America's Middle Class Needs Right to Bargain, Secure Contracts -- Like CEOs Have

In May, when immigration officials raided the kosher meatpacking plant in Postville, Iowa and hauled out 389 undocumented workers, the news was all about immigration violations, but now the focus is on the employer, Agriprocessors Inc.
That's because it turns out that while purportedly giving ritual consideration to the animals to be slaughtered, Agriprocessors failed to treat with dignity, or legality, the teenagers, and children, some as young as 13, in its employ. The 57 adolescents, some working 17-hour shifts, six days a week, testified to wielding knives and other dangerous tools prohibited for young workers.
The Agriprocessors incident raises difficult questions in the Jewish community. If meat is denied the kosher label because the animal does not die within seconds of precise slitting, is it kosher when the 13-year-old child who processed it was illegally hired, worked a 17 hour day and was refused overtime pay? What if a 16-year-old undocumented youth, who put in 17-hour shifts, six days a week, leaving no time for anything but work and sleep, said in an affidavit, "I felt like I was a slave?"
These violations happened in Iowa, but they occur elsewhere as well, for a simple reason: the Wal-Mart mentality.
We have allowed that soulless, unpatriotic global-corporate mindset to control government policy. As a result, the rich have gotten richer while the middle class has paid the bill and gone bankrupt. The great builder and protector of the middle class, collective bargaining, has been eroded by deliberate corporate actions over the past quarter century. Meanwhile, the national debt has increased; inflation and unemployment are up, and foreclosure signs mar every neighborhood.
Corporate lobbyists secured from compliant politicians so-called free trade agreements that have resulted in the loss of millions of good paying, often unionized manufacturing jobs. Those jobs have gone to third-world countries where investigations have shown workers often labor long, grueling hours and are not even paid their own countries' minimum wage. Then their products are shipped back to the U.S. to be sold at cheap prices at Wal-Mart by workers who are paid less than a living wage and are denied full-time status and health insurance.
What comes around, goes around in the Wal-Mart world. When uninsured Wal-Mart workers get sick, American taxpayers foot the bill. They pay for coverage through Medicaid, the health insurance plan for the poor. That's what the Walton family, which owns Wal-Mart, banks on. Literally banks on. When American taxpayers step up and pay for half of all Wal-Mart employees' health care, that certainly helps the Waltons stay among the 25 wealthiest families in the world.
Wal-Mart workers would benefit tremendously from forming a union. Workers who belong to unions earn 30 percent more than nonunion workers, and they are 59 percent more likely to have employer-provided health insurance. The same goes for those workers at Agriprocessors. If they had a union, it could file grievances over the hiring of children, against unpaid overtime and about unsafe working conditions.
In surveys, more than half of U.S. workers, nearly 60 million, say they would join a union immediately if they could. But they don't get that opportunity under the current Wal-Mart mentality global-corporate system. The political system has been stacked against collective bargaining. Global corporations hire "union busters" to intimidate, harass and fire workers who try to organize unions. Workers are fired in a quarter of the campaigns where workers try to organize unions at private companies. Even when workers successfully form unions, they can't get a first contract 44 percent of the time because companies refuse to bargain meaningfully.
There is a solution for this problem. It's called the Employee Free Choice Act. It would restore workers' freedom to form unions and bargain. It would allow workers to create unions by collecting signatures from a majority of workers. As it is now, a company can demand an election for a union. Under the Employee Free Choice Act, workers may have an election if they want one, but the signatures are sufficient in most cases. This puts the workers in control of their union instead of the company.
The Employee Free Choice Act also would increase penalties for companies that intimidate and fire employees trying to form unions. And it would establish mediation and binding arbitration when the employer and the workers cannot agree on a first contract.
The Employee Free Choice Act has bipartisan support in Congress and polls show it is backed by two-thirds of the American public, including Republicans. It passed easily in the House last year, but in the Senate got only 51 votes, not the 60 needed to stop a Republican filibuster.
Fearing the Employee Free Choice Act could win in the Senate if a few more Democrats secure seats there in the fall elections, Wal-Mart took action in recent weeks. Obviously, Wal-Mart fears that Employee Free Choice means less money for the Waltons, and more free choice for its employees.
The Wall Street Journal reported last week that Wal-Mart executives began indoctrinating thousands of store managers and department heads about what the company claims are the evils of unionization in an attempt to get them to vote Republican. These managers told reporters that the executives informed them that workers would be forced to pay large amounts of union dues and get nothing in return and be obliged to go on strike and get no compensation.
Apparently the nation's largest private employer failed to mention that a portion of union dues goes into a strike fund to provide money for workers who vote to strike. In addition, what workers get for union dues is a contract, guaranteeing them certain salaries and benefits - like the contracts CEOs demand when they are hired by boards of directors.
All of this from a company that flies rapid response teams out to any of its more than 5,000 Wal-Mart stores worldwide to quash brewing union activity.
Global corporations like Wal-Mart have hired the likes of Coalition for a Democratic Workplace and Employee Freedom Action Committee, run by former tobacco lobbyist Rick Berman, to blockade the Employee Free Choice Act. They are trying to make big business out to be David in this David and Goliath struggle, although it is union membership that has shrunk to David size over the past half century. Since its height in 1953, when 35 percent of workers belonged to unions, membership has now fallen to 12.1 percent.
A big part of the reason for that is constant harassment by big business. Let's go back to Agriprocessors. Three years ago, Human Rights Watch investigated working conditions in the meatpacking business and found, among other things, that companies often use illegal tactics to crush union organizing efforts. The report, "Blood, Sweat, and Fear: Workers' Rights in U.S. Meat and Poultry Plants," says that when workers tried to defend themselves against harsh working conditions by forming unions, employers used fear and intimidation to stop them. "U.S. law does little to protect workers who try to organize. Enforcement efforts drag on for years, and even decisions that favor workers are usually too little, too late," report author Lance Compa wrote.
He offered this example: At the Smithfield Foods pork processing plant in Tar Heel, N.C., management fired union supporters, threatened plant closure, stationed police at plant gates to intimidate workers and orchestrated an assault on union activists. When the National Labor Relations Board ordered a new election, Smithfield immediately appealed. In 2000, Smithfield created a company security force that under North Carolina law had public police powers. In 2003, it used trumped-up charges, Compa said, to arrest workers who were active union supporters.
The meatpacking industry chooses to use undocumented workers, Human Watch found, because they are easily intimidated. As in Agriprocessor, immigration officials will swoop in and take away a large chunk of a meat packing work force at the drop of a quarter in a pay phone. Human Rights Watch found that some employers use this ability as a threat against undocumented workers who are trying to organize unions.
In addition, what employers like Smithfield and Agriprocessor have up their sleeve is a 2002 U.S. Supreme Court ruling saying that undocumented workers who are illegally fired for union organizing are not entitled to back pay for lost wages.
Despite all of Wal-Mart's money and conniving, on rare occasions, a union organizing effort wins. And then, the global giant responds by shutting them down.
In 2000, when the United Food and Commercial Workers finally organized a small number of butchers in East Texas, Wal-Mart immediately phased out butchers at all of its stores and stocked prepackaged meat. Similarly, when a store in Canada voted to unionize, Wal-Mart closed the whole store, contending it had been unprofitable.
This really comes down to a moral issue, just like it does for Jews who question whether meat processed by child laborers in abusive, illegal conditions is really kosher. The question for this country is whether it is moral to allow continued rule by Wal-Mart mentality, with its cheap imported wares of dubious safety manufactured under questionable conditions in foreign countries, then imported and sold in stores by American workers paid less than a living wage and denied health care and the right to organize a union.
Restoring workers' freedom to organize and bargain collectively would protect them against the kinds of abuses alleged at Agriprocessors. And it would begin to rebuild America's great middle class as well as re-establish one of our country's fundamental liberties: the right of free association.

Comments

[DuganS1]

Allowing Walmart workers to unionize and obtain more benefits and higher wages would only result in higher prices, stores closures and less jobs, and generalized inflation and higher interest rates. All this would achieve nothing and result in the economy merely spinning its wheels in a 70s style wage-price spiral, and the federal reserve would need to increase interest rates to counter it- and that will result in a reduction of new retail stores (and less construction workers needed to build them, less computers to man them, less wood, concrete, and flooring), higher borrowing costs meaning lower home values, less commercial construction, less government tax revenue, lower equity prices, etc. etc.

[Sepiastar]

@DuganS1
Go back to sleep, you're dreaming. Unions have been in existence for decades and they produced favorable results for employees until corporations decided they should be non-existent, in the same manner as worker's pensions. You remember them, now, you are expected to have a 401K, which was not the original intent of the 401k. If Walmart closes stores instead of providing adequate care for their employees, then maybe the consumers can contribute their funds to another mass retailer that pays fair wages and provides healthcare(i.e, Target, KMART, etc). Capitalism is a wonderful mechanism until greed rears surfaces and then the entire mission is profiteering. As a company, you should be held accountable for a committment to your employees, especially when you are shifting YOUR responsibility off to taxpayers!

[RightWingMarine]

What is a fair wage? Is it $50/hr? $100/hr? I believe it would be fair if my employer paid me $100/hr but my greedy employer is too smart for that. My boss knows that I can't produce at $100/hr and he would lose money paying me at that rate. Walmart pays their employees at a rate that both walmart and the employee find fair. (If the employee didn't like the wage, they can work somewhere else. no town has only one employer).

Benefits are something extra the employer offers employees. Benefits are not a requirement at any job, all that is required is for the employee to be compensated for their time. Benefits cost money. If the employee isn't that productive (such as a shelf stocker which is not a high skilled job) why would the company want to pay a wage and offer a benefit that costs more than that employee brings into the business?

Why is it the companies responsibility to care for the health of the employees? As a stockholder I'm not at all interested in the company spending money paying for health care for employees that aren't that productive or have such a low level job any high school dropout can do it. As the investor I want a return on my investment and if I don't get it I'll sell my stock which directly hurts the company and thus the employees.

[going2ireland]

So, your answer is to remain as is and allow big corporations to rule?

This has to stop somewhere and no better place than Walmart. Certainly what you say will happen are sure to happen, but it will correct itself and then things will be better for everyone.

[dadw5boys]

Income classes in the USA.
Lower end levels of each class.

Top -- $ 1 million plus each year.

Middle-- $ 210,000 per year.

Lower-- $ 14,000 per year

Now exactly where is the middle class in the USA ???

What they want you to believe is that $50,000 a year is middle class income but in reality it is near the top end of the lower class incomes.
To keep this myth afloat they subtract more and more people from the top ranks each years and add more and more poor at the bottom so it skews the numbers.

[WorkingClass]

Way back in the early 70's I worked about three years in a meat packing plant in Iowa. It was hard work but the employees there made a living wage and took pride in the product. There were government inspectors there on every shift to protect our customers. Now, packing plants are hell holes where only the most desperate people would work. The difference? We had a union.

[jmpurser]

How ironic. At one and the same time we've got a movement to get people to treat animals with human rights and we've got butchers who treat the animals to be slaughtered by a higher code than they treat the humans they employ!

[Paul]

I don't shop at Wal-Mart and I don't do Christmas gifts.

If this catches on, all those boatloads of crap from China will disappear.

[flacon]

You can accomplish all your goals with a secret ballot? Protect worker freedom by allowing them to cast their vote in private, free from employer or union influence.

The fact that backers of this proposal are anti-private ballot makes me suspicious.

[GMac]

Read the proposal it provides for signatures or secret ballot. As the law stands now the employer calls for the election which gives them a chance to intimidate or fire the "troublmakers."

[RightWingMarine]

Under this new proposal the employer can no longer require a secret ballot vote. Now pro-union people can intimidate the workers and force them to sign the petition with no hope of having the secret ballot vote. The secret vote is available but those pushing for the measure are much more likely to get the outcome they want without the election.

Under a secret ballot neither the employer nor the pro-union bosses know how any person voted so there can be no firing of troublemakers.

[RightWingMarine]

1 of 2

This article raises some interesting points. Let's look at them individually.

Children working in dangerous environments. Naturally this is to be avoided if possible but shouldn't this be a decsion made by the child and their family? The child was sent to work not for fun but so he could help support the family. Does removing this childs wage really help them? Sure the kid could work in a less dangerous area but those jobs don't pay as well and clearly the family feels that the increased income compensates for the risk.

No OT for working past 40 hours. If an employee is willing to work 40+ for no OT and the employer is willing to pay that, why is it anyone elses concern? Many companies have a policy of no OT forcing these employees to stop earning at 40 hours. Does this really help the poor employee? If an employee can produce at $7/ hr why would an employer want to pay them $10/hr?

[Paul]

Yeah, we should get the smaller kids to work in the coal mines. They wouldn't need such large mine shafts in order to get around down there. Saves money and when one is killed, its not like you are losing an experienced worker.

Pathetic.

[dadw5boys]

Well that is the intent of the Overtime law to push employers to hire an extra person so overtime will not be paid and unemployement will stay low !!!!!

DUH !!!!!!!!!

[RightWingMarine]

part 2 of 2

No or expensive health insurance. Companies are not required to offer health insurance in this country, that is a benefit some employers choose to extend. If employees are not satisifed with the insurance the company offers if any then they are free to purchase insurance on their own. Why is it the companies responsibility to offer insurance? Starbucks recently closed 600 shops and cited the $200 million in health insurance costs as a reason.

How does removing secret ballot elections help employees? Is it not possible that pro-union people would intimidate and harass people into signing the petition? With the secret election the employee can let their true wishes be known without suffering consequences.

[Chavez08]

Do you get your checks straight from the Walton family or is it from some kind of shadow company?

[racom]

Thinking like this is beneath contempt. If any are seriously questioning what is wrong with America, here you have your answer!

