Collective Bargaining and Organizing Rights
November 19, 2004, Washington, D.C.
Collective Bargaining and Organizing Rights
While much has been said about the decline of private sector union membership in the U.S., labor's current crisis is less frequently described in terms of the erosion of collective bargaining, particularly compared to other industrial democracies. It's certainly true that union density and bargaining success are linked, but focusing on collective bargaining – and its contribution to a healthy, democratic society – better positions us to appeal for public support based on gains that are good for everyone. But particularly after our setbacks in this year's elections we need to focus more of our energy on mobilizing our own members and key allies around collective bargaining as the cornerstone for our standard of living, rights on the job, and even our voice in our country.
For 70 years, since passage of the Wagner Act, America's stated national policy has been to support collective bargaining. Yet in recent years, it is only in the public sector that we have actually promoted it. Since 1950 private sector collective bargaining coverage has dropped from 35% to 8% of the workforce, while public sector collective bargaining rates have risen from under 10% to 35% in the same period.
Public sector membership gains are important even beyond the numbers they add to organized labor's overall headcount because of what they demonstrate about workers' willingness and ability to organize under conditions of relative management neutrality and non-interference. If the NLRA had covered government employees 30 years ago – when health care and non-profit entitities were finally covered – it's likely that public sector unionization in the U.S. today would be at least 80% – strikingly similar to Canada, Europe, South Africa, Korea, Japan and every other democracy. Instead, the existence or scope of collective bargaining in half the states is still being determined by state legislators or governors, who favor either no bargaining at all or limited "meet and discuss" arrangements.
If collective bargaining – in either private industry or public employment – is indeed a public good, we need to focus more on explaining and defending that process, rather than just highlighting the obstacles that individual unions face while trying to boost their own membership. For example, in France, unions count only 10% of the workforce as dues-payers but unions negotiate in nearly all industrial sectors based on long standing support for collective bargaining. Unions actively compete against each other – both for membership and votes for government mandated workplace committee members open to all workers in the same workplace or firm. But the country's various labor federations then find ways to engage in common contract campaigns with management or the government; as a result, nearly 90% of French workers have collective bargaining agreements. The right to strike is well-established and widely supported by members and non-members alike.
While sometimes inconveniencing the public, strike activity in France often resonates with broader sectors of the population. With 90% collective bargaining coverage, past gains in living standards and social benefits – such as paid time-off, pensions, and universal health coverage – have thus proved to be much harder for management to roll-back in France than in the U.S. Obviously higher union membership rates would be better, but in France this is mostly an internal organizing challenge, far different than a U.S. style fight for union recognition and bargaining rights.
Similarly, U.S. unions should not write off non-members. During CWA's four-day national work stoppage at SBC Communications last May, most of the 15,000 non members joined 80,000 members in support of bargaining on health care and "jobs of the future." Factors influencing this support included the level of workplace education, real workplace structure, and public sympathy and support. Similarly in our two day national health care strike at GE many non members supported the goals and picketed with the members.
Just as France shows that collective bargaining coverage can be more important than union density, Mexico illustrates that a high level of union dues payers and official recognition – on paper – don't necessarily translate into workplace influence or protection for workers. Unions in Mexico are recognized at virtually every workplace, but many of them hardly resemble workplace organizations run by members. In many cases, sindicatos blancos (ghost unions) are created in collaboration with management, solely to prevent workers from forming their own organizations. In other cases unions in the CTM (national labor federation) are recognized but have little real membership involvement.
In both cases, strike activity is often suppressed through the combined efforts of government officials, employers, and company unions. Hundreds of thousands of workers have never even seen a copy of their union contract. So the issue can't just be union membership rates or we would view Mexico as positive and France as negative. Mexican workers in unions like the Telefonistas (STRM) at Telmex understand this as they work to change the labor movement as well as national labor policy.
Similarly, we cannot – in the name of density-driven restructuring – dictate to workers in this country which unions they can join or not join or, as in Mexico, discourage them from starting new ones. If we take that approach, we risk losing any public debate about collective bargaining being an essential element of a democratic workplace. During the period of labor's greatest growth in America, between 1935 and 1945, 10 million private sector workers organized, and many of them started new unions including ones affiliated with neither the AFL or the CIO. Workers made ample use of the organizational choices and opportunities for self-organization which existed then.
This does not mean that national and local unions should be general unions with no organizing or bargaining strategy, and with no plan to build clout at their existing employers. Many employers cross industry lines and others are national or international in scope so there is not one simple approach that makes sense. For example, General Electric is dominant in 14 industries including broadcasting, jet engines, health care equipment and appliances. We need to focus on some mix of community strength, and employer and industry density in developing these strategies. Particular unions in particular places may provide better choices for workers than only considering industry based unions.
In the past two years, the AFL-CIO has done some of its best grassroots work ever to prepare for a labor resurgence. Rather than rehash older, more narrow approaches to labor law reform, the Federation has shaped the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) which now has nearly a majority of House members as co-sponsors as well as 30 co-sponsors in the Senate. EFCA would provide union recognition and possible first contract arbitration whenever a bargaining unit majority is established via card check.
Uniting labor around this approach was and is no small feat. Many unions were involved in a failed effort in 1992-93, when the Federation instead put its hopes in the Dunlop Commission appointed by President Clinton. Now, the Federation actively supports coalition work with Jobs with Justice and American Rights at Work, both of which are focused on building popular support for collective bargaining rights.
On December 10, 2003, rallies and demonstrations supporting EFCA were held in nearly 100 locations around the country. Several hundred thousand union members and allies participated, and this was a good first step towards the type of popular education and mobilization that is needed. Last summer, Voice@Work followed up with educational material that was to be distributed at worksites, with a goal of collecting tens of thousands of post cards directed to both of last year's presidential candidates, seeking their support for EFCA. CWA locals collected about 20,000 of these cards, more than any other AFL-CIO affiliate, but our own mobilization capacity for future action is much greater. Based on overall card signing and collection totals reported back to the Federation, there appears to be even more room for improvement elsewhere. Some unions are instead questioning the effectiveness of the AFL-CIO. It might be helpful, as part of that debate about the federation's future viability, to examine how we can insure real affiliate follow-up.
The November elections have clearly dealt a knockout blow to passing federal legislation like EFCA in the next four years. But possibilities remain for real reform in many states for bargaining rights for both public sector and related groups such as state contractors. The White House and their allies in Congress will no doubt continue to attack voluntary recognition based on majority support (card check) so the need for labor union unity around support for collective bargaining rights will be more important than ever. This must mean renewed worksite education and mobilization about collective bargaining and organizing rights, not just our own but for all working Americans.
Two years ago, the CWA executive board adopted a seven-point program entitled, "Collective Bargaining and Organizing Rights." It recognizes that all of us are facing a collective bargaining crisis, as we bargain defensively, trying to hold onto benefits, living standards and even jobs from past days, as a result of declining collective bargaining density. The crisis is even more acute for our members bargaining first contracts since most employers now act as if union recognition is meaningless and bargain as if they never expect to reach an agreement. CWA's program emphasizes the importance of making this collective bargaining crisis a membership issue – even when workers' own contracts may not be up for re-negotiation.
CWA is also trying to set new "bargain to organize" goals – for contract campaigns, seeking expansion of existing card check and neutrality agreements or negotiation of new ones. In implementing this program, we realize that no union – or small group of unions – can go it alone. To achieve our common goals, the labor movement as a whole and all of our allies need to go on the offensive, with the rallies and demonstrations like those held in Madison Square Garden and stadiums around America, when the Taft-Hartley Act was looming.
Promoting collective bargaining is even more critical today, because the patient is in much worse shape than half a century ago. What is the likelihood that we can address America's health care crisis, the collapse of retirement security, the threat of outsourcing, workplace safety and health hazards, or growing income inequality without far more workers winning the right to bargain? We know the answer, and that's why we need to keep investing our time, resources and best activists, not only in building our own unions but in working together to bring back collective bargaining.
