Challenging the Workplace Dictatorship

With the Employee Free Choice Act heading toward a Senate vote, conservative columnist George F. Will has suddenly developed a tender concern for workers’ rights. The act “strips all workers of privacy,” he fumed in the Washington Post last week, and will repeal “a right –to secret ballots -- long considered fundamental to a democratic culture…” As Will sees it, the unions are backing the act out of sheer desperation: Since they can’t seem to win a fair fight for workers’ allegiance, they want government to take away the workers’ rights and help herd them into union membership.

OK, now let’s leave Will-land and enter an actual American workplace. Are you punched in? Good. The first thing to notice is that you’ve checked your basic civil rights at the door. Freedom of speech? Forget about it: Some employers bar speech of any kind with your fellow employees. I saw this firsthand at a chain restaurant and a Wal-Mart store. Wanna work? Zip your lips.

How about those privacy rights that Will so concerned about? Nada – they don’t exist outside of Will-land either. You probably had to pee in a cup to get your job in the first place, which constitutes a very intimate chemical invasion of privacy. In most states, your purse or backpack can be searched by the employer at any time; your emails and web activity can be monitored.

Right of assembly? Sorry, you don’t have that either. In my experience, most managers see a group of three or more employees talking together as an insurrection in the making. Shut up and get back to work!

The Employee Free Choice Act would require employers to recognize a union whenever a majority of workers sign union cards – thus bypassing the often prolonged and creaky process of an NLRB-supervised secret ballot election. The longer the delay before the election, the more time management has to intimidate, isolate, and harass the union’s supporters.

Here’s how they do it: Workers are called away from their jobs and required to attend management-run meetings where they are subjected to anti-union harangues and videos. Note: Not only do workers lack freedom of assembly, they lack the freedom to not assemble. If management announces a 2 PM meeting, you better be there. These are called “captive audience meetings” for a reason.

At the meetings, which may take place daily in the weeks leading up to an NLRB election, management lays out a dire picture of what will happen if the union comes in: Workers will lose the right to talk to managers individually (not true); they will see their wages and benefits decline (emphatically not true); they will be stuck paying exorbitant dues (hardly); the company may have to move to Mexico … Sorry, no questions or comments from the audience.

Most pro-union workers can withstand the company’s mass captive audiences. Harder to resist are the one-on-one and small group meetings, where individual workers are grilled about their union allegiance for as many hours as it takes. During one union drive among truck drivers, management confronted workers one by one about personal issues like their credit ratings and family responsibilities. A lot of them finally broke down, and the union drive was defeated.

There’s nothing wrong with management voicing its view on unions – say, in a flyer to workers – and certainly nothing wrong with secret ballots. The problem lies in the abuse of management power in the period between the initial union card signing and the NLRB-sponsored secret ballot election. If workers are willing to sign a union card-- which is a courageous step all by itself --that should be enough to signify their choice.

Will calls the Employee Free Choice Act “Orwellian.” But Orwell’s fascist “1984” is already here and it’s called the American workplace. What really scares employers about the Employee Free Choice Act is that it will begin to change that --and bring the first stirrings of democracy to work.

Comments

[Tina]

Wow! Thanks Barbara! Great post!

[Ron Davison]

This is such an important topic. Employees already have lots of rights and lots of power and those rights trump the rights of customers, suppliers, and stockholders. The problem is, those employees are an elite subset of all employees - the senior execs.

Western Civilization makes great progress when it disperses power from the elites to the commoner, whether it is the power and rights of popes and kings or that of CEOs. The rise of the individual is the path of progress.

There. I'm off my soap box.

[Chris]

Does anyone else feel a little sick when privileged, wealthy white men tell us we are all better off additional rights? Perhaps Will should repeat Barbara's experiment and see if he can make it flipping burgers, waiting tables, or cleaning toilets. I know he's fine without the Pampered Pundit local #126- but some of us actually work for a living.

[Chris]

Edit above- better off WITHOUT additional rights.

And does anyone else notice the backward logic in Will's column?

"Today's workforce is marvelously flexible. People entering the labor market at age 18 will have, on average, 10 employers by the time they are 38. Such mobile workers often do not see what value union membership would add to their lives."

Maybe if their job paid a decent wage and treated them with a little dignity, they wouldn't be changing jobs so much? I'm 24, I work two jobs (sometimes three) to pay the rent while in grad school. If I was paid well enough to make a living, and treated with dignity in the workplace, I'd be much more willing to work at one job for the rest of my life.

