Airlines Battle Workplace Democracy

by: Jim Hightower, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed

Airlines Battle Workplace Democracy
(Photo: zen / Flickr)

If you ever want to spook a smug, stuffed-shirt corporate CEO -- I mean spook him so bad that he jumps clear out of his Guccis and screams louder than Little Richard -- sneak up behind him and shout "union!"

They hate that.

Corporate chieftains get the heebie-jeebies at the mere mention of unionization for the exact same reason that millions of workers perk up at the idea: power. In today's plutocratic, corporate-controlled economy, the most direct and effective way for working folks to assert their interests and restore a measure of fairness to America's economic system is for them to unite in unions.

Indeed, while the corporate powers and their political apologists constantly insist that the union movement is passe -- neither needed nor wanted in or modern, globalized workplace -- more than 60 million Americans (over half of the workforce) say they would join a union if they could.

Well ... why can't they?

Because those at the very top (corporate executives, board members and financiers) personally profit by holding down everyone else, so they don't want the mass of working stiffs having any real say over such critical matters as offshoring, downsizing, wages, benefits and working conditions.

Unions -- which allow employees to amass their strength, coordinate their interests and participate in company decisions that affect them -- are a direct democratic threat to the centralized autocracy preferred by the pampered few at the top.

Thus, for the past three decades or so, the autocrats have retained lawyers, lobbyists and lawmakers, deploying them in a determined effort (mostly out of the public eye) to monkey-wrench the rules of unionization in ways that make it hard to impossible for workers to join together.

For example, perhaps you've never gotten around to reading the Railway Labor Act (it didn't make many best-seller lists). But the RLA, which governs unionization elections in both the railroad and airline industries, has a wicked little plot-twist you might enjoy. When a vote is taken among workers in either of these two industries to determine whether they want to form a union, the law requires that all employees who do not vote be automatically (and autocratically) counted as having voted against the union.

Come on, even Agatha Christie wouldn't have tried something that twisted! Those who did not cast ballots (because they were sick, didn't care, were intimidated, had a family emergency, whatever) should not be counted at all, as happens with no-shows in every other American election.

Happily, the Obama administration has recently issued a new rule repealing this electoral absurdity. But -- Holy Kafka! -- assorted airline corporations have gone bonkers, bananas and batstuff, screeching that this small step toward the bright light of logic is a demonic perversion of the Founders' democratic ideals. The industry has unleashed its political hounds to howl in protest and demand a reversion to the good ol' autocratic system.

Sen. Johnny Isakson of Georgia was especially noisy, which is no surprise, since he's a longtime retainer of Atlanta-based Delta Air Lines, whose labor force is largely non-union. Delta has profited enormously from RLA's quaint, anti-democratic method of skewing unionization votes (it has even included at least one dead employee as a non-voting "no" vote), so it is going all-out to stop the rule change.

Thus, Isakson, whose No. 1 campaign funder is Delta, quickly rose up on his hind legs last month to declare that deleting non-voters from the "no" column was an "assault on employee rights."

No one ever said Johnny was bright, but -- wow! -- that's dim. How about we apply Isakson's thinking to ... well, to him! In his last election, there were 8.6 million eligible Georgia voters, but only 1.8 million cast a ballot for him. Golly, Johnny, that means 79 percent of Georgians either voted against you or -- gasp! -- did not vote at all. In other words, those non-voters you love would've unceremoniously drummed you right out of the Senate.

Hmmm, the more I think about it, the more I like the no-vote inclusion -- as long as it applies to all of the hypocrites like Isakson. But I doubt he'd vote for that.

National radio commentator, writer, public speaker, and author of the book, Swim Against The Current: Even A Dead Fish Can Go With The Flow, Jim Hightower has spent three decades battling the Powers That Be on behalf of the Powers That Ought To Be - consumers, working families, environmentalists, small businesses, and just-plain-folks.

Copyright 2010 Creators.com

All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by permission or license.





     

»




Comments

This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.



We need a revival of the

We need a revival of the "One big union" idea. Isolated craft, trade, and industry unions don't have the clout to attract members or the numbers to resist the assaults of the ruling class and their stooges.

Get all workers (except managers) to join this new IWW (or whatever you want to call it). There can be clandestine as well as overt members.

Put on a few mass actions and general strikes.

Let people know that the authority before which they have been trained to kneel and salivate is a paper tiger. Let them know who the enemy is and where he lives. Let them see a few bloodied and beat-down bosses that can't get up. If a few Benzes get torched, that's a damned shame, but don't let it stop you.

You'll see a wave of people joining up.



...I think that having only

...I think that having only one union would play into the hands of the autocrats. Think about it... Unions lose their clout when they sell out to the bosses, and they gain membership when they show effectiveness and initiative on the worker's behalf. If all the autocrats have to worry about is buying off the head of one huge union, game over! No, indeed in this case, diversity is key to maintaining opportunities to steer clear of corruption, which is the biggest problem workers face anywhere...



17:08 needs to learn a

17:08 needs to learn a little more union history. The wobblies were probably the least corrupted, least controlled unions that ever existed. One of the main strategies of the capitalists has been to manipulate the disparate unions (not to mention disparate social and racial groups) against each other.

The way to keep "one big union" from getting corrupted is to make it sufficiently democratic. The leaders should be easily replaced, unimportant administrators while the union should be a the collective voice of the working classes.



The Pacific Northwest has a

The Pacific Northwest has a proud workers history. Workers of the World Unite! The IWW and organizations of workers gave us the week-end, the eight hour day, and much more. Two towns, Everett north of Seattle and Chehalis or Centralia south were sites of worker massacres. Protest and survive. Nobody said it was nice. Do you really want to wait and see just how bad it can get? The pioneer cemetery has union membership imprinted on many headstones. Though none are today. That is how far we've been pushed back. I belonged to the most timid union, The Seattle Professional Engineers' Assoc. The Machinists Union offered us membership. It was rejected so as to distinguish professionals from those lower class morons who ironically had a functional union that would have gotten the engineers more of everything! Gotta be better than those blue collar workers. Why? Call me the janitor, but get me union wages and benefits!



Has the United Autoworkers

Has the United Autoworkers helped GM and the other auto makers lately? Has the machinists with their burn barrel statues helped Boeing beat Airbus lately? They have helped Boeing, by striking yet again and giving Boeing the last straw needed to set up shop in South Carolina. Unions spell "loss of market share" = less jobs for the striking morons. Striking for conditions? Nope. Striking for safety? Nope. Striking for endless work hours? Nope. They want all the pie without any taking any risk.



Anonymous: I have a theory

Anonymous:
I have a theory that if all union employees took a 50% pay cut tomorrow, many of the companies they work for would be back in 5 years in the same sorry financial mess they are in today. Why? Because none of the savings would go to stabilizing the business for the long term. It would go to shareholder profits, management perks, and outrageous ceo payouts. As for risk--this country now has about 7 million people without jobs. It seems to me that they took a fair amount of risk. What more should they have done--work for nothing?



Unions ones was needed to

Unions ones was needed to improve conditions, However now they are corporations of there own controlling many corporations and businesses. They have little to do with union members and do not know a quarter who they represent because they have a big client list.
The CEO makes his decision to strike based on profit and contracts He/she themselves makes ten times or better wages than those he/she represents. Unions may be necessary, However they need to be reformed so they meet the needs of the people and not the CEO only.