Re: [Marxism] on the democratic party question

[Greg McDonald <sabocat59@xxxxxxx>]

In this excerpted article, the author argues that getting a democrat  
elected President will help with the passage of EFCA. This will  
benefit the working class directly by making union membership easier  
to achieve, through card check democracy, dues check off and harsher  
penalties on employers for anti-union activities. So this is one way  
voting democrat could benefit the working class.  But even if the  
democrats win the Presidency and retain a majority in Congress,  
business groups like the Chamber of Commerce will try to persuade  
moderate and conservative democrats, such as the blue dog democrats,  
to vote against EFCA,

In the IWW, it is argued that the repressive legal environment  
against union formation necessitates different strategies for  
organizing. In the minority solidarity model advocated by Staughton  
Lynd and Alexis Buss, unions waste their energy trying to gain legal  
status and should focus on forcing the employer to accommodate  
workers' demands through direct action and solidarity on the job. A  
union might not even make its presence known unless it is opportune  
to do so, and will focus on small actions and demands until the time  
is ripe to press more overtly.  If a group of self-organized workers  
starts to act like a union, then it is one, and does not depend for  
its existence on employer or government recognition, and can even  
exist as a minority faction in the workplace while it tries to win  
workers over by an accumulation of forces achieved through the  
demonstration effect of successful direct action A more open and  
legally guaranteed process of union formation and legalization would  
certainly be helpful, but in any case the workers will need to  
organize themselves on the job to be an effective union.

Greg

Peter Dreier

Labor Day Report Card: A Mixed Bag for American Workers

Posted September 3, 2007 | 03:01 AM (EST)
Read More: Breaking Politics News

....According to Professor Kate Bronfenbrenner of Cornell University,  
one-quarter of all employers illegally fire at least one employee  
during union organizing campaigns. In 2005, over 31,000 workers were  
illegally disciplined or fired for union activity, according to the  
NLRB. The lucky workers get reinstated years later after exhaustive  
court battles. Indeed, penalties for these violations are so minimal  
that most employers treat them as a minor cost of doing business.  
Employees who initially signed union cards are often long-gone or too  
afraid to vote by the time the NLRB conducts an election.

Big business spends hundreds of millions of dollars a year to hire  
anti-union consultants who use elaborate strategies to keep unions  
out. Employers in the United States can require workers to attend  
meetings on work time where company managers and consultants give  
anti-union speeches, show anti-union films and distribute anti-union  
literature. Unions have no equivalent rights of access to employees.  
To reach them, organizers must visit their homes or hold secret  
meetings. This is hardly workplace democracy.

The next battle in the struggle for workers' rights is the Employee  
Free Choice Act (EFCA), the most important pro-worker legislation  
since the original National Labor Relations Act was passed in 1935.  
EFCA would level the playing field between management and workers,  
making it more likely that union organizing campaigns will be  
successful and reverse the labor movement's four-decade membership  
decline.

The EFCA would allow employees to form unions by simply signing a  
card stating that they desire union representation. If a majority of  
employees in a workplace sign a card, the company would be obligated  
to bargain with the union the employees choose. The law would also  
increase penalties for companies who violate worker rights and  
provide for mediation and arbitration for first contract disputes a  
key provision given that employers often drag out negotiations to  
wear down a new union.

If EFCA were enacted, the U.S. would match other democracies in the  
protection of worker rights. In Canada, for example, the "card check"  
process is in place, and union membership is more than twice that in  
the U.S.

Last March, the U.S. House of Representatives approved the EFCA by a  
241-185 vote. In June, 51 Senators -- all but one of the 52 Democrats  
(Sen. Tim Johnson of South Dakota, was ill and did not vote) and one  
Republican (Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania) -- voted in favor of EFCA,  
but it wasn't enough to end the Republican filibuster. Even had it  
gotten out of Congress, President Bush pledged to veto it.

Those who support the EFCA stood up to heavy opposition by the U.S.  
Chamber of Commerce, which launched a costly barrage of radio ads  
across the country. Business leaders and their allies in Congress  
(and the religious right) understand that a resuscitated labor  
movement would be an effective counterweight to their political  
influence. That is why they are on the warpath against the EFCA.

The labor movement is likely to make support for the EFCA a litmus  
test for targeting its endorsement, money, and ground troops to  
candidates running for House and Senate in 2008, particularly those  
in swing districts and states, where Republican incumbents are  
vulnerable to defeat. All the Democratic candidates for president  
support the bill. So if a Democrat is elected to the White House in  
November 2008, and the Democrats maintain a majority in Congress, the  
battle will heat up even more. Business groups will try to persuade  
moderate Democrats to withdraw their support for the EFCA.

It's do-or-die time for the American labor movement. In the next  
decade or two, unions will either make a comeback or become marginal  
players in American society and politics. If labor stumbles towards  
irrelevance, our overall society will become nastier, more unequal  
and individualistic than it already is. It's not a happy prospect --  
but one worth pondering on this Labor Day.

A shorter version of this commentary appears in Monday's Philadelphia  
Inquirer.

  
  

________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism