[Corp. Watch] A modest first step in reducing corporate power

[Corporation Watch]

Americans Are Raring for a Fight Against Corporate Power

  By Jim Hightower

(Hightower Lowdown, March 2009) -- Last October, Home Depot cofounder  
Bernie Marcus blew a gasket, spewing outrage in all directions. "This  
is the demise of civilization," he exploded. "This is how a  
civilization disappears. I'm watching this happen and I don't believe  
it!"

	Bernie's outburst came during an hour-long conference call with  
various other corporate executives and their political operatives. The  
purpose was to collect industry funds for a campaign to kill a piece  
of legislation called the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA).

	Yes, the spark that ignited Bernie's fury, the hellish horror that he  
insisted would produce America's Armageddon, was a simple labor bill,  
and he was demanding that the corporate powers rally to save  
civilization as they know it.

	"As a shareholder, if I knew the CEO of the company wasn't doing  
anything on [EFCA] ... I would sue the son of a bitch," he foamed. "If  
a retailer has not gotten involved in this, ... he should be shot.  
They should be thrown out of their goddamn jobs."

	Marcus didn't specify whether such traitorous executives should be  
shot first, then thrown out of their jobs, or vice-versa -- but you  
get the point: Corporate America is working up a feverish panic over  
the very notion of linking the word "employee" with the concept of  
free choice.

	"It is a political nightmare and a public policy disaster," shrieked  
a PR flack for a corporate frontgroup opposing this legislation. He  
even claims that top executives "are ready to riot in the street about  
it."

	Now that's exciting! I, for one, would pay to watch a horde of red- 
faced, Gucci-clad, CEOs rioting -- wouldn't you?

Who needs it?

	What EFCA does is to restore workers' freedom to organize themselves  
into unions so they can bargain with corporate chieftains for fairer  
wages and benefits. That's it.

	Wait, you might say, can't they do that now? Wasn't this settled back  
in the 1930s with collective bargaining laws and creation of the  
National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to protect worker rights?

	Well, yes -- and no. It's true that 75 years ago our country took a  
stand for promoting workplace democracy -- a fundamental national  
principle that the great majority of Americans still embrace.

	But corporations are not democracies. They are hierarchical,  
secretive autocracies, and most have never taken to the idea that  
working people ought to have a say in how they are treated.

	Thus corporate executives and lobbyists have worked steadily and  
stealthily over the years to erode these democratic gains, pushing  
against them especially hard in the past couple of decades.

	Indeed, since the Reagan years, there has been a pernicious campaign  
by corporate interests and their political enablers to spread the myth  
that unions themselves are archaic entities, no longer necessary or  
wanted.

	The corporatists claim that our modern, global economy -- where we no  
longer have "workers", we have "associates", and we deal with each of  
them as independent contractors -- gives America a flexible workforce  
that minimizes labor costs and maximizes shareholder value.

	Unions just get in the way of this, don't you see?

	This line of self-serving "corporate think" was articulated last Fall  
by John Engler, the former Michigan governor who's now chief lobbyist  
(and self-appointed labor theorist) for the National Association of  
Manufacturers.

	"In the sophisticated workplaces of the 21st century," he lectured,  
"you see management and labor often work closely together to beat the  
competition. When they're doing that, the need for unions is obviated."

	But the need for unions is hardly obviated when workers have been  
dramatically increasing their productivity and generating more  
national wealth -- only to be rewarded with falling wages, plummeting  
purchasing power, elimination of healthcare benefits, and cancellation  
of pensions.

	Meanwhile, corporate lay-offs and off-shoring of jobs are rampant,  
part-time work is the new norm, and job-safety rules have been  
sacrificed on the altar of Wall Street's profit demands.

	And CEOs, who so loudly bemoan union wages, are paying themselves in  
the neighborhood of $10,000 an hour, contributing to the widest income  
inequality seen in America since the 1920s -- and the biggest in the  
industrialized world.

	These realities not only explain why today's workers need unions, but  
also why there is such a widespread yearning for them. A 2006 poll of  
the general public by the Pew Research Center found that 68% of us  
believe labor unions are necessary to protect working families.

	In that same year, a survey of workers by pollster Peter Hart  
indicated that as many as 60 million Americans would join a union  
tomorrow -- if they could.

	Why can't they? Because the corporate powers -- abetted by  
politicians they fund -- have sabotaged the rules for unionizing a  
factory, big-box retail store, hospital, bank, food-processing plant,  
and every other workplace.

	Companies are free to be aggressively hostile to any employee who  
talks to co-workers about unionizing -- it's common for that person to  
be harassed, disciplined, demoted, and even fired by corporate managers.

	Tens of thousands of workers are either disciplined or given the boot  
each year for daring to support unionization. Nearly one-third of  
companies facing a union organizing campaign fire at least one worker  
for union activity -- sending a chilling message to other employees.

