Views > July 25, 2008 > Web Only

Six Little Words To Fix America’s Wage Crisis

By David Sirota

History books teem with six-word phrases, from the comforting (“Nothing to fear but fear itself”) to the inspiring (“Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall”) to the embarrassing (“Read my lips, no new taxes”). But the six words, “on the basis of union membership”, could be more momentous than any of those. Though hardly Roosevelt’s rhetoric, Reagan’s bluster or Bush’s clumsiness, the clause could solve America’s wage crisis.

Of course, when Tom Geoghegan told me this in a Chicago park two weeks ago, I almost snarfed my coffee through my nose. Solving major social problems typically demands more than six words. But as the longtime labor lawyer and author explained his idea to me on a muggy afternoon, it started making sense.

Geoghegan reminded me that data show the more union members in an economy, the better workers’ pay. The problem, he said, is that weakened labor laws are allowing companies to bully and fire union-sympathetic workers, thus driving down union membership and wages.

Enter Geoghegan’s six words. If the Civil Rights Act was amended to prevent discrimination “on the basis of union membership,” it would curtail corporations’ anti-labor assault by making the right to join a union an official civil right.

“Hang on,” I interrupted. “Joining a union isn’t a civil right?”

Correct.

Under current law, if you are fired for union activity, you can only take your grievance to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) — a byzantine agency deliberately made more Kafkaesque by right-wing appointees and budget cuts. Today, the NLRB takes years to rule on labor law violations, often granting victims only their back pay — a tiny cost of doing business.

Union leaders are now focused on reforming the NLRB — an admirable goal — but Geoghegan’s plan implies that workers are harmed by being legally leashed to Washington in the first place. His proposal says rather than being forced to rely on an unreliable bureaucracy for protection, workers should be empowered to defend themselves.

The six words would do just that. Regardless of whether the NLRB is strengthened or further weakened, persecuted workers would be able to haul union-busting thugs into court. There — unlike at the NLRB — plaintiffs can subpoena company records and win costly punitive damages.

Bolstering his argument, Geoghegan told me to consider variations in corporate behavior.

For example, because the Civil Rights Act bars racial discrimination, businesses are motivated to try to prevent bigotry: They want to avoid being sued. This is why no company brags about being racist.

But when it comes to unions, there is no such deterrent. The lack of civil rights protection effectively encourages businesses to punish pro-union employees — and publicize the abuse to intimidate their workforce. By making the six words law, the dynamic would shift. Companies would have a reason — fear of litigation — to respect workers’ rights.

When Geoghegan and I finished chatting, I remembered why I believe he is America’s most talented writer and thinker on labor issues. His relative anonymity is a tragicomic commentary on the media and the American Left. The Milton Friedmans are celebrated by pundits and cast in bronze by conservative think tanks, while the Geoghegans are dismissed by the chattering class and ignored by a progressive movement that regularly venerates Hollywood celebrities as its heroes.

Perhaps, though, this proposal will change things. In developing a way to shift incentives, Geoghegan has discovered a solution that both unionists and economists can love. It cribs the best from liberals’ pro-union sympathies and conservatives’ distrust of Big Government, and should make him famous (or at least a Cabinet secretary). After all, anyone who can bring such disparate ideologies and adversaries together is worthy of serious consideration — as is his six-word stroke of genius.

• subscribe to print magazine

  First Name Last Name Home Address City State Zip Code Email

  2-year, 24-issues, $44.95 1-year, 12-issue, $24.95

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments

  Six Perfect Words to Restore the American Dream…

  “The Commonwealth Labor Party of America”

  We “Americans” no longer have a political party working on behalf of workers.  The Democrats are weak, cowards that will never force change at the expense of stock holders.  Neither parties will repeal Taft-Hartley, withdraw from NAFTA, nor regulate rampant monopolistic business practices and the selling off of America to foreigners.

  It’s time for 3rd parties to join together and form one equal 1/3 party in this country.  “God save America from the Corporations and the Stock Market.” Someone please create “The Commonwealth Labor Party of America.”

  Posted by middleamerican on Jul 25, 2008 at 7:37 AM

  Sirota -

  Good!  As in Good God, this is the dumbest thing I have ever read! 

  The states with the highest union membership are doing the worst economically.  The industries with high union membership are collapsing: Toyota (non-union) recently surpassed GM (union) as the world’s largest car manufacturer.  And you want to increase the burden on unionized industries by increasing wages and increasing regulation and work restrictions?  That is no way to increase productivity, and increasing productivity is the only way we can make the world a better place, for workers and for everyone. 

  Universal union membership in the USA will only guarantee that our workers, union members all, are the highest paid unemployed people in the world. 

