Review of Embedded With Organized Labor

Embedded With Organized Labor: Journalistic Reflections on the Class War at Home, by Steve Early
Monthly Review Press, 288 pages, $16.95

Ed Sadlowski; Jay, Maine; Pittstown Coal, Tony Mazzochi, the Charlestown Five; Ron Carey – as the names float by on the pages of “Embedded With Organized Labor: Journalistic Reflections on the Class War at Home,” it sometimes seems that Steve Early’s new collection of articles must encompass every person, place, or corporation of significance to the labor movement over the past four decades.  Not quite, but actually the volume’s thirty nine essays – most of them book reviews – cover even more ground than that.  For instance, there’s stories of labor journalists from the deep past of whom you’ve likely never heard.  But the topic most of interest to Early, recently retired from the Communications Workers of America but preferring to think of himself as “redeployed,” is the future of the American labor movement.

There was a time when leftists of a certain age asked themselves how they could love a labor movement that didn’t seem to want to love them back. Certainly the welcome mat wasn’t out on that day Early recalls “In May of 1970, [when] hundreds of flag-waving New York City construction workers … attacked a crowd of antiwar demonstrators on Wall Street.”  The breach between labor and the left would actually broaden two years later when the AFL-CIO refused to back George McGovern against Richard Nixon.  The South Dakota Senator would come closer to espousing the politics of the leftists of the day than any other Democratic nominee in their life time, but for AFL-CIO President George Meany he was too antiwar, too radical. Some see payback in McGovern’s current opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act.  But ironically, the individual he cites for past opposition to the concept of binding arbitration that constitutes one of the bill’s components is none other than Meany.

Still some, like Early, persisted.  A few unions like the United Electrical Workers (UE), which to this day maintains the egalitarian tradition of paying no official a salary higher than the highest you can earn under a UE union contract, actually worked with and encouraged student radicals – such as this writer.  (Early drops the sobering fact that this honorable organization – which had half a million members before leaving the CIO in 1949 rather than submit to the government-driven purge of Communist Party members going on in other unions – has now shrunken to 17,000 members.)

Acceptance came much harder in most other unions, though, but ultimately those who didn’t see the labor movement as a collection of “real-life Archie Bunkers who railed against a whole generation of spoiled ‘meathead’ college kids,” would even prevail, to a degree, and by “the fall of 1999,” Early notes, “steelworkers and radical students were seen marching side by side (or at least on the same side) in street protests against the World Trade Organization.”

The signal change of those intervening years was John Sweeney’s 1995 election as AFL-CIO president.  Although a book that Early reviews on that subject bears the tile, “Not Your Father’s Union Movement,” his election did represent a return to the past in the sense that afterward the labor movement would again more or less openly welcome the left as it generally had before the Cold War.  Of course, with Joseph Stalin now more than forty years dead and the Soviet Union itself gone for a decade, this thaw came none too quickly.

Sweeney comes in for his share of criticism in Early’s book, yet it seems fair to say that he did pretty much try to do what he said he would  –  reverse the long term decline of labor that Early notes in the book’s first paragraph: “When I first got involved the labor movement in the early 1970s, unions still represented almost a quarter of the country’s workforce.  Now, unionization is down to 12.4 percent overall and only 7.6 percent in private industry.”  Sweeney had assumed the Federation’s leadership largely on the strength of the fact that his own Service Employees International Union (SEIU) had been an exception to the general downward trend, largely due to the fact that much of its constituency was public employees, more than a third of whom are now unionized.

But Sweeney has not been particularly successful in reversing the overall trend, although SEIU has continued growing to the point where it is has become the nation’s largest union.  And in 2005, Andy Stern, Sweeney’s successor at SEIU, led unions comprising about a third of the AFL-CIO’s membership into a rival Change to Win federation dedicated to doing what Sweeney could not.  About the best thing that can be said about the split to this point is that it has not damaged the labor movement nearly as badly as some had feared.  The overall national percentage of union membership has even risen for the past two years, although it remains lower than before the split.

