The Working Stiff Journal

The Working Stiff Journal
Vol. 2 #2, March 1999
by Jackie Dana

For some in the labor movement, collective bargaining is the pinnacle of union organizing; for others, it is little more than a layer of bureaucracy that takes power away from unions and the workers as a whole.

Collective bargaining is the process by which a union gains a contract with an employer. Under the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, workers gained the legal right to join unions and engage in collective bargaining. Under the provisions of the law, once workers organize and approve a union through an election, the employer is required to meet with union representatives “at reasonable times and confer in good faith with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment,” with the result being the “execution of a written contract incorporating any agreement reached….” Contracts spell out wages and benefits, working conditions, and the security of the union as well as management’s.

The road to negotiating a detailed contract can be very bumpy indeed. Depending on the expected items for negotiation and the state of management-union relations, employers may try to stall proceedings or undermine unions; unions on the other hand, will do everything they can to put pressure on management , with workers wearing union insignia, engaging in demonstrations and pickets, or any other actions that promote and display union solidarity. Leaks to the media may add pressure or encourage public support for one side or the other.

If the terms of a contract cannot be mutually decided upon, an impasse may be declared. At this point employers may test union strength by imposing an old contract’s terms or by continuing operations without a contract. Unions, on the other hand, can file unfair labor practice complaints with the National Labor Review Board, which if successful will force employers back into negotiations. Unions may also call strikes with the intention of forcing management back to the table. (Future ‘Labor 101’ columns will address strikes in more detail.)

Contracts, once agreed upon, are legally binding for both employers and workers. If terms of a contract are subsequently broken by employers, under grievance procedures set up through a contract workers may take their complaints to shop stewards—union representatives to management. Shop stewards often are allowed to use work time to handle grievances and meet with management to address them. If there is no resolution, a grievance can be brought to an arbitration hearing. Independent arbitrators weigh the information and decide if the terms of the contract have indeed been broken. The decision of these hearings is binding for both the union and the management.

Although the process allows for improvements in conditions and protection against unjust actions by employers, at the same time collective bargaining is not a universal panacea for labor. It entrenches the wage system and the huge gaps that exist between labor and management, in terms of both salaries and rights within the workplace. Collective bargaining is bureaucratic in nature and serves to prevent workers from engaging in more radical efforts to promote their interests. Labor leaders and business owners essentially work in collaboration to devise agreements that maintain a compliant work force. Organized direct action by union members, feared by employers, is the strongest power a union has; contracts usually strip unions of this power. For this reason many contracts contain no-strike clauses, making it illegal to participate in this basic form of direct rank-and-file action while a contract is in effect.

Today we hear much about the need for democracy within the labor movement. Because of the nature of negotiations (and the size of many unions), workers rarely have direct input into contract negotiations. Because of this, union members should elect only those leaders who are demonstrably responsive to their needs and issues; otherwise members may find it difficult to have their voices heard. This introduces an added layer to negotiations. Not only do union leaders have to exert pressure on the employers, but it is vital that union members pressure their leaders not to accept a conservative or incomplete contract.

The Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 excluded all U.S. public employees from the right to collective bargaining. Texas, unlike many other states, has not passed legislation overturned this prohibition, and therefore city, county and state workers—including health care workers in state agencies, public school teachers and university employees—cannot legally engage in this basic right of union membership. Although it is unclear where Texas legislators stand on this issue, some unions err on the side of caution and choose not to fight for collective bargaining rights, lest such efforts alienate conservative members of the Texas House and Senate. Instead of fighting constant battles for wage increases from the legislature, unions should campaign for the right to bargain directly with their employers.

Depending on one’s political perspective, collective bargaining is a viable but not always the ultimate answer to labor’s needs; in the absence of more radical solutions, however, it is a form of power for workers, and is the best chance for them to earn living wages and gain legal protections against unfair labor practices.

The Working Stiff Journal was a free community newspaper produced in Austin, Texas and distributed across town. All of the articles were available online on the UT Watch site for many years, but they are no longer available, so I am republishing my own work here (in 2014). You can still read back issues thanks to the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine.

The Working Stiff Journal
Labor 101
by Jackie Dana
Vol. 2 #1, February 1999

Last time, “Labor 101” explained what unions are and how they function. In this issue we will explore the broader labor union movement and what workers can do to strengthen and promote the cause of labor.

By their very nature unions denote the coming together of workers despite political and cultural identities. At the most basic level, employees realize that they share concerns with each other about working conditions, pay, benefits disciplinary matters and other issues.

Unions are the best vehicle for improving our work conditions. Unfortunately, Texas doesn’t have the same tradition of strong unions as the Northeast and Midwest, and many workers in our state approach unions with distrust, fear or disdain, believing that joining a union will accomplish nothing but brand them as troublemakers and get them fired. Making matters more difficult for labor organizers, Texas is a “right to work” state, which means that workers do not have to join a union even after a majority of workers agree to labor representation. Many corporations choose to locate their offices and factories in Texas and other southern states with right to work laws precisely because they believe they will have less labor problems here than they would in other parts of the country.

Employers hope for a docile and disorganized labor force; we as workers are not obligated to give them one. For Texas workers, therefore, it is not enough to vote to unionize a workplace; it is also not enough to join a union and believe that the payment of dues alone is sufficient. One must also constantly organize, build membership, and educate members about the importance of having an active and visible union.

Membership is vital. In a scenario where the membership numbers are low, the union’s claim to represent the workers will be called into question by both the employer and local or state government bodies. Worker education about labor law and history is also something that is vital to a strong movement. Many of us feel like each time we take a step, we have to re-invent the wheel. With all the work we face in building our unions, we tend to forget about everything but the immediate issues. There is strength in putting one’s own struggle into context, to be able to understand one’s rights as well as what others sacrificed in order to win those rights. Union organizing cannot happen in a vacuum; therefore we must always strive to learn everything we can and share that knowledge with all our fellow workers.

In this same vein, it is important not only to support our own unions, but to support other labor struggles locally as well as internationally. Solidarity for our fellow workers reinforces their struggles but it also strengthens our own.

Two recent international solidarity efforts illustrate this point.

In 1995 the Mersey Docks and Harbor Company in Liverpool, England fired 500 workers when they refused to cross a picket line set up by fellow workers, and replaced these workers with scab labor. The workers alerted longshore unions around the world about their plight. When the Neptune Jade, a container ship loaded with cargo by these scab workers, came into Oakland, CA in September 1997 and tried to discharge its cargo, the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) honored their British comrades’ picket line. The ILWU refused to unload the ship’s cargo, while political organizations and students held several protests in support of the workers and against the Neptune Jade.The ship moved up the west coast, getting a frosty welcome in Vancouver as well, and then it crossed the Pacific, only to discover that the All-Japan Dockworkers’ Union also refused to unload the ship. In the end the Neptune Jade was sold in Taiwan and its cargo disappeared. Meanwhile the stalwart Oakland workers were accused of breaking the law by refusing to unload the ship, and they and others faced a lawsuit for hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages from their employers, a suit that was finally dropped this past December.

In another act of solidarity, in November, as a response to changes in health-care benefits, 2,600 members of the National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians (NABET-CWA), called a surprise one-day strike against the ABC television network. ABC management responded by locking out the workers and using scab labor. Since that time many entertainers and politicians such as Al Gore, Howard Stern, Adam Sandler and George Foreman have canceled appearances on the network. The ABC management attempted to have certain shows produced by scab labor in England, but this effort was met by protests outside the studios by members of the Broadcasting, Entertainment and Cinematography and Theatre Union of Great Britain, the Communication Workers Union and the National Journalists Union. As of this writing, the dispute has not been settled.

In this age of multinationals, corporations are determined to extend their power across international boundaries, and discard one set of workers in favor of others who will work for less and will not cause trouble in the workplace. In what are bald-faced attempts to undermine the rights gained over a century and a half of struggle, relocation is a tangible and believable threat. We can defend against such actions, but only if unions both build themselves internally into strong, cohesive forces as well as cooperate with other unions, showing solidarity with fellow workers in England, Mexico, Japan and everywhere else. As CWU member Chris Proctor wrote in the Dec./Jan. issue of CWA News, “If companies like ABC…have difficulties with employees, they can simply shift the work to another continent. If our trade unions can’t match that, we are going nowhere except downhill.”

As corporations grow in influence workers are facing lower wages in real dollars, longer hours, less job security and declining benefits. We must encourage our colleagues that unions are our best recourse, our best defense against the “McDonaldization” of America and the world.

The Working Stiff Journal was a free community newspaper produced in Austin, Texas and distributed across town. All of the articles were available online on the UT Watch site for many years, but they are no longer available, so I am republishing my own work here (in 2014). You can still read back issues thanks to the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine.

The Working Stiff Journal
Spotlight on Labor
Vol. 2 #1, February 1999
by Jackie Dana

Despite the historic use of the police against labor unions and the politically conservative nature of law enforcement, CLEAT, the Combined Law Enforcement Associations of Texas has challenged such contradictions to become the state’s largest union of police officers and a political powerhouse in less than twenty-five years.

CLEAT was formed in 1976 by former members of the Texas Municipal Police Association. Arguing that the TMPA was reluctant to consider itself a union, CLEAT founders Ronald G. DeLord and John Burpo wanted an organization that was less conservative when it came to labor matters. From the start, CLEAT pushed for full legal representation, collective bargaining, and a more confrontational style of organization. In its first year it signed up 600 members, and two years later it could boast 3,000. In 1992 CLEAT became affiliated with the AFL-CIO as Local 6911 of the Communication Workers of America (CWA).

CLEAT membership is open to any licensed Texas peace officer, and today CLEAT can count as members more than 16,000 police officers, deputies and detention officers from across Texas, and more than more than ninety affiliated police and deputy associations. It has offices in nine major Texas cities, with its main administrative office located in Austin. It is funded entirely by membership dues, and its executive board is composed of rank and file members from across the state.

As a union, CLEAT provides extensive legal assistance to its members, and acts as an advocate when members’ rights may be violated by their employers. If a law enforcement officer faces disciplinary action or termination, or is involved in a criminal proceeding arising from actions performed in the line of duty, an attorney is provided automatically and without limitations. Furthermore, CLEAT also pays the employee’s share of arbitration fees.

A basic principle for CLEAT is that every law enforcement officer in Texas should be covered by a collective bargaining agreement. In the Texas Legislature CLEAT won an expansion of collective bargaining rights for its own members, its success offering a model for other public sector labor unions in Texas. CLEAT won the right for local police associations to take the issue of collective bargaining to their municipalities, where it can be decided by referendum. Its efforts are paying off: a third of CLEAT locals have won local option elections allowing them to engage in collective bargaining, though collective bargaining still encounters strong opposition from many municipal officials across the state.

CLEAT is also a political action force. Many CLEAT locals have successfully helped local and state candidates win their election campaigns. It also endorses candidates for governor, attorney general, Texas House and Senate seats, and local and district judges.

Devoting a fair share of energy to the Texas Legislature, CLEAT has won many benefits for Texas law enforcement, including health care for retirees and increases in line-of-duty death benefits for families of slain officers. CLEAT was instrumental in the legislation creating a police memorial on the Capitol grounds and it won a tuition exemption law which provides free college tuition for disabled officers wounded in the line of duty. CLEAT’s support of capital punishment was reinforced in 1997 when it successfully pushed through a bill closing a loophole in the state capital murder statute, making it more difficult for those accused of killing police officers to avoid the death penalty.

CLEAT’s 1999 Lobby Day will be on February 9th. According to DeLord, in the upcoming Legislative Session, CLEAT intends to push forward with legislation to remove a 1947 prohibition on collective bargaining for all public employees. Like the police, other unions could then mobilize to induce their local governments or employers into accepting collective bargaining rights. DeLord is encouraged by some preliminary discussions with conservative politicians and city officials and believes this legislation has a chance to succeed based on the current popularity of decentralized government with more emphasis on local decision-making.

Never shying away from controversy, CLEAT has tackled both ends of the political spectrum. It drew fire from conservatives in 1982 when it launched a successful “Cops Against Clements” campaign opposing Republican governor Bill Clements and in 1988 when it endorsed Michael Dukakis for President. In 1992, CLEAT took a conservative stand when it led the call for a national boycott of Time-Warner after the company released Ice-T and Body Count’s song “Cop Killer.” The album was eventually pulled from shelves and re-released without the offending song. This action sparked accusations of censorship by free-speech advocates, but CLEAT claimed victory.

This past summer the Texas Supreme Court upheld a state law giving enforcement officers the right to independent arbitration on employment matters. In Lubbock, the city had refused three police officers the right to appeal a disciplinary matter to an independent hearing examiner rather than to a civilian panel appointed by the City of Lubbock, the officers’ employer. Other cities had also tried to refer disciplinary cases to its own panels. In the suit, it was upheld that police officers must have a choice concerning where such hearings are held. Although a victory for the union, others have expressed concern that police have a special responsibility to the public and that this policy makes it more difficult to adequately monitor incidents of police misconduct as hearings are taken out of the public eye.

DeLord noted in October’s The Texas Police Star that police associations exist to improve the living and working conditions of their members, and that they should not shy away from opportunities to succeed in their goal, even if the road to success is sometimes controversial. As he put it, “the meek may inherit the earth, but the teamsters will get a better contract.

The Working Stiff Journal was a free community newspaper produced in Austin, Texas and distributed across town. All of the articles were available online on the UT Watch site for many years, but they are no longer available, so I am republishing my own work here (in 2014). You can still read back issues thanks to the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine.

The Working Stiff Journal
Vol. 1 #4, Winter 1998
Column: Labor 101
by Jackie Dana

Unions exist in many industrialized countries in the world as collections of workers who have something in common: they work within one industry, possess similar job duties or skills, or share a common employer. In simplest terms a labor union, as the dictionary defines it, is “an organization of workers formed for the purpose of advancing its members’ interests in respect to wages and working conditions.”

Before the 1800s, unions were unknown in the United States. Instead, skilled craftsmen and artisans formed guilds, associations of all workers within a specific trade. Guild members protected and promoted their own crafts, including overseeing apprentices, and the guilds themselves had competitive requirements to join. Workers outside of guilds, particularly manual laborers and those in cottage industries, had few legal protections and lacked the support of a collective that the guild provided.

At the opening of the nineteenth century, the Industrial Revolution in the United States changed the nature of work and manufacturing. With the growth of factories and unskilled labor, guilds became insufficient to address most workers’ needs. The first trade unions formed in response to unsuitable working conditions for huge numbers of unskilled laborers. Such workers manufactured products for long hours under unsafe and unhealthy conditions. Industrial and territorial expansion increased the number of factories as well as jobs in mines and on the railroads. Despite very low pay and the risk of injury or death, these new jobs were often the only means of survival for the majority of non-agricultural workers, particularly recent immigrants, women and children.

Despite horrific conditions, individual workers were powerless to challenge the factory owners. They had no skills or influence and a single employee could be easily replaced. Workers began to organize themselves, uniting to put pressure on their bosses to improve conditions and increase wages. Early confrontations were often marked by the violence inflicted on union members. In the end, large numbers of determined workers refused to be frightened or intimidated and their efforts forced employers to meet with them to discuss working conditions.

Today, labor unions negotiate contracts with employers through the process of collective bargaining. This system is based on a simple premise: management provides employment, and workers provide labor. Neither can exist without the other. Under collective bargaining, representatives of these two groups meet to determine contracts which define the rules for hiring, firing and promotions practices; establish safety procedures; provide for overtime and sick time; and promise health insurance and retirement benefits. If a contract is broken by an employer, or when a union and management cannot agree on the terms within a contract, in most sectors workers may withhold their labor and call a legal strike until an agreement can be reached.

In non-unionized workplaces contracts rarely exist between workers and their employers. Such workers tend to be paid 33% less than their union counterparts, and have few protections against unjust hiring, promotions and firing practices. As Franklin D. Roosevelt once said, “If I went to work in a factory, the first thing I’d do would be to join a union.”

Union organizing efforts over the years have led to the creation of federal and state laws protecting workers’ rights. Because of unions, Americans have eight-hour work days, 40-hour work weeks, anti-child labor laws, workers’ compensation benefits and safety regulations, insurance and retirement benefits, higher pay standards, and even a holiday – Labor Day.

To actually form a union, workers collect petitions and vote to form a union “local” or branch. Such efforts demonstrate to the employer that a majority of workers support the union. Once established, employees do the work of organizing and hold elected positions within the local union. In most states, once a union has been formed, all employees are required to join the union. However, in Texas, a “right to work” state, employees are not required to join the union which represents them. Although this law gives the illusion of fairness in that it theoretically protects workers from being “coerced” into joining a union, non-union employees actually reap the same rewards as those employees who are union members and who worked for the benefits. Such “right to work” laws have the overall effect of weakening unions by providing disincentives to join unions.

Ultimately, unions provide a voice for workers, and by encouraging safe and comfortable work environments, they should be seen to be in the best interest of employers. As Senator Orrin Hatch (R. Utah) said in 1994, “We need unions to make sure that working people have a legitimate and consistent voice”.

The Working Stiff Journal was a free community newspaper produced in Austin, Texas and distributed across town. All of the articles were available online on the UT Watch site for many years, but they are no longer available, so I am republishing my own work here (in 2014). You can still read back issues thanks to the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine.

The Working Stiff Journal
Vol. 1 #3, November 1998
By Jackie Dana

Review of Created Unequal: The Crisis in American Pay
James K. Galbraith
New York: The Free Press, 1998

If you work for a living you aren’t probably greatly surprised that an enormous gap in wages exists in this country but what you may be surprised to find out that this is no accident.

