Fort Worth Fire Fighters win HUGE on November 6th

Election day has passed and most did not even know it came and went with the low voter turn out here in Texas. That is if you did not live in some of the big cities with more on the ballot than constitution additions. The Fort Worth, Texas Fire Fighter took a huge step forward with winning collective bargaining rights. The right will be similar to the Postal Workers in that the Fire Fighters will not be able to strike but they will be able to sit down and negotiate benefits, time off, pensions and worker safety. One individual told me that pay was not a question but that they were fighting for insurance for retired Fire Fighters along with pension eligibility after 20 years of service. TC Gillespie of the CWA along with the other members of the Fort Worth Central Labor Council worked hard to get out the vote and now Fort Worth becomes the 22nd city in Texas to have collective bargaining with all or certain sectors of the public workforce. This is huge in looking at the landscape of the Labor Movement in Texas once thought to be a drain on the the national Labor Movement. This goes to show that not only does Labor have a voice in Texas but it can shape the politics of Texas. Congratulations to all that worked so hard to get this achieved and good luck to the Fire Fighters in their future negotiations.

Build it right-Build it Union!!!

This article below comes from Richard with the Union Review. Those of you in the "Trades" should be able to indentify with what he has to say. Of course, all of us in Labor better wake up.

The other day I posted a rant to Union Review called Build it Right - Build it Union. The story went up after a little frustration on my part hearing about different news items taking place around the labor world in the United States coupled with a few workers from different trades telling me that they would be more active in their union movement if they knew how or what to do. The article is a simple piece with links to other stories that we covered at the site -- and it is basically just highlighting a few companies out there that want union money but not union workers. There is an issue with Rite Aid, which is now being discussed at this site, and another with Walgreens -- both of which build nonunion and then reach out to union workers to spend their money with them since they will accept most health plans. This is just the tip of the iceberg, however. Whether it is FedEx, these pharmacies, or Red Wing shoes ... there are endless groups out there who are not building union and who are getting richer with our hard-earned cash. In an effort to spread some news while simultaneously helping people get more active in the union movement, if they choose to do so, I suggested that we start Buying Right - Buying Union. I mentioned a few places that we should do our business with and opened it up for others to help out by sharing with us what companies we should avoid and others that we should not. I welcome the readers here to participate in this as well. Feel free to comment here and/or post at Union Review. If you don't want your comments cross-posted to Union Review, just let me know -- the main thing is to get people active on something that we can all do ... now. In Solidarity, -Richard / UR