[RightWingMarine]

lots of critical comments about what I have to say. Not a lot of argument showing how I am wrong. The truth isn't always pleasant.

[Paul]

Fair enough.

Countries with strong unions, government-paid healthcare and higher taxes have a better quality of life. Germany has a better educational system, better healthcare system, better transit system, a shorter work week and six weeks vacation. In short, a stronger middle class.

And Germany, just by itself, exported more than the entire US economy.

I'd move there but they actually enforce their immigration policies so that a man's labor is actually worth something.

Higher taxes and greater government involvment produce a better society to live in, despite what the Republican propaganda machine is selling.

[feo]

So why does the military provide health care? Rather expensive, especially in light of the number of people willing to join. In fact, marines should supply their own weapons, ammo, transport etc. If they're wounded, they could ask for donations; the rest of the tax paying public did not ask you to become a marine and derive no benefit from the fact that you are a marine. The truth is never pleasant (or rarely).

[Mike169]

Responding to you would be useless. This country has a long history of labor fighting to rid the country of everything you've proposed should be reintroduced. Yours is not the truth - not even close. I am absolutely astounded by posters who are proudly and willfully stupid. Try reading a book or something to help improve your mind. I hope you didn't learn this in the Marines - if so this country is screwed to the wall.

[dadw5boys]

If uninsured workers are sick for more than 3 days they usullay lose their jobs !!!!!!!

[RightWingMarine]

How long should an employer hold a job for someone who doesn't come in? 4 days? 1 month? 1 year? That employer hired that employee to perform a task to generate revenue for the company and now that isn't being done. The companies allegiance isn't to the employee but to the stockholders. It benefits the employer to hold the job for a bit so that a new employee won't have to be trained but after too long it is cheaper to fire the sick employee and train a new one. This is most common with low level workers that have little education and can't produce much.

[Paul]

In Europe maternity leave is two years, for either parent.

In a society where allegiance is to the stockholders, people will always place second. Is that what you think is best? Is that a society you prefer to live in when the most successful societies have higher taxes and more government than we do?

[Chavez08]

This is the same old 19th century viewpoint that gave us the Great Depression - apathetic bankers driving up interest because they can and lobbying relentlessly for "Debtors Prisons". Robber barons buy up respossessed land for a song and poison the soil while flooding the job markets with immgrants and the taxpayers flip the bill.

What you are cheering is "Neoclassic Economics", inspired by Austrians and it has been forced on America/western countries and it has failed several times in less than 100 years - it never worked. It is a socially darwinistic system that rewards cheaters and thieves and punishes those who work hard.

Mises and Adam Smith had a naive, one-dimensional view of economics and society. Read "Das Capital", look at the current state of the world economy and you'll think that Marx is Nostradamus.

Bankers are worse than crack dealers but they are celebrated as heroes in this sick, Neoliberal utopia.

[Sundialsvc4]

I would approach this same problem in a slightly different way.

Any company which employs more than 5 workers would be required by law to provide health insurance to them and to extend that insurance following the end of employment. The US Government would set the minimum standard for that insurance and would play a certain part as a risk-shock absorber. Importers, in exchange for the privilege of selling their goods in the United States, would have to show that their suppliers' employees were similarly treated.

Plenty of folks would say, "Gasp! No one can afford that!!" But is that really true? I don't think so. Unless we have fallen in love with the immortal words of Ebenezer Scrooge (at the beginning of that tale), we'd better remember that "there, but for the grace of whomever, goeth I."

[Paul]

Nope.

The government should provide health insurance for everyone.

The problem we have now is that private insurance companies have overhead, need to show a profit and make more money when care is denied. We spend more on the administration of health care than the entire defense budget. That's just administration - not actual health care delivery.

Time for a new paradigm. The way we are doing it now is wasteful and foolish.

They do it right in Canada and Europe. Let's try that.

[racom]

Paul has it right. National organizations involved in health care are advocating single payer coverage. The Physicians fo a National Health Program, Go to: http://www.pnhp.org/
also: http://www.massnurses.org/single_payer/singlepay.htm
also: CA nurses: http://www.calnurses.org/about-us/

Administrative cost for the present insurance health care program, 30% of every dollar.
Administrative cost for medicare, a government program, 3 to 5% of every dollar. Now do the math, the cost of single payer would drastically cut cost 25% over night.

[racom]

This is a powerful indictment of, not only walmart, but of the fascist corporate system ruling this country today. Our worker rights have been diminished by corporate favoring laws so now the middle class is facing extention. Until the lobbist are run out of DC our elected officials will only give lip service to constitutents. Both political parties look the same in this travesty of selling out the workers of America.