[Barbara E]

Thanks, Chris. I was upset about his comment on how "flexible" we all are too!

[Slapdash]

I think the worker bees would have a different outlook if they were making the payroll vs. letting someone else do it. No matter how people try to gloss over it there are some people who will always let others take the risks (physical, financial and social), let others do the 50 + hours, and pay the personal price of getting ahead. They always seem most comfortable grazing with the herd.

[Everett J. Bonds]

I worked as a security guard for NorthWest Security, out of Tacoma, WA. They touted themselves as a Union workplace, but nothing was farther from the truth. They wanted Union Contracts and that was they way they got it. Then they proceeded to pay shit wages. I left when the wages were 8.00/ hr. I understand a Shipping Employer wanted to give the guards a raise. No, said the NorthWest Protective. They KEPT the money for themselves. The Government sees nothing wrong with this type of Abuse? They still only pay 9.50 an hour. Give me a break. everardo.

[Linda]

A good friend and I were talking about this kind of lack of workplace freedom today, where people don't even dare say the "U" word.

She worked for a cardiac pacemaker manufacturer which has been sold off to bigger companies several times. They were called in to these brainwashing meetings regularly. At one, a new oriental worker (obviously new here) asked about the possibility of forming a union. Several hundred people in attendance and suddenly, you could hear a pin drop. The meeting leader faltered, said quickly that that wouldn't be good, then changed the subject. What struck my friend most was the audience's shock that an employee would even say that out loud.

[Different]

What puzzles me is ordinary conservative folks seem to think Unions are so evil. I've never been able to understand this one. All these brain-washing anti-Union meetings have a very clear self-interest in mind for a very small minority group.

There are downsides to a Union to be sure, but the good outweighs the bad by a country mile. A union is definately better then what we have today, unless the conservatives provide/have an alternative I'm not aware of?

[Linda]

For one thing, the Republican Party has infiltrated the churches so much that they're preaching against labor unions from the pulpit. Essentially, wherever the Bible preaches that servants are supposed to obediently serve their masters, people are supposed to apply this to their employee-employer relationships. Very convenient for the powers that be, eh?

I did a few google searches on this and yes, there is a definite concerted effort by the fundies against unions. Here are a few links ...

Bibleviews.com, see "The Bible teaches. against. membership in labor unions":
http://www.bibleviews.com/neglectedtruths.html

Crosswalk.com: Christians and labor unions:
http://www.crosswalk.com/509270/

Truechristianity.com--who is Richard Hole:
http://www.truechristianity.com/christian/unions.htm
"Many Bible verses indicate that people may be eternally separated from God if they are members of evil organizations like the Trade Unions. This is because they are deceived into wanting more for themselves and not caring about the vast less wealthy hard working majority."

There are some of the more progressive urban congregations that ally with labor, like (locally) the Twin Cities Religion and Labor Network
http://www.tcrln.org/
They actually march alongside workers in labor rallies and help lobby on workers' behalf. I don't know why, but these progressive efforts tend to happen higher up in the church ranks and their message doesn't always get to the people who go to church on Sunday.

Since religion has gotten SO co-opted by the right-wing zealots during the last few decades, I've stopped going to church entirely. IF THERE IS a word of God, it really loses its meaning with all the bizarre interpretations that are read into it.

[MaryOGrady]

Wow! What kind of "True Christianity" is that: eternal damnation for joining a labor union!
Sinclair Lewis wrote about this kind of religion, in *Babbitt* and his other novels, about 80 years ago: conservative ministers in his midwestern city of Zenith preached that the bosses are the elder brothers and the workers must accept their lot as the younger brothers (to take whatever the elder brothers dished out) and then no collective bargaining would be needed. It was bunk then, and it's bunk now, but we need to be aware that anti-union propaganda is still reverberating in today's religious conservative echo chamber.

[Linda]

My ex-MIL (a raving liberal) used to attend a fundamentalist Christian church in her small town. I don't know why she punished herself like that; she'd get up and walk out when they started in with the crazy BS against gays, Democrats, labor unions, and more. She and her husband raised 9 kids thanks to his union wages, so she'd get especially perturbed when they started in on the unions. She finally stopped going in 2004, the Sunday the minister declared that church-goers should vote for George Bush because he's the "Peace President." (That, long after George himself declared he was the war president.)

These fundies are so delusional, I swear they must be on hallucinogenic drugs. That could explain why it's so easy for Bush's cabal to "create their own reality" and have ANYBODY believe them.

