I've been following the debate around so-called "right-to-work" laws being pushed through traditionally strong-union states like Indiana, Wisconsin and Michigan. It's been a pretty sad affair for our side. But yesterday I saw Noam Chomsky interviewed by John Nichols of The Nation for their 150th anniversary. The title of the talk is "Democracy Is a Threat to Any Power System," and it was described as including a discussion about "right to work" laws and the current predicament of U.S. workers. It's a great interview, well worth the time to watch and listen. But I walked away having a sad. Although Chomsky identified the two dots that have so far eluded left/liberal/progressive/radical/labor activists and commentators, he didn't connect those dots, to my surprise and disappointment. Follow along to see what I mean.
I am second to no one in my admiration of Professor Chomsky. He's one of my two intellectual fathers (the second is British literary theorist and critic Terry Eagleton; Paul Krugman is sort of my intellectual uncle). His linguistics, cognitive science, philosophy of science and politics have shaped my thinking, values and worldview. Chomsky even influenced my decision to join the labor movement. He pointed out that unions were one of the few institutions in the U.S. where one could work to make a positive difference for our nation and fellow workers. I ultimately became an executive officer of the largest union in Austin, Texas, Education Austin. This is where I learned about the so-called "right-to-work" laws, which I will henceforth call "RTW" because I can hardly stand to type this piece of odious propaganda.
When John Nichols, who lives in Wisconsin, mentioned Governor Scott Walker's signing the legislature's RTW bill into law, Chomsky described it as "right-to-scrounge." This follows the liberal and progressive left's attempts to disparage the law's name. "Right-to-work-for-less," "right-to-beg," "right-to-freeload," etc., are how we attempt to describe what the law actually does apart from its deceptive labeling. I've read Daily Kos diaries lamenting, fulminating and criticizing how we deal with this law: Grey Fedora's diary "How the 'Right' to Work Was Won" is a good example. But this still doesn't address the dots that need connecting.
Chomsky later points out the truth which became the title of the discussion: "Democracy is a threat to any power system." This brings me to my point, something I realized at least 10 years ago when I was still in the labor movement: RTW laws don't just make union membership "voluntary;" they don't just mean you don't have to pay union dues.
What RTW laws fundamentally do is ban economic democracy in the workplace.
[Note: this Wikipedia article is excellent!] RTW laws permit the boss, with the government's approval, to tell employees that their vote has no standing at work, that management can ignore it, as can fellow workers. That's it in a nutshell. RTW law is anti-economic democracy.
Now, why is that bad? It's bad because unions are institutions of economic democracy. So are cooperatives and credit unions. Any economic institution run by and for its members is an economic democracy. And this idea can be extended to other forms. I've always liked the idea of letting us taxpayers have the choice to direct a portion our taxes (say half) to any part of the government that we choose. I would send my money to NASA, the NLRB, NIH, EPA and other good parts of our democracy. That's another type of economic democracy.
So, the two dots, which I have yet to find connected anywhere (I've googled; give it a try), are RTW laws and their nullification of workplace economic democracy. In fact, I only found one article where these two ideas even bumped up against each other: "Right-to-Work Laws are Killing the American Dream," by CWA president Larry Cohen. But even he doesn't connect the dots.
I chalk up this obliviousness to RTW laws and their true target to what Chomsky calls "another triumph of propaganda," in particular in rendering certain thought "unthinkable." I would trace its lineage all the way back to James Madison's statement that the Constitution he designed "ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation" and should "protect the minority of the opulent against the majority." It's good to recognize that RTW laws are not some nefarious new depravity but how the system was actually intended to perform. This is also why economic democracy and laws designed to neutralize or nullify it should be on the front-burner of any policy agenda.
Now, does democracy even belong in the workplace? As a radical fundamentalist evangelical democrat, I happen to believe, quite firmly, that democracy is not voluntary. To the contrary, democracy is mandatory anytime what some people are doing has an impact or influence on some other people. Democracy is not optional; it's required. We need only consider the alternatives to see that this is necessary. Plus, economic democracy in particular is the most dangerous idea on the planet to the putative masters of mankind and their desire to see a utopia for the 0.1%.
I will close with my favorite quote about RTW laws by The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who came closer than anyone to connecting the dots:
“In our glorious fight for civil rights, we must guard against being fooled by false slogans, such as ‘right to work.’ It is a law to rob us of our civil rights and job rights.
Its purpose is to destroy labor unions and the freedom of collective bargaining by which unions have improved wages and working conditions of everyone…Wherever these laws have been passed, wages are lower, job opportunities are fewer and there are no civil rights. We do not intend to let them do this to us. We demand this fraud be stopped. Our weapon is our vote.” —Martin Luther King, speaking about right-to-work laws in 1961.