Not one to see easy fixes for labor’s decline, Early is skeptical that even the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) currently pending in Congress will represent the cure-all some hope for.  He cites a Canadian labor relations scholar’s findings that “union density and bargaining coverage are falling even in provinces such as Saskatchewan and Quebec that have card check and first-arbitration clauses” – precisely the EFCA items that its advocates hope will save union representation drives from the often debilitating process of National Labor Relations Board elections and management refusal to bargain.  The measures he thinks are really needed – repeal of “Taft-Hartley Act restrictions on real union solidarity and the Supreme Court’s seventy-year old sanctioning of the use of striker replacement” are not part of political discourse today – “except in the speeches of Ralph Nader.”

And as SEIU has dominated the labor movement of recent years, so it dominates Early’s book, with Stern coming in for fairly severe criticism.  “Since 1996,” he writes, “when Stern replaced Sweeney, 40 SEIU locals – or 14 percent of its 275 affiliates – have been put under trusteeship to implant new officers.”  While he grants that “[S]ome of those ousted ran old-guard fiefdoms,” others just didn’t want to go along with what he views as questionable programs coming from the top, and perhaps the “air of arrogance and exclusivity” emanating from some SEIU staffers or an “attitudinal style … closer … to Silicon Valley entrepreneurs than to veteran staffers of the trade union movement” that one reviewed author describes.

(The largest of these trusteeship battles is currently playing out with the leadership of the newly formed National Union of Healthcare Workers claiming to have filed decertification petitions aimed at taking back close to 2/3 of the 150,000 members it formerly led in SEIU’s now trusteed California-based United Healthcare Workers West.)

The fact that book reviews constitute the core of Early’s book naturally constrains him largely to topics that other writers have chosen and many of the more interesting matters are raised only peripherally.  There is the fairly central question of just what a labor radical is to do.  At the one end are the “colonizers” like Wellesley graduate Elly Leary, interviewed in Staughton and Alice Lynd’s “The New Rank and File,” who spent twelve years building cars at the Framingham, Massachusetts General Motors plant.  Jobs like this were hard enough, Early notes, “without the additional task of proselytizing.” The group of radicals that Leary eventually became part of was just about learning its ass from its elbow on how to proceed sensibly when the plant closed in 1989 and they were deindustrialized out of the working class.

At the other end there is “SEIU’s ‘best and brightest’” who come in for Early’s criticism because “most have never been a janitor, security guard, nursing home worker, home health care aide or public employee.”  Of course, Early himself came in for that very criticism back in the mid-1970s as he recounts in the book’s first piece: when he was interviewing coal miners for the United Mine Workers Journal, one obviously wary miner politely shook hands with him, then “looked me in the eye and said knowingly, ‘Ah, pencil hands.’”

And then there’s the question of why the labor radicals do what they do.  I don’t think I’m going too far out on a limb in saying that most of the people we encounter in these pages saw themselves as socialists, if not by that name precisely then by some synonym they thought more appropriate to the time and place.  They weren’t motivated just by the hope of a better labor movement, but of a better country, a better world – and they saw the labor movement as the best means to that end.  For that sort of thing we will have to wait for Early’s next book, though – he is currently writing his history of the sixties radicals and the labor movement.  But the current book will give you plenty to chew on for the moment.  And, oh yes, it comes with an excellent index, unusual in an essay collection, but extremely useful because this book is dense – and I mean that as a complement.

I Changed My Mind on Employee Free Choice

Berkeley is filled with bumper-stickered cars. One of a Berkeleyite’s favorite hobbies is telling everyone what his socio-political opinions are by declaring them on the bumper of his car. That car is most likely either a Toyota Prius (with its increased gas mileage, it saves the planet) or the Subaru Outback (which not only gets good mileage, but every model has all-wheel drive: great for the Berkeleyite’s frequent trips out to nature).

One of my favorite bumper stickers is: “Unions: The folks who brought you the weekend.” And it’s true. In this country, we can thank labor unions for a lot of the things we take for granted today in our jobs. Before labor unions, there was no redress for employees who were working long days in unsafe conditions. Upton Sinclair’s 1906 novel The Jungle was supposed to be about the horrible working conditions that slaughterhouse employees had to endure, but as Sinclair famously said, “I aimed at the public’s heart, and by accident hit its stomach.” The Jungle is famous not for its exposure of deplorable working conditions, but for its graphic depiction of unsafe food preparation.

It wasn’t until 1935 that Congress passed the National Labor Relations Act, which affirmed government support of unions, collective bargaining, and placing restrictions on what employers could do. At the turn of the century, businesses viewed unions with a combination of suspicion and disgust. Unionizing was socialism, and socialism was antithetical to the United States and its tradition of capitalism. Eventually, though, the country grew up and realized that the employer-employee relationship was hideously skewed in favor of the employer. In an industrialized economy — that is, an economy where people work for others instead of themselves — employers have tremendous power to enhance or destroy the lives of employees by hiring or firing them. And because an employee is a single person, he has little recourse when faced with the considerable power of an entire company.

Enter the union, the job of which is to leverage the power of all the workers in a firm against the firm, should it become necessary. Unions today enter into legally-binding agreements with firms. These agreements specify things like benefits and wage rates. When a union agreement is about to expire, it needs to be renewed. At this time, the union and the management each tries to re-negotiate the contract to get the best deal. If the two sides don’t come to an agreement by the time the contract expires, then the union members go on strike. They will refuse to work without a contract specifying exactly what their benefits will be.

But you’ve got to have a union first. According to Robert Reich, formerly Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration and now a professor of public policy at the University of California, Berkeley, 1/3 of working Americans belonged to a union in 1955. In 2009, only 8% of workers belong to a union. Part of this trend has to do with the loss of manufacturing jobs in the United States. But even this doesn’t entirely explain the decline in unionization: Toyota, the most profitable auto manufacturer in the world, is a non-union shop. Its workers are not unionized, but they have good wages and benefits. Toyota is a benevolent employer. Wal-Mart is quite the opposite. Its workers make a little above minimum wage and they largely have no benefits. Wal-Mart is famously and virulently opposed to unions, engaging in practices that, if pursued by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), would probably be prosecutable in court. Wal-Mart has closed entire stores rather than suffer the possibility of unionization. We cannot always rely on the benevolency of employers in order to get good wages and benefits — hence the existence of unions and a national framework that supports them.

I have written before about the current process of unionization, as have other Demockracy writers, and I will not go into it here. Again, we come around to the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), which would augment the current system of union creation. Again, I have before explained how it would work. In my previous pieces, I came out against EFCA because it does not have a secret ballot. How, I said, can we get an accurate assessment of whether or not people want to unionize without a secret ballot? I neglected another factor: employer pressure between the initial petition and the actual election. During this period, which usually lasts between 30 and 60 days, employers dramatically increase pressure on employers not to form a union. This pressure can vary from the benign (”workshops” in which union-busters explain to employees why unions are actually bad for them) to the criminal (openly threatening employees with termination if they join unions). Starbucks was found guility of the latter when it fired some employees at a Manhattan store who tried to unionize.

It is this pressure period that causes the disparity we see between the numbers in the initial petitions and the actual elections. An apocryphal 1989 AFL-CIO organizing document declares that, according to its statistics, 75% of employees at a firm need to sign the intitial petition in order to get 51% in the final election. There has not been a study (that I have access to!) that examines the causality of this phenomenon. It could be attributed to peer pressure; that is, when employees’ names are visible, employees will say they want to unionize, even when they don’t. In the privacy of the secret ballot, they are free to vote against the union. But there is another possibility: that employees really do want to unionize, but after two months of propaganda and open threats, employees decide that they don’t want to unionize, after all, due to the possibility of losing their jobs. We have no way of knowing what employees truly want, since there is no test we have that is free from bias, whether from the employer or other employees.

