The editors of Labor Notes asked several activists to contribute articles for a special 400th issue of the magazine. They requested we address what happened to labor—and what we should do given the spot we’re in.
I wrote an article arguing that we must continue to fight for labor law reform. However, when the next opportunity for reform arrives, union membership will be smaller and our political clout even more diminished.
If we are to succeed, we have to have a campaign (unlike EFCA) that can be waged at the local and state level. Future reform proposals must be wrapped in a broader mantle that will appeal to all workers.
I’m proposing a campaign to pass a state law requiring “just cause” before a worker is fired. Such a campaign could also spur union growth, since one of the top reasons workers are afraid of organizing is the knowledge they are likely to be terminated for assisting a union drive.
Read the article here: http://labornotes.org/2012/06/labor-law-reform-we-need
Could a “Just Cause” reform law pass in Massachusetts? What would the campaign look like? Who would support it and how much would it cost?
I would certainly like to hear others views on this topic!
Until recently I worked at a giant insurance company that has been laying off workers in a steady trickle for the last few years. This causes so much stress to those who are still there: they never know where the ax falls next. I’ve also had two people on my team who were walked out on separate occasions and for different reasons. They simply came to work one day and mid-day were escorted out by a uniformed security guard. Neither one was allowed to go back to their desk to retrieve personal items or to say goodbye, even with an escort. Instead my manager packed up their belongings and shipped them to their home address.
This is so inhumane and happens so often.
Here is a link to a well researched and poignant article that addresses the stress people feel from job insecurity.
1/3 to 1/2 of the Democrats in the legislature would oppose it? Businesses, large and small, wouldn’t want it.
A ballot initiative might be the best way to educate voters about the issue. I don’t know a lot about this end of politics, but even if we could get lawmakers to sponsor the bill, wouldn’t it get lost or buried in committee? A ballot initiative would have the advantage of having everyone vote on it and thus be a little educated on the issue.
The narrative would be something like, “Beaten Down, Unions Return to Organizing All Workers.” This narrative could bring back discussion of the historic role of unions in improving the conditions for all workers, from the institution of the 8 hour day to health care. There are a lot of positives, even if we didn’t win.
This whole idea is to enshrine in law the idea that to fire someone, you need to have a good reason? It’s a shame that basic fairness in someone’s ability to provide for their family would be “controversial”.
…that just cause termination wasn’t already a standard provision of union contracts. I thought a key reason for a union’s very existence was to keep its membership from being terminated for anything other than just cause.
I think just-cause termination IS a standard provision of union contracts. As I understand the thread-starter, the point of this law is to extend that protection to non-union workers.
I just reread the diary and see that non-union does seem to be the point. I’ve actually never understood why there is not an affirmatively protected right to organize. There certainly should be, IMO.
It’s called the National Labor Relations Act:
Section 7: “Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or bargain collectively through representation of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining…”
Section 8(a): “It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer . . . to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7…”
Several states have enacted laws that appear to contradict the provisions of NLRA you cited. We also hear of companies who close or move when their workers organize. Those companies should be forced to give those workers a severance package hefty enough that it would be more cost effective to stay open and deal with the union.
The National Labor Relations Act is at best a very weak protection for workers who as a group seek to form or join a union. That’s why many in the labor movement (and beyond) worked so hard to pass the Employee Free Choice Act. Other on-the-job protections are weak or non-existant.
Or, perhaps more importantly, what reasons are not “just cause”?
How can one adopt a position on this unless that concept is fleshed out just a bit?
Can include being fired to bump up the stock price, to make room for the CEOs nephew, to save money by hiring someone cheaper, to avoid having to deal with a prominent customer who has a thing against your employee, to make the sales staff look younger, to duck out from paying a pension or promised benefit, to ditch someone who may be getting pregnant soon, to avoid having to do actual management and tell someone how to improve their job performance, to find a scapegoat for a mistake, to ditch someone with divergent political/religious views than yours….
Point is it wouldn’t be presented that way, it would be for some nebulous reason (“poor performance”). But unless “just cause” is defined and enshrined, you can get away with it. With just cause, if the boss tries this, s/he needs to demonstrate that performance was poor.
Now, this can be hard, so a lot of managerial types hate this sort of provision. It means having to know your workers, the work they do, and make decisions based on actual data, not just hunches and feelings.
never, ever, ever hiring anyone for anything unless you are abosultely 100% sure that it will work out.
Laws usually work better if they prohibit something specific rather than requiring something nebulous. I am skeptical of this proposal.
Here’s a link to alternate proposal for Labor Law Reform featured in Labor Notes: http://labornotes.org/2012/08/union-rights-should-be-civil-rights What do people think?
response commenting on a post that is two months old.
This article has a slightly different slant….
http://stansburyforum.com/just-cause-isnt-it-time-for-all-workers-to-have-some-job-security/