[chris2]

Barbara wrote:

"The first thing to notice is that you’ve checked your basic civil rights at the door."

What specific rights? And whatever they are, the employee checked them willingly and voluntarily in exchange for the promise of a paycheck.

She added:

"Freedom of speech? Forget about it: Some employers bar speech of any kind with your fellow employees."

Some employers might keep the noses of employees pressed to the grindstone. But isn't that what the employee agreed to when accepting the job?

Shed went on:

"I saw this firsthand at a chain restaurant and a Wal-Mart store. Wanna work? Zip your lips."

Having worked in a few restaurants I know how often staff members become distracted and overlook customers who want service. I've seen restaurants lose a lot of their business due to staff inattention.

Meanwhile, I once worked for Bradlees, a large discount retail store chain that went bankrupt about a decade ago and completely shuttered all its stores. What went wrong? Why did this once-thriving retail business lose its edge? Hard to say, but the site of the store at which I worked -- Norwalk, CT -- is now occupied by a Wal-Mart, and that store is booming.

She went on:

"How about those privacy rights that Will so concerned about?"

There's no reason employers should grant privacy to employees except on matters related to basic civil practices. Businesses do not exist for the pleasure of the employees. If that's a worker's goal, the worker should monetize his hobby, which is accomplished remarkably often and sometimes with stupendous success. Microsoft is a good example.

She gassed:

"Nada – they don’t exist outside of Will-land either. You probably had to pee in a cup to get your job in the first place, which constitutes a very intimate chemical invasion of privacy."

As a Wall Streeter, I've had to pee in several cups. Is there some reason the bad habits that some employees practice after hours should affect the workplace? For several years I ran two mutual funds containing $200 million of client money. Would investors benefit if I were consuming cocaine? Would the company have benefited if a coke-fueled employee were arrested, bringing bad publicity to the company? Public trust is important. Enron lost it. But how many of Enron's thousands of employees were actually criminals? A handful. But the company collapsed because the public lost faith in it, not because operations were fictitious or illegal.

She ranted:

"In most states, your purse or backpack can be searched by the employer at any time; your emails and web activity can be monitored."

Hence, leave the coke and handgun at home, and don't write and transmit anything provocative on the company's computer system. That sounds pretty easy.

More gassing:

"Right of assembly? Sorry, you don’t have that either."

Unless by assembly you mean assembling parts into a car. The workplace has many social aspects, but its chief reason for existence is to produce either goods and/or services at a profit; it is not in business to exist as a coffee shop for workers.

What experience?

"In my experience, most managers see a group of three or more employees talking together as an insurrection in the making. Shut up and get back to work!"

I've worked in gas stations, retail stores, as a carpenter, a laborer, in restaurants, in cable TV, as a public-school teacher in NYC, and on Wall Street.

On-the-job pressures have ranged from non-existent to extreme, with the most extreme occurring at one Wall Street shop at which I worked several years ago, though teaching in a NY City high school includes its own special brand of headaches.

That's life. That's work.

[Linda]

The guts of the "biblical" argument, from the Crosswalk.com link above:
http://www.crosswalk.com/509270/

"Some Christians go further and find the whole concept of supporting a union contrary to their understanding of New Testament teachings. Unions typically use strong tactics, often including violent strikes, to force employers to concede to their demands. Three of the giants of the New Testament, John the Baptist, Paul and Peter, cast serious doubt on whether a Christian should be a part of this kind of organization. John the Baptist, in Luke 3:14, counseled believers to be content with their wages. Paul, in Colossians 3:22-24, told believers to work for their master as if they were working for the Lord. Peter, in 1 Peter 2:18-24, counseled Christians to suffer indignity at the hands of masters rather than retaliate. A Christian who understands that working for the employer is like working for the Lord will view most union tactics with grave concern. Since believers are warned by Paul in 2 Corinthians 6:14-17 against being "yoked together" with those who do not accept Biblical teaching, many find it impossible to join or financially support a labor union."

If I didn't know people who've had personal experiences with this brand of Christianity, I would have thought this was an Onion spoof.

Just! Plain! Nuts!

[barbsright]

As a Christian, I would not have a problem joining a labor union, as long as it was honest. No Jimmy Hoffas, thank you! My experience has been that there are good companies, and bad ones. The worse the management, the worse the labor relations, the worse the local labor union. The 'fish stinks from the head'!

[Work Ethic Dropout]

In his editorial against the Employee Free Choice Act, George F. Will attempts to explain workers' disinterest in unionization in terms of the marvelous "flexibility" of today's U.S. workforce. What our erudite pundit should have written is an essay on the question raised by his own glib reference to the economy's deteriorating work environments. He might have considered how the person who has 10 employers between age 18 and 38 will ever be able to get a solid footing in their work and career, obtain the deep experience they need, or obtain the employer-supplied, on-the-job training that might allow them to move ahead. For the sake of all the 18- to 38-year-olds out there, we must hope that work life won't really become as transient as Mr. Will's numbers suggest. Such conditions don't sound marvelous at all, they sound more like a recipe for sideways and downward mobility for the young.

[The Eternal Squire]

Well, try the United Methodist Church if you want pro-union. My only problem with them, is that they have diluted the Message with support for a whole zoo of feel-good temporal causes. But they play classical music most of the time, and they wont give you an anti-union harangue like something out of Billy Sunday.

[gordo]

Chris2--

Apparently you missed the fact that Ms. Ehrenreich is debunking a George Will column.

His argument depends on the notion that employees enjoy certain rights, which will be lost if the Employee Free Choice Act passes. You deny that employees have such rights.

I'm glad to see that you and Ms. Ehrenreich have found something you can agree on: George Will's argument collapses as soon as it's subjected to scrutiny.

[chris]

gordo, you wrote:

"Apparently you missed the fact that Ms. Ehrenreich is debunking a George Will column."

Not at all.

You further crowed:

"His argument depends on the notion that employees enjoy certain rights, which will be lost if the Employee Free Choice Act passes. You deny that employees have such rights."

Again, not at all. Workers have many rights, and there's always room for a little improvement.

But workers have obligations -- like working -- which Barbara and a few others dispute.

In today's world of instant communications and intense interest in every move made by thousands of companies, it is inconceivable that employees should expect unfettered use of company e-mail.

It's way too easy for an employee to pass "inside information" -- intentionally or unintentionally -- to someone willing to capitalize on it.

Company secrets are of great value to outsiders.

Then there's the simple issue of a company's reputation. It's easily damaged by unfounded criticisms.

In short, if the requirements of the job are unacceptable, don't accept the job. Workplaces vary tremendously, and there's a pretty good fit for almost everyone.

[Sonya]

I think partly the attitude that workers shouldn't have any rights and should be grateful for what they get comes from the predominately Protestant attitudes this country was founded on where it was thought that if you're poor, it's punishment for some flaw.
There's a long post about it on my blog but that was the gist.

[Different]

Ah yes, the "Protestant Work Ethic" is often what I refer to it as.

Even some of the most Liberal-communist punks have this philosophy deep in them somewhere.

It's usually the ethos, "all work is good work. All work is valuable." It sets a dangerous life precedent I find.

Be careful about being around people who adopt this philosophy, no matter their background or politics. I often find they mean well, but are often ignorant, and they don't realize the harm they can cause.

I've seen such people shatter the confidence of good people they call friends, and literally turn them mentally unstable.

Not all help is good help. While I beleive people with such philosophies genuinely want to help/care, it just doesn't work for obvious scientific reasons.

[Sharon]

Asperius nihl est humil, cum surgit in altim

I think that it is regrettable that we must rely on unions to save us from corporate greed. It does, however, seem the only plausible way to effectively begin to bring integrity back to the workplace.

I have not personally belonged to a Union, thus don't have much to say. I have recently been exposed to unions from a distance and have concerns about how one actually comes to know whether a union is trustworthy.

The dumbing down of every profession makes this all the more tragic.

[gordo]

chris--

Are you deliberately missing the point? Ehrenreich pointed out that the rights specifically mentioned by Will are not enjoyed by workers in the real world. At least, not in union shops.

Also, I think that if you're going to say that Ehrenreich denies the obligation of workers to perform labor, you should provide some evidence. Otherwise, you're either being lazy or dishonest. Or, as in this case, both.

Different--

Do you really think that liberals lack a work ethic? Do you have any evidence, or are you also lazy and/or dishonest?

Sharon--

You have more say in how your union is run than you do in how your company is run. So because they're more accountable to the workers, workers will usually find that their unions are more trustworthy than their employers.

[Sharon]

Thank you Gordo, I know that in theory this is correct, but I worry about the abuse of power to which even unions are vulnerable.

[Joanna]

"What specific rights? And whatever they are, the employee checked them willingly and voluntarily in exchange for the promise of a paycheck," snarled
C. Montgomery Burns, as he dictated his email to Smithers.