The attempted dismantling of the NLRB should be a five alarm situation for everyone even vaguely left of center, and it’s wildly disturbing to me that it’s only really being talked about among labor nerds. Great piece.
Speaking of NLRB, what happens if the original union organizers do move on to other jobs? Are there requirements that if/when a first contract can finally be bargained, that there has to be any continuity with the original employee organizers? Would love a deep dive on the experiences of negotiating first contracts for new unions.
One of your best pieces ever Hamilton! Thank you! The UAW once managed to get a contract 13 years after they won union recognition - due to the very stall tactics you describe. And that was before the corporate assault on the NLRB and the recent Supreme Court Chevron decision. It is unlikely that workers in most places like Amazon can hold out for that long - which is exactly capital's strategy. If Harris/Walz win and get a supportive congress nothing should be more important than reforming labor law to give workers a fair opportunity to form or join a union. Neither Carter, Clinton nor Obama understood how important unions are to protecting democracy.
Thanks Sue. Yeah the PRO Act would go a long way towards fixing this but will never pass with the filibuster in place. So dems need to kill the filibuster. Also they have to win a trifecta, which they won't. But next time they do!
Excellent piece! It feels like it was channeling a bit of Grapes of Wrath: “We’re sorry. It’s not us. It’s the monster. The bank isn’t like a man.
Yes, but the bank is only made of men.
No, you’re wrong there—quite wrong there. The bank is something else than men. It happens that every man in a bank hates what the bank does, and yet the bank does it. The bank is something more than men, I tell you. It’s the monster. Men made it, but they can’t control it…The bank—the monster has to have profits all the time. It can’t wait. It’ll die…When the monster stops growing, it dies. It can’t stay one size…The monster isn’t men, but it can make men do what it wants.”
Great points, Hamilton! I've been thinking that there are often advances made for workers during popular moments of protest, such as the 99% Occupy Wall Street protests in 2011. I think a new focus could be that there should be equal distribution among the stakeholders in any corporation: shareholders, senior management, middle and lower management and workers. So, if the shareholders are getting, say, a 6% dividend, then that should be the improvement for all the other stakeholders. Or if senior management are getting a stock option, then the equivalent stock option should be made to lower management and the workers; a campaign for equal stakeholder entitlement to the dividends dished out to the shareholders, for all the management (including lower and middle management) and all the workers. At least the issue should be in the public mind. Why should shareholders get 6% and workers get 2%? That's not right. If the corporation decides there'll be no management bonuses, and no dividends, no increases in senior management remuneration, fine, workers get treated the same, provided the principle is established that there is equal treatment for all the years ahead.
I might believe in the legal fiction "corporations are people" if ever I saw a corporation go to jail.
The attempted dismantling of the NLRB should be a five alarm situation for everyone even vaguely left of center, and it’s wildly disturbing to me that it’s only really being talked about among labor nerds. Great piece.
Speaking of NLRB, what happens if the original union organizers do move on to other jobs? Are there requirements that if/when a first contract can finally be bargained, that there has to be any continuity with the original employee organizers? Would love a deep dive on the experiences of negotiating first contracts for new unions.
One of your best pieces ever Hamilton! Thank you! The UAW once managed to get a contract 13 years after they won union recognition - due to the very stall tactics you describe. And that was before the corporate assault on the NLRB and the recent Supreme Court Chevron decision. It is unlikely that workers in most places like Amazon can hold out for that long - which is exactly capital's strategy. If Harris/Walz win and get a supportive congress nothing should be more important than reforming labor law to give workers a fair opportunity to form or join a union. Neither Carter, Clinton nor Obama understood how important unions are to protecting democracy.
Thanks Sue. Yeah the PRO Act would go a long way towards fixing this but will never pass with the filibuster in place. So dems need to kill the filibuster. Also they have to win a trifecta, which they won't. But next time they do!
Excellent piece! It feels like it was channeling a bit of Grapes of Wrath: “We’re sorry. It’s not us. It’s the monster. The bank isn’t like a man.
Yes, but the bank is only made of men.
No, you’re wrong there—quite wrong there. The bank is something else than men. It happens that every man in a bank hates what the bank does, and yet the bank does it. The bank is something more than men, I tell you. It’s the monster. Men made it, but they can’t control it…The bank—the monster has to have profits all the time. It can’t wait. It’ll die…When the monster stops growing, it dies. It can’t stay one size…The monster isn’t men, but it can make men do what it wants.”
Great points, Hamilton! I've been thinking that there are often advances made for workers during popular moments of protest, such as the 99% Occupy Wall Street protests in 2011. I think a new focus could be that there should be equal distribution among the stakeholders in any corporation: shareholders, senior management, middle and lower management and workers. So, if the shareholders are getting, say, a 6% dividend, then that should be the improvement for all the other stakeholders. Or if senior management are getting a stock option, then the equivalent stock option should be made to lower management and the workers; a campaign for equal stakeholder entitlement to the dividends dished out to the shareholders, for all the management (including lower and middle management) and all the workers. At least the issue should be in the public mind. Why should shareholders get 6% and workers get 2%? That's not right. If the corporation decides there'll be no management bonuses, and no dividends, no increases in senior management remuneration, fine, workers get treated the same, provided the principle is established that there is equal treatment for all the years ahead.