From: Political Affairs Online
By Leo F. Walsh
Using the same language as the previous US administration to justify a surge of troops in Afghanistan, Gen. David Petraeus told a gathering sponsored by the World Affairs Council last week that "[w]e must help our Afghan partners create the breathing space that'll allow the people to stand up for themselves as the Iraqi people did during the awakening movements there."
Petraeus, of course, did not recall that is was the US invasion that had been based on lies about Iraq's possession of WMD and its ties to Al Qaeda that caused the collapse of Iraqi society. Nor did he remind anyone of the ethnic cleansing that took place in Iraq that gave the Bush administration's "surge" the veneer of success.
At the time the surge in Iraq took place, some reports by human rights organizations, indicated that forced population movements, commonly described as ethnic cleansing, played a large role in the gradual reduction of violence through 2007.
In addition to these reports, a study of satellite imagery by a team of geographers at UCLA found that whole Sunni neighborhoods in Baghdad began emptying before the troop surge began in January of 2007.
In other words, the reduction of violence was more likely caused by a major forced shift in population than by an increase in US military forces. When it is was all said and done, some 4 million Iraqis, nearly 20 percent of that country's population, had been internally and externally displaced – still a huge source of anger and instability.
Because these facts link US military policy in Iraq to an odious, universally condemned practice – ethnic cleansing – and run counter to the widely accepted theory of US military might and benevolence, they are rarely discussed. The more commonly proposed view – or delusion – is that despite the Bush administration's incompetence, the US managed to squeak out a victory in Iraq.
Despite setbacks and failures, foreign policy and military advisors seem to be telling the current administration, similar tactics for Afghanistan are warranted and winnable – even if it costs thousands of lives, trillions of dollars, and many years of occupation.
One needn't look at the disastrous history of US military intervention overseas, e.g. Vietnam, or even the history of the failed intervention of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan to understand that a surge there is a bad idea.
Just look at Iraq.
The world does need to find and stop the people who attacked America on September 11th – and many other countries before and since – and who are a source of destabilization and insecurity for the whole Middle East and South Asia.
How can that best be done? Start with the premise that the massive foreign military presence in Afghanistan promotes rather than reduces violence, justification for terrorism, accusations that the Kabul government is a puppet of the West, forging of alliances between extremist groups and governments ill-disposed toward the US (like Iran), and so on.
With this in mind, step one would be to announce, as in Iraq, a timetable for withdrawal. Next, end airstrikes in Pakistan and Afghanistan, which to date have killed for more civilians than Taliban combatants or Al Qaeda leaders. Launch a good-faith diplomatic surge that includes all regional actors on a level playing field that seeks to promote collective security and economic development. De-link humanitarian aid from military action and give priority for these funds to Afghan organizations and communities, rather than foreign-owned companies.
Americans also need to ask the Obama administration if resources needed to fund the economic recovery or to fund much needed reforms for education, health care and a green economy here will be available if the US government persists with the surge delusion in Afghanistan.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
El Salvador's FMLN candidate wins presidency, calls for unity
SAN SALVADOR March 16 (Prensa Latina) In his first message to the nation, El Salvador's President-Elect Mauricio Funes of the Farabundo Marti Front for National Liberation (FMLN), called for reconciliation and national unity.
After counting 91.7 percent of votes, Funes got 51.26 percent, against 48.74 percent from the governing Nationalist Republican Alliance candidate, in results considered irreversible.
Funes invited different social and political forces to jointly build unity based on tolerance, as to differences and identification of common objectives.
"My government will be motivated by the spirit of national unity, against confrontation and the politics of revenge," he stated.
The president-elect was grateful to the FMLN, its leadership and members, the Mauricio's Friends Movement, and all political forces that opted for change.
Hope is born’ in El Salvador after FMLN win
From: PWW
The people of El Salvador made history March 15 by electing Mauricio Funes as the country’s next president. Funes’ election marks a seismic political shift in this war-torn and poverty-stricken nation.
Funes, a candidate of the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (FMLN), won with 51.3 percent of the vote beating out Rodrigo Avila with the right-wing Nationalist Republican Alliance (ARENA) party who had 48.7 percent.
ARENA has been in power for 20 years.
Reports indicate that 60 percent of the country’s 4.2 million registered voters went to the polls, 6 percent more than the country’s legislative and municipal elections January 2008.
Speaking to Salvadorans and American election observers in El Salvador, it was clear there was jubilation throughout the country.
Erick Navarrete, 41, lives in Son Sonate, on the West coast of El Salvador where he works as a customer service representative at a call center. He is also a culinary artist, an English teacher and youth instructor there. Navarrete says he has been involved in politics since he was in his “mother’s stomach.”
He spoke with the World by phone from El Salvador.
“It was a euphoric sensation with a mixture of emotions,” said Navarrete.
“This is a historic moment for everyone and it’s like we are breathing the air of new era in El Salvador with such high emotion, great optimism, hope and enthusiasm,” he said “We have struggled for too long and this election is a clear indication that we, the voters, want real change.”
The FMLN and ARENA were born in opposition to each other dating back to the 12-year brutal civil war during the 1980s between FMLN guerillas and U.S.-backed far right and military forces, including ARENA. Some 75,000 people died in the war.
Navarrete said Funes demonstrates a willing to work together with the opposition and put ideological differences aside and focus on what’s important to the majority of people.
Funes represents that change and his leadership is an example for the people who elected him,” he said.
The reality in El Salvador is people are undergoing a lot of turmoil especially with the growing global economic recession, he said, and it’s no secret that the economic situation goes hand in hand with the high rate of violence and crime.
Over half of Salvadorans live in poverty. An estimated one-quarter of El Salvador’s population lives in the U.S. The remittances they send back account for 18 percent of the country’s gross domestic product.
“Now we are entering a difficult path but we will overcome it as long as we work together constructively because we need reform now more than ever,” Navarrete said.
Sociology Professor Christina Perez led a group of 20 students and faculty members from Dominican University in River Forest, Ill., to El Salvador to be international election monitors. Perez also spoke with the World on the phone from the state of Cuscatlan.
Perez said the observers’ presence made a huge difference in being able to observe the elections.
“Overall the process was very peaceful and transparent,” said Perez. “There were some attempts of fraud and irregularities on the part of ARENA, but in the end those failed.”
Another team of observers from the U.S., Rossana and Arturo Cambron said they were assigned a location where all the voters who came from outside of El Salvador were to go. “The ARENA party said they expected 40,000 people. They never came close to it. The total vote count was 294 -- 162 votes for FMLN and 132 for ARENA.” ARENA had been accused of bussing in Hondurans and others from neighboring countries to vote.
But, Rossana Cambron said the Salvadorans were ready for any kind of dirty tricks or vote theft.
“Last night we witnessed a truck load of poor people from Guatemala being brought to a local address nearby our hotel. It was a sad thing to see them being used this way. The truck was not able to unload them and they sped away with many FMLN following close behind.”
Both Cambrons and Perez said people are extremely excited and jubilant.
"On election night people everywhere were waving their FMLN flags in the streets and celebrated with music and fireworks,” Perez said.
"Speaking to reporters on election night Funes promised to create a broad government that will work with the opposition forces and seeks a close working relationship with the United States. He vowed to champion the cause of El Salvador’s struggling poor. “Hope is born” was Funes’ campaign slogan.
“From this moment on, I invite the different social and political forces to build this unity together. The time has come for the excluded, the opportunity has arrived for genuine democrats, for men and women who believe in social justice and solidarity,” Funes said.
Hector Perla is a professor at the University of California Santa Cruz in the Latin American and Latino Studies department. Perla’s parents are from El Salvador. He recently traveled there with a team of scholars to monitor the election process weeks before Election Day.
Perla said the FMLN victory was bittersweet because he wished his father were still alive to witness the historic win. Perla’s mother did however arrive in El Salvador the weekend before the election to cast her vote for the FMLN.
Perla notes that not only has the ARENA party and the right-wing held power for the last 20 years but such forces, including military rule were dominant since 1932.
“Direct exploitation of indigenous and poor communities in El Salvador has been around since colonial times up through the civil war in the 1980s,” he said.
“This is the beginning of breaking that chain,” said Perla. “Now the hard part begins in how to govern effectively that transforms the political direction of the country and addresses the leading causes of poverty and social inequalities.”
plozano@pww.org
Celebrate Deaf History Month March 13 - April 15, 2009
From: PWW
Most American public libraries own or have access to books and videos related to American Sign Language, deaf culture and history. The public is also encouraged to look up information at the library or on the Internet about great American heroes, like Laurent Clerc (deaf) and Thomas Hopkins Gallaudet (hearing).
Many members of the deaf community remember deaf historical events, especially the following three: (1) Victory of the Deaf President Now movement at Gallaudet University on March 13, 1988; (2) Charter signed on April 8, 1864 by President Lincoln, authorizing the board of directors of what is now Gallaudet University to grant college degrees to deaf students; and (3) First permanent public school for deaf students in the Western Hemisphere, now known as American School for the Deaf, was co-founded on April 15, 1817 by Laurent Clerc, Thomas Gallaudet and Dr. Mason Fitch Cogswell.
Public libraries in Alabama, District of Columbia, Maryland, Puerto Rico and Virginia will present deaf cultural programs celebrating Deaf History Month. For additional information, please contact:
Alabama: Paul William Ellis, volunteer program coordinator of the International Institute of Deaf Services in cooperation with the Birmingham Public Library, 205-305-2173 VP/Text/Voice; pwellis@enablelight.com.
District of Columbia: Janice Rosen, Librarian to the Deaf Community, Adaptive Services Division, DC Public Library, 202-727-2145 (voice or videophone) or 202-727-2255 (tty); library_deaf_dc@yahoo.com.
Maryland: Susan Cohen, Coordinator of Library Services to Deaf and Hard of Hearing Community, Disability Resource Center, Montgomery Public Libraries, 240-777-0001 (voice) or 240-777-0902 (tty); drcinfo@montgomerycounty.gov.
Puerto Rico: Alec McFarlane, President of Deaf Library Friends of Puerto Rico in cooperation with Jane Stern Library in Dorado, PR, means2madness@yahoo.com.
Virginia: Neil Phelps, Westover Library Manager, Arlington Public Library, 703-228-5261 (voice) or 703-228-6320 (tty); nphelp@arlington.us or nphelps@arlington.us.
Everyone is invited to participate in the National Literary Society of the Deaf (NLSD) national project: “Deaf America Reads: 2008-2010.” The NLSD mission is to promote deaf culture, books and literacy through library programs and exhibits in local communities. www.folda.net/lib/reading.html
Alice L. Hagemeyer is Volunteer Coordinator for NLSD “Deaf America Reads” Programs and is president of the Friends of Libraries for Deaf Action (FOLDA).
Sunday, March 15, 2009
WFDY Statement on the situation of Sudan
World Federation of Democratic Youth
The International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued an arrest warrant against the Sudanese President for conviction in mass murder in Darfur region. As other international organizations manipulated by the imperialist powers, WFDY considers the ICC decision a political decision and another form of intervention in the internal issues of independent countries to cause more instability and to divide them in order to conquer them.
The International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued an arrest warrant against the Sudanese President for conviction in mass murder in Darfur region. As other international organizations manipulated by the imperialist powers, WFDY considers the ICC decision a political decision and another form of intervention in the internal issues of independent countries to cause more instability and to divide them in order to conquer them.
WFDY asserts its condemnation of those provocative decisions that will only lead to more wars and instabilities in the region.
WFDY also stresses the fact that it supports the democratic rights of the Sudanese people, the rights of the inhabitants in Darfur in a stable and better life and the rights of the residents of Southern Sudan in stability and progress. WFDY also supports the democratic forces struggling for the rights of the Sudanese people in democracy and social transformation.
However, all forms of international intervention in internal issues of sovereign countries like Sudan will only lead to more problems and tensions. Those policies form the legal cover for the domination and hegemony of USA and its imperialist allies over the world resources and sources of energy. The problems in Darfur and Sudan only rose after the discovery of oil, gas and uranium in its lands; therefore we understand those interventions as preliminaries for more exploitation of the resources of this country by the imperialist powers lead by USA.
WFDY expresses its solidarity with the Sudanese people against imperialist plans in their country, and with their right in independent progressive state that controls its resources for the well being of its people.
N.Ireland police chief: IRA dissidents number 300
BELFAST, Northern Ireland (AP) — About 300 Irish Republican Army dissidents backed by "a few nutters and idiots" are trying to tear apart the peace process, Northern Ireland's police commander said Sunday as his detectives interrogated nine people over the killings of two soldiers and a policeman.
Chief Constable Hugh Orde said two dissident groups, the Real IRA and Continuity IRA, were both "very dangerous, like any cornered animal in its death throes."
Orde said the dissidents had launched at least 25 attacks, chiefly against police, in the past 18 months, leading up to last week's gun attacks against off-duty, unarmed soldiers outside an army base and against police responding to an emergency call.
The three killings were the first of security forces in Northern Ireland since 1998, the year of the Good Friday peace accord between the British Protestant majority and Irish Catholic minority here that sought to end a three-decade conflict responsible for 3,700 killings.
The slayings are fraying nerves in thousands of households across Northern Ireland, where current or former members of the police and army have lost their licenses for privately held handguns — another consequence of a peace process that aims to transform Northern Ireland.
Arlene Foster, a Protestant member of Northern Ireland's power-sharing government, called for retired members of the police and army to regain the right to carry a concealed gun. She represents a predominantly Catholic border area where the IRA long specialized in killing part-time Protestant security force members in their homes or on their farms.
"This is not a time for toning down personal security. It is vital that people are able at least to attempt to guarantee their own safety from the threat posed by these dissident republican murderers," Foster said .
She noted that IRA dissidents were willing to kill civilians who do business with security forces — a threat demonstrated when the gunmen who targeted British troops last weekend also shot and wounded two Domino's Pizza couriers bringing them food.
Orde said the Police Service of Northern Ireland, British domestic spy agency MI5 and British Army surveillance specialists have already identified many of the dissidents and were working around the clock "to disrupt and arrest them and lock them up for the rest of their natural lives."
Orde contrasted the dissidents' political isolation with the long-dominant Provisional IRA, which built firm bases of support within the most militant Catholic areas during its failed 1970-97 campaign to oust Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom. The Provisionals formally renounced violence, disarmed and embraced power-sharing with Protestant leaders in 2005.
"We know that, unlike the past, there is no support at all for these (dissident IRA) groups within communities apart from a few nutters and idiots who have no political strategy in their tiny minds," he wrote.
Orde made his comments in a column published Sunday in a British newspaper, the News of the World.
Police arrested six more suspected IRA dissidents Saturday, taking to nine the number of people being questioned about the March 7 gun attack that killed two soldiers and Monday's fatal shooting of a policeman.
The arrest of a prominent Irish republican, 41-year-old Colin Duffy, triggered lengthy rioting and mob intimidation Saturday in the Catholic north side of Lurgan, a town southwest of Belfast.
Youths who support Duffy covered their faces with masks, scarves and hoods as they threw obstacles on streets and the main Belfast-to-Dublin railway and tried to hijack passing cars.
Police said their officers — who operated from armored vehicles and donned flame-retardent suits and body armor during the Lurgan street unrest — had more than a dozen gasoline-filled bottles thrown at them. One officer was wounded when a brick struck him on the arm. Officers arrested two teenage rioters.
Police said they seized a gun and ammunition during raids on the homes of suspected IRA dissidents in Lurgan and its neighboring town of Craigavon, where police Constable Stephen Carroll, 48, was fatally shot through the back of the head Monday.
Police long considered Duffy the Provisional IRA godfather of Lurgan and twice charged him with 1990s murders in the town.
Duffy was convicted of killing a former soldier in Lurgan in 1993, but was freed on appeal three years later after the key witness against him was exposed as a member of an outlawed Protestant gang.
He was back behind bars within a year after police charged him with committing the IRA's last two killings before its 1997 cease-fire: two Protestant policemen shot point-blank through the backs of their heads while on foot patrol in Lurgan. That case against Duffy collapsed after the prosecution's key witness suffered a nervous breakdown and withdrew her testimony.
Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
A masked youth throws a petrol bomb at PSNI officers close to were a leading Irish Republican was arrested, Saturday, in connection with the recent murders of two British soldiers, over a hundred Irish Republican's blocked the main railway line and began rioting in Lurgan, Northern Ireland, Saturday, March, 14, 2009. Police arrested three suspected IRA dissidents _ including a well-known Irish republican _ Saturday on suspicion of killing two off-duty British soldiers, an attack designed to trigger wider violence in Northern Ireland. (AP Photo/Peter Morrison)
Friday, March 13, 2009
Employee Free Choice Act Promotes Democracy
From: Political Affairs Online
By Joel Wendland
The Employee Free Choice Act, a bill that would remove harsh barriers to joining labor unions, was introduced in Congress, Tuesday March 10th. Supporters of the bill say there are two simple but vital reasons for passing the bill into law: improve democratic rights and boost the economy. PoliticalAffairs.net begins here a regular series of articles on the Employee Free Choice Act to help readers better understand its provisions and its benefits.
Democracy in the workplace
When Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott was asked recently about Employee Free Choice he responded, "We like driving the car and we're not going to give the steering wheel to anybody but us."
Scott shares this sentiment with many corporate CEOs and well-rewarded executives. It is driving a mammoth $200 million campaign funded by his company and other corporate front groups to prevent reforms enshrined in the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) that will remove barriers to workers organizing unions.
Corporate lobbyists have invaded Washington, doling out wads of cash and putting pressure on Congress to block EFCA.
They are fighting so hard on this because EFCA would reform labor law in three ways: 1) shift choice of how unions are certified from employers to workers; 2) impose real penalties on employers who violate labor laws by harassing or firing pro-union workers; 3) eliminate expensive taxpayer-funded red tape that slows the process of unionization.
"Secret ballot" myth
Let's look closely at each reform. Many in the right-wing media have misleadingly claimed and in many cases outright lied about the first provision. From CNN's Lou Dobbs to Fox News' Glenn Beck, commentators have insisted that EFCA would eliminate the secret ballot process in certifying a union, a process that is a "sacred institution" some have sanctimoniously added.
This point has caught on. Many congressional Republicans have picked it up and used it as their excuse in opposing EFCA.
That argument is flat out wrong. Labor law currently allows two methods of certifying unions: majority sign-up (also known as card check) and the secret ballot. The key difference is that now employers, not workers get to choose which method is adopted. This must be what Wal-Mart CEO Scott means by who gets to "drive the car."
EFCA would give the choice of how to certify their union to workers – after all it is their organization, not the employer's. Media pundits and members of Congress who are confused on this issue can read the actual bill by clicking here.
Wal-Mart boss Lee Scott would likely get angry if someone else got to determine how he joined any organization. So why does he and other CEOs have so much power to determine which organizations workers are members of?
Choice about how and which organizations workers join is a fundamental right in a democratic society.
State of war
The second reform in EFCA would impose real penalties on employers who violate the law. Right now, something like 30 percent of workers who advocate for a union in their workplace are fired – illegally. More than 90 percent of workers are forced to attend mandatory "captive audience" meetings created by anti-union consultants and lawyers to discourage unionization and to level threats about what will happen if workers vote to join a union.
According to a former anti-union consultant, employers view the unionization process as a "state of war" in which any tactic or maneuver – illegal or not – is justified.
According to one lawyer familiar with labor law and the actual practice of unionization interviewed for this story, employers never face real penalties for their actions. At most the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the federal agency that oversees union elections, might force the employer to post a statement alerting workers about their rights. Financial penalties are even more rare and can be delayed for many years and reduced in size that they are usually meaningless.
This fact prompted Human Rights Watch (HRW) to report in January that "[s]anctions for illegal conduct are too feeble to adequately discourage employer law breaking" or "sufficiently disuasive to deter violations." HRW added that the "Employee Free Choice Act ... would remedy many of these deficiencies and create a more level playing field for US workers."
Avoiding punishment for violating federal law might be up Wal-Mart CEO Scott's alley, but just imagine what would happen to any ordinary person who violated federal laws designed to protect an internationally recognized as a fundamental human right.
Equally enforcing the law and punishing those who violate it is an essential ingredient of any democratic society.
Dragging their feet
Current federal law allows employers to manipulate and delay the NLRB election and arbitration processes. After employers order workers to use a ballot process to certify the union, they typically have more than six weeks before the election takes place. During this time period, workers are treated to threats about closing the plant, some workers are fired, and the workers are almost always ordered to attend anti-union meetings.
