Posts Tagged ‘Wagner Act’

h1

Why is collective bargaining important?

February 20, 2011

I am not a labor scholar. But in the midst of our posts about Wisconsin labor strife, here is a useful reminder from codified U.S. law:

It is declared to be the policy of the United States to eliminate the causes of certain substantial obstructions to the free flow of commerce and to mitigate and eliminate these obstructions when they have occurred by encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining and by protecting the exercise by workers of full freedom of association, self-organization, and designation of representatives of their own choosing, for the purpose of negotiating the terms and conditions of their employment or other mutual aid or protection.

(U.S. Code Title 29, Chapter 7, Subchapter II, Section 151)

Given that this was written in the midst of the Great Depression (as part of the Wagner Act), the reasons given for the value of collective bargaining are purely economic, with no mention of collective bargaining as one of the sole sources of power for the working class, or as a logical extension of the First Amendment-protected right to freedom of association. (In fact, the International Labor Organization sees collective bargaining and freedom of association as essentially the same thing.) Nevertheless, that’s some powerful language, especially when read in today’s context.

More? The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 23 explicitly recognizes workers’ rights as human rights, including: “(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.”

The last word goes to Georgetown’s Michael Kazin, who invokes the argument that collective bargaining is key to a democratic society:

State employees and their allies are standing up for a moral principle that ought to be self-evident: the right to have a say about the conditions that affect one’s life at work. In seeking to return to authoritarian labor relations, Gov. Walker and his fellow Republicans are revealing the hypocrisy of conservative rants about “unelected bureaucrats” and “liberal elites who condescend to ordinary Americans.”

Collective bargaining helped millions of wage-earners to hold down secure, middle-class jobs. It has a made us a more democratic nation.

Flying Whale

Advertisements
h1

Is the labor movement anti-freedom?

January 20, 2011

Today’s entertainment was a panel discussion entitled “Employer Reaction to Union Organizing,” in which a professor of labor policy, a labor and industrial relations historian at the University of Minnesota’s business school (of all places), the regional NLRB director, and an attorney representing management interests in collective bargaining all talked about the future of the Wagner Act and U.S. unions in general. I’m afraid that I don’t have a coherent set of thoughts to present about this panel, in part because it wasn’t the most coherent panel ever – but it was still fascinating and there are some tidbits to share and ponder over.

The most interesting recurring theme, albeit one that was more of an undercurrent than an explicitly discussed idea, was that of collective good versus individual rights. In one of the few times this was made explicit, the NLRB regional director mentioned that infighting among Democrats and Republicans within NLRB often revolved around rhetorical/ideological conceptions of whether or not collective bargaining infringes unnecessarily on the rights of individual workers.

In State of the Union, Nelson Lichtenstein discusses how the rise an individual rights-based set of employment protections, which grew out of the civil rights movement, the second wave of feminism, and all the legislation from that time period dealing with discrimination, workplace safety and so on, has actually undermined the concept of collective action. By giving primacy to individual rights, the idea of collective action, in which a greater good takes precedence over individual freedom, can be painted as restrictive and frankly “un-American.” (Lichtenstein is careful to note that he is not denigrating all the achievements of these movements and pieces of legislation, but believes that it is important to note the trade-offs that were made, consciously or otherwise.)

I wondered whether it would behoove pro-labor folks to try to skirt this frame: instead of labor as a collective entity under which individual rights are subsumed, talking about it as a broad, inclusive social movement for the empowerment and betterment of the majority of people. The most interesting comment on this invoked the fact that labor and management alike were in favor of some form of collective bargaining in the Great Depression, when the problems of the U.S. economy were fundamentally seen as stemming from underconsumption. Giving workers higher wages and more buying power was seen as a solution to the problem of underconsumption, and a necessary precondition for the revival of the economy. Perhaps if labor today can be reframed as a movement aimed at increasing the buying power of the poor and the middle class and thus addressing growing inequality and many of our current economic woes, this might go some way towards fighting the perception of “big labor” as a parochial special interest (“unions are businesses,” the management attorney insisted) rather than a working people’s movement.

As I said, a somewhat incoherent set of thoughts and ideas, none of which are original, but something to chew on nonetheless. My background in labor history and philosophy is rather thin, and I’m very much enjoying putting in the effort to beef it up a little.

ADDENDUM: One neat thing I learned was that the local labor newspaper, the Minneapolis Labor Review, has a complete online archive of all of its issues since 1907 in searchable PDF form. Awesome!

Flying Whale