Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Labor Pains

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
RedEarth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 09:47 AM
Original message
Labor Pains
he National Labor Relations Act of 1935 was once considered the crown jewel of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal. The National Labor Relations Board (nlrb), which it created, was supposed to ensure that workers enjoyed the same freedom of association in the workplace that they did in the political arena. By guaranteeing that workers could organize without being fired or threatened, it redressed the growing imbalance of power in the workplace. By encouraging the growth of the labor movement, it stilled the fires of revolutionary socialism and Huey Long's populism and laid the foundation for a new democratic pluralism by giving workers a seat in Washington next to business.

For 45 years, the Act worked reasonably well. The ranks of labor swelled without threatening the profitability of U.S. business. The gap between rich and poor, which had widened in the 1920s, was reduced. The afl-cio, courted by Republican and Democratic administrations, became part of the Washington consensus. But, in the 1980s, that consensus began to fall apart when the Reagan administration drastically cut the nlrb's funding--causing huge backlogs of cases--and when its appointee to the board chipped away at employees' bargaining rights and at penalties for unfair labor practices. Bill Clinton tried to undo some of the damage, but George W. Bush has resumed Reagan's approach. Since becoming a majority in 2003, his appointees to the nlrb have taken business's side in more than 25 controversial cases. None of these rulings was earthshaking, but together, they presage an erosion of workers' ability to organize.

To cut costs, business and public institutions have increasingly replaced full-time employees with temporary or apprentice workers who are not paid comparable wages or benefits. Nonstandard workers like these now make up about a quarter of the workforce. Labor unions have begun to organize them, but employers have objected, and the Bush board has taken their side--ruling, for example, that a union at an Oakdale, New York, long-term care facility cannot organize and represent both workers employed directly by the facility and workers who are employed by the facility but were sent there by a temporary staffing agency. It also blocked organizing of disabled janitors (because they are really engaged in rehabilitation rather than work) and artists' models (who are seen as independent contractors because they own their robes).

According to a study of 400 union election campaigns in manufacturing plants by Cornell sociologist Kate Bronfenbrenner, 51 percent of employers in 1998 and 1999 threatened to close a plant if a union won an election, and 25 percent fired at least one worker for union activity. Bush's nlrb has balked at penalizing such companies--even though it is exactly these tactics that the Act was created to outlaw. In 2000, a judge determined that Smithfield Food used 36 different illegal tactics in trying to block unionization at its plant--including firing eleven organizers--and ruled that the company would have to hold a union election, allow union organizers to post notices on workers' bulletin boards, and let them talk to workers in "nonwork" areas of the plant. On appeal, however, Bush's nlrb ruled that the union should be denied what it termed "extraordinary access" to the company's workers.

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=epHUc1qwz2cJRvhwK9Dd%2B...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
AFSCME girl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 09:51 AM
Response to Original message
1. It is going to take a long time
for Unions to recover from 8 years of this horrendous "administration" and it's union-busting tactics :cry:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
China_cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. We need another Gompers.
And, especially another Mother Jones.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AFSCME girl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Yes we do! n/t
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
China_cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. I'm the web manager
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AFSCME girl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Hi China_cat!
That's very cool! I'm the Treasurer for AFSCME Local 411. Don't have the link at the moment, sorry x( :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Oct 25th 2014, 08:26 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC