FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Organized Labor and the Dreaded Two-Tier Contract

From the vantage of organized labor, the worst statutory event ever to occur was passage (over President Truman’s veto) of the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act.  Besides outlawing a union’s ability to conduct secondary strikes and boycotts (in other words, prohibiting workers from freely engaging in a meaningful display of union “solidarity”), Taft-Hartley ushered in the toxic era of the so-called “right-to-work” state.

A right-to-work state is one that allows employees to hire into a union facility—a facility that routinely offers better wages and benefits than a comparable non-union facility—but, preposterously, does not require these employees to join the very union that made those economic advantages possible.  At first blush, such a sleazy, “backdoor” arrangement seems grossly unfair if not downright illegal.

But right-to-work provisions aren’t illegal.  Indeed, they are not only legal, a whopping 28 states (including Michigan and Wisconsin, their illustrious labor histories notwithstanding) have adopted them.  So what has Taft-Hartley wrought?  It has given sharp-eyed pilgrims the right to publicly rejoice in the hard-earned benefits of union membership—including being able to cite the union contract when filing a grievance—without having to become union members.

Not to stretch the analogy, but isn’t this bullshit a bit like the soldier who spent all his time in the motor pool, having never once seen actual battle, and then insisting on being awarded a combat ribbon because a lot of the other guys got one?  While U.S. companies smugly refer to this union-busting device as “freedom of choice,” organized labor calls it “freeloading,” which it clearly is.

As crippling as the Taft-Hartley Act was, one can argue that implementation of the “two-tier wage and benefit configuration” has been equally debilitating.  Unlike the post-war Taft-Hartley, the two-tier didn’t raise its ugly head until the late 1970s, when the UAW (United Auto Workers) was first exposed to it, but since then—in the wake of hundreds and hundreds of corporations having jumped on the bandwagon—it’s done incalculable damage to the labor movement.

Basically, the two-tier arrangement is exactly what it implies.  One pay scale is transformed into two.  Under a two-tier, instead of everyone in a union shop receiving—as was historically always the case—identical pay and identical benefits for doing identical jobs, the company is allowed to create a secondary progression ladder.

And under the provisions of this secondary ladder, all future employees are locked into not only what wages they can make, but what benefits they can receive, including vacation time, pensions, and in some cases, health coverage.  Why on earth would a union agree to such contract language?  Because they had a gun to their heads.  The mighty UAW once had more than a million members.  Today, they’re a shell of their former selves.  Membership stands at 390,000.

Understandably, these two-tier configurations—particularly the most radical versions—didn’t emerge fully formed.  For one thing, in the beginning, most companies weren’t sure where the plans would lead (or how best to sell the idea to the union), and for another, if the union were given the slightest hint at what the most ambitious versions would be, they would have risen en masse, and run away screaming from the bargaining table.

Which is why the first two-tiers were presented as “hiring rates.”  For example, in the West Coast paper industry, local unions agreed to having their new hires paid less than seasoned employees doing the same job, so long as the differential adhered to a graduated index.

During their first three months a new hire would receive 80% of the full rate.  The next three months it would be 85%.  Then 90%.  Then 95%.  Only after one year would they receive the full rate.  No one really objected to this, including the new hires themselves, who thought it was a “fair” system.

But all of this quickly morphed into what we find today:  A permanent and disaffected collection of “haves and have-nots.”  Under a strict two-tier arrangement, today’s new hires can never earn what a senior person earns doing the same job, no matter how long they remain on the payroll.  One can readily imagine what effect this has on union solidarity.  It’s been devastating.

 

More articles by:

David Macaray is a playwright and author. His newest book is How To Win Friends and Avoid Sacred Cows.  He can be reached at dmacaray@gmail.com

Weekend Edition
June 15, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Dan Kovalik
The US & Nicaragua: a Case Study in Historical Amnesia & Blindness
Jeremy Kuzmarov
Yellow Journalism and the New Cold War
Charles Pierson
The Day the US Became an Empire
Jonathan Cook
How the Corporate Media Enslave Us to a World of Illusions
Ajamu Baraka
North Korea Issue is Not De-nuclearization But De-Colonization
Andrew Levine
Midterms Coming: Antinomy Ahead
Louisa Willcox
New Information on 2017 Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Deaths Should Nix Trophy Hunting in Core Habitat
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Singapore Fling
Ron Jacobs
What’s So Bad About Peace, Man?
Robert Hunziker
State of the Climate – It’s Alarming!
L. Michael Hager
Acts and Omissions: The NYT’s Flawed Coverage of the Gaza Protest
Dave Lindorff
However Tenuous and Whatever His Motives, Trump’s Summit Agreement with Kim is Praiseworthy
Robert Fantina
Palestine, the United Nations and the Right of Return
Brian Cloughley
Sabre-Rattling With Russia
Chris Wright
To Be or Not to Be? That’s the Question
David Rosen
Why Do Establishment Feminists Hate Sex Workers?
Victor Grossman
A Key Congress in Leipzig
John Eskow
“It’s All Kinderspiel!” Trump, MSNBC, and the 24/7 Horseshit Roundelay
Paul Buhle
The Russians are Coming!
Joyce Nelson
The NED’s Useful Idiots
Lindsay Koshgarian
Trump’s Giving Diplomacy a Chance. His Critics Should, Too
Louis Proyect
American Nativism: From the Chinese Exclusion Act to Trump
Stan Malinowitz
On the Elections in Colombia
Camilo Mejia
Open Letter to Amnesty International on Nicaragua From a Former Amnesty International Prisoner of Conscience
David Krieger
An Assessment of the Trump-Kim Singapore Summit
Jonah Raskin
Cannabis in California: a Report From Sacramento
Josh Hoxie
Just How Rich Are the Ultra Rich?
CJ Hopkins
Awaiting the Putin-Nazi Apocalypse
Mona Younis
We’re the Wealthiest Country on Earth, But Over 40 Percent of Us Live in or Near Poverty
Dean Baker
Not Everything Trump Says on Trade is Wrong
James Munson
Trading Places: the Other 1% and the .001% Who Won’t Save Them
Rivera Sun
Stop Crony Capitalism: Protect the Net!
Franklin Lamb
Hezbollah Claims a 20-Seat Parliamentary Majority
William Loren Katz
Oliver Law, the Lincoln Brigade’s Black Commander
Ralph Nader
The Constitution and the Lawmen are Coming for Trump—He Laughs!
Tom Clifford
Mexico ’70 Sets the Goal for World Cup 
David Swanson
What Else Canadians Should Be Sorry For — Besides Burning the White House
Andy Piascik
Jane LaTour: 50+ Years in the Labor Movement (And Still Going)
Jill Richardson
Pruitt’s Abuse of Our Environment is Far More Dangerous Than His Abuse of Taxpayer Money
Ebony Slaughter-Johnson
Pardons Aren’t Policy
Daniel Warner
To Russia With Love? In Praise of Trump the Includer
Raouf Halaby
Talking Heads A’Talking Nonsense
Julian Vigo
On the Smearing of Jordan Peterson: On Dialogue and Listening
Larry Everest
A Week of Rachel Maddow…or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Ronald Reagan
David Yearsley
Hereditary: Where Things are Not What They Sound Like
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail