Cal Berkeley Democrats

The Not-So-Powerful Empire Strikes Back: Union Revival?

       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
How much is too much? This is the question Democratic lawmakers in Wisconsin are asking themselves and while it’s difficult to agree on a standard what they do agree on is that the proposals backed by Republican Governor Scott Walker are not the answer. As everyone else, I was surprised to hear the news that there was a war being waged in the state of Wisconsin and one that had been obscured by the intensive news coverage of the Egyptian protests. This is one of the reasons why, when I first saw a photo of protesters outside on the streets on the home page of my favorite online news website, I was first inclined to believe it to be Egypt. I can’t say I agree much with the policies of Republican lawmakers in Congress, but even less with Paul Ryan’s statement claiming, “Egypt had moved to Madison.”

Is Madison like Egypt? Are people fighting against a powerful dictator who has made their livelihoods unbearable for the past 30 years? The short answer is no, but a closer look could makes us wonder if so. Scott Walker was recently elected, after winning his race for Governor in the 2010 elections, and assumed office in January 3, 2011. A month and three weeks later, he is already facing the heat. His extensive proposals, calling for the suspension of collective bargaining rights (except for wages, though these can only be fixed at a rate lower than the Consumer Price Index) and requiring workers to increase their share of the costs for health insurance and other benefits have been the catalyst in creating a revolution of intensive mobilization and resistance not seen in the labor movement since the 1960s. Before we go any further, I should explain what collective bargaining is and why it is such a vital tools for unions.

In 1935, Congress passed the National Labor Relations Act that made it illegal for employers to harass or punish employees who engage in union organizing, join a union, or are part of mobilizing campaigns. In addition, the act made it difficult for employers to refuse to engage in collective bargaining with the union representative of their employees. Basically, collective bargaining is the process in which unions are able to negotiate with employers agreements that regulate working conditions such as wages, benefits, work hours, employee contributions, retirement, etc. Collective bargaining provides a door for unions and employees to uphold their wellbeing and monitor their employer’s fair labor practices. This right had long been assumed to be sacred and an established practice. It is now under attack.

While it is important to note that the Labor Relations Act only affected private employees, the descending path is similar for public union employees. The reality is that these measures can easily be justified because of the current difficult times. Yes, hard decisions must be made. Our nation is hurting, every state is hurting and we are hurting. So what could be some of the overreaching consequences of letting this happen? First of all, we would establish precedent and one that would go in the opposite direction of progress. While you could make the argument that these measures may be needed now, what about fifteen or twenty years from now? We don’t know what our world will be like then and to permanently and indefinitely take away such a vital negotiating right may be catastrophic to the average worker, not only in Wisconsin but also in the entire country.

Some people don’t necessarily believe it is a big deal. Why do we even have unions anyway? Unions were necessary back in the 1930s after the Great Depression to assure fair wages and a stable recovery, but not now. Unions are hurting us, they hurt businesses, constrain them and choke them to the point of no return. This argument has a few valid points, but very contradictory ones. On the one side, it is difficult for businesses to compete in a global market where labor and wages are cheaper abroad, making their production costs increase exponentially against competitors. How can a business with unionized workers survive against one that outsources its labor abroad for less than .03 cents an hour? While this makes some sense, I believe we are looking at the wrong picture. What we need to be most worried about is the transformation of labor as an international commodity. How will workers be able to compete against a Chinese or Taiwanese worker who will do the same job for virtually no benefits and only a fraction of his or her wages? Labor is fast approaching that thin line where the fight is not going to be dwelt against employers or legislators, but with foreign bodies. This will only create a sharp drop in the standard of living of American workers, one that we will not be able to sustain and will only deepen the gap in between wealth and skill and poverty and routine labor.

The only thing we can try to do is slow down this process and take back some of the decision-making power that labor had. Decreasing it only takes us a step closer to that doomsday scenario. So I applaud the Democratic lawmakers who fled the state, the thousands of workers who have marched outside the state capitol in the cold and the rain and I hope for this to be a turning point in the American labor movement. After all, that is what democracy looks like. Years of sharp decline in union membership and power must come to an end. I hope for this not for the sake of employees, or because I oppose business, but because I seek some balance. And frankly, for the past 30 years that balance has tilted one way, and it needs to go back to the middle.