"They're Bankrupting Us!": And 20 Other Myths about Unions (Myths Made in America, Band 2) - Softcover

Fletcher Jr., Bill

Softcover

ISBN 10: 0807003328 ISBN 13: 9780807003329

Verlag: Beacon Press, 2012

Inhaltsangabe

From Wisconsin to Washington, DC, the claims are made: unions are responsible for budget deficits, and their members are overpaid and enjoy cushy benefits. The only way to save the American economy, pundits claim, is to weaken the labor movement, strip workers of collective bargaining rights, and champion private industry. In "They're Bankrupting Us!": And 20 Other Myths about Unions, labor leader Bill Fletcher Jr. makes sense of this debate as he unpacks the twenty-one myths most often cited by anti-union propagandists. Drawing on his experiences as a longtime labor activist and organizer, Fletcher traces the historical roots of these myths and provides an honest assessment of the missteps of the labor movement. He reveals many of labor's significant contributions, such as establishing the forty-hour work week and minimum wage, guaranteeing safe workplaces, and fighting for equity within the workforce. This timely, accessible, "warts and all" book argues, ultimately, that unions are necessary for democracy and ensure economic and social justice for all people.

Über diesen Titel

Über die Autorin bzw. den Autor

Bill Fletcher Jr. is a long-time racial-justice, labor, and international activist, scholar, and author.  He has been involved in the labor movement for decades, and is a widely known speaker and writer in print and on radio, television, and the Web. He has served in leadership positions with many prominent union and labor organizations, including the AFL-CIO and the Service Employees International Union. Fletcher is currently the director of field services for the American Federation of Government Employees.

Auszug. © Genehmigter Nachdruck. Alle Rechte vorbehalten.

From the Introduction
 

What is a Union?
 
It is declared to be the policy of the United States to eliminate the causes of certain substantial obstructions to the free flow of commerce and to mitigate and eliminate these obstructions when they have occurred by encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining and by protecting the exercise by workers of full freedom of association, self-organization, and designation of representatives of their own choosing, for the purpose of negotiating the terms and conditions of their employment or other mutual aid or protection.
—from the National Labor Relations Act

In early 2011, as I was flying from San Jose, California, to San Diego, I was engrossed reading Global Restructuring, Labour and the Challenges for Transnational Solidarity. The woman sitting next to me was noticeably interested in my book, so we struck up a conversation. She was in her thirties and lived with her husband and two children in northern California. When she inevitably asked what I was reading, I explained it was about the global labor movement and the challenges of globalization. She looked at me intently while I explained, and when I finished she asked, “What’s a union?”

To say that I was startled by her question would be a serious understatement. But this woman was sincere, so I went on to explain what a union was and gave her a couple of examples, such as teachers’ unions. She nodded her head, and that might have ended the matter, but I suddenly realized that in spite of my explanation, she still didn’t entirely understand. It seemed I was explaining something with which she was, apparently, entirely unfamiliar. What made this both perplexing yet instructive is that this was obviously an intelligent individual, and I fear her ignorance is emblematic of many Americans who don’t fundamentally understand the raison d’être behind the labor movement.

A friend of mine, noted labor strategist and organizer Bob Muehlenkamp, has a simple answer: it’s an organization of workers. At one level, it’s that uncomplicated—an organization of workers created for a specific set of objectives.

At the same time, this definition is only an icebreaker. There are various sorts of worker organizations, ranging from sports clubs to industrial cooperatives. There are, however, a few distinguishing characteristics of a labor union:
 
1. It’s an organization based upon collective self-interest that focuses on issues relative to work, specifically, and to the economy, more generally. As such, it seeks to bargain on behalf of a group of workers to improve their living and working conditions.

2. It can be organized based on a specific workplace, a type of work, an industry, or in some cases, a specific geography, and seeks to build an identity of interests for these workers.

3. It attempts to take wages out of competition between workers who are fighting to improve their respective living standards, thereby opposing favoritism.

4. It seeks fairness for workers, and specifically, fair treatment by employers and governments. At their best, unions seek to democratize the workplace.
 
These are general characteristics, but each of them raises crucial questions. For our purposes, let’s just mention two: (1) Who are the “workers”? and (2) What is meant by “fairness”?

There’s no hard and fast response because the answers depend on your vision for what needs to be done and who you believe has a common interest. Confused yet? Perhaps a little background will help flesh out the picture.
 
Where Did Labor Unions Come From?
In any workplace, there’s a power imbalance between those who work and those who hire workers, own the machinery, and give the orders. Workers, through their labor power, produce things to be sold. But these things (whether manufactured, services, or intellectual property) can’t be sold at cost (which includes the workers’ wages, heating/cooling, and raw materials) because the owner wouldn’t profit. Instead, they’re sold at a price that depends on both the amount of time, energy, and expertise put into the product, along with what the market will accept. The owner then takes a profit; some of it is reinvested into the business and some of that goes to the owner.

In a modern, democratic capitalist society, a worker can choose to leave their employment when they wish. However, the employer may also get rid of the worker. They may do this for economic reasons, for instance, a layoff due to a decline in business, or they may terminate the worker because they simply wish to get rid of them. In fact, termination or firing is often referred to as the “capital punishment” of employment law. Although an employer may suffer a temporary problem, such as work flow when a worker leaves voluntarily, a worker can suffer more dramatically by not being able to afford food and shelter. It’s vital to note this because there’s no equivalency between the employee’s ability to leave versus the employer’s ability to fire. Simply put, the consequences are considerably different. Added to this, there is no due process when there is a termination, unless the termination is specifically unlawful.

Most of us who have to work to survive recognize we’re in a constant state of competition with other workers. Let’s say you go looking for work. An employer may hire you based on criteria such as age, skills, race, gender, ethnicity, or what you are willing to accept as your wage or salary. Let’s focus on this last matter, for a moment.
There’s an exercise to use to see how competition works among workers, that is, how they have to compete and how that competition can be used against them by those with power. Think about a good salary and benefit package for a specific job. Now, ask the people in your group to, by a show of hands, indicate who would be willing to work at that rate. Probably most hands will go up. Then reduce the salary, wage, or benefit package by a little. Ask for another show of hands to see who would work for this amount. Keep lowering the rate. Here’s what you will most likely find:
 
1. As you lower the salary, wage, or benefit package, hands will stay up, but the number of hands will decrease.

2. There will be points where you yourself would probably not accept going any lower but someone else will.

3. There will come a time when no one will raise their hand, i.e., you have reached the point that the group has decided that it simply cannot accept such deterioration in their living standards.
 
What you have just seen is one important way that capitalism drives workers to compete with one another. There are frequently some workers who, because of their circumstances, are willing or compelled to accept a lower salary, wage, or benefit package than others. This is not a moral statement—it speaks to their desperation or life circumstances. Younger workers, for instance, tend to think less about pensions and retirement, whereas those are more pressing concerns for middle-aged and older workers.

Later I’ll discuss some of the other divisions that exist or emerge among workers, but let’s start with a basic point: because of different life circumstances, workers can effectively be pitted against one another by employers. Therefore, to decrease the likelihood that workers will be played against one another—that is, are victims of favoritism—the workers have to take measures to decrease the competition among them. One such measure is creating a labor union.

Throughout...

Details zur Ausgabe

• Verlag: Beacon Press
• Erscheinungsdatum: 2012
• Sprache: Englisch
• ISBN 10: 0807003328
• ISBN 13: 9780807003329
• Einband: Taschenbuch
• Anzahl der Seiten: 232
• Kontakt zum Hersteller: Nicht verfügbar
• Verantwortliche Person: Easy Access System Europe; gpsr.requests@easproject.com; ; Mustamäe tee 50, 10621, Tallinn, Estonia; Tallinn; Estland