The struggle between Black organized labor and the political establishment has been historically waged with particular fierceness in the US South—a region with the highest proportion of Black workers but with the most hostile laws against workplace organizing. States in the US South have some of the lowest rates of union coverage in the country—meaning that they have a lower share of workers who are organized in a union. The national union coverage rate stood at 11.2% as of 2023, while the rate was as low as 3% in South Carolina, 3.3% in North Carolina, 5.2% in Louisiana, and 5.4% in Georgia.
In a major step forward for the labor movement, Michigan Democrats’ repeal of the state’s decade-old anti-union “right-to-work” law went into effect on Tuesday, making the state the first to overturn the law in nearly six decades. Last March, the Democratically-controlled Michigan legislature passed the bill to toss the law aimed at hurting labor unions by allowing workers to opt out of union dues…
After Michigan Democrats scored their first trifecta of controlling the House, Senate and governor’s office in decades this past election, the state is now set to become the first state in six decades to overturn its anti-worker “right-to-work” law. Democrats in the Michigan House voted on Tuesday to approve a bill repealing right to work in the state, sending the bill to Gov. Gretchen Whitmer…
In addition to members of the House of Representatives, Senate, governors and state legislators, there were many important ballot measures on the line for voters in 37 states to consider on November 8. Illinois and Tennessee voted on two opposite constitutional amendments on workers’ union rights. In both states, right-wing anti-union forces used scare tactics against the organizing and mobilizing efforts of unions and their community allies. In addition, advocates on both sides of the fight looked to policies in neighboring states to guide their arguments and framing to the public. But the different histories, institutional contexts and relative strength of the labor union movements resulted in very different outcomes. Considering the growth of “right-to-work” states since the Republican wave of the 2010s, these outcomes demonstrate possibilities for the future of organizing in different state contexts in the future.
Tennessee: An Uphill Battle in a Right-to-Work State
Tennessee, like many southern states, has been a “right-to-work” state for many years. Anti-union forces often frame “right-to-work” laws as protections for workers from being forced to join unions as a condition of employment, but in actuality, these laws limit the resource collection of unions that represent workers in a workplace, and thus undermine a union’s ability to engage in collective bargaining, worker representation, and other advocacy work. In non-right-to-work states, workers who choose not to join a union that represents a workplace must pay an “agency fee,” defined as a portion of union dues that cover services provided. As a result, right-to-work states tend to have more low-wage jobs and worse overall labor outcomes.
Tennessee’s original right-to-work legislation was passed through normal statutory means (state legislature and approval by the governor) in 1937. The language of the statute emphasizes the right to non-discrimination of employment based on union membership or dues payment. What this means practically is that unions in a workplace must provide services to nonmembers who do not pay dues, which hurts the power of unions and their ability to staff and serve their members. This right-to-work provision was part of state code, and it could have been overturned anytime by a sympathetic state legislature and governor. In fact, in the past 30 years, Democrats had a Democratic trifecta for five non-consecutive years. During any of those years, Democrats could have changed this state law to allow for protections for unions. However, this did not happen. Almost all states in the southeast are right-to-work states, according to the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
Major Players in the Constitutional Referendum
While many southern states were right-to-work states, a recent trend emerged during the 2010s, often in times of Republican control, to enshrine right-to-work laws into state constitutions. In 2016, Alabama changed from a statutory right-to-work state to a constitutionally right-to-work state. However, changes like this one had little effect on actual practice.
Billy Dycus, the president of the Tennessee American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), told Truthout that the motivation behind the constitutional referendum, known as Amendment 1, was right-wing fear around the Biden administration and Democratic Party resurgence. Just like in Alabama, placing right-to-work language in the Tennessee Constitution would do little to change the conditions on the ground for workers, but it would make it hard for future legislators to change the law.
The team behind Amendment 1 included an illustrious crew of right-wing and wealthy power players in the state. The amendment was first introduced in 2020 by State Sen. Brian Kelsey, who is associated with the Chicago-based Liberty Justice Center and the legal team behind the Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision. (Kelsey is also currently facing indictment for campaign finance conspiracy.) The amendment had to go through two legislative sessions and go to a popular vote during the year of a governor’s race, which was 2022. The major funders and players behind the bill included former Gov. Bill Haslam, famous for this status as the first billionaire governor (owner of the Flying J truck stop empire, brother of Jim Haslam, the owner of the Cleveland Browns); current Gov. Bill Lee; all current Republican state elected officials; Justin Owen from Beacon Center of Tennessee (associated with the Koch-funded State Policy Network); Jim Brown of the National Federation of Independent Business (famous for challenging the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act); and the Chamber of Commerce. But the campaign to vote “yes” did not spend much money, according to filing reports, with a budget of around $250,000 that spent mostly on digital ads.
While the “Yes on 1” coalition was an impressive collection of prominent anti-worker advocates, the “No on 1” coalition was impressive, diverse and grassroots. The Tennessee AFL-CIO, affiliate unions including the Tennessee state council SEIU, Tennessee Teamsters, the Tennessee State Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), Democratic elected officials, the state and local Democratic Party organizations and committees and an umbrella progressive organization, Tennessee For All (which included other faith, community and labor organizations) made up the “No” coalition. They created social media campaigns centered on testimony from regular Tennesseans, including Republicans, explaining why they would vote against Amendment 1. Creative attempts at gaining earned media included birddogging the governor during this reelection campaign for sending out a deceptive message claiming that failure to put right to work in the constitution would lead to thousands of Tennesseans being forced to join unions.
Defeat and Looking Toward the Future
While pro-labor and progressive Tennessee groups did a diligent job to turn out voters against Amendment 1, in the end, the amendment passed on election night with 69.8 percent of votes in favor, 30.2 percent against. Dycus told Truthout, “We knew what we were up against, because the title, right to work, was deceptive. We knew that because of the lack of education about what right to work really means, we had a 75-year uphill battle.” The language of the amendment text was also quite confusing. Yet despite this setback, Dycus remains positive about the future of unions in Tennessee. Tennessee has enjoyed the highest rate of union member growth of any state in recent years, despite its right-to-work legal challenges. Many industries and manufacturing plants have recently located or will build plants in Tennessee, including Volkswagen, Hankook, BekZon (as Swedish manufacturer), and the new electric Ford plant, the Blue Oval. Dycus says that with this continuous growth, “We have a lot of opportunities for [additional] organizing. If we can use this as an opportunity to educate and grow our membership, then we have the opportunity to influence the rest of the South.”
Kermit Moore, a Tennessee For All founding member, shared a similar positive take, emphasizing the value of the “No” coalition. “Despite a loss at the ballot box, this fight demonstrates the necessity of labor, faith and community uniting around a common vision, for economic justice and democracy. We built an unprecedented coalition on a shoestring budget, which reached into every county in the state, regardless of whether it was urban or rural. The people who volunteered for the first time during this election, the relationships and organization that was built, it has already made us stronger. We will continue to fight for a Tennessee For All,” said Moore.
While the defeat in Tennessee does represent a setback for unions and workers’ rights, the organizing efforts around No on 1 have solidified the commitment of labor leaders and community organizers to continue the fight.
Illinois: Proactively Protecting Workers Rights From Future Threats
The 2010s were a moment of Republican power and resurgence through much of the Midwest, a place with a history of strong labor and union protections. Many neighboring states had become right-to-work states in recent years with Republican gains. Wisconsin is a neighboring state with a history of an active and radical labor movement. However, with the election of Republican Gov. Scott Walker in 2010 and the accompanying Republican legislature, Wisconsin first passed Act 10, which severely limited public sector collective bargaining rights in 2011. Although Walker claimed he would not make Wisconsin a right-to-work state, he passed a law in 2015 making Wisconsin the 25th right-to-work state. This followed the passage of statutory right-to-work laws passed in Indiana and Michigan, with their new Republican post-2010 governments. Relatedly, but less successfully, Missouri brought a right-to-work law to its voters in 2018, but voters defeated this measure nearly 2-1.
During this time, Illinois had a Republican governor who shared these anti-union views. However, unlike Walker and other Midwestern governors, Bruce Rauner faced strong Democratic majorities with deep ties to labor, so he was limited in his ability to limit union rights through executive orders. In 2015, Rauner passed an executive order that curbed the ability of public sector unions from charging “agency fees,” fees that non-union members pay to unions in return for union-provided services. (This was prior to the 2018 Janus Supreme Court decision, which banned public sector agency fees nationally.)
Major Players in the Amendment
The idea of creating a constitutional amendment to enshrine Illinois collective bargaining rights originated from Local 150, International Union of Operating Engineers, outside of Chicago. The union quickly linked up with the Illinois AFL-CIO and the Chicago Federation of Labor to build a