections, Solis has been a regular on Los Angeles picket lines and pushed a minimum-wage hike into law as a state legislator. Significantly, she made an impassioned plea from the House floor for the Employee Free Choice Act.

      But the business lobby Obama once railed against is now giving him a taste of its wares. The Chamber denounced the bill in op-eds as "payback" to "union bosses" that would signal the end of "workplace democracy" and the advent of "Soviet-style thuggery." All the big industry associations called press conferences to declare war. "This will be Armageddon," one top Chamber official said of the battle ahead. Another pointedly warned Obama against "picking a fight right away on a major, titanic clash." Obama's advisers got the memo. At a November gathering of CEOs, Rahm Emanuel refused to answer a question about the bill, and that same month economic adviser Jennifer Granholm called it "divisive." Obama recently restated his commitment to ending the "barriers and roadblocks" to unionization but avoided any reference to the bill itself. "The Chamber is fanning the flames on this, saying this is the epic battle between labor and business," says a key strategist working to pass the measure, "and it scares the shit out of the Obama people and some of the Democrats."


    Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

    See more stories tagged with: corporations, seiu, business, efca, stern, financial crisis

    Esther Kaplan is a contributing editor at >POZ, the national AIDS magazine, and author of "With God on Their Side: George W. Bush and the Christian Right" (New Press, 2005).

    Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace! Sign up now »


    Advertisement
    Advertisement

     

    Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
    Comments closed.
    The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
    View:
    Thanks, Vince!
    Posted by: jarbo on Jan 19, 2009 2:58 AM   
    Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
    Gotta love that Vincent Curatola - my union brother. What, Vinny, you didn't make enough money on the Sopranos? Gotta make a few bucks in that stupid anti-EFCA commercial?

    I guess being in SAG and AFTRA have been of no importance to him. Whatta dope.

    [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

    » ah the Cart and Baggers Union Posted by: SeattlePackedSnowandCollidedCars
    UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948
    Posted by: jarbo on Jan 19, 2009 3:15 AM   
    Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
    From Article 23 -"(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his/her interests."

    There ya go - the corporate tool/US Chamber of Commerce types couldn't possibly let this happen in one of the (somewhat former) strongholds of unionism (the US).

    Wonder who's gonna filibuster this and which Dems and Repubs will cross party lines. Probably gonna lose Landrieu - she's in the deep "right-to-work-for-less" South and far to the right for a dem. But might get Collins and Snowe, maybe Specter on board.

    I'd love to see those bastards at Tyson have to deal with unions. Poor little wuzzums - gotta pay the Mexicans more than minimum wage? Let Mommy fix you some soup.

    And let's see just how many shops Walmart and McDonald's are willing to close to keep the unions out. Should be interesting - point of diminishing returns there, guys.

    [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

    "Soviet-style thuggery."
    Posted by: WhatNow? on Jan 19, 2009 4:22 AM   
    Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
    It's hard to believe how far these right wing fascists will go. It's them who have been instigating "Soviet-style thuggery" in the US for years not the unions or union members. Have you ever seen more "Soviet-style thuggery" than the bush administration in the US? Towing the party line is part of their forte! So is trying to rewrite history. Trying to deny and destroy civil liberties is a beloved ideal for the bush administration and business in amerika. Starting unnecessary wars thus wasting incredible amounts of resources and lives is more "Soviet-style thuggery" that bush and business embrace with passion.

    I wish democrats would start putting forward legislation just so the public can see where these parasites in Congress stand. Obummer wants 80 votes on legislation? What's wrong with 51 votes and then seeing who will filibuster and calling them out for the greedy and uncaring tools that they are? A few years ago republicans were calling filibustering traitorous when it was a procedure democrats should have been pursuing. Now republicans threaten to filibuster in a much more traitorous way, democrats delay or refuse to put forward legislation because of such threats. Come on democrats! Can you or will you ever really stand up for your country and the majority of it's people or will you continue to suckle on the poisonous tit of big business?

    [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

    Unions
    Posted by: electron on Jan 19, 2009 4:31 AM   
    Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
    I like how according to the Chamber of Commerce, the unions caused the problem with the Auto companies. I think they should look at trade policies of this country, this is what has caused the problems for the whole industry. The Chamber of Commerce is anti-American and for illegal immigrants. Time for a change, we should change the Chamber of Commerce.

    [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

    Totalitarian Government
    Posted by: jstuv on Jan 19, 2009 5:03 AM   
    Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
    What is the first item on the agenda for any totalitarian government?
    …To Dismember Trade Unions and Organizations.

    Is the American Society interested in a totalitarian government?

