Where's the Goddamn Outrage: When It Comes to Labor Laws, We Have a Corporate Crime Wave
By Dave Lindorff
A new study of 1004 union organizing drives conducted by the
director of labor education research at Cornell University’s School of
Industrial and Labor Relations has found that two-third of the
companies involved were violating US labor law by holding one-on-one
interrogations of workers, by threatening workers about their union
support, by firing union organizers or using half a dozen other illegal
tactics to defeat unionization campaigns.
Prof. Kate Bronfenbrenner, author of No Holds Barred: The Intensification of Employer Opposition ot Organizing,
says that these illegal tactics by employers have been used to drive
union representation at American companies down to only 12.4 percent
from a level of 22 percent just 30 years ago.
If a similar level of illegal behavior by companies was reported
dealing with, say, false billing of customers, deceptive reports to
shareholders or violation of environmental laws, there would be a
clamor for action in Congress, and among the public, but so far, there
is no outcry over this wholesale violation of the nation’s labor laws.
One reason may be because nobody except the unions themselves and
the companies breaking the law would know about this particular
corporate crime wave.
The only article I’ve seen on this study was published by the New
York Times, but it was run in an inside page of the Times business
section, which is largely ignored by most readers.
Why would an article about workers be consigned to the business
pages? Is it only of interest to businesses and investors? Surely not.
The author of the piece, Steven Greenhouse, one of the nation’s last
journalists to actually have a labor beat, is a fine reporter, and
writes his articles not in business jargon but in a style that would be
easily understood by anyone who could read. His article, headlined
“Study Says Antiunion Tactics Are Becoming More Common,” surely belongs
in the front section of the newspaper, and in fact, given its shocking
evidence of rampant criminality on the part of employers on a national
scale, should be on the front page of the paper if editors were
applying honest news judgement (How many people are impacted? How new
is the information? How dramatic is the new information?).
But a second reason may be that unions themselves are doing a poor job of getting the story out.
Right now the US labor movement is desperately trying to win
passage of the Employee Free Choice Act, a bill which, if passed as
currently written—a long shot at this point—would address some of the
issues raised in Prof. Bronfenbrenner’s study by eliminating the need
for secret ballot unionization votes. Those elections, companies and
their labor-busting lawyers have long ago learned, can be delayed for
years while they illegally whittle away at union support. But because
the unions are trying to keep the support of a wavering President
Barack Obama and of Democrats in Congress for passage of EFCA, in the
face of massive lobbying by big business interests, they are avoiding
the kind of street politics that would make this corporate crime wave a
big story.
What should be happening is mass marches in the nation’s cities,
and especially in Washington, demanding action on EFCA. President Obama
and most Democrats in both Houses of Congress, all campaigned saying
they backed EFCA, but now many are backing away from that promise.
A million angry workers massed and shouting on the Washington Mall
would stiffen their spines, as would big demonstrations in the major
cities of the country.
Mass action would also force the media to look at the way companies
are simply thumbing their noses at the nation’s labor laws, which
outlaw intimidation of workers, outlaw firing of union activists, and
guarantee free elections on the issue of whether to have a union at a
workplace.
Of course, a third problem is that American workers have long been
quiescent on the issue of labor unions. Polls show that a majority of
Americans would like to have a union where they work, but very few of
us seem willing to fight for that right. Maybe with polls showing that
over 50 percent of Americans now worry that they may be laid off, and
with companies clearly using the economic crisis as an excuse for
bashing employees, that quiescence is ending. The only way to find out
is for the labor movement to call for street action.
This is no time to be polite with politicians, and no time to limit
political action to writing email letters, signing petitions and making
phone calls.
This is a time to call out the corporate managers who are treating
the labor laws like so much toilet paper—a time for boycotts, for
marches, and for sit-ins.
End the American corporate crime wave of labor law violations!
Demand stiff penalties for breaking labor laws!
Support unionized companies and boycott anti-union companies!
Pass the ECFA, as written, with no compromises!
________________
DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist and long time labor
activist. His latest book is “The Case for Impeachment” (St. Martin’s
Press, 2006). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net
- dlindorff's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Printer-friendly version- Send to friend










Where's the Goddamn Outrage: When It Comes to Labor Laws
Easy answer. It died on August 5, 1981, the day President Ronald Reagan fired almost 13,000 AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS and destroyed a labor organization. Today's labor leaders aren't from the same mold from the days of Samuel Gompers, Eugene Debs, Joe Hill, Mary Jones, John L. Lewis, Philip Asa Randolph, Walter Reuther, César Estrada Chávez, and NYC's Michael J. Quill and John DeLury. Michael Z, Upper Eastside, Manhattan
Too true Michael. I was
Too true Michael. I was fired from Honolulu TRACON, and am still on strike...;-)
To his credit, Bill Clinton reversed the Raygun "executive order" (extended by Bush I) which prohibited the Federal Government, and any US company with federal contracts, from hiring fired air traffic controllers. Eventually, many of them returned to the FAA (as old farts) and got their retirement eligibility (and money) back.
One name I noticed missing from the early American pioneers...
of the union movement, a very important name, was:
drumroll...
Emma Goldman 1869--1940
Anarchist/Feminist
Founder ACLU
early advocate of birth control
early protester of the mandatory draft
and so much more.
http://www.zpub.com/notes/emmatest.html
Just keep scrolling down to under her picture.
A mind once expanded can never return to its original dimensions.
Anne Hathaway: 1556-1623
The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something because one wishes it to be so.
Another name which comes to
Another name which comes to mind is bushy-browed John L. Lewis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_L_Lewis
P.S. Sorry Michael, I didn't notice that you had already included John L. in your list...
Corporate mindsets/actions against unions...
have not noticeably changed since about 1850. At least today, they don't hire Pinkertons or bring in the army to break up organizing attempts. The railroads no longer burn down the homes of railroad workers who attempted to organize. Life is considerably better for union labor today than it was back in the early days.
Why has union membership dropped to such low numbers? Easy...not many Mexicans, Indians, Koreans, Chinese, Japanese belong to unions...and all the small plants that used to populate the middle west making tires, appliances, and the like are all out of business. We don't make much in this country any more.
Who belongs to unions? Doctors, Nurses, Teachers and the like--the professional classes. The bulk of the southern states don't want unions. See N. Carolina for a good example of this distaste for unions by the workers. Arizona is a right-to-work state. They would rather work for less than be union.
We are about where we were 130 years ago.
A mind once expanded can never return to its original dimensions.
Anne Hathaway: 1556-1623
The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something because one wishes it to be so.
Grinch;
You are 100% correct in your statement. Also, part of the union's decline is because a lot of companies set up their own unions, which means the company always wins. This disenchants a great many workers who have never belonged to a real union.
A lot of people don't realize that the benefits and pay they receive from a non-union company is in response to the employees ability to unionize. The company pays a livable wage and reasonable benefits to keep a union from forming.
And they don't realize that what we take for granted today, i.e. sick pay, 40hr. work weeks, overtime, vacations, holidays, etc., were brought about by unions. And many times it came to out and out hand-to-hand combat in the streets with paid company thugs.
But one of the overpowering reasons is just as you stated, unions started as a method for blue collar workers to gain from their labor. While there will always be a recognizable blue collar segment in our country, we are no longer nearly as blue collar as we were 40 or 50 years ago. We are now a service and technology country.
Terry