We have learned there was nothing free about unregulated markets; capital was "free" to invest in anything, including worthless paper. We, in contrast, are stuck with the bill.
"Free" trade has stripped the United States of its manufacturing base and left us with declining wages and standards of living. In Indiana, the result has been a dramatic increase in plant closings as companies shipped their work first to Mexico and now to Southeast Asia.
That certainly was never my understanding of the word "free."
The Bill of Rights asserts some of our "freedoms" as citizens, including the right to free speech and free assembly. But these freedoms are equally misleading when it comes to workers and the workplace.
When we are at work, we do not have the freedom to say what we think without consequences, and we do not have the freedom to assemble. Not on private property, anyhow.
For the past three decades, when workers have mentioned the word "union," they have risked their livelihoods. Often, they have lost their jobs, though ostensibly for some other reason.
Now a bill is before Congress to amend the National Labor Relations Act so workers can exercise their legal rights without losing their jobs. Let me explain this Employee Free Choice Act.
Under the Labor Relations Act, workers have the right to organize and bargain collectively through an organization of their choosing. This right, or freedom, is also supported by international law.
Yet when workers have exercised this right, they often have faced severe retaliation. Even if, despite firings and threats, workers vote in the majority for a union, employers have refused to bargain, as the law requires, "in good faith." What seemed like a good idea in 1936 -- a secret-ballot election -- became an opening for anti-union employers to delay and threaten firings, wage cuts or plant closures.
The Employee Free Choice Act is a simple measure to bring labor-management relations back under the law. It gives workers a choice, once they have decided to sign a union card. They can gain recognition directly with a majority of signed cards, or they can call for a secret ballot election.
From the business-side hoopla on this question, you wouldn't know that workers now would be able to decide whether to accept recognition directly or have a secret-ballot election. According to business spokespeople, workers would be forced to give up their secret-ballot vote. When did corporate CEOs begin worrying so much about workers' rights? That alone should be a clue that we need to look into the Act itself.
Under the Employee Free Choice Act, if workers choose a union, the company must bargain a contract, something that rarely happens today. With money, lawyers and time on their side, employers have robbed workers of the choice to be represented by a union by refusing to agree to anything.
Under the Employee Free Choice Act, if the union and the company cannot agree, then a third party will make the decision on the contract, based on the union's last offer and the company's last offer. This is called interest arbitration, or baseball arbitration. It's nothing new to labor-management relations. With interest arbitration as a final step, both parties are encouraged to make their best possible settlement offers.
Given that less than 10 percent of the private sector workforce is unionized, companies have had too much "freedom" to do as they please, unregulated by government and not accountable to their own workforce. We have seen what unregulated and unaccountable corporations do.
If we are to create jobs, rebuild our manufacturing base and offer a future to the next generation, we need to give workers a chance and a choice. Our congressional representatives need to support the Employee Free Choice Act and stop making excuses for those who destroyed our economy.
Ruth Needleman is a professor of labor studies at Indiana University Northwest.
This Article appeared in the Gary Post Tribune
