Posts Tagged ‘unions’

Thousands of protesters calling for a $15 minimum wage and a union are demonstrating today outside the McDonald’s headquarters near Chicago during the annual shareholders’ meeting.

About 5,000 McDonald’s employees from across the US chanted: “We work, we sweat, put $15 in our cheque” as they marched towards the burger giant’s headquarters holding banners reading “McDonald’s: $15 and Union Rights, Not Food Stamps.”

“We’re here to tell McDonald’s and its shareholders to invest in the company and its workers instead of wealthy hedge fund managers and executives,” said Kwanza Brooks, a McDonald’s worker and mother of three from Charlotte, North Carolina, who is paid $7.25 an hour. “We’re tired of relying on food stamps to feed our own families. We need $15 and the right to form a union and we need it now.”


In 2012, Indiana became the twenty-third state to adopt a so-called Right to Work law. Now, in another blow to unions, it has eliminated its Common Construction Wage system.

A Republican-backed measure that will repeal Indiana’s law setting wages for state and local government construction projects has been approved by Gov. Mike Pence. Mr. Pence, a Republican, signed the legislation Wednesday and said it would allow the free market to determine pay rather than government boards. Supporters estimate that the change will reduce project costs by as much as 20 percent by allowing more contractors to pay wages below union scale. Opponents dispute such savings will occur and say it will open the door for low-paying out-of-state contractors. The repeal takes effect in July.


Special mention

6a00d83451d75d69e201b7c77c2700970b mike2may

Low Wage Protest

Protests for pay of at least $15 an hour and a union for fast-food and other low-wage workers (including adjunct professors) are taking place around the United States today, marking the biggest effort yet in an ongoing campaign by labor organizers.

In addition to the protests in the US, workers in 123 cities in 35 countries were expected to join the demonstrations in the first worldwide coordinated strike.

“Workers occupied a McDonald’s in Glasgow, stormed a McDonald’s restaurant in Sao Paolo and blockaded a McDonald’s in Paris, holding a six-meter long sign that read, ‘Stop Social Destruction and Tax Avoidance’,” organizers said in a statement.

The world-wide protests were coordinated by the International Union of Food Workers.


Last night, Tom Geoghegan gave a full-throated defense of unions—and laid out the case for a new kind of labor movement in the United States.

Geoghegan’s argument, based on his 2014 book Only One Thing Can Save Us: Why America Needs a New Kind of Labor Movement, is that a revived—but different—labor movement is the only way to stabilize the economy, solve the problems of hierarchy in the workplace and inequality in the larger society, and save the middle-class. In particular, he developed a compelling case against the idea, shared by mainstream economists and politicians alike, that all we need is more education. Without a stronger union movement, higher levels of education simply won’t solve those pressing economic and social problems.

So, I’m skeptical about more four-year college, at least as a program to fight inequality. To a labor lawyer, it seems the coward’s way of avoiding what we used to call “the Labor Question.” Or let me try this in a more professorial idiom: certain liberals may be right that “human capital” can balance in inequality in “financial capital,” but this is possible only when human capital is deployed more democratically in the firm. That is, it is possible only if, at these higher education levels, people have more say over wages and conditions at work. Otherwise, in light of evidence to date, it seems we just end up throwing dollars toward degrees.

I have my quibbles with some aspects of Geoghegan’s argument, including the idea that we should be worrying about the U.S. negative trade balance, looking to increase the amount of domestic manufacturing, and making U.S. workers more “competitive.” But leaving such issues aside for the moment, I want to focus on his proposal for a new kind of labor movement.


As Geoghegan asserted in his lecture, and explains in more detail in his book, the existing union movement in the United States (especially in the private sector) is in freefall and simply can’t be resuscitated. So, what’s the alternative? Geoghegan suggests two main strategies for moving forward: disruption (such as we’ve seen in the Fight for $15 movement) and giving up on exclusive representation (the existing 50-percent-plus-one rule of current union organizing).

Forget the elections, forget the card check, forget the whole clunky NLRB machinery that grinds out these certificates of exclusive representation, the thing that enrages the far right.

Since we may have no choice anyway, why not do what they do in Europe and most other countries and just represent the people who want to join?

The latter is what Geoghegan proposes to call “members-only bargaining.”

Both strategies are promising but, I’ll admit, I was a bit surprised Geoghegan didn’t put more ideas on the table, to help revive the labor movement. The two that occur to me are stakeholder or community unions and worker-owned enterprises.

Geoghegan did mention stakeholder governance in corporations (e.g., the idea that workers should have seats on factory councils). But that leaves matters to the corporations themselves. What if workers took the initiative, as many have in the past, to organize not just workers on the shop (factory or office) floor but also others who have a “stake” in the bargaining over wages, working conditions, number of jobs created, kinds of technology utilized, forms of education, the quality of goods and service produced, and so on? I’m thinking of customers as well as the unemployed, members of local communities including students, immigrant groups as well as workers in other countries, and so on. The Moral Mondays movement in North Carolina may be a harbinger of this kind of community union organizing.

And then, of course, there are worker-owned enterprises, in which the United Steel Workers themselves (the sponsors of the McBride Lecture series) have demonstrated interest. I know that, traditionally, organized labor in the United States has been opposed to worker self-management and other forms of noncapitalism that fall outside the traditional worker-management bargaining model. But that traditional model has simply failed.

It’s time therefore, if we’re interested in reviving and building a different labor movement, to widen our horizons and experiment with lots of different kinds of unions, including those that involve other stakeholders and strive to create new, more democratic kinds of enterprises.


Last night in the annual McBride Lecture (a series sponsored by the University of Notre Dame Higgins Labor Studies Program that honors the fourth international president of the United Steel Workers, Lloyd McBride, who was president from 1977 to 1983), Tom Geoghegan argued that the tide may finally be turning as more and more people (including leading mainstream economists such as Larry Summers) express their support for labor unions.

Here’s what I was able to find from Summers:

What about the role of more traditional unionization and collective bargaining?

I think that one has to maintain a sense of balance. Unions are right in some employment contexts. Unions do not add value in other employment contexts.

What I think is important is the principle enshrined in U.S. law that workers should have the right to collectively bargain if that is what they desire. I am concerned that in recent times that right has eroded because employers have been permitted to retaliate against those who seek to organize workers with impunity.

At the same time, I would be the first to recognize that in a world where American businesses are competing very vigorously with foreign competitors, in a world where domestic competition has increased substantially, prudent union leaders will need to recognize that they need to cooperate with management to craft employment arrangements that better serve workers, but also serve the objectives of competitiveness and economic efficiency.

I think there’s substantial scope for thinking about new compacts between firms and workers in the mutual interest of both.

Just sayin’. . .


Special mention

PresidentScottWalker 6a00d8341bf80c53ef01bb07ffc4e1970d