  It is one thing to argue about how to divvy up the economic pie, and quite another thing to argue for policies that make the economic pie smaller.  The Socialist EUSSR has elected to make their economic pie smaller, and they have enjoyed an unemployment rate about twice as big as ours for two decades.  In the Lisbon Accords of 2000, the EU set a goal of matching USA productivity by 2010.  Eight years on, the EUnuchs have made zero progress toward achieving their stated goals.  Zero.  Nada.  Zilch.  The Socialist USSR collapsed from the type of policies you advocate. 

  When the Dimocratic Party went Marxist after Vietnam, it abandoned the workers, their traditional base, and became the plaything of elitist media (such as yourself), educators, union organizers, and Dimocratic politicians.  The result was Reagan Democrats.  The Dimocrats have enjoyed scant success since then; the only two Dimocrat presidents in the last forty years were Carter and Clinton.  Both of them had major problems, but neither was an ideologue Leftist.  McGovern, Dukakis, Mondale, Gore, and Kerry were Leftist ieologues, and see what it got them?  It certainly did not get them the votes of the workers.

  The big irony here is that free-market, rule-of-law democracy is sweeping the globe.  A century ago, there were about twenty democracies in the world.  Now the number is close to 140.  The United States of America inspired and supported all of these new democracies.  Did the International Marxist movement inspire or support any of these democracies?  Don’t be stupid. 

  So, now we have Merkel, Sarkozy, Berlusconi, and Harper, recently elected Rightists among our major political and economic partners.  We have Leftist Brown in Great Britain in electoral trouble.  And we have Obama, the weakest and most improbable presidential candidate ever, trying to buck this trend.  Don’t be stupid.  You can’t even get the American worker to vote for your candidate. 

  You want six little word?  Try this:

  “Fuck you, Marxists.  Up with democracy.”

  Posted by scorp on Jul 27, 2008 at 1:55 PM

  Scorp-

  1) Which states with high union rates are doing badly and why? 

  2) Unionized labor is efficient, just more expensive to the individual employer (but cheaper to society).

  3) The U.S. is ranked #11 in GDP/capita behind 9 Northern European states and Qatar.

  4) If Merkel, Sarkozy, Berlusconi, or Harper were U.S. pols they would be considered socialists.

  Posted by oliver cromwell on Jul 27, 2008 at 9:17 PM

  Wages for the American middle class have stagnated since the 1970s. We have almost $49 trillion in private debt and $10 trillion in federal debt. A nation without a strong middle class is a nation in decline.

  We’ve tried it the Republican way for 30 years with trickle down, supply side economics, unfettered “free” trade that’s exported American jobs to low wage, environmentally substandard nations. It doesn’t work, it concentrates wealth in the hands of too few people who concentrate it into even fewer hands by blowing it on chasing the latest market distorting bubble fad.

  I like the idea of making union representation a civil right. As long as we depoliticize the DoJ first. We have to rebuild the middle class or we’re going to wind up the world’s biggest banana republic with 1% of us filthy rich and the other 99% dirt poor.

  Posted by markg8 on Jul 29, 2008 at 7:39 AM

  I’m a new reader of InTheseTimes.com .  The Very first thing that I read on the InTheseTimes.com site was David Sirota’s “Six Little Words to Fix America’s Wage Crisis”.

  This Idea resonates with me because upon some behavior the consistent enforcement of written and reasonable government regulations is justified.  I do not fear such regulation.  I dread any government discretion.  Judges, panels and juries are not perfect.  We must continue to utilize them until we discover superior methods to make some determinations.

  I dread government discretion such as selective enforcement.  I dread insufficient recourse to challenge what may be any wrongful application of government discretion.

  As Srirota’s article points out our National Labor Relations board is part of an administration that’s anti-labor and we are dependent upon oversight by legislatures that are almost entirely of in agreement with the administration or fear acting to support union’s rights to exist.  Many key regulations as written and/or most regulations as interpreted by the NLRB are more or less anti-labor.  Reaching what is too often a determination contrary to labor is time consuming.  Justice delayed is justice denied.

  The idea that people could make an end run around the Labor Relations Board and be heard by judge and possibly a jury on the basis of a much broader law concepts appeals to me.

  PS: I’m a proponent of Warren Buffet’s proposal to significantly decrease USA’s trade deficit.  It would increase our GDP and median wage in “real” U.S. dollars.

  It is not a tax or a tariff.  It is market rather than government driven, granting government no discretion of policy. (Assessing the value of goods is a technical rather than a policy determination).

  Refer to www.USA-Imports.Blogspot.com .
  Respectfully, Supposn

  Posted by supposn on Jul 31, 2008 at 8:22 AM

• register a new account »Posting Security

  To participate in our forums, please register for a free account.

  Username Password

    Remember me
  

  Retreive lost password »

Member Login

Also by David Sirota

• An Unconventional Convention
  
• Will Obama Wave Bayh Bye to the White House?
  
• A Funny Thing Happened On The Way to Denver
  
• Sanity From The Silver Screen
  
• Six Little Words To Fix America’s Wage Crisis
  
• ‘Centrists’ Running the Asylum