Even though it’s illegal for an employer to fire — or even threaten to fire — an employee for unionizing, it happens routinely. As is pointed out in this sourcebook on EFCA from the UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education, employers treat NLRB fines (the punishment for violating labor law) as just another operating cost. They will gladly fire employees and then pay the fines, since, in the long-term, paying the fines is cheaper than dealing with a union. Fortunately, one of EFCA’s provisions is to increase the penalties for violating labor law, but even then, the fines are still not so large that the world’s large anti-union companies — Wal-Mart, Starbucks, and Whole Foods among them — cannot write those fines off as operating costs and call it a day.

The only way to forestall those threats is to allow union creation immediately, which is the point of EFCA. It assumes that the initial petition is the gold standard for union desirability and declares that, if a majority of employees state on the petition that they want to unionize, then a union is immediately formed. This way, employer interference in the unionizing process is minimized.

Contrary to anti-EFCA propaganda, the legislation does not “eliminate” the secret ballot. If a union petition garners greater than 30% but less than 50% of employees’ approval, then the secret ballot process is initiated. EFCA does only what makes sense: namely, if at least half of the employees in a firm support a union, then the union is created. The in-between time is often useful only for anti-union employers, who will use the time either to persuade or to threaten.

So, I’ve totally changed my opinion of EFCA. All else equal, making union formation easier is not a bad thing.

A Free Choice? Making the Case for American Workers

Over the past week, there has been substantial media coverage of the public rancor over A.I.G. bonuses, the Obama administration’s ballooning deficit spending, and Timothy Geithner’s plan to buy up toxic debt. And while Washington’s economic policies certainly deserve to be on everyone’s minds, there is another issue that could affect millions of workers that is getting far less play in the news but definitely a lot of heated debate among union leaders, corporations, and Congress—“card-check” voting.

Its official name is the Employee Free Choice Act and it would amend the National Labor Act of 1935 to essentially make union organization much easier for workers. The legislation would allow workers to form a union if a majority signs pro-union cards and would forgo the current practice of secret ballot elections. Other provisions would impose binding arbitration when employers and unions fail to reach a contract after 120 days and would substantially increase fines on employers who jeopardize union activities.

Proponents of the plan are many Democrats and large unions (including AFL-CIO and SEIU) who say that the current restrictions for unions put their members’ rights at a disadvantage. Many advocates for the change in the law, such as the union coalition Change to Win, say that private voting encourages intimidation and coercion of companies’ employees who wish to unionize. The act would also encourage a speedier and more thorough process in contract disputes and would triple the damages imposed against companies who do not adhere to union standards.

There are many opponents of this measure—both corporate and political—who view this legislation as an ends-to-justify the means type of regulation. The Chamber of Commerce has been very outspoken in its disapproval of the Act and notes that it could disenfranchise both parties (employers and workers) in the long run.  Under the proposed new rules, union organizers would be under no obligation to notify their employers that they are going to launch a union drive.  In addition, the “card check” policy would abolish secret-ballot elections even if many workers wish to have them. Also, in the instance that the companies and the newly formed unions fail to reach an agreement within a limited time frame, a federal government arbitrator must step in to mediate the contract so that a deal is reached—even if the outcome is not ideal for either party.

On Tuesday, Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania) said he would oppose the union “card-check” measure and, without his support, the legislation would likely fail in the Senate. Noting that he may very well be the “deciding vote,” Specter, who was the only Republican to vote for cloture in the previous Congress, says he is against the Act because it “will result in further job losses.” Wal-Mart, Starbucks, Costco, and several other large corporations agree. (It should be noted that Specter faces a stiff primary challenge from his right flank in 2010.) Whole Foods CEO John Mackey told the Washington Post on Sunday that the binding arbitration clause is “not the way we normally do things in the United States” and that allowing workers to organize without a secret ballot “violates a bedrock principle of American democracy.”

While corporations certainly are justified to feel threatened by this Act, ultimately, the workers are the ones who should receive some long overdue benefits. While Specter may consider the legislation a possible hindrance to labor and Mackey even deems it un-American, the rebuttal should be what is more beneficial to the labor movement than empowering workers and what is more American than appealing to the government for the rights of its citizens? According to Change to Win, low-wage workers only earn 83 cents on the dollar of what they were earning 35 years ago. What’s more is that Pennsylvania State University’s Poverty in America Project concludes that “in 2003, almost 25% of the nation’s counties had low per-capita incomes below one half the national average or less, high unemployment, low labor force participation rates, and a high dependency on government transfer payments-all measures of economic distress.” Most of these counties are located in areas with a relatively low levels of union penetration, such as the Deep South.

According to MSNBC, the vote on the EFCA might get pushed back to 2011 and  the Obama administration will be “quietly” happy since they support it but don’t really have the energy to fight for it at the moment. However, if this bill does come to vote and fails in the Senate, then compromised legislation will undoubtedly be pushed through that could do more harm than good for both employers and employees. To avoid that from happening, corporations worried about the Employee Free Choice Act should reach out to their employees and hold forums where both parties can speak their minds and try to understand each other’s positions. One of the reasons this issue has become a Congressional matter is because many large companies have at times failed to look out for the interests of their workers and put fiscal profits ahead of human capital. If these large corporations truly want to temper these regulations, then they must have an open dialogue with their employees and offer some solutions such as health care, transportation vouchers, child care benefits, higher wages, organizational tranparency, and more employee input into the decision-making processes of the organization. The only way to curb workers’ desire to unionize is to provide similar financial and non-financial benefits under a corporate business model. And, with low-wage workers who are unionized ultimately earning an average of 44% more than their non-union counterparts, even in these hard economic times it going to be a hard bargain to sell non-represented workers anything short of that improvement.

Labor Watch: New York Has a Better Idea

If the Department of Labor isn’t the most obscure Cabinet level agency in the federal government, it’s at least in the running.  So the fact that the confirmation vote of Obama’s Labor Secretary designee Hilda Solis drew even a little a bit of attention that way seems an opportunity not to be missed. Let’s, then, cast an eye upon something new in labor law enforcement that’s happening in the state of New York called Wage Watch.  And let’s also hope that Solis – and the labor officials of the other states – pay attention as well, because it’s a program that could change the way we conduct government.

With the current bailout regime having thawed our previously frozen national discussion of the economy to the point where the supposed immutable laws of the free market can now be challenged, the idea of limiting how much money the people at the highest levels of the corporate world can take home is finally seeing the light of day.  But the question of whether those at the other end of the economy are even getting what the law already demands remains as much in the dark as ever.  That would change in New York, however, if the month-old program that the state’s Labor Commissioner M. Patricia Smith, calls a “one-of-a-kind grass-roots tool in the fight against illegal labor practices” succeeds.

For its first six months Wage Watch will set in motion six local organizations in New York City and Long Island to spread knowledge about the basics of minimum wage and overtime law among the low wage earning communities they already work with.  The range of practices that New York’s Department of Labor refers to generally as “wage theft” also includes tip stealing.  The six groups, all with prior experience with labor issues, will receive training and materials, in Spanish or Chinese where appropriate; disseminate information to local employees and employers; and facilitate direct contact with the Labor Department for complaints as needed.

