I wish this article about Starbucks firing unionists mentioned how extremely common this is. Research by @KBronfenbrenner has shown that pro-union workers are fired in more than half of organizing drives. (Have I got this right, Kate?) nytimes.com/2022/02/08/bus…
Workers organizing their unions get fired despite the law saying unequivocally that firing a worker for organizing a union is illegal. So why does it happen so often?
First is that, as Wilma Lieb says in the article, it’s really hard to prove that a worker was fired because of union activity. Most workers break the rules routinely. Most workplaces only function because of this rule breaking. (That’s why work to rule is an effective strategy.)
So bosses can easily gin up a pretext for firing a worker, and there’s little to be done. But wait, there’s more!
When a boss fires a worker illegally, what's the remedy? The company has "make the worker whole." That is, they must rehire the worker and give them back pay--minus whatever the worker has earned in the meantime.
That is: no fines, no punishment. Just making the worker whole. The cost of firing someone illegally is so little that it's just a cost of doing business. Companies can do it and if it gets litigated and they lose, they'll pay back some money and shrug.
And the process of deciding whether a firing was illegal (that is, whether the employer committed an unfair labor practice) can take years. And in the meantime--even if the boss loses those years later--they've disrupted the union drive.
In short, bosses break the law and fire the people organizing unions because it's easy to get away with, because if they don't get away with it the penalty is very low, and because it works to bust the union.
Which is to say: labor law is broken. One way to fix this is to create management-side injunctive relief. That is workers who get fired for union activities should be able to go to a court, get a decision, and impose daily fines on bosses who delay in rehiring them.
An aside: firing a worker for organizing a union is illegal in the same way that being an "illegal immigrant" is illegal. That is, it's a civil violation, not a criminal one. Yet when you do the first, you can get exiled from your community. When you do the latter--nothing.
This is a good point. Labor law has gotten worse as time has gone on, and it could get better even without congressional action.
An important correction to my first tweet in this thread. I'm wrong about @KBronfenbrenner's findings. There are firings in 30% of union drives, not more than half. A third is still way too many, but it's not more than half! I regret the error.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
@benjaminopowers I am a broken record when I say that the heart of the Canada-US relationship is not trade or shared defense, but rather ordinary people and their ideas crossing and recrossing the border.
@benjaminopowers If you--like so many people (and governments) who dominate the discourse of the US-Canada relationship--focus only on trade and the military, you can't possibly comprehend what's going on now with the convoy.
New York State allocated $27 million to give to undocumented victims of Hurricane Ida. (That's good.) But the eligibility structure is such that the fund has disbursed only $725,674, with an average grant of only $5,000. (That's bad.) ny1.com/nyc/all-boroug…
Why does the Hurricane Ida documented relief fund carry such a terrible curse? Because even this program is stuck in the paradigm of worthy and unworthy poor, deserving and undeserving immigrants. Families and households aren't, it turns out, "documented" or "undocumented."
Even a well-meaning program like this is stuck imagining a heteropatriarchal family, a household in which everyone shares legal or familial ties and immigration status. A lot of households--especially those forced to live in dangerous apartments--don't look like that.
I'm thinking this morning about the similarities between the Ottawa truck convoy and Occupy--not because they are alike in politics, but because in both cases the medium became the message. That is, the form of protest came to stand in for the content of the protest.
Thinking about the medium as the message--here, angry masculinist disruption via giant belching diesel trucks--helps explain why the Ottawa convoy has spread internationally, and how American fascists can glom onto it without caring about the specifics of Canadian politics.
As my friend @Dra_m_a would point out, iconography and form has been an important part of popular uprisings, and a major way that leftist and decolonial politics spread in the '60s. So this isn't anything new.
An interesting column by @davidsirota about big insurance companies continuing to insure big oil and gas project that create climate change while withdrawing homeowners' coverage for homes at risk of burning down because of climate change. dailyposter.com/what-if-i-cant…
@davidsirota The larger point here about how it's ordinary homeowners that have the financial and other risk from climate change, while big financial companies continue to reap the profits is a good one.
I suspect the homeowners advocates' solution is also a good one for existing houses--that is, to make houses insurable if they take major fireproofing steps.
A thing I’ve learned in the last 5-2 years is that a huge amount of this country’s problems boil down to a culture that celebrates being an asshole, to the extent that many Americans will act like assholes even when it hurts themselves materially.
Some of this is about power. Just as working class people will give up, say, wages in order to have more control over their workdays and lives, rich people give up material things (e.g. better health outcomes) to keep more control of society.
Two key texts on the preceding tweet: David Montgomery’s classic essay “Worker Control of Machine Production in 19th Century America” (labor disputes are about power), The Spirit Level (rich people in unequal places have worse outcomes than rich people in more equal society), and
One of the things I repeat to my students all the time is how people fought and died--literally--for the 8 hour day and 40 hour week for 75 years before it was enshrined in federal law. And then it was standard for maybe 60 years before employers reneged again.
It's fascinating to see the demand for shorter and more predictable hours--8 hours for work, 8 hours for sleep, and 8 hours for what we will--reassert itself as a major struggle at Nabisco, Kellogg's, Deere, New York Magazine, etc., etc.
One of the things workers are (re)learning now is that legal requirements for short hours won't cut it. The Fair Labor Standards Act was not the first law to limit working hours. Many others had been passed and ignored. What gets workers shorter hours is power--that is, a union.