We Are Worth More

Last month a few hundred retail and fast-food workers, from places like Sears, Dunkin’ Donuts, and McDonald’s, walked off their jobs for a rally in downtown Chicago.   Carrying signs saying “Fight for 15” (or “Lucha Por 15”) and “We Are Worth More,” these workers make $9 or $10 an hour, at best, and they figure they’re worth at least $15.

A one-shift walk-out and protest by a few hundred out of the thousands of such workers in the Chicago Loop and along Michigan Avenue’s Magnificent Mile cannot have the economic impact of a traditional strike – one that shuts down an entire workplace or industry for an extended period of time and, therefore, can bend an employer’s will.   And these workers’ chances of getting $15 an hour any time soon are worse than slim.   This “job action,” bolstered by community supporters organized by Action Now and with help from Service Employees International Union organizers, is more in the nature of a public protest than a “real strike.”   You could even call it “a public relations stunt,” but you’d be wrong to dismiss it as inconsequential.

“Public relations,” ironically, has a bad image.  But think of it as workers witnessing their own plight, calling for others in similar situations to join them and appealing to those of us with decent incomes to support them.  Witnessing, with its religious overtones, is not intended as an immediately practical action.  It’s first about individuals summoning the courage to put themselves forward to make a public claim that they are one of thousands (millions nationally) who are being treated unjustly.  In this case, it means taking the risk that they may be fired or otherwise disciplined for leaving work and going into the streets to proclaim “We are worth more.”

Witnessing is meant to make us think about justice as the witnesses simultaneously inspire and shame us with the courage of their individual actions.  I was at one of the first draft-card burnings that protested the Vietnam War in 1965, and I remember saying something like, “I’d do that if I thought it would do any good,” while knowing in my heart of hearts that I didn’t have the guts to take that kind of risk then.  But it inspired and shamed me – and thousands and then hundreds of thousands of others — to do many other things to fight against that war as we inspired and bolstered (and exerted peer pressure on) each other.

For the broader public, these initial job actions – in New York and Chicago among retail and fast-food workers; in California and Illinois among workers at Walmart warehouses; and all over the place among Walmart retail workers – are “public relations” that raise awareness and pluck consciences.   But for workers who watched workmates walk off the job to witness for them, there may be some of that inspiration and/or shame that is a particularly powerful call to action. That’s what organizers are counting on, in the hope that the numbers of such workers will grow helter-skelter across the retail industry, eventually initiating a contagion of worker direct action that can put these workers in a position to negotiate for “labor peace,” with or without the blessing of the National Labor Relations Board.

There’s another determined witness who couldn’t be more unlike these striking workers.  He’s a retired law professor from the University of Texas, Charles Morris, who is a leading expert on the legislative and early administrative history of the National Labor Relations Act and the Board that enforces it.  In a 2005 book, The Blue Eagle at Work, Morris makes the legal case that the Act defined a labor union as any group of two or more workers who act together (“in concert”) to seek redress of grievances from their employer.   According to Morris, the “concerted activity protection” articulated in the Act means that employers cannot legally fire workers for forming a non-majority  or “members-only” union (as few as two workers acting together), and what’s more, an employer is legally bound to “bargain in good faith” with that union.

Through meticulous legal research, Morris has shown that these worker rights were in the Act from the beginning but have been forgotten by the subsequent customary practice of defining a union as only that group of workers who have formally voted to be represented by a petitioning union. What’s more, other legal scholars have now signed on to Morris’s legal interpretation and are ready to bolster it before an NLRB that is willing to hear their case.  There would be such an NLRB, what Morris calls “a friendly Board,” if Republican Senators would allow a vote on President Obama’s nominees for the Board.

A favorable NLRB ruling would be important for a variety of legally technical reasons that workers and organizers could use to their tactical and strategic advantage – none of which includes the expectation that employers will voluntarily obey the law just because it is the law. But equally important is that Morris’s reading of the Act’s history restores the original meaning of a labor union that is based on workers’ decisions to act together “in concert” with one another.  That is, a labor union is not just an institution with a bureaucracy and a marble palace in Washington, D.C., though it may be that as well.  It is any group of workers in any workplace, no matter how big or small, who decide to and then do act in concert to advance their own interests in their workplace.

In March Chicago Working-Class Studies helped organize a public forum that brought Charles Morris together with workers and organizers from Fight for 15, the Walmart retail and warehouse strikers, and two other groups who are already acting as unions under this definition.  Though there were some disagreements between the elderly legal scholar and the mostly young workers and organizers — one emphasizing the importance of politics and administrative case law in the long run, the others focused on the potential of direct action in the here and now – they agreed that if and when the two come together, the possibilities for a worker-led upsurge of union organizing are great.

Nonetheless, through their actions these workers have already changed what a labor union is and is thought to be.   It is now, and really always has been — even a century before the National Labor Relations Act was passed in 1935, even when it was an illegal “conspiracy” — simply a group of two or more workers acting in concert with one another.   To be really effective there will need, of course, to be many, many more than the hundreds and thousands who have begun this process.  But it starts with a few brave witnesses who take a risk and ask others to join them.  The peer pressure is now on the rest of us.

Jack Metzgar, Chicago Working-Class Studies

This entry was posted in Contributors, Issues, Jack Metzgar, The Working Class and the Economy and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to We Are Worth More

  1. Pingback: Only Mutiny Can Set Us Free | Washington Spectator

  2. Pingback: The Incredibly Shrinking Working Class? The View from the “Professional” Bubble | Working-Class Perspectives

  3. Pingback: Today’s Workplace » We Are Worth More

  4. VanessaVaile says:

    Reblogged this on As the Adjunctiverse Turns and commented:
    The intersection between precariat protests by low-wage workers and close analysis of the National Labor Relations Act is an important lesson that adjunct academic labor should not ignore. There is a place and a clear purpose for us in this approach. Now to add this blog to the overflowing feed reader and look for more articles by Jack Metzgar to read and, of course, share.

    Like

  5. Collective bargaining is the only way that marginalized workers can negotiate a living wage, and strikes inconvenience the public so that they become more aware of the importance of the services provided by lower-tier workers. I have always maintained that people should be paid a living wage for providing services that we need and enjoy. If you aren’t willing to pay the gardener a living wage, do it yourself! Americans live under the pretense that we are the “land of the free,” when in reality we are becoming the land of the haves and the have-nots. Slavery was replaced by the “company store,” which was a more palatable way to create a pool of cheap labor because it was cloaked in the illusion that workers were not being coerced into a lifestyle of hopeless poverty. Now we have minimum wage. Does anyone really think that minimum wage is a living wage?

    Like

  6. joeberry1493 says:

    Great piece, Jack. people, especially smart sophisticated activists on the left, often denigrate “personal witness” or”preaching to the choir” type actions while forgetting that is an essential part of any successful movement building process. I could tell many of the same stories you tell from my own life. I am most proud of those times I have had the guts and foresight to do a little of this sort of personal witness in public. I have heard later, often many years later, that it changed lives. It certainly changed mine for the better despite the risks. Thanks again for the piece.

    Joe Berry

    Like

  7. Patrick R Saunders says:

    Marginalizing personal worth is an industry to itself in our country. All of us do it, consciously or unconsciously, and it stems from the manner in which this country was developed, with one group taking from another and denigrating the others worth to rationalize the theft of their property. The idea of a “minimum wage” rationalizes the theft of peoples lives for that is what work is, time taken away from peoples lives and the fact that time can be valued at bargain basement prices while the consumers are charged top floor prices for the services being rendered is an anathema but uniquely “American.”

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s