In his new book, Created Unequal: The Crisis in American Pay, James K. Galbraith explains why the rich are getting richer while the working class keeps falling further behind. Dr. Galbraith, a professor of economics at the University of Texas at Austin, argues that low wages and underemployment are the results not of market forces but of deliberate governmental policy. Galbraith shows how the US federal government can be blamed for wage inequalities by favoring the needs of the wealthy over those of the poor.

As he explained at a book signing at BookPeople on September 23rd, with its current economic policies, the US is at “a moment of extreme crisis.” Galbraith explained that “we should get public action and get it soon. If we don’t get it, inequality will go up and we’ll lose ground on other issues of social policy” including public education and social security. Since 1970, income disparity has increased substantially. In Created Unequal, Galbraith contends that the wage gap is about to “threaten the social solidarity and stability of the country.”

A quick glance at American economic history illustrates his point. From the end of World War II through 1970, the US experienced stable economic growth; the government also enacted or maintained many policies aimed at reducing poverty and protecting less-fortunate members of society. In 1970 the government abandoned its goal of full employment, and instead channeled its energy into fighting inflation. The loss of jobs generated by the subsequent recessions began the downward spiral of inequality. Under Reagan’s administration, Galbraith describes how “the rich triumphed. Yet they did so without resuming their former positions of social obligation, without resuming their former posture of industrial restraint.”

As Galbraith explains, “the real crisis now is the underlying attack on the elderly, the poor, and the ill, and the tragic willingness of many working people to join it.” In order to maintain their standards of living, Americans are going more and more into debt. As this debt increases, workers can no longer afford to share in the support of infrastructure costs and public expenditures such as schools, roads, social security. Finding herself financially strapped, the typical American worker may resent taxes which pay for social services to the poor, while through interest payments on loans she contributes a large portion of her income to the very wealthy.

A common myth is that wage inequality can be blamed on the increasing use of computers, what Galbraith refers to as “skill-biased technological change.” As he explains, many believe that computer knowledge gives individuals a chance to get ahead, but there is little evidence to support this idea. Galbraith demonstrates in Created Unequal that the wages of those who use computers in their jobs have not experienced noticeable increases in pay.

However, the high-tech industries themselves, by building monopolies on the various technologies, have been able to earn tremendous profits, meaning those directly employed within that sector tend to be paid somewhat better than the population as a whole. In the long run, these jobs are relatively few, and does not explain why wages in other industries have suffered.

Since the problem of the wage structure stems from bad economic planning, not market forces, it makes sense that to overcome the problem the government needs to reexamine its policies. Galbraith offers a series of recommendations, chief among which is for the government to recognize the need for sustained levels of low unemployment. He recommends holding unemployment at its current rate, or even reducing it, and maintaining this level for at least five years. At that point, he said, “we’ll gradually make up lost ground.” Our current relatively low unemployment rate, he explains, “masks the huge problem of underemployment,” but if we can sustain a low rate, eventually people will be drawn out of low paying jobs into better ones.

Along with working to reduce unemployment, Galbraith advocates policies to maintain stable and low interest rates and promote reasonable price stability. He suggests that the government remove the”burden of inflation control” from the Federal Reserve, implement regular increases in the minimum wage, invest in public and urban amenities (such as parks, mass ransit, and schools), and institute universal health care. At BookPeople he suggested that the government become more supportive of labor unions and collective bargaining, for the reason that unions, along with the government, help bring the wage structure under control.

He said that his ideas have some support within the Democratic Party at the national level. Rep. Richard Gephardt (D-Missouri) has said Galbraith’s book “makes the case for a new, fairer deal for American workers, American families, the American economy, and the world.” Unfortunately, there has been lukewarm enthusiasm for Galbraith’s proposals among Texas Democrats.

Galbraith’s arguments are compelling and insightful. He offers concrete reasons for our current economic woes, ample evidence to support his position and reasonable, specific, and practical proposals to resolve them. However, as he freely admitted in a talk at BookPeople, he also desires to look out for his own class interests. He has little incentive to question the overall wage structure and the inequalities in pay which are inherent under the current system.

In the end, his suggestions, while sound and practical, would serve not to overhaul the current wage system but instead to enlarge the middle class. There will always be the very poor and the very rich, but Galbraith’s work proposes to increase the numbers of people in the middle.

The Working Stiff Journal was a free community newspaper produced in Austin, Texas and distributed across town. All of the articles were available online on the UT Watch site for many years, but they are no longer available, so I am republishing my own work here (in 2014). You can still read back issues thanks to the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine.