Friday, 4/11/97
Unions must democratize our economy
Workforce should use bargaining power to exert more control over
wages, conditions
By Jeff Richmond
Different people have different views and interests, hence there
is a need for a social organization in order to protect rights to
freedom of speech and freedom of choice. Karl Popper, Austrian
philosopher, called this the "open society." In his book, "The Open
Society and Its Enemies" (1945), he explained that this open
society was the most feared enemy of oppressive ideologies such as
Nazism and communism.
Since the fall of communism in 1987, Americans have struggled
with a new definition. Since we can not simply declare ourselves as
"the country that is against commies," we have been quickly pushed
into accepting "free market" control of everything from our
self-worth to the workplace. How idiotic have we become when we
appreciate a piece of art by its price tag or believing a service
is better than another because of the cost. I once wrote and
published a book of poetry and faced criticism for giving it to
friends and associates for free. Markets determine the cost of
goods, but we are cold blooded if we believe that the market
determines ideology and community values.
George Soros, prominent financier, in his article in the
February issue of The Atlantic Monthly, contended that the biggest
threat to our "open society" would come from excessive
individualism – too much competition and not enough cooperation. He
added that open-society capitalists are enjoying a global market
economy but the collective whole is failing the society in
sustaining its values, institutions and philosophies. The global
laissez faire (don’t interfere) market has created an artificial
world in which people’s preferences and the opportunities
confronting people are independent of each other. For example, the
paradoxical situations of workers without benefits buying stock in
the company where they are employed and hoping to build a nest egg
but later becoming a victim of downsizing, therefore making them
former employees who are stockholders of their ex-employers. (Makes
one wonder if they had any say at the stockholders’ meetings!?)
Business and the economics of business are complicated sciences.
Technology, ever-changing as it is, has created an unstable and
volatile environment. We have a sense that the world we live in is
independent of ourselves and out of our control. A co-worker or the
person next door has become a competitor in a Darwinian society of
survival of the fittest. My point is, we are rapidly becoming an
unopen society. Nazism and communism oppressed their people into
conformity. And now, laissez faire economics has become rabid and
is bearing down for every drop of blood and sweat. Intimidating
sound bites such as, "you’re lucky to have a job" or "in keeping
with the needs in cost reduction…" have us all fogged with fear
and anger.
According to the Department of Labor, currently 8 million people
are unemployed – translating to 5.7 percent. However, in California
the unemployment rate is 7 percent. These statistics do not reflect
people who have fallen off the records because of the time they
have not received compensation, nor those who are homeless. Five
million people (nationally) have given up looking for a job because
of the lack of opportunities and there are another 5 million
(nationally) who work part-time involuntarily. (Not forgetting that
"casual” workers gain nothing toward retirement benefits or
seniority.)
When all of this is accounted for, the unemployment rate is over
14 percent. In California, the unemployment rate would be much
higher than the national rate when data already shows this state
has documented above national average unemployment.
In the 1950s and ’60s, unemployment of 6 to 7 percent was
intense, but now an unemployment rate of below 6 percent could be
inflationary. What happened to the Humphrey-Hawkins Act of 1978
that mandated total employment as a key national goal?
DON’T WE LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY?
The playing field of the government is level with three players
– the executive, legislative and judicial – guided by ethical and
constitutional constraints. Businesses and institutions were/are
set up much the same way. (1) The executive (owner, stockholder and
CEO), (2) administration and management and (3) the workforce.
For some 85 percent of the American workforce, that’s where that
thought ends. There is no "constitutional constraint" at the
workplace. If there is, it is set up by the two powers over the
workforce with the underlying reality that anyone can be dismissed
for no reason at all. Once accused, a person is guilty and may
never be proven innocent.
Perhaps as much as 80 percent of our waking hours are spent in
the workplace and for many under an extremely oppressive
environment – no freedom of speech, no serious input and the only
freedom of choice is the door. Add on economic worries that the
majority of us have and we’ve reached a familiar socio-depressive
way of life.
In 1935, during President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal
legislation, the National Labor Relations Act was adopted by
Congress. Its purpose was to promote "free collective bargaining"
between the workforce and the employer. Through unionization, the
workforce would be better represented at bargaining. Roosevelt and
his constituents agreed that it was ridiculous to have a society
which had one set of laws and ethics imposed by government but
different ethics and ungrievable demands at the workplace. Unlike a
democratic government where we elect our leaders, the workforce
does not get to elect the owner or CEO. So, unions were encouraged
by the NLRA to promote an industrial democracy.
In 1954, approximately 35 percent of the workforce had union
membership. Strong unions conferred benefits on non-union workers,
since companies were willing to pay higher wages and increase
benefits to prevent unionization. By 1994, approximately 14 percent
belonged to a union and of that percentage, only 3 percent were
public-sector employees.
The decline of unions (or organized labor) was accelerated by
the politically driven change of policy by the National Labor
Relations Board in the 1980s – particularly by the Reagan
administration’s busting of the air traffic controllers’ strike.
Also, this decline reflected the diminishing number of companies in
which unions were strongest. De-certification drives of management
installed new job titles with non-union workers.
A Fallible Stance
Elaine Bernard, executive director of the Harvard University
Trade Union Program, stated that "unions will not survive if they
do not serve the needs of their members. Nor will unions survive if
they only serve the needs of their members."
Can we possibly shift our thinking from believing we own the
absolute truth to realizing we are fallible? I am not addressing
the philosophy at the bargaining table in contract negotiations –
that involves a distinct set of rules, guidelines and the science
of negotiating. I am addressing all of us in the workplace from the
CEO (or president, chancellor) to worker (or staff member) – the
gamut of the playing field. Although far reaching in its concept,
admitting that we are fallible opens us up. We seem more honest and
approachable. There are risks of experimentation in accepting the
fact that unions are trying to instill democracy in the workplace
but have to find some common ground with the powers that be (be it
government, business or institutions).
Right around the corner is a new generation of workers who will
need contracts and guidelines in the workplace more than ever. Free
markets and the New Right bear down on them while they compete to
survive without a philosophy of fairness.
Broadening industry, institution and union responsibility to the
community and the family is of utmost importance. Bernard was
dead-on when she stated that the farther-reaching implications of a
union contract can affect the community and even society as a
whole. Our society might gain by this new/old approach. Of course
unions are fighting for fair and reasonable conditions on the job,
but keep in mind the importance of maintaining a more prosperous,
stimulating and innovative society, opening doors for future
movement and open to change.Richmond is a senior electronics
technician at UCLA and bargainer for the technical unit of the
University Professional and Technical Employees (UPTE), which is
negotiating its first union contract.