    [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

    » RE: Totalitarian Government Posted by: Midway54
    "The American Dream" Killed Labor
    Posted by: pdxjoe on Jan 19, 2009 6:39 AM   
    Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
    The brilliant success of "the American dream" for the thirty years after World War Two crushed labor. Giving Americans everything that their well-paying jobs could buy (decades before "consumerism" was a watch-word) was the surest way to exhaust the continued increases in standards of living. Wages stopped really going up in the early 1970s. If the American dream stopped being about the ownership of private property (from tiny plastic crap to land and homes) and individualism, then I can see labor saving the American dream.

    [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

    labor fairness doctrine?
    Posted by: littlepitcher on Jan 19, 2009 7:57 AM   
    Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
    Corporations, management, and human resources officers organize, and are permitted and encourage to network in an organized manner. Labor can and should be permitted to do the same.

    The threats utilized by management are all too real. I ran an independent, non-union labor action in 1991 and have had to outrun, evade, and fight blacklisting since that time. HR actually utilized employees to "catch me working" and get me terminated via harassment and ridicule campaigns utilizing dishonest co-workers.
    I've had a small business and several minimum wage jobs, paid off and lost a house to foreclosure, No one should have to endure this as the price of trying to get a living wage for self and co-workers. The shameful irony is that blacklisting is a Federal offense but it's never, ever prosecuted.

    [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

    Never thought I'd see the day
    Posted by: faceinthecrowd on Jan 19, 2009 8:26 AM   
    Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
    when voting for what you want in the privacy of a voting booth was decried as evil, and "signing up" in public in the presence of promoters of a cause replaced the voting booth was the "moral high ground".

    I guess someone making up their own mind without being pressured is just too inefficient of a way to vote.

    Don't change the way you operate to get people to vote for you, just change the way the people must vote so they can't not vote for you.

    Modern democracy in action.

    [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

    Labor unions today are nothing like the ones decades ago. They're privatized !
    Posted by: Jennifer Bedingfield on Jan 19, 2009 8:48 AM   
    Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
    Back in the old days up to the 1950s, labor unions did not pay so much attention to money as they did to actual hard work and economic justice. My parents can never forget the good old days when MO, now Misery, used to be one of the strongest bastions of labor unions. Nowadays, travelling through the rural areas, all I can find left are self-righteous rightwing Satanists who stand up against labor unions even as their jobs are undermined or even shipped overseas forcing them into even lower paying lower benefits jobs or long term unemployment. Even in St Louis and Kansas City, what's left of labor unions is often shunned because of the actual expenses and corruption. The leaders often try to out-CEO the CEOs and in the process act so libertarian minded that they don't give a rat's ass about the union workers who joined. No wonder labor is dead in America.

    [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

    Whither Labor?
    Posted by: JerseyGeoff on Jan 19, 2009 9:07 AM   
    Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
    I'm trying to agitate for HR 676- single payer for all and it astounds me that the UAW, SEIU and UFCW have not been much more proactive in supporting this bill. While they may have endorsed it to a small and not very public effect, it is depressing that they are not using their members to spread the word on single payer.
    Single Payer won't come easy but without the these big visible Unions, I'm afraid it might not come at all- despite the many cost advantages single payer yields to overseas employers( that giant sucking sound?) Do unions want to be in the healthcare biz- or is it a case that these are topdown unions working for leaders agendas only?

    [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

    » RE: Whither Labor? Posted by: willymack
    The American Dream Myth
    Posted by: peacelf on Jan 19, 2009 10:34 AM   
    Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
    As I wrote elsewhere on Alternet comments, the myth of the American Dream is a deterrent to real change.

    While, the Employee Free Choice Act and worker rights will improve the chances for workers to earn decent wages and benefits, the idea of upward mobility is a myth, as less than 1% of americans actually move up the SES ladder. Most americans end up in the same social class as their parents. Many earn less than their predecessors.

    The perpetuation of the "dream" helps the wealthy corporations by convincing everyone that we can someday be rich, therefore we should celebrate (and embrace) the power that wealth provides. In reality, workers are best served to maintain and improve on what we have and challenge corporate power's grip on power.

    peace NOW!

    [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

    unions crewed themselves by pushing the minimum wage
    Posted by: billwald on Jan 19, 2009 10:39 AM   
    Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
    I remember laundry truck drivers striking for 5 cents an hour raise - that's $1.60 a week. Back then, 6 gallons of gas. The unions were fighting for working class people. Now days no one wants to admit they they are working class.

    What happened? The unions forgot the working class and started concentrating on high salary people like Boeing engineers and teachers. They thought that pushing the minimum wage was all the working class people needed. There was more dues money in engineers.

    In the 50's any kid who graduated from high school could get himself a union apprenticeship and get paid while learning a good paying trade. But now, thanks to the minimum wage, a small shop can't afford to hire a kid who doesn't know anything and is maybe only good for sweeping the shop floor.

