Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • 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

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace

Employee Free Choice Act Could Be Biggest Reform Since New Deal

By Mark Weisbrot, AlterNet. Posted September 16, 2008.


This legislation would give employees a fighting chance to regain some of their lost rights.
Advertisement

While it hasn't gotten much attention, one of the most important issues that our elections this November could decide is the future of organized labor in the United States. This is important not just for the 15.7 million workers who happen to be in unions, but for the vast majority of the entire 154 million-member U.S. labor force. The wages, benefits, and working conditions of most employees are affected by collective bargaining even if they don't have a union. For example, employers who want to keep unions out will sometimes have to offer their workers such amenities as health insurance.

One of the most important problems that our economy has faced for the last 30 years has been stagnating real wages. With inflation now running at 10.6 percent over the last quarter, the problem appears to most people to be rising prices, including food and energy. But for more than two decades prior to the past year, inflation has been tame. Yet the real -- inflation-adjusted -- wage of the typical employee barely increased at all over the whole 34 years from 1973-2007.

This is amazing, when we consider that productivity -- the amount that workers produce per hour -- increased quite substantially over the period. Measured very conservatively, if we take "usable productivity" -- the increased production that we can expect to be reflected in rising wages -- it rose by 48 percent from 1973-2007. So our economy grows but, unlike in the past, most employees do not share in the gains.

One important reason for this great leap backwards is that the rights of workers to organize and bargain collectively have been sharply curtailed over the last three decades.

For example, employees still have the legal right to petition for a federally-run election at their workplace, in which workers can vote on whether or not to join a union. To get such an election, they need the signatures of at least 30 percent of the employees. But after the employees get enough signatures for the election, employers very often intimidate workers through threats and firings before the vote is held. The Center for Economic and Policy Research has estimated that one in five workers who are actively involved in a union organizing drive can expect to be fired. Many others are "persuaded" to vote against the union through a long, captive audience campaign of employer threats and harassment.

As a result of these tactics, only about 12 percent of employees are organized in unions today, as compared with 35 percent in the 1950s. Reform legislation called the Employee Free Choice Act would give employees a fighting chance to regain some of their lost rights. This bill would mandate that an employer recognize the union if it obtains the signatures of a majority of employees. There would be no need for the long and costly -- especially to the workers who are fired -- election campaign.

A poll by Global Strategies Group this month found that 68 percent of middle-class Americans support the Employee Free Choice Act. Polls also indicate that tens of millions would join a union if they had the choice.

The bill passed the House 241-185 but was filibustered by Republicans in the Senate. It's a party-line split in the Senate (except for support from Republican Senator Arlen Specter). So the bill would need a Democratic president and something close to 59 Democrats in the Senate in order to pass.

This law would probably change Americans' lives more than any legislation since the New Deal brought us Social Security. The political influence of millions of new union members would also bring us closer to such basic reforms as universal health care. It's all long overdue.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: labor, corporations, economy, wages, efca

Mark Weisbrot is Co-Director and co-founder of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. He received his Ph.D. in economics from the University of Michigan. He is co-author, with Dean Baker, of Social Security: The Phony Crisis (University of Chicago Press, 2000), and has written numerous research papers on economic policy. He is also president of Just Foreign Policy.


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:
Workers of the World, Unite!
Posted by: IndyDoug on Sep 16, 2008 3:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's high time that workers are given some sort of leverage especially as the economy tanks. Corporations have been living high on the hog for too long.

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

re:
Posted by: CatDad on Sep 16, 2008 5:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
one of the most important issues that our elections this November could decide is the future of organized labor in the United States
--------------------------------
NAFTA and its other mutations like CAFTA have already decided the future of organized labor...

The ruling elites learned a lesson from the 1930s and they made a vow to themselves to never to again be captive by the common American worker...With their bogus "free trade" scams...they have the mechanism in place to circumvent production in the USA....to the extent that any union bargaining is now all about which benefits to cut/eliminate and how deeply wages should be cut.

