|
|
Major
Anti-Labor Attacks
UPDATE,
SUMMER 2001
Action on all five attacks aimed
at working people (listed below) has been stalled by other legislative
business as well as the leadership shift in the Senate due to the
resignation of Vermont Senator Jim Jeffords from the Republican Party.
It is important that members of Congress hear from working people on
these issues however, as that movement of any of these could begin at
at any time.
The Republican Congressional majority is expected to launch five
major anti-labor attacks over the coming months. Acting in cahoots with
big business and the army of corporate lobbyists, anti-labor lawmakers
will be working hard to pass these outrageous legislative proposals.
Stopping these attacks will take the concerted effort of organized labor
and working people. These attacks, described below, include:
Repeal
of Overtime Pay |
The first major assault on working people will be the
Republican-led scheme to repeal overtime pay. Referred to as the
"Comp-time" or "Flex-time" bill, this legislation
would allow bosses to promise time-off in lieu of time-and-a-half
after forty hours worked in one week. Supposedly a worker would earn
an hour-and-a-half time-off for each hour worked past 40 hours. In
reality, the concept of time-and-a-half will be destroyed, along with
the concept of paid leave in general. This legislation fails to
protect workers from employers who would abuse the scheme by forcing
workers to work overtime and then merely paying them off at the end of the
year with no allowed time-off.
TALKING POINTS
-
Why is big business suddenly so concerned about
how much time-off working people have? Unions regularly try to
negotiate more time-off for everyone, and employers almost always
refuse. Bosses merely want this bill so they can employ fewer
workers who work longer and longer hours. Instead of more
time-off, this bill will end up allowing employers to force
someone to work overtime with no guarantee that the future
time-off will ever be granted.
-
Passage of the overtime repeal bill will also
destroy the concept of paid time-off in general. How many bosses
will provide paid vacation, sick, and personal leave when they
will be able to merely force workers to earn their time-off by
working overtime? Passage of this bill will mean that in a few
short years the very notion of paid time-off as a job benefit may
be eroded. Want a vacation day? Work some overtime, and then maybe
the boss will allow you to take the day somewhere down the line!
And what would stop employers from forcing workers to put in large
amounts of overtime, forcing them to build up a reserve of time
off, and then laying them off where they would be forced to use up
their accumulated time off prior to collecting unemployment
benefits?
Top of Page
|
Destruction
of Labor's
Free Speech Rights |
Referred to as the "Paycheck Protection"
bill, this attack would make it impossible for labor unions to spend
union dues money on political action or educational activities. This
legislation would force local unions to mount a workplace wild goose
chase to obtain signed permission slips from every member every year
in order to allow a few cents of dues money to be spent on
"political" purposes.
Aimed only at unions, companies would
face no new limitations on their political activities under this
proposal. The aim of this
bill is to attack the free speech rights of workers and unions, so
that schemes like overtime pay repeal would fly through the U.S.
Congress because organized labor was unable to alert its members or
other working people to the danger.
UPDATE: A
temporary victory was gained in late March, 2001 during the Senate
debate of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Bill when a
"paycheck protection" amendment was def4eated. The amendment
was defeated because it would have also require corporations to abide
by the same unfair rules. But, trust us, this issue will be back,
perhaps as soon as early as this summer.
TALKING POINTS
-
Why are employers so concerned about a few cents
of union dues that end up paying for political action and
education by labor unions? It’s simple: bosses realize that
their greedy schemes can be stopped when organized labor informs
and mobilizes the rank and file. Take away the ability of labor
unions to fight back on the political front and working people
will lose the few rights and benefits that they still have.
-
Do company stockholders sign annual permission
slips allowing the company to spend company money on political
action and education? Of course not. But why not? Fair is fair. If
they do it to a union, they better force big business to play by
the same rules.
Top of Page
|
| The Misnamed
"Teamwork" Bill |
The "Teamwork" or TEAM Act is left over
from the 105th Congress. It barely passed Congress and was vetoed by
President Clinton. This legislation would legalize company unions,
allowing bosses to set-up, pay for, and control groups of workers in
the workplace. These company unions would be used to undermine,
attack, and compete with legitimate labor unions, and would be used to
fight organizing drives in non-union settings. There is no purpose for
this bill other than to provide employers with even more control over
working people while on the job.
TALKING POINTS
-
Why does Congress waste valuable time with this
kind of nonsense? What is the problem here? Workers go to work,
they do what the boss tells them, and they try to do the best they
can with the tools they have. What is a company union going to do
other than create division and controversy? What kind of
"teamwork" is that?
-
Remind your member of Congress that even in recent
U.S. labor history, a significant percentage of company unions
have gotten out of the employers’ control and evolved into real,
legitimate unions. While not the best argument against this bill,
it might help.
Top of Page
|
| The National
'Right-to-Work' Attack |
The anti-labor Taft-Harley law in 1948 gave rise to
legislation in primarily southern and western states that outlaws
union security clauses in collective bargaining agreements — it’s
illegal to force workers to join unions or even pay a fee in lieu of
dues. Of course, these freeloaders are entitled to all of the benefits
of the union contract, including union representation in disciplinary
situations. The Republican majority in Congress is promoting a
national version of this misnamed "right-to-work" scheme,
which would legalize freeloading from in all 50 states. Corporate
America views this legislation as one additional way to weaken the
labor movement.
TALKING POINTS
-
Supporters of "right-to-work"
legislation say it’s not fair to make working people contribute
money to a union against their will. Why then do freeloaders
receive all the benefits? What’s fair about that?
-
Should "right-to-work" logic also apply
to taxes? Since I don’t support what the government does with my
money, I don’t feel that I should have to pay taxes. I do,
however, expect to receive all of the benefits — police and fire
protection, welfare benefits, national defense, etc.
Top
of Page
|
Legalized
Discrimination
Against Union Supporters |
Perhaps the most outlandish proposal of all to find
its way onto the Congressional radar screen is the so-called
"anti-salting" bill. Corporations claim that people apply
for and obtain jobs with the sole intent of organizing a labor union.
This perfectly legal activity happens in only a handful of situations
each year. But Republicans in Congress would like to make a federal
case out of the phony salting "problem." Pending legislation
would allow employers to refuse to hire, or even to fire, any worker
suspected of being a union supporter. No worker will be safe if
employers are given this license to discriminate on the basis of one’s
beliefs about unions or anything else.
TALKING POINTS
-
An employer fires a worker allegedly for
"salting." How does the fired worker prove innocence?
How does the employer prove guilt? Why is it a crime to believe
in, belong to, or want to belong to, a labor union?
-
Because a handful of employers in the construction
industry claim that "salting" is a problem, the U.S.
Congress is going to pass a bill that virtually makes it a crime
to support a union? How does this square with the Bill of Rights?
Top
of Page
|
| Home
-> Political Action -> Issues
Briefing |
|