In those tense weeks leading up to the election, employers use every means – illegal or not – to influence the outcome of the election. So much for the sanctity of the "secret ballot."
Even if workers weather this perfect storm of threats and harassment, the certification election is only the first step. The next step opens the negotiations for the first contract.
Current federal law requires that a first contract be inked within a year or the union must be re-certified. There are no enforced measures that make employers bargain in good faith, so they often delay the process, hoping that workers, still under pressure to oppose the union, will simply give up before a first contract is signed.
Labor law does provide for both sides in the negotiations to file grievances with the NLRB if they suspect the other side has violated the law. But as one can guess, these are more often enforced against workers. Employers are rarely ordered to actually make restitution for breaking the law.
Only public pressure can force employers to accept an outside mediator who can bring the two sides together and convince them to accept a compromise contract. Take the case of Smithfield Foods in Tar Heel, North Carolina, for example. Only after 12 years of struggle against the company's recriminations against the workers, firings and harassment, along with a nationwide campaign by the United Food and Commercial Workers union that included a boycott, did Smithfield Foods finally agree to recognize the union that the workers had designated as their bargaining unit.
EFCA would reform labor law in this area, again by creating real penalties for breaking the law, but also by setting a shorter time limit for first-contract negotiations before an appointed mediator can be brought in to settle the contract differences.
This reform is crucial for two reasons: it limits how much employers can game the system and draw out a process at taxpayer expense that allows them to avoid recognizing the union the workers have voted for; it also ensures that workers have their issues addressed in a contract with their employer.
Wal-Mart boss Scott hates the idea of being contractually obligated to workers. He wants to "drive the car." The plain fact is, however, that he would NEVER work as Wal-Mart CEO without a contract that guaranteed his mammoth salary, fat stock options and retirement and health benefits. In fact, he – and any top executive – would be insulted if asked to work without one.
Members of Congress also have a work contract of two or six years that pays around $175,000 annually and provides excellent health care coverage and pensions.
Why can't ordinary working men and women have a contract in their workplace as a matter of course? Being able to bargain effectively for contractually guaranteed wages, benefits and working conditions improves democracy in our country and in its workplaces.
Next time, we'll look at economic benefits of unionization.
By Joel Wendland
The Employee Free Choice Act, a bill that would remove harsh barriers to joining labor unions, was introduced in Congress, Tuesday March 10th. Supporters of the bill say there are two simple but vital reasons for passing the bill into law: improve democratic rights and boost the economy. PoliticalAffairs.net begins here a regular series of articles on the Employee Free Choice Act to help readers better understand its provisions and its benefits.
Democracy in the workplace
When Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott was asked recently about Employee Free Choice he responded, "We like driving the car and we're not going to give the steering wheel to anybody but us."
Scott shares this sentiment with many corporate CEOs and well-rewarded executives. It is driving a mammoth $200 million campaign funded by his company and other corporate front groups to prevent reforms enshrined in the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) that will remove barriers to workers organizing unions.
Corporate lobbyists have invaded Washington, doling out wads of cash and putting pressure on Congress to block EFCA.
They are fighting so hard on this because EFCA would reform labor law in three ways: 1) shift choice of how unions are certified from employers to workers; 2) impose real penalties on employers who violate labor laws by harassing or firing pro-union workers; 3) eliminate expensive taxpayer-funded red tape that slows the process of unionization.
"Secret ballot" myth
Let's look closely at each reform. Many in the right-wing media have misleadingly claimed and in many cases outright lied about the first provision. From CNN's Lou Dobbs to Fox News' Glenn Beck, commentators have insisted that EFCA would eliminate the secret ballot process in certifying a union, a process that is a "sacred institution" some have sanctimoniously added.
This point has caught on. Many congressional Republicans have picked it up and used it as their excuse in opposing EFCA.
That argument is flat out wrong. Labor law currently allows two methods of certifying unions: majority sign-up (also known as card check) and the secret ballot. The key difference is that now employers, not workers get to choose which method is adopted. This must be what Wal-Mart CEO Scott means by who gets to "drive the car."
EFCA would give the choice of how to certify their union to workers – after all it is their organization, not the employer's. Media pundits and members of Congress who are confused on this issue can read the actual bill by clicking here.
Wal-Mart boss Lee Scott would likely get angry if someone else got to determine how he joined any organization. So why does he and other CEOs have so much power to determine which organizations workers are members of?
Choice about how and which organizations workers join is a fundamental right in a democratic society.
State of war
The second reform in EFCA would impose real penalties on employers who violate the law. Right now, something like 30 percent of workers who advocate for a union in their workplace are fired – illegally. More than 90 percent of workers are forced to attend mandatory "captive audience" meetings created by anti-union consultants and lawyers to discourage unionization and to level threats about what will happen if workers vote to join a union.
According to a former anti-union consultant, employers view the unionization process as a "state of war" in which any tactic or maneuver – illegal or not – is justified.
According to one lawyer familiar with labor law and the actual practice of unionization interviewed for this story, employers never face real penalties for their actions. At most the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the federal agency that oversees union elections, might force the employer to post a statement alerting workers about their rights. Financial penalties are even more rare and can be delayed for many years and reduced in size that they are usually meaningless.
This fact prompted Human Rights Watch (HRW) to report in January that "[s]anctions for illegal conduct are too feeble to adequately discourage employer law breaking" or "sufficiently disuasive to deter violations." HRW added that the "Employee Free Choice Act ... would remedy many of these deficiencies and create a more level playing field for US workers."
Avoiding punishment for violating federal law might be up Wal-Mart CEO Scott's alley, but just imagine what would happen to any ordinary person who violated federal laws designed to protect an internationally recognized as a fundamental human right.
Equally enforcing the law and punishing those who violate it is an essential ingredient of any democratic society.
Dragging their feet
Current federal law allows employers to manipulate and delay the NLRB election and arbitration processes. After employers order workers to use a ballot process to certify the union, they typically have more than six weeks before the election takes place. During this time period, workers are treated to threats about closing the plant, some workers are fired, and the workers are almost always ordered to attend anti-union meetings.
In those tense weeks leading up to the election, employers use every means – illegal or not – to influence the outcome of the election. So much for the sanctity of the "secret ballot."
Even if workers weather this perfect storm of threats and harassment, the certification election is only the first step. The next step opens the negotiations for the first contract.
Current federal law requires that a first contract be inked within a year or the union must be re-certified. There are no enforced measures that make employers bargain in good faith, so they often delay the process, hoping that workers, still under pressure to oppose the union, will simply give up before a first contract is signed.
Labor law does provide for both sides in the negotiations to file grievances with the NLRB if they suspect the other side has violated the law. But as one can guess, these are more often enforced against workers. Employers are rarely ordered to actually make restitution for breaking the law.
Only public pressure can force employers to accept an outside mediator who can bring the two sides together and convince them to accept a compromise contract. Take the case of Smithfield Foods in Tar Heel, North Carolina, for example. Only after 12 years of struggle against the company's recriminations against the workers, firings and harassment, along with a nationwide campaign by the United Food and Commercial Workers union that included a boycott, did Smithfield Foods finally agree to recognize the union that the workers had designated as their bargaining unit.
EFCA would reform labor law in this area, again by creating real penalties for breaking the law, but also by setting a shorter time limit for first-contract negotiations before an appointed mediator can be brought in to settle the contract differences.
This reform is crucial for two reasons: it limits how much employers can game the system and draw out a process at taxpayer expense that allows them to avoid recognizing the union the workers have voted for; it also ensures that workers have their issues addressed in a contract with their employer.
Wal-Mart boss Scott hates the idea of being contractually obligated to workers. He wants to "drive the car." The plain fact is, however, that he would NEVER work as Wal-Mart CEO without a contract that guaranteed his mammoth salary, fat stock options and retirement and health benefits. In fact, he – and any top executive – would be insulted if asked to work without one.
Members of Congress also have a work contract of two or six years that pays around $175,000 annually and provides excellent health care coverage and pensions.
Why can't ordinary working men and women have a contract in their workplace as a matter of course? Being able to bargain effectively for contractually guaranteed wages, benefits and working conditions improves democracy in our country and in its workplaces.
Next time, we'll look at economic benefits of unionization.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