Sure, I'm for this legislation....which at most will be a bandaid for the US labor unionization effort...Ending these horrible "free trade" scams is job #1...

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

policy?
Posted by: argyle on Sep 17, 2008 8:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
during an election, bold move
but how will it poll?

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

Democrats have ignored this defining issue in past
Posted by: edgar1 on Sep 17, 2008 12:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's see what Obama and Biden do if elected. This should be no.1 on economic list, ahead of the gimmicky tax cut of Obama. But like Clinton and Carter, Obama lobbyists will twis few arms or cut off few if any federal grants to secure worker civil rights.

This is a defining issue. Without a unionized work force, low wages and relocation of jobs, as well as contracting out work to illegal aliens will escalate. The dying working class will die. And yet the candidate of the workers, supposedly, Sen Obama, relies mostly on Wall St, corporate law firms and Hollywood for his money.

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

Mebbee....
Posted by: talkville on Sep 23, 2008 12:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First pre-supposed notion to consider would be 'employee free-choice'; especially in this particular historical juncture and not only here in the USA but all over the planet, it is difficult to avoid issues of contradiction in the very notion of 'employee free-choice'; one could almost view it as a 'contradictio in adjecto', as old Marx might have been wont to say.

The stalinist central committee in China directs both private and state development along their 'capitalist path' chosen just a few years ago. They manage Capital; they manage Labor. They directly take care of disciplining, neutralizing and suppressing labor power in benefit of the capitalists and of course their own cadres. It is stalinism devoid of its old 'socialist' pre-text and nakedly in favor of Capital.

And here? Just what institutions and forces have taken care of completely neutralizing and disciplining and managing Labor since the Thatcherite-Reaganite Reaction? Who sits in the Labor Department? What 'arrangements' and 'compromises' ('win-win', 'bi-partisan' etc etc) have been reached by Big Labor? Just who has persuaded, taught, coerced and disciplined the rank and file in all these disparate unions during the last 40 years? Just why is Labor reduced, fragmented, disjunctured, weakened and ineffective as it is today? Any 'employee' has no 'free choice' today; the worker today is strictly equivalent to any other Commodity in the so-called 'global market' and must place his or her labor-power (himself or herself) into circulation into a "Market" -- a many-layered, many-leveled, social construction now asserted as strictly co-extensive with the Planet and the Species. The worker has no fixed place and no guaranteed temporality in this System; Does a tractor or a box of cereal, or a computer have 'free-choice' as to its own interests? Only difference is workers are of the same species as the capitalist and are conscious beings. Any self-consciousness as a class, however, is sad-to-say way, way far away as a general rule. Especially here in the USA, the denial, the strict denial, of class differences, especially with regard to interests of survival, remains a hegemon.

Nothing much wrong with retaining and attempting to increase organized workers in individual capitalist concerns. But what Labor needs in terms of unionization and organization now is a party of its own. A capitalist does not care, nor does he or she even have to care what any worker may have to say or not say; especially in this particular capitalist conundrum. They simply don't have to. We need a party of working people, in the interests of working people and their families. "Free-choice" for one who survives by selling one's labor-power is a chimera; employed or un-employed.

Compare a bit the China Model and our own. Mostly, it's but a matter of Style....

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

Who Speaks for the Average Man or Woman?
Posted by: JohnBryansFontaine on Sep 24, 2008 3:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Especially in this time of Wall Street meltdown, when the fat cats are backing Socialism as long as it saves their butts, who speaks for the rest of us?

The Employee Free Choice Act will allow all of us who want to form or join Unions to do so.

Wall Street is absolutely not going to help anyone but itself.

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

Want EFCA? Elect Nader or just about any 3rd/Independent Party Progressive/Liberal !
Posted by: maxpayne on Sep 29, 2008 2:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sorry, but I don't think that the Democrats will even bother trying anymore. Like the GOP, their priority is Wall $treet first over Main Street.

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