    So now the kid has to take out a loan so he can go to a junior college to get a high school education and learn a blue collar trade. Instead of junior colleges, the trade schools are renamed "community colleges" and give "degrees" instead of certificates. Now days, the kid who doesn't know more than high school kid did in the 50's thinks he is a college graduate. College grads don't need unions, do they?

    Thanks to this dumbing down of Americans, colleges claiming to train kids for entry level blue collar jobs, another ten years and garbage truck drivers will need a 2 year degree.

    [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

    » Sweden had the Answer. Posted by: yellow
    Employee Free Choice Act Now . Org
    Posted by: EMPLOYEE FREE CHOICE ACT NOW on Jan 19, 2009 12:13 PM   
    Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
    Obama gives his campaign organization a name -- "Organizing for America"


    In a video message to supporters, Obama gives his campaign organization a name -- "Organizing for America" -- part of the ongoing effort to keep up the grassroots movement started during his presidential campaign once he's formally installed in the White House.

    Organizing For America begins with the passing of the Employee Free Choice Act.

    The Employee Free Choice Act is nothing new it only reestablishes the Joy Silk Doctrine of 1949

    History

    In 1949, the NLRB's Joy Silk Doctrine established that "an employer could lawfully refuse to bargain with a union claiming representative status through possession of authorization cards only if he had a 'good faith doubt' as to the union's majority status.This policy was changed in 1966 with the ruling in Aaron Brothers, where "the Board made it clear that it had shifted the burden to the General Counsel to show bad faith and that an employer 'will not be held to have violated his bargaining obligation... simply because he refuses to rely upon cards. 'If passed, the proposed Employee Free Choice Act would return the NLRB policy to the Joy Silk Doctrine and allow employer challenges to card check elections only when illegal coercion or fraud is charged.

    In 1969, Chief Justice Earl Warren delivered the majority opinion for the U.S. Supreme Court that upheld the use of card check. Warren stated, "Almost from the inception of the Act, then, it was recognized that a union did not have to be certified as the winner of a Board election to invoke a bargaining obligation; it could establish majority status by other means... by showing convincing support, for instance, by a union-called strike or strike vote, or, as here, by possession of cards signed by a majority of the employees authorizing the union to represent them for collective bargaining purposes." The Supreme Court has consistently ruled in favor of card check, and Warren cited prior affirmations in NLRB v. Bradford Dyeing Assn., (1940); Franks Bros. Co. v. NLRB,[(1944); United Mine Workers v. Arkansas Flooring Co., (1956).


    For More Information on EFCA please visit our website and blog

    linked text Employee Free Choice Act . Org


    linked text EFCA NOW BLOG


    linked text Labor Union Resources

    [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

    ENOUGH ABOUT JOBS
    Posted by: VZEQICVA on Jan 19, 2009 12:37 PM   
    Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
    It's about earning a living not just a place to go everyday. Union shops were once a second home and there was a sense of loyalty that went both ways. Secure employment makes for a society that is content. There is less crime and violence. Homelife is more stable. We've become a mean spirited society. There will always be haves and have nots, but throwing up obstacles and preventing people from improving their lifestyle is no one's right. Unions are legal and serve a good social purpose. Thanks, ANNA

    [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

    Ya gotta love Madison Avenue
    Posted by: willymack on Jan 19, 2009 3:33 PM   
    Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
    The "American Dream" originated there. They're behind the creation of stores full of stuff you didn't know you needed and TV saturation campaigns which fill the airwaves with endlessly repeated commercials for this and that. Take a look at the Geico gecko, or the "caveman", for instance. The whole idea here is to create the impression that you NEED the product, whether you do or not. This has led to monumental waste, pollution, and a growing sense of dissatisfaction which can only be alleviated by buying MORE unneeded stuff.

    [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

    Supply and demand fluctuates constantly.
    Posted by: Colten A on Jan 25, 2009 10:52 PM   
    Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
    There are so many changes brought by recession. This give so much damage to the markets and lots of unemployment. Also, the demand for fast food, however, has been going down – well, in some ways. Even though the revenue is up for most fast food chains, Wendy's has decided to cut the breakfast menu from 475 of their stores, in a move that the CEO figures will help to meet the spending cut goal of $60 million from their operating costs. Fast food chains like Arby's and McDonalds have also seen more of their customers leaning towards their dollar menus since the economy has hit a crunch period and people have been getting more payday loans to meet basic costs. Wendy's has stated that they will return to their breakfast menu in 2011. Hopefully, they won't lose too many people by the time that they return to morning operations. To read or comment about this story, visit your payday loans source.

    [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

    • AlterNetYour turn

    Support AlterNet
    Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


    Feedback
    Tell us how we're doing.

    Advertisement
    Advertisement