	Such sledgehammer tactics are, of course, illegal, but the corporate- 
dominated NLRB's enforcement process is so drawn out and grueling that  
few of the abused workers can afford even to try getting justice.

	And if a corporation does happen to be cited by the labor-relations  
board for violations, the penalties are a joke. Management treats them  
like parking tickets -- an inconsequential cost of doing business, and  
a cheap means of stifling workplace democracy and shutting out unions.

	Still, against all odds, workers have been persevering, producing  
enough support in hundreds of workplaces to force companies to allow  
votes on whether the workers can unionize -- and elections are the  
very essence of democracy, right?

	Not in corporate America -- especially when management thinks workers  
might win. Once again, the monkeywrenchers have rigged the rules to  
make a vote on unionizing as unfair to labor as possible.

	In these elections, only one side gets to campaign: Under the NLRB's  
distorted rules, union organizers are not allowed to enter the  
workplace to talk with employees! Nor are they entitled to a contact  
list, so they have no way to reach all the workers to present their  
side.

	Meanwhile, corporate executives can call mandatory meetings to  
harangue employees about the evils of unionization, as well as force  
them into intimidating, one-on-one sessions with their supervisors to  
be told why voting for the union would not be a good career move.

	Corporations also spend hundreds of millions of dollars a year to  
hire professional "labor consultants" (a.k.a. union busters) who are  
experts in often-unsubtle ways of convincing employees to vote no on  
unionization.

	Research by Kate Bronfenbrenner, professor of labor studies at  
Cornell University, found that 92% of companies involved in organizing  
campaigns use mandatory-meetings, 78% require one-on-one sessions with  
supervisors, and 75% hire union busters to squeeze employees.

	Prof. Bronfenbrenner also found that half of the corporations facing  
elections threaten that they will close the plant or store if the  
union prevails, thereby costing all employees their jobs.  
(Interestingly, only 1% of unionized corporations actually follow  
through on this threat.)

	Even when workers win union elections, however, they still haven't  
won. Corporate executives can simply stonewall, unilaterally  
nullifying the election results by refusing to negotiate in good faith  
(if at all) to reach a collective-bargaining agreement with the now  
unionized workers.

	This, too, is illegal, but corporate lawyers can easily draw out the  
process for years, making it extremely costly. A 2008 study published   
in the Industrial and Labor Relations Review found that 44% of  
companies refuse to agree to a contract after their workers vote to  
form a union.

Restoring fairness

	The NLRB system is not merely broken, it has been thoroughly perverted.

	Its original mission was to assure that America's working men and  
women had "the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist  
labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives  
of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the  
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid and protection."  
Far from assuring this right, it has become another corporate tool for  
stiffing workers.

	To break the corporate shackles on America's unionization process,  
restore the balance of power between labor and executives, and make  
"workplace democracy" more than a rhetorical sham, unions and their  
advocates have crafted an alternative method for voting on unions.

	The EFCA streamlines the current cumbersome process by providing  
three straight-forward steps:

1) Majority sign-up -- If a majority of employees in a workplace sign  
cards attesting that they choose to form a union, the NLRB must  
recognize this "card-check election" and certify the will of the  
workers. This majority-rule process is used without a problem in  
Canada and by some U.S. corporations, including AT&T and Kaiser  
Permanente. If employees prefer, they can still choose to use the  
current elections system.

2) Contract arbitration -- If workers choose to unionize, their  
representatives and those of the corporation have three months to  
negotiate a contract. If they cannot reach an agreement, a federal  
mediator is brought in to try resolving the differences. If no  
agreement is reached after 30 days of mediation, the disputed issues  
are submitted to binding arbitration, thus preventing endless  
corporate foot-dragging.

3. Real penalties against coercion -- No more wristslaps for  
intimidating, firing, or otherwise pressuring employees who try to  
organize unions. It is already illegal to use coercion, but this  
provision increases the penalties -- including $20,000 fines for each  
incident, and triple back-pay for employees who've been fired,  
demoted, or otherwise discriminated against for union activity -- so  
there is a real deterrent to violations.

Corporate sanctimony

	To fight the card-check proposal, corporate executives who are  
notorious for intimidating their employees have suddenly become caped  
crusaders against employee intimidation (by unions, that is).

	In order to protect our vulnerable employees from the possibility  
that dastardly union organizers will browbeat workers into signing  
union cards, it is imperative that we maintain the current system of  
NLRB elections (and leave browbeating in the trusted hands of  
management).

	To give such naked hypocrisy a cloak of respectability, corporate  
interests insist that what's really at stake here is the sanctity of  
free elections, as guaranteed by the secret ballot.

	Home Depot's Bernie Marcus wrapped himself in that cloak in a  
Business Week commentary he wrote last Fall: "[The EFCA] eviscerates  
traditional democratic principles by effectively taking away an  
employee's right to vote by secret ballot."

	While it's always touching to hear top management almost sob with  
concern about employee rights, Marcus is flat wrong. The EFCA does not  
eliminate the secret ballot. The entire NLRB process is left in place,  
and is still available if workers choose to use it.