Peru "Free Trade" Deal By John Tasani

It wasn't a surprise but it is still disappointing that the so-called "free trade" deal with Peru passed the House yesterday--and, unfortunately, with too many Democrats voting for the deal. We missed a teachable moment--a moment to reframe the debate on trade relations with other countries. Here's what the Democratic Party should be saying.
Actually, mainly in the House, we had been moving in the right direction on opposition to so-called "free trade." Fewer and fewer Democrats have been voting for these agreements (for example, the Central American Free Trade Agreement received only 15 Democratic votes in the House). And as Public Citizen's Lori Wallach points out, 117 Democrats voted against the Peru deal:
Despite intense pressure and lobbying from some Democratic leaders, a massive corporate coalition and the White House, a majority of Democrats in the House of Representatives today opposed Bush's Peru NAFTA expansion agreement, echoing the American public's widespread discontent with the status quo trade policy.
That a majority of Democrats opposed the Peru NAFTA expansion - theoretically the least controversial of Bush's remaining trade deals - will put the final nails in the coffins of any further Bush administration expansions of NAFTA to Panama, Colombia or South Korea.
In particular, freshman Democrats voted against the deal, having won their elections partly due to campaign messages that included opposition to so-called "free trade." A drum roll and applause for:
Arcuri (NY)
Altmire (PA)
Boyda (KS)
Carney (PA)
Cohen (TN)
Courtney (CT)
Donnelley (IN)
Ellison (MN)
Hall (NY)
Hare (IL)
Hirono (HI)
Hodes (NH)
Johnson, Hank (GA)
Kagen (WI)
Loebsack (IA)
McNerney (CA)
Murphy C. (CT)
Murphy P. (PA)
Richardson (CA)
Rodriguez (TX)
Sarbanes (MD)
Shea-Porter (NH)
Shuler (NC)
Space (OH)
Sutton (OH)
Tsongas (MA)
Walz (MN)
Welch (VT)
Wilson (OH)
Yarmouth (KY)
On the other hand, 11 freshman voted for the deal:
Castor (FL)
Clarke (NY)
Ellsworth (IN)
Gillibrand (NY)
Hill, B. (IN)
Klein (FL)
Lampson (TX)
Mahoney (FL)
Mitchell (AZ)
Perlmutter (CO)
Sestak (PA)
As a New Yorker, I can't resist one passing observation: why Yvette Clarke, who represents some of the poorest people in Brooklyn, would vote for this deal, which will do nothing for her constituents, is beyond me--unless this is some way of her catching some campaign cash down the road and/or currying favor with Speaker Pelosi, who also voted for this deal.
So, why should the so-called "free trade" deal with Peru have gone down to defeat and what should the party be saying about trade? The Democrats who voted for the deal are, in my humble opinion, buying a phony framework for trade. They are being told that the main problem with these deals is that they have not included provisions that address labor and environmental standards. If you look at the narrow frame of the deal--that is, is it good that there will be labor and environmental provisions in so-called "free trade" agreements--you can say, "sure, there is some progress." And since the Peru deal did include such provisions, well, then, some Democrats--and the pundit class--argue there is no reason to oppose such an agreement because we have to be open to the world trading system and not become...horror of all horrors...protectionists.
This is a false and politically idiotic frame to accept.
We are not debating "protectionism" versus "free trade." These are just marketing phrases. There is no such thing as so-called "free trade." Once you use that phrase and defend yourself as not being a "protectionist," you are just reinforcing that the debate is a struggle between two concepts, which are really figments of the imagination.
A secondary frame that is at play is the seductive notion that there is a totally new world out there thanks to technology and so-called "free trade" is an essential element of the new world--we hear that rap from the pundits, economists, and, unfortunately, even a labor leader or two.
This is also idiotic. There is nothing new about trade. We've traded around the globe for all of human history. Technology does allow information and capital to move more quickly around the world.
What we are debating are the RULES that will govern how goods and services are exchanged between people. The central problem of so-called "free trade" is this:
So-called "free trade" agreements start out from the wrong premise: that trade agreements should be primarily about protecting investment and capital and, then, only as an afterthought, do the agreements wrestle with how workers and the environment should be treated.
And what are the rules in the so-called "free trade" agreements?
The so-called "free trade" deal with Peru, like the other similar agreements still, include NAFTA-style Chapter 11 foreign investor rights. These rights encourage U.S. companies to move offshore, as well as open up basic U.S. environmental, health, zoning and other laws to attack (they allow a company to argue that a pro-labor or pro-consumer law constitute an unfair trade barrier and, therefore, needs to be eliminated).
These deals still allow companies to attack prevailing wage laws, recycled content and renewable energy policy remain.
These deals still contain agriculture rules that displace millions of peasant farmers increasing hunger,social unrest, and desperate migration.
These deals still allow food safety limits that require us to import meat not meeting our safety standards.
These deals still allow drug companies to extend patent rights that undermine affordable access to medicine.
These deals still let U.S. firms, such as Citibank, demand compensation if, for example, Peru tries to reverse course and end its awful social security privatization.
So, as you can see, the basic structure of the economic system stays in place. What Democrats are left to defend, then, is a vote that changes things around the edges. As I said before, it's not terrible that there are labor and environmental provisions slapped on to the so-called "free trade" deal with Peru. The problem is that, even if those provisions are enforced, they do not change the basic economic framework being imposed on our citizens and people around the world. And, then, Democrats are left promoting things like retraining--a failed policy--to make up for an economic system that is rapacious.
And, politically, this is just dumb. In the short term, I suppose party leaders see support for so-called "free trade" guaranteeing that campaign contributions from corporate lobbyists will still flow to Democrats. But, that is no guarantee for success.
In 1993, NAFTA passed with the enthusiastic support of Bill Clinton (and, I would point out, Robert Reich, his Secretary of Labor). A year later, Democrats lost the House. Much of the blame for that electoral defeat--which then lead to more than a decade of an unraveling of our basic social compact in America, not to mention the bludgeoning of hundreds of millions of people around the world--was laid at the feat of the failed health care proposal promoted by the Administration.
I would argue that the passage of NAFTA played a crucial role, as well. Many union members were disgusted by the specter of a Democratic president flogging a deeply flawed agreement--and it was known, then, that the deal was deeply flawed--and many of them stayed home in November 1994. A bunch voted for Republicans on non-economic issues. Many of the races lost by Democrats in 1994 were lost by slim margins.
Fast forward to today. Not only did Public Citizen document how many freshman Democrats were elected in 2006 because of their clear opposition to so-called "free trade," but we now know that a majority of REPUBLICANS oppose these bad trade deals.
It is simply insane, morally and politically, to continue to support any vestige of so-called "free trade."
So, to wrap up, what should the frame be? Here is a modest, short version:
Democrats believe that the First Principle of trade should be that it enhances the quality of life of communities here and around the world. Democrats believe that every American should have a job with decent wages and dignity at work. We also believe that our country's role in the world should be to promote strong partnerships with other countries so that we can exchange goods, services, and ideas that raise the living standards of people everywhere. When living standards for people around the globe allow them to provide for their families, then, they are not forced to become economic refugees and move to other countries to survive. Democrats also believe that economic progress is possible without poisoning our air, streams, lakes, food and the rest of our environment.
So, with that in mind, we, then, will work to create trade agreements that cherish those ideas and allow corporations to implement those principles.
It's not hard to figure this out. Do we have the will and the courage to reject corporate campaign cash to make this happen?

