The top
priority of pro-labor members of the United States Congress is passage of
the Employee Freedom of Choice Act, a law that would make it easier for
workers to organize a union in their workplace and negotiate a contract with
their employer. This legislation has been the subject of vigorous public
debate among labor organizations and business lobbyists, yet it only
scratches the surface of a badly needed overhaul of U.S. labor law.
Currently, labor law is stuck
somewhere in the mid-20th century instead of in the 21st century. It has yet
to catch up with a new era where the basic relationships between workers,
employers, government and the global economy are changing before our eyes.
Leading economists acknowledge
that rising productivity and soaring corporate profits have not translated
into benefits for the average American worker. Instead, median incomes are
flat, healthcare costs are skyrocketing, pensions are being de-funded and
corporate employers are threatening to shred the social contract with their
employees that has prevailed for 60 years.
Every nation today is grappling
with a fundamental question: How do we enact sufficient security for workers
while not stifling entrepreneurship and economic growth? In this age of
globalization, the most successful countries will be those that can strike
the proper balance between business, workers and government regulation. They
are like three legs of a stool, and if any leg is too short, it will be
destabilizing.
Yet under current labor law,
workers and labor unions are getting short shrift. For example, a subsection
of the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 makes it an unlawful "secondary
boycott" for a labor union to bring any type of pressure against any
person or business other than the employer where the unionized workers work.
That means unions cannot challenge a parent corporation's directives to its
subsidiary or a subcontractor, even if the directive might cause all of the
employees to lose their jobs.
Imagine if we applied labor law
to American foreign policy. Under this standard, recent calls by lawmakers
for government-employee pension funds to dump shares of foreign companies
doing business with Iran would be an illegal secondary boycott. Why? Because
our 'dispute' is not with the foreign companies, it's with Iran. In fact,
our overthrow of the Taliban in Afghanistan was an illegal secondary
boycott, because our 'dispute' was not with the Taliban, it was with Al
Qaeda. Our only beef with the Taliban was they were 'doing business' with Al
Qaeda by providing sanctuary for training facilities.
Sound ridiculous? Well then so
is that part of U.S. labor law.
The record shows, not only in
the U.S. but also in other nations, that healthy labor unions are an
important democratic safeguard of worker rights and conditions. For this
reason the Reagan administration was a vigorous defender of labor rights in
Eastern Europe and of the union Solidarity in Poland in the 1980s. Even the
Republican Party's official platform in 1968 stated that organized labor
"has contributed greatly to the economic strength of our country."
Yet today, labor law allows
American workers trying to unionize their workplace to be harassed and even
fired. A nationwide study by the University of Illinois at Chicago found
that 30 percent of employers fire pro-union workers and 49 percent threaten
to close a work site when workers try to unionize.
Moreover, under the Bush
administration's National Labor Relations Board and its interpretations of
law, millions of workers have been inappropriately reclassified as
"supervisors," rendering them outside the protections of labor
law.
Making matters worse, employers
vigorously propagandize their employees at the workplace. According to the
University of Illinois study, 91 percent of employers force employees to
attend coercive, anti-union meetings one-on-one with supervisors. Union
representatives however have no legal right to have access to workers on the
job, contrary to labor law in other nations.
The result of these and many
other antiquated subsections of current labor law has been the hemorrhaging
of union membership, which is now at 12 percent of the workforce, down from
35 percent in the 1950's and 20 percent in 1983. Unionization in the private
sector has slipped to 7.4 percent, the lowest in a century.
Certainly labor unions have made
their share of mistakes, as have businesses such as Enron and WorldCom.
Still, labor unions have an important role to play in striking the proper
balance between employers, employees and government in this age of
globalization.
When a different Congress
enacted the National Labor Relations Act in 1935, it held the philosophy
that protecting the right to form a union helped to restore "equality
of bargaining power between employers and employees." That Congress
clearly saw workers' rights as good for the overall economy.
If today's Congress is serious
about addressing rising inequality and insecurity for American workers,
passing the Employee Freedom of Choice Act is just the beginning. Much work
awaits, with many outdated labor laws squarely blocking the road.
Steven Hill is director of the
political reform program for the New America Foundation and author of "10
Steps to Repair American Democracy." Dmitri Iglitzin is a
labor law attorney in Seattle and is an Affiliate Professor at the
University of Washington School of law.