	The EFCA simply restores an original provision of the 1935 National  
Labor Relations Act, which authorized the card-check method -- which,  
over the years, corporate interests were able to kill by altering the  
NLRB rules to allow management to veto the use of card checks.

	Of course, secret ballots have a natural appeal, since it is how we  
elect people to public office. But unions are the employees'  
organizations, not management's, and sanctimonious CEOs like Marcus  
should have no say over the way workers organize themselves.

	If corporate executives feel a genuinely democratic impulse, they are  
welcome to apply it to themselves. After all, managers have become  
entrenched despots, effectively shutting out the people who actually  
own the company (shareholders) from their rightful role in  
decisionmaking -- including decisions over the outlandish salaries,  
bonuses, and other perks that top managers award to themselves.

	But the wailing we hear from the executive suites about the card- 
check process actually has nothing to do with democratic principles,  
and everything to do with preserving the autocratic power that  
executives hold over America's workforce.

	CEOs have now realized that card-check elections would make it much  
more feasible for their employees to organize themselves, and then  
have a meaningful say in decisions that affect them. And real  
democracy is exactly what corporate interests so vehemently oppose.

	As Wal-Mart's CEO put it last October when asked why corporate  
managers are dead set against card-checks: "We like driving the car,  
and we're not going to give the steering wheel to anybody but us."

The fight is on

	With the exception of a few openly hostile companies like Wal-Mart  
and Home Depot, most of corporate America is skittish about appearing  
anti-worker (especially given today's sour public attitude toward fat- 
cat executives).

	So they are pouring millions of dollars into several frontgroups to  
lead the corporate fight against the EFCA. Among these are:

The Center for Union Facts (CUF) -- Launched in 2006 by corporate  
lobbyist Richard Berman, CUF is currently running a high-profile,  
multi-million-dollar assault on unions in general and the EFCA  
specifically. It has placed several full-page ads in the New York  
Times (at $150,000 each) that crudely caricature union leaders as  
thugs. Berman, who calls himself "Dr. Evil," has previously fronted  
similar political campaigns for Big Tobacco, the alcohol industry,  
fast-food purveyors, and others. He refuses to disclose which  
corporations fund his attacks.

Americans for Job Security (AJS) -- This frontgroup sprang out of  
another an earlier one formed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in the  
1990s to run attack ads against Democrats, and is essentially operated  
by Republican political consultants. The AJS website flatly states  
that the group "does not disclose or discuss its membership" --  
because, AJS officials say, doing so "would distract from the group's  
message."

The Coalition for a Democratic Workplace (CDW) -- This group, which  
sheds crocodile tears for the "sanctity of the secret ballot", is  
backed by several corporate consortiums, including the U.S. Chamber of  
Commerce, Retail Industry Leaders Association (whose biggest member is  
Wal-Mart), and Associated Builders and Contractors. CDW will not  
reveal its backers.

The Workplace Fairness Institute (WFI) -- Formed by corporate  
lobbyists and PR agents, WFI claims that card-check "is an attempt to  
undermine the democratic system that Americans hold dear." WFI's  
website asserts that its funders are "NOT anti-union", but merely  
prefer to maintain good employer/employee relationships "without the  
unfair interference of ... union organizers." WFI refuses to disclose  
its funders.

The Alliance for Worker Freedom (AWF) -- This is an arm of Americans  
for Tax Reform, founded by Republican operative Grover Norquist. Not  
given to subtlety, Norquist has boasted: "We're going to crush labor  
as a political entity". He will not name the companies financing AWF.

Save Our Secret Ballot (SOSB) -- Founded by the corporate-backed  
Heritage Foundation, Goldwater Institute, and Americans for Tax  
Reform, SOSB is trying to outlaw the card-check process by introducing  
state constitutional amendments to require secret ballots in all  
elections, including "designations or authorizations of employee  
representation." SOSB is unwilling to identify its funders.

Political will

	There is broad support across the country for the EFCA. A Peter Hart  
poll released this January shows that 73% of the public supports it,  
including nearly half of Republicans.

	The problem is that popular support must run through a gauntlet of  
naysayers in Washington, including 13,000 corporate lobbyists, a solid  
line of recalcitrant Republicans, and a contingent of weak-kneed  
corporate Democrats.

	Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R - Kentucky) has already  
declared that "This is an issue on which there will be no  
bipartisanship," claiming that the proposal would "Europeanize  
America." Oh, the horror.

	This is going to be a major test for Obama, who pledged unequivocally  
last year that he would "get this thing done" if he won the presidency.

	Getting it done will require him to choose between working families  
and his corporate funders, to face down his own corporatist economic  
advisors, use real presidential muscle with Congress, and -- most  
important -- rally grassroots support to bring the people directly  
into the fight.

	He can do it, but will he?

----------------------------

Jim Hightower is a national radio commentator, writer, public speaker,  
and author