Given how hard many people find it to even imagine living on the minimum wage – which at New York’s $7.15 an hour minimum would give a 40 hour, 52 week worker $14,872 in annual gross wages (the $6.55 federal minimum totals to $13,624) – it might seem like the problem couldn’t be too widespread.  And yet the department reports that last year it collected $25 million in unpaid wages for 17,000 workers throughout the state.  With bailout and stimulus bills in the air that are nearing a trillion dollars, $25 million can itself start to seem like small potatoes.  But the fact is that the average minimum wage, small potatoes worker who was a beneficiary of this program recouped about ten percent of an annual minimum wage income, or about five weeks wages.

In some industries cheating is already known to be widespread – the agency found that 78% of New York City car washes were committed wage law violations.  But the problem is not confined to businesses that might be considered marginal – Yellow Rat Bastard, a SoHo retailer (named after a comic book) that New York magazine’s website calls “three rooms of name-brand sportswear and accessories with a punk edge” agreed to pay nearly $1.5 million to settle a wage theft lawsuit.  Nor are high profile institutions immune – the Saratoga Race Course underpaid its backstretch workers and Erie County Fair bathroom attendants worked only for tips and were even forced to give half of them back to a subcontractor.

All in all, then, the Labor Department has reason to believe that there’s a lot more wage theft going on out there than it could ever hope to ferret out with its own staff resources, hence Wage Watch, which Stuart Appelbaum, President of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, one of the participating groups, calls “labor law enforcement at the purest, most grassroots level.” After the first six month trial period of working with these half dozen experienced organizations, the Labor Department plans to expand the program and recruit religious, student, union, business, neighborhood, and community organizations statewide, with no requirement of past labor law experience.

While the program’s relevance for wage law enforcement on the federal level and for other state labor agencies is obvious, its implications extend well beyond this one particular task.  For instance, in 2006, the United Nations’ International Labour Office (ILO) found the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) woefully understaffed for the responsibilities with which it is charged.  ILO standards call for one inspector for every 10,000 workers in industrialized nations like ours.  The US has 2,100 labor inspectors, or about one for every 70,000 workers, well below even the one-per-40,000 workers recommended for nations with relatively low levels of industrialization.

The AFL-CIO has analyzed this question by considering how many years it would take to inspect all of the job sites in each state with current levels of OSHA staffing.  They found only six states whose worksites could be covered in under fifty years.  Most would require from fifty to one hundred and fifty years, and in seven states it would take longer than that.  (About 16 American workers are fatally injured on the job each day while more than 11,000 are injured or made ill by workplace conditions.)

In order to reach the ILO’s recommended staffing level, OSHA would need to add more than 12,000 new inspectors at a cost in the neighborhood of $1.5 billion annually.  Given that the nation’s largest workers compensation insurer, Liberty Mutual, puts the direct cost of disabling workplace injuries at nearly $1 billion a week, this would be money well spent.  Yet we know all too well that over the next several years the government is going to face an unprecedentedly broad range of needs on which money could be well spent.  What then, if OSHA were directed to follow the lead of the New York Department of Labor and seek out and train organizations that would then train the workforce itself to identify and effectively call attention to conditions that threatened its well being?  It might well have a cheaper, less bureaucratic, and more effective operation.

Even this is relatively small compared to the potential impact of directing an institution like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to socialize its work.  There is probably no aspect of government currently enjoying greater support among the general public than environmental protection and the fight against global warming.  So it’s hard to imagine that an EPA foray into the world of community organizations would not turn up hundreds of them interested in training their members in methods of helping the government to help the environment.

According to Labor Commissioner Smith, the genesis of Wage Watch lies in an entirely other realm of government – the Neighborhood Watch schemes to assist police that started in Queens in the 1960s.  In fact, it’s hard to imagine that there is any branch of government that might not benefit from a perspective of expanding the public’s role in their work (although the CIA might disagree.)

If all of this talk about empowering workers and community organizations sounds a little, well, radical, don’t forget, we’re all socialists now – I read it on the cover of Newsweek.  And even if you’re a Time magazine reader, this development in New York has got to be considered good news because you know what they say – if they can make it work there, we can make it work anywhere.