Like Walmart? Read this then ask yourself again.

I have been having issues with Walmart for a long time due to their horrible treatment of their employees as a whole. I have relished seeing them in the news with issues with govermentatl bodies like last year when they were caught violating child labor laws in Conneticut. Now, it appears that we do not only have to work for Walmart to have it put to us. It looks like we get to carry then with our tax dollars because they dodge theirs. John Tasini published the article last week on one of the sites I read to bring you information. I look forward to the comments.

In another world, this might be called a crime--and maybe it is illegal. But, at least, it's pretty sleazy and makes you wonder: why would any state really want Wal-Mart? After all, it generates low-paying jobs that keep workers in poverty--not a great way to build your tax base--and, it turns out, the Beast of Bentonville does everything possible to try to cut its state taxes. The Wall Street Journal today has this:
In May 2001, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. issued an appeal to big accounting firms: Find us creative new ways to cut our state tax bills.
Ernst & Young LLP swung into action. Senior tax experts at the big accounting firm swapped ideas via email and in a series of meetings. At least one gathering, according to an internal Ernst & Young calendar, took place in Wal-Mart's headquarters in the "Tax Shelter Room."
Wal-Mart decided to hire Ernst & Young to help devise complex tax strategies to use in at least four big states. The accounting firm, for example, helped Wal-Mart take tax deductions in California for dividends it never actually paid. And in Texas, Ernst & Young advised, the giant retailer could exploit a wrinkle in the tax law involving limited partners from out-of-state -- a maneuver subsequently shut down by the state's legislature.
Wal-Mart isn't the first company to try this gimmick but it was the most aggressive:
Companies often assert that tax savings are simply happy byproducts of transactions pursued for other business reasons. But documents from the North Carolina case indicate that Wal-Mart, from the outset, had one primary purpose: cutting its state income taxes. Ernst & Young worked to fulfill that goal. In 2002, for example, the accounting firm delivered a 37-page proposal laying out a smorgasbord of 27 potential tax strategies, most tailored to a particular state's tax code. It described one of them as "a very aggressive strategy with considerable risk."
Here is how some of the scam worked, using real-estate investment trusts:...split...
Ernst & Young dreamed up a novel way to sidestep combined-reporting requirements in California. It used an unusual type of dividend to transfer income from one subsidiary to another in such a way that the second unit wouldn't be taxed.
Here's how it worked: When REITs pay dividends to their shareholders, they can deduct those payments from their taxable income. The federal government permits REITs to take deductions for dividends before they're actually paid -- a provision intended to give them extra time to make payments. Such dividends are called "consent dividends" because the recipients must consent to record the unpaid dividends as taxable income.
Ernst & Young argued that California law permitted REITs to deduct such consent dividends, but that the state law didn't also require recipients of the consent dividends to count them as taxable income, according to one person who worked on the transactions. The accounting firm proposed a strategy in which the Wal-Mart REIT would claim a tax deduction for paying consent dividends to its parent, but the unit receiving the dividends wouldn't record them as income for tax purposes. The bottom line: Wal-Mart could reduce its taxable income in California by an amount equal to the total consent dividend payments it recorded, thereby cutting its tax bill.
Two years later, California's Franchise Tax Board, the state's income-tax agency, put the strategy on its list of "Abusive Tax Shelters." Wal-Mart's Mr. Bullington said in his deposition that California tax authorities have protested various tax benefits taken by the retailer since 1998. California also is in litigation with a big bank, City National Corp., over a similar strategy.
The thing to know: Wal-Mart has paid roughly half of the average state corporate income tax over the past decade. These guys are truly a shredding machine--sucking out anything they can from a community and leaving it worse for the wear.

John Edwards Opposes Peru So-Called "Free Trade" Deal by Jonathan Tasini

Aside from the Iraq war, nothing is more important in this election than where the next president will stand on how the rules will be set in the economy, particularly when it comes to trade. There is no greater threat to average Americans--a greater threat than the budget deficit, or the admittedly awful sub-prime mortgage scandal--than the imposition of so-called "free trade" regimes on our workers and workers around the world. Over the weekend, John Edwards took another step towards cementing his opposition to so-called "free trade."
On Saturday, he announced his opposition to the so-called "free trade" deal with Peru:
"Today I am announcing my opposition to the Peru Trade Agreement negotiated by the Bush Administration and being considered for approval by Congress. Despite strong efforts by many Democrats in Congress, labor organizations and fair trade advocates to embed international labor standards into the Agreement, what resulted were references to general principles and not specific standards. And the Agreement still replicates and in fact expands all of the other most damaging aspects of past trade agreements. In short, this agreement does not meet my standard of putting American workers and communities first, ahead of the interests of the big multinational corporations, which for too long have rigged our trade policies for themselves and against American families.
"For far too long, presidents from both parties have entered into trade agreements, agreements like NAFTA in 1994 and the WTO in 1995, promising in each case that they would create millions of new jobs and trade surpluses. Instead, since these agreements were put into place we have lost millions of manufacturing jobs, seen wages decline, and storied U.S. firms close – and towns all over this country have been devastated. And we have run up larger and larger trade deficits. This irresponsible squandering of our national wealth now makes it increasingly difficult for us to control our own destiny.
"NAFTA, which was one of our worst trade agreements ever, was written by corporate interests and insiders in all three countries, and it has served them well. But it absolutely hasn’t served the interests of regular workers in any of the three countries. When NAFTA was passed, the American people were promised that by 2006 U.S. exports to Mexico would exceed Mexican imports by $10 billion. But right now, hundreds of thousands of lost American jobs later, Mexican imports are $70 billion more than U.S. exports to Mexico. And Mexican workers have lost too – average wages for Mexican workers have declined since NAFTA was passed.
Pay attention, in particular, to Edwards' description of NAFTA: NAFTA, which was one of our worst trade agreements ever, was written by corporate interests and insiders in all three countries, and it has served them well.

Labor Board charges Verizon Business illegally interfered with employees' freedom to form a union by Rand Wilson

Management tactics included making illegal threats, intimidation and surveillance of union supporters

In two separate cases, the National Labor Relations Board issued formal complaints against Verizon Business (VZB) for violating federal labor laws by spying on workers, suppressing free speech in the workplace and issuing illegal warnings to union supporters.

The complaints were issued by the Region 2 (NY) and Region 6 (PA) offices of the NLRB on August 30. The complaints were made after an investigation of charges filed by workers in Verizon Business' Monsey, NY and Pittsburgh, PA facilities earlier this year.The Board's complaints allege that Verizon management:
· "...selectively and disparately prohibited union solicitations and distributions, while permitting nonunion solicitations and distributions."· "...engaged in surveillance of employees to discourage their union activities. [And] created an impression amongst its employees that their union activities were under surveillance."· illegally warned two VZB techs for supporting the union.· illegally "informed the employees that they were not to discuss the union at work."· illegally "threatened employees with layoff for supporting the union"· illegally gave two oral warnings and one written warning to three pro-union VZB techs.

"Verizon technicians want to have the same job protections and rights that so-called "core" Verizon employees have. Instead management has subjected us to its propaganda machine and interfering with our rights on the job. Top management should recognize our union and begin bargaining for the good jobs and respect we all deserve," said Dave Rogol, a Senior Technician at Verizon Business who works at its Charlton, MA facility.

"It's about time this company got slapped for intimidating VZB techs from making a free and fair choice," said Chris Shelton, Vice President of CWA District One, which includes more than 26,000 Verizon members throughout the Northeast. "Now Verizon should honor the neutrality and union recognition procedure that so many other Verizon employees have benefited from."

The National Labor Relations Act forbids employers from interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights relating to organizing, forming, joining or assisting a labor organization for collective bargaining purposes, or engaging in protected concerted activities to improve wages and working conditions.

NLRB hearings by an Administrative Law Judge on the Pittsburgh complaint are planned for October 31. Separate hearings on the Monsey, NY case are set for November 5 in New York City. For copies of the NLRB complaints, contact Rand Wilson by email at rwilson@aflcio.org. For more info about the technicians organizing campaign, visit www.freechoiceatverizon.com.

An NLRB Case To Watch by Ellen Dannin

On November 9, the NLRB will be holding oral arguments in a case that is likely to be overlooked but that raises critical issues. The case is New York New York Hotel, LLC, d/b/a New York New York Hotel and Casino.The key issue in the case comes down to who is an employee. That issue matters to the parties in the case, but the decision has the potential to limit or expand rights to organize. I personally considered the case important enough to file an amicus brief.You can find the orders in this case and the parties' briefs at this link. The amicus briefs, which had to be filed by October 2 should be posted soon. The Board puts the issues this way:
The issues presented in the case include whether Ark Las Vegas Restaurant Corporation’s employees, who are employed by Arkon the premises of the New York New York Hotel and Casino, have a statutory right to distribute handbills at various places on hotel property during the employees’ off-duty hours. The handbills were aimed at guests and customers and protested Ark’s nonunion status and wages.
If the Ark employees are found to have employee status, then they have a protected right to distribute handbills and to try to enlist guests and customers to support their union organizing campaign. If they do not have employee status, they can be forbidden to take any of these actions and fired if they do.The definition of who is an employee is of critical importance in all workplace laws. It defines who is protected by the law. The courts have particular trouble with the definition of employee under the National Labor Relations Act, because when Congress enacted the law it decided to overrule the common law definition. Under the common law, an employee is someone who is employed by an employer. Under the NLRA, an employee is someone who is an employee, regardless of who the employer is.
§ 2(3) of the NLRA states: “The term ‘employee’ shall include any employee, and shall not be limited to the employees of a particular employer, unless the Act explicitly states otherwise . . ..”Congress used this language so employees could ask other employees to help them organize. In other words, the actions of the Ark employees are exactly what Congress intended to happen and to be legal and protected.Despite this, the courts tend to interpret "employee" as if the NLRA had never been enacted. Courts and the NLRB are supposed to interpret the law with Congress intent in mind. They are supposed to interpret the law so it promotes the policies of the law. In the case of the NLRA, its stated policies are to promote the practice and procedure of collective bargaining, to protect freedom of association, to promote equality of bargaining power. You will rarely see the courts or the NLRB refer to these purposes. If they did, they could not hand down decisions that undermine these rights.I filed an amicus brief in the case to remind the Board and the courts of Congress' intent. I looked at the Legislative History of the NLRA, that is the debates, statements, testimony, and drafts of the legislation from the time the bill was introduced until the NLRA became law.While the brief was not long as briefs go, it is too long to reproduce here. I will, however include some of what I wrote.Excerpts from my brief:In 1941, the Supreme Court recognized the breadth of this definition [of employee] as necessary to [the NLRA's] operation. The Court said that a more limited definition would
confine the “policies of this Act” to the correction of private injuries. The Board was not devised for such a limited function. It is the agency of Congress for translating into concreteness the purpose of safeguarding and encouraging the right of self-organization. The Board, we have held very recently, does not exist for the "adjudication of private rights"; it "acts in a public capacity to give effect to the declared public policy of the Act to eliminate and prevent obstructions to interstate commerce by encouraging collective bargaining." Phelps Dodge Corp. v. NLRB, 313 U.S. 177, 192-93 (1941).The Court continued, saying that the central purpose of the Act was directed “toward the achievement and maintenance of workers' self-organization.” Id. at 193. In 1947, the Board cited Phelps Dodge in its assertion that employee, as defined by the NLRA, “is broad enough to include members of the working class generally” and that to limit protection “only to employees of a particular employer, would permit employers to discriminate with impunity against other members of the working class, and would serve as a powerful deterrent against free recourse to Board processes.” Briggs Manufacturing Co., 75 N.L.R.B. 569, 570-71 (1947). This broad definition promotes the Act’s broad policy endorsement of freedom of association in § 1, as well as the inclusion of mutual aid or protection among the rights of employees listed in § 7. Furthermore, in § 2(9), Congress reiterated the position that the NLRA was to provide broad coverage to anyone in the class of employee, without consideration of who is the employer of that employee:
The term "labor dispute" includes any controversy concerning terms, tenure or conditions of employment, or concerning the association or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing, or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of employment, regardless of whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of employer and employee. [emphasis added]. The Supreme Court in Phelps Dodge recognized Congress’ intent to define employee broadly and to link between §§ 2(3) and (9):
To circumscribe the general class, “employees,” we must find authority either in the policy of the Act or in some specific delimiting provision of it. . . . The problem of what workers were to be covered by legal remedies for assuring the right of self-organization was a familiar one when Congress formulated the Act. The policy which it expressed in defining "employee" both affirmatively and negatively, as it did in § 2 (3), had behind it important practical and judicial experience. “The term ‘employee’,” the section reads, “shall include any employee, and shall not be limited to the employees of a particular employer, unless the Act explicitly states otherwise. . . .” This was not fortuitous phrasing. It had reference to the controversies engendered by constructions placed upon the Clayton Act and kindred state legislation in relation to the functions of workers' organizations and the desire not to repeat those controversies. Cf. New Negro Alliance v. Grocery Co., 303 U.S. 552. The broad definition of "employee,” “unless the Act explicitly states otherwise,” as well as the definition of “labor dispute” in § 2 (9), expressed the conviction of Congress “that disputes may arise regardless of whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of employer and employee, and that self-organization of employees may extend beyond a single plant or employer.” H. R. Rep. No. 1147, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 9; see also S. Rep. No. 573, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 6, 7.313 U.S. at 192-93. Congress was concerned that if employees, broadly defined, could not make common cause with other employees regardless of employer, then the rights the NLRA was enacted to provide and the purposes the NLRA was to promote would be weakened and even destroyed. . . . The source of employees’ legitimate rights is the National Labor Relations Act. Later amendments have not changed the critical language in either § 2(3) or § 2(9).. . . There was strong opposition to language of this breadth:
Mr. Blanton: You will note that under the special heading in the bill, “Rights of employees”, it is provided that they may “engage in concerted activities for mutual aid”, and this is not restricted to an employer’s own employees, but labor agitators from anywhere may thrust themselves into a man’s business and interfere with his employees and try to get them dissatisfied and demand that they unionize against their will , because the bill, in defining “employee”, uses this language on page 5, to wit: “The term ‘employee’ shall include any employee, and shall not be limited to the employees of a particular employer.”Legislative History of the National Labor Relations Act, 1935, at 3157. Despite these and other objections, Congress concluded that in order to protect the rights created by the new law the definition of employee must embrace all employees and not be tied to an employment relationship. In its analysis of the bill, the Senate foresaw that situations were likely to arise that would bring employees into an economic relationship with employers who were not their direct employers and drafted language to give the government jurisdiction over those more complex relationships:
The term “employee” is not limited to the employees of a particular employers. The reasons for this are as follows: Under modern conditions employees at times organize along craft or industrial lines and form labor organizations that extend beyond the limits of a single employer unit. These organizations at times make agreements or bargain collectively with employers, or with an association of employers. Through such business dealings, employees are at times brought into an economic relationship with employers who are not their employers. In the course of this relationship, controversies involving unfair labor practice may arise. If this bill did not permit the Government to exercise complete jurisdiction over such controversies (arising from unfair labor practices), the Government would be rendered partially powerless, and could not act to promote peace in those very wide-spread controversies where the establishment of peace is most essential to the public welfare.. . .Sen Report No. 573 on S.1958, Legislative History of the National Labor Relations Act, 1935, at 2305. The House agreed:
These definitions are for the most part self-explanatory. The committee wishes to emphasize the need for the recognition as expressed in subsections 3 and 9, that disputes may arise regardless of whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of employer and employee, and that self organization of employees may extend beyond a single plant or employers. This is so plain as to require no great elaboration.
. . .[quoting American Steel Foundries] To render this combination at all effective, employees must make their combination extend beyond one shop. It is helpful to have as many as may be in the same trade in the community united because in the competition between employers they are, bound to be affected by the standard of wages of their trade in the neighborhood. Therefore, they may use all lawful propaganda to enlarge their membership and especially among those whose labor at lower wages will injure their whole guild. This statement is a sufficient answer to those who, with questionable disinterestedness, proclaim that rugged individualism is the great boon of the American workman; or that there is something “unAmerican” in a movement by workers to pool their economic strength in a type of labor organization most effective in approximating the economic power of their employers, namely, in so-called “outside unions”, thereby establishing that ‘equality of position between the parties in which liberty of contract begins.” While the bill does not require organization along such lines, and indeed makes no distinction between such organizations and others limited by the free choice of the workers to the boundaries of a particular plant or employer, it is imperative that employees be permitted so to organize, and that unfair labor practices taking in workers and labor organizations beyond the scope of a single be regarded as within the purview of the bill.House Report (May 20, 1935 ), Legislative History of the National Labor Relations Act, 1935, at 2917-18; 3056-57; see also id. at 1296.. . . Congressman Boland on February 20, 1935, included the following explanation for the expansive definitions and included discussions of similar language in the NRA § 7(a):
The ideas underlying this section are very simple. The worker is treated as a free person. He is accorded the right to associate with fellow workers, to join or refrain from joining any labor organization. He is protected from acts of aggression of his employer. His helplessness as an individual in bargaining with his employer is recognized. This section seeks to equalize the bargaining power of employers and employees by permitting the latter to pool their strength, for theoretical freedom of contract can exist only between equals. The statute recognizes the evils resulting from the present inequalities of bargaining power and proposes as a legislative remedy a regime of collective bargaining. Having permitted industry to unite through merger and consolidation into powerful corporate units, and having encouraged business to form trade associations covering entire industries, Congress sought to effect an economic balance through collective bargaining and the free association of workers in labor organizations. Only in this way could workers achieve even a meager sense of security. . . . I am not taking the position that section 7(a) does not take us into new territory; my analysis will show the contrary. I am, however, seeking to show that section 7(a) was the orderly and logical culmination of the efforts on the part of the Federal Government to free the laboring man from the restrictions imposed by employers and to afford same the opportunity to associate freely with his fellow workers for the betterment of working conditions and the improvement of his status in our economic system.Legislative History of the National Labor Relations Act, 1935, at 2430-31 (discussing NRA § 7(a)).. . .Discussion In this case, the Board and Court of Appeals ask whether the definition of employee and thus the protections of the NLRA can apply to several common situations outside that of the common law relationship of employer-employee. Does the employee of a company’s subcontrator have the rights of an employee under the NLRA? Can employee include employees not on their work shift? When an employee asks bystanders and passers-by to support their struggle for better wages and for union representation, is the employee engaged in concerted activities that are protected by the act? In other words, are those bystanders and passers-by NLRA employees? The common law would likely say “No” to most of these questions. However, as discussed above, Congress decided that the answer must be: “Yes.”. . .Ellen Dannin is Professor of Law at Penn State - Dickinson School of Law and author of Taking Back the Workers' Law - How to Fight the Assault on Labor Rights (Cornell University Press 2006).