|
|||||||||||||||
|
SOCIAL JUSTICE
Social Justice and Trade Unionism Why do Human Rights Matter to Business ? Social Justice and Trade Unionism You may wonder, what does social justice have to do with Trade Unionism, or even you, for that matter? The short answer is "a lot". Read on for a slightly longer answer. What is Social Justice? Social justice is a human notion that within our societies we must strive to be "fair" with one another. No matter where you live on this planet, no matter your age, your occupation, your political persuasion, your gender- (you get it!) everyone has an idea of what it means to be socially just. There are about as many ideas as there are people. OK, so it's good to have so many different ideas, right? Well, yes, ideally, it's good to have so many different ideas. As intangibles, ideas can just be fodder for an interesting albeit long-winded conversation. However, ideas are the basis for establishing laws and organizational policies that greatly impact the majority of people. The impact of laws and organizational policies don't simply effect how we live, (as if that isn't enough), they also effect how we feel and what we think about ourselves and other people around us. Who are the lucky people whose ideas become the basis for establishing laws and organizational policies? History tells us that the "lucky people" are not necessarily those who make just decisions. For example, Adolph Hitler's ideas were the basis for sweeping policies and laws that resulted in tragedy for countless people. History also tells us that the "lucky people" don't necessarily make smarter decisions than the rest of us. Even though former President Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar, and, by the way, did substantial work for the labor cause, his decision to embark on the Lewinsky affair was at the least, not smart. One thing is for sure, those people whose ideas become the basis for establishing laws or organizational policies, are not merely lucky. Mother Theresa, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Karl Marx, Nelson Mandela and countless other famous and infamous people cared enormously about their ideas. They worked hard and even risked their lives to promote their ideas. So, what exactly is the connection between Trade Unionism and Social Justice? Some of the people who worked hard and risked their lives to promote their ideas, are the founders of Trade Unionism. Their ideas ran counter to a late nineteenth-century notion that was based on Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. The basic theory is that only the fittest animals survive. The weak animals usually become prey to the smartest, or strongest. Since humans are animals, many of the wealthy class of people justified their power and privilege in this way. They believed, like those of royal lineage, that they and their families were born as superior humans. Many early industrialist and wealthy lawmakers subscribed to this elitist attitude. The laws of our country and the policies of corporations reflected and enforced their ideas. What did these elitist's care, if children were doing backbreaking work for 11 hour days, 6 days a week? So what, if people were degraded or arbitrarily fired for requiring bathroom or food breaks? Who cared if people risked their life or limb, or permanently disabled themselves in their daily work? (See http://www.lutins.org/labor.html for labor history.) Trade Unionism was initially promoted by a few conscientious and brave people, wealthy and poor, who did care. They cared enough about social justice to take a stand against the laws and policies that essentially enslaved the labor force. Ultimately, people like Mary Harris ("Mother") Jones, August Spies, Albert Parsons, Eugene Debs, and Frank Little generated a labor movement that was powerful enough to change the laws of this country and subsequently corporate policies. What are some social justice issues involving the labor movement of today? Certainly, there are current social justice issues in the labor movement in the United States and elsewhere in the world. For those skeptics, who naively believe that unions have outlived their usefulness, check on the Unite or LabourStart web-sites. If you are one of those people who don't believe what happens to laborers outside of the U.S., matters to you, take a second look. What were traditionally U.S. jobs are landing anywhere and everywhere that labor is not organized, and you can bet you will find plenty of social injustice. Articles on Social Justice... Why do Human Rights matter to Business? Amnesty International Request... Workfare in the U.S. Prison Labor
Why do human rights matter to business?
As the
Business Group of Amnesty International (UK) puts it: "The global
economy offers unprecedented opportunities to business. Transnational
companies are investing in and sourcing from an ever-increasing number of
emerging markets. These opportunities bring with them serious threats to
business - operating in conflict zones, under regimes with a weak rule of law
where human rights are violated, where corruption is rife".
Amnesty International Request for NGOs to support the Draft Norms for Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises at the next meeting of the UN Sub-Commission for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights
Dear friends,
WORKFARE IN THE USA
The Problem: The TANF guidelines do not define whether workfare participants are "employees" when placed in "work activities." As a consequence, it is entirely unclear what workplace protections those on workfare enjoy. For example, some states have paid workfare participants the minimum wage while others have not. Some states have recognized the right of workfare participants to join unions while others have denied this right. Previous welfare laws explicitly stated whether recipients were covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act (minimum wage). The 1996 welfare bill signed by President Clinton failed to do so. This omission gave birth to an array of different payment levels for TANF workfare participants that ranged from decent-but-low pay to a post-industrial indentured servitude wage equivalent to 96 cents an hour. In May 1997, the White House announced that workfare participants should receive the minimum wage but many states have expressed their intention not to comply until directed to do so by the courts. Congressional Republicans are said to have drafted a minimum-wage exception for workfare participants which they will attempt to pass as soon as possible. The second major issue that arises from workfare participants' unsettled status has been confusion over whether they can form and join unions. New York state agencies have ruled that people on workfare are not employees and cannot be represented by a union. In contrast, the state of Alaska allowed the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees to organize 300 workfare workers because they were performing substantially similar work to jobs already covered by an existing union contract. It is unanswered what would have happened had the state of Alaska opposed this organizing effort. Even if workfare participants can form and join unions, it is still
unclear just what those unions would be empowered to bargain for. Because
workfare participants are paid with a welfare check, union organizers are
uncertain if they can bargain over wages. The only successful organizing
actions to date have concerned working conditions. In New York City, the
Parks Department has refused to provide gloves, coats and sanitary facilities
to its 5000 workfare workers. The New York City Health and Hospitals
Corporation assigned workfare participants to handle biological and toxic
waste without training or safety gloves. Not surprisingly, ACORN has
persuaded 6500 of New York's 35,000 workfare participants to sign union
authorization cards. In Los Angeles, organized (but not unionized) workfare
workers performing janitorial work at County-USC Hospital protested working
conditions and won new uniforms and an employee discount at the hospital
cafeteria. The Alaskan AFSCME won its workfare members increased training and
pledges to move them into permanent government jobs. Why this Matters for Labor/Management Relations: As the TANF program currently stands, workfare constitutes a direct assault upon the balance of power between management and labor in the United States. Congress has created a new class of worker who is all but exempt from the protections afforded others and is (probably) legally prohibited from organizing to better their lot. Many governments have already taken advantage of workfare to displace their regular low-wage workforce. The city of Baltimore has replaced an estimated 1000 regular workers with workfare "trainees" who earn less than the minimum wage. The Baltimore public school system alone has 208 "custodial trainees" who earn the equivalent of $1.50 an hour. Johns Hopkins University only reversed its plan to replace union workers with workfare participants after protests that drew crowds of more than 1000 people. Perversely, the displacement of regular low-wage workers with workfare
participants has the effect of recycling workers back into the TANF welfare
program. Those workers who currently hold low-wage jobs but are not on
welfare may find themselves replaced by workfare participants and forced on
welfare themselves. Those workfare participants who manage to find "real
work" (non- workfare) will be constantly menaced by the possibility that they
too might be replaced by a cheap and docile workfare participant. Conclusion: As so often happens in the world outside of Congressional strategy sessions, the Workfare program has had the opposite effect of what it was intended to accomplish. Rather than empower welfare recipients to learn job skills and find a productive niche in our economy, it has created a class of Americans who are forced to work for sub-minimum-wage, are denied the right to organize, and may not enjoy the benefits of still other employee protections available to the rest of the American workforce. Moreover, the institutionally created disabilities upon workfare participants have negative spill-over effects upon other workers. The availability of a sub-minimum-wage labor pool will undoubtedly have a
stabilizing if not depressing effect upon wages for comparable positions that
as of yet are not filled by workfare participants. Unionized employers may
not feel the same compulsion to bargain with their workers knowing that there
is a bottomless pool of "trainees" who they can draw upon. And as noted
previously in this article, some employers are simply eliminating union jobs
in favor of workfare trainees. The current workfare program assaults both the
dignity and human rights of the workfare participants and should be an
embarrassment to every American.
PRISON WORK Imagine a company that pays its workers as little as 25 cents an hour and
often charges more for its goods than any of its competitors, even though it
pays no taxes or dividends. The marketplace would put it out of business
before it got off the ground, probably before government regulators even
found out about it. Yet, such a firm does exist. It's not a private one operating in a free
market. It's a half billion dollar government enterprise that wants to get
bigger, at the expense of taxpayers and the jobs of workers in the private
sector. Welcome to the world of Federal Prison Industries, Inc., or FPI-a
unit of the U.S. Justice Department. More than 22,000 inmates in over 100 of the nation's correctional
facilities make up the captive work force of FPI. They make clothing,
electronic and vehicle components, industrial items and dozens of other
products including one of crucial significance to the economy of west
Michigan-office furniture. That industry is reeling from a soft economy and
if FPI has its way, west Michigan furniture workers are going to get hit
again. The idea of convicts working at something while serving their time is a
laudable one. States often employ them to maintain and refurbish the very
facilities which house them, or to produce goods and services for sale to
each other, or to keep roadsides free of litter. But FPI is controversial
because there's much more to it than prisoners keeping busy and out of
trouble. FPI enjoys preferential treatment in government contracts. Indeed,
"monopoly" more aptly fits the status it enjoys. Federal law since 1934
designates FPI as a mandatory supplier to the federal government, which means
that federal agencies must purchase from FPI; private firms that sell the
same or similar products are cut out altogether, unless FPI itself grants a
waiver. This monopoly status puts FPI in an extraordinary position. It determines
whether its products for sale and its own delivery schedule actually meet the
needs of the purchasing agency. If a federal agency wants something, and FPI
makes it, FPI sets the terms. Agencies are even prevented from conducting
market research to find out if private industry can supply them with a better
and cheaper product. U.S. Senator Carl Levin points out that "many federal agencies have been
forced to purchase products that cost more, and perform less well, than
products that are available to the rest of us in the commercial marketplace."
He cites the General Accounting Office, which compared FPI prices for 20
representative products to prices for identical or comparable products in the
catalogs of private vendors. For almost half of the products reviewed, FPI
charged a higher price than most or all of the private vendors-who (unlike
FPI) must pay taxes to governments, dividends to shareholders, and market
wages to employees. When federal agencies made those costly purchases, they
did so with taxpayer dollars. Such poor policies and practices do harm even to the federal government's
core responsibility-providing efficient and effective national defense. The
U.S. Navy testified that what it buys from FPI is "inferior, costs more, and
takes longer to procure" than comparable goods produced by the private
sector. When the armed services have to spend more than necessary for desks
or electronic components for weapons systems, they have less to spend for
planes or bullets. Without congressional intervention, FPI is poised for significant
expansion. It now claims, without citing any statutory authority, that it can
offer its goods in the private marketplace to firms that do business with the
government. It also claims it can sell services (like packaging or data
entry) in the private marketplace without limitation. Legislation offered by Congressman Peter Hoekstra (R-Holland) would
address the problem by requiring FPI to compete for federal contracts and
prohibiting the agency from selling in the private marketplace. His bill, HR
1577, would also enhance public oversight of (and tighten the standards for)
any future FPI expansion plans. Unfair competition from privileged agencies of government is nothing new,
but when it comes from prisoners doing time because they broke the law at the
expense of taxpaying, law-abiding citizens, both fairness and economics
demand that something be done about it. Side note for your information..... In Kentucky, more than 2,000 prisoners work in community service outside of prisons. Daviess County claims to have saved more than $600,000 in 1994 by using prisoners to do menial government work. Mason County says it saved $200,000 by using prisoners at their recycling center. They pay $1.25 per day. Statewide, jail prisoners earn $1.25 a day, and prison prisoners earn 75 cents a day on average. Some prisoners get other rewards for volunteering: weekend furloughs, face-to-face visits, and sometimes smoking on the job. If you are interested in social justice issues, related to labor or not, check out the following web-sites. If you have any sites you would like to suggest, contact us via e-mail, cyndihack@aol.
|
|||||||||||||||
|
Home /
Who We Are /News
/ Calendar / Join /
Education / Links Copyright ©2002 International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. All Rights Reserved |
|||||||||||||||
