PDA

View Full Version : Bush Will Veto Worker's Rights Bill


Jason Tate
02/14/07, 12:59 PM
Today, the House Education and Labor Committee begins markup on the “Employee Free Choice Act (http://www.aflcio.org/joinaunion/voiceatwork/efca/) (EFCA), which has strong bipartisan backing (http://www.union-network.org/uniindep.nsf/0/68815B07A9626B5EC125727D005DFCC5?Op enDocument) in Congress. The EFCA would make it easier for workers to form a union. Under the current law, “even when a majority of workers ask for union representation, their employers can force them to undergo an election process (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0207/2758.html)” administered by the Bush administration’s “anti-worker (http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0626-29.htm)” National Labor Relations Board.


Roll Call reports today, “Deep-pocketed corporate lobbying groups (http://www.rollcall.com/issues/52_80/news/17043-1.html?CMP=OTC-RSS) have joined together to defeat” the EFCA. Speaking before a business lobby group this morning, Vice President Cheney announced that Bush will veto the EFCA legislation.

The current union organization system is tilted against America’s workers. Each year, over 20,000 U.S. workers (http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/resources/23cite.cfm) are illegally fired, demoted, laid off, suspended without pay, or denied work by their employers as a result of union activity. Under the Bush administration, American workers have seen union levels — and their wages — steadily drop:
– In Oct. 2006, Bush’s National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) — “easily the most anti-worker labor board in history (http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0626-29.htm)” — issued a decision (http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/pm115) that will deny the right to organize to as many as 8 million workers in 200 occupations.
– In 2000, 13.5 percent (http://www.unionstats.com/) of all wage and salary workers were unionized. In 2006, just 12 percent of workers were in unions.
– The portion of private sector workers covered by union protections has fallen steadily from 23.2 percent in 1979 to 8.5 percent in 2005 (http://www.trinity.edu/bhirsch/unionstats/).
– In 2004, 92 percent of employers (http://zed.techprogress.org:8080/mysite/sprint/issues/2004/06/b99065.html) forced workers to attend “mandatory captive audience meetings” where workers often had to “listen to hours of anti-union presentations by corporate representatives.”
– “The median hourly wage for American workers has declined 2 percent since 2003″ — after factoring in inflation — even though average worker productivity (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/28/business/28wages.html) “has risen steadily over the same period.”
Unions ensure a better standard of living for working Americans. Workers represented by unions earn 28 percent more (http://www.aflcio.org/joinaunion/voiceatwork/efca/upload/Majority_Sign-Up.pdf) than nonunion workers and are 62 percent more likely to have medical insurance (http://www.aflcio.org/joinaunion/voiceatwork/efca/upload/Majority_Sign-Up.pdf) through their jobs. Contact your lawmakers and tell them to support the Employee Free Choice Act (http://www.unionvoice.org/campaign/signthe_EFCA).

Love As Arson
02/14/07, 02:31 PM
Capital has done very well in past thirty years in decreasing the rights of workers, while extracting more wealth from them, so it stands to reason that it would want to prohibit somehting that would organise workers into a force to be reckoned with. However, I would like to see labor organise against this in protest, not in a peaceful manner, but the manner that occurred when the French government threatened to repeal worker's rights in their country.

Jason Tate
02/14/07, 03:26 PM
Capital has done very well in past thirty years in decreasing the rights of workers, while extracting more wealth from them, so it stands to reason that it would want to prohibit somehting that would organise workers into a force to be reckoned with. However, I would like to see labor organise against this in protest, not in a peaceful manner, but the manner that occurred when the French government threatened to repeal worker's rights in their country.
Interesting.

x togepi x
02/14/07, 07:22 PM
Capital has done very well in past thirty years in decreasing the rights of workers, while extracting more wealth from them, so it stands to reason that it would want to prohibit somehting that would organise workers into a force to be reckoned with. However, I would like to see labor organise against this in protest, not in a peaceful manner, but the manner that occurred when the French government threatened to repeal worker's rights in their country.

Don't the major unions in this country make money on the worker-corporate relationship anyway? I'd think this would keep any meaningful change from happening, at least, through them.

Love As Arson
02/14/07, 09:12 PM
Don't the major unions in this country make money on the worker-corporate relationship anyway? I'd think this would keep any meaningful change from happening, at least, through them.
Yes, which is why workers should be able to form other unions that provide for the worker, rather than the corporation. It's worth noting, however, that only twelve percent of workers have unions, so the ability to easier create a union would allow them to form the sort of union I am speaking of.