by James Parks, Oct 25, 2006

When the Bush-dominated National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued its recent decision in the Oakwood case, it slashed long-time federal labor laws protecting workers’ freedom to form unions and opened the door for employers to classify millions of workers as supervisors. Under federal labor law, supervisors are prohibited from forming unions.

But the decision’s impact may extend far beyond union members. It could result in a more polarized economy and a less democratic society. Here’s what University of California-Berkeley professor Harley Shaiken says in the most recent AFL-CIO Point of View guest column:

Throughout the economy, new forms of work organization and new forms of information technology are giving workers increased input on the job. It is ironic, not to say undemocratic, to think that more input could result in fewer rights. The result could be a back-to-the-future scenario where we return to the labor protections of the early 1930s as we enter the 21st century.

The NLRB’s decision is so egregious that the AFL-CIO this week filed a complaint with the International Labor Organization (ILO), an arm of the United Nations.

AFL-CIO President John Sweeney says the decision took from millions of America’s working people a fundamental human right recognized all over the globe—the freedom to bargain collectively and have a voice on job.

Shaiken, who specializes in labor and the global economy, says the labor board’s decision reflects a broader pattern in which recent NLRB rulings undermine the intent of the National Labor Relations Act. Rather than facilitating the freedom to organize and bargain as the law requires, the Bush-controlled NLRB consistently has made the process much more difficult for many workers, including graduate teaching assistants, temporary workers and people with disabilities.

For all too many workers, Shaiken says, this means

joining a union represents a risk rather than a choice.

He notes that about one worker every 23 minutes is disciplined or even terminated for union activity.

Shaiken says that by cutting back workers’ voices on the job, the decision could go a long way toward silencing our democracy:

Limiting unions in the workplace also mutes their voice politically, corroding the checks and balances vital to a democratic society. Who then speaks for the broader interests of working families on issues from the minimum wage to health care?

At issue is workers retaining the right to decide who represents them. By eliminating this choice, the labor board’s decision weakens unions today and undermines democracy.

Read Shaiken’s full column here and check out Jared Bernstein on new solutions to old problems, Greg LeRoy on jobs, Hedrick Smith on retirement, Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer on making a red state blue and more guest columnists at AFL-CIO Point of View.

Print This Article | E-Mail This Article | Comments (0)