Most political journalists, to the extent that they write about unions’ issues at all, usually portray the labor movement as focused single-mindedly on NAFTA and other trade agreements.
Certainly, fair trade is a key issue for working people. But it’s not the only thing that matters.
As rising health costs eat up most new wage gains, affordable health care will be an important issue.
But another issue that has already become just as important as NAFTA and trade is the freedom to form new unions.
People who want to form unions are effectively barred by outdated labor laws that are decisively biased in favor of employers. Reform of those laws will restore the freedom to organize unions, which will go a long way towards giving ordinary Americans the opportunity to make changes on health care, secure retirement, housing, and a host of other issues.
To his credit, Al Gore seemed to understand the importance of this issue and talked about it often with unions, even if the media ignored anything he said about it.
This year, all of the Democratic candidates have spoken out plainly in favor of restoring the freedom to form a union.
This is a remarkable step forward, but it's gone unnoticed by most of the media. This might start to change in the future and this this LA Times piece by Ronald Brownstein could be a sign of things to come.
Brownstein notices that this is not a trivial issue to unions:
As Kerry and Edwards noted, employers have stiffened their resistance in those election campaigns, utilizing tactics that unions say intimidate workers — like firing activists or interminably delaying the vote. The result has been that unions lose most representation elections, especially at firms that actively oppose them."The way the law gets played out today in union organizing campaigns, it is very, very difficult for unions to win," says Fred Feinstein, the general counsel at the National Labor Relations Board under Clinton.
Kerry and Edwards would reshape the playing field with a reform known as card-check recognition. That would force employers to recognize a union if a majority of workers simply sign cards or petitions indicating they want to join.
By eliminating the election stage where management exerts its greatest leverage, that approach could greatly increase labor's prospects of adding new members. To underscore the point, Kerry and Edwards would also toughen penalties on companies that use unfair labor practices, and establish time limits, with binding arbitration, for firms to reach an initial contract with a new union. Kerry says he would even give preference in federal contracts to companies that remain neutral in organizing drives.
We’re still a long way off from a Wagner Act for the 21st Century, however:
Republicans would fiercely resist any drive to rewrite the labor laws; many Democrats from Southern states with little union presence would inevitably join them. Kerry and Edwards, as well as AFL-CIO leaders, recognize that labor law reform won't be politically possible any time soon, even if Democrats retake the White House this fall.Yet simply forcing the cause of organizing reform onto the campaign agenda represents an enormous advance for unions. By binding the Democrats more closely to this cause, and publicizing it more widely, the unions have increased their leverage to pursue it through means other than congressional legislation, such as local initiatives providing preference in contracting to companies that allow card-check recognition.
"You had an entire Democratic field this time that embraced organizing rights, which is quite extraordinary given the way unions were perceived 10 or 15 years ago," says Steve Rosenthal, the former political director for the AFL-CIO. "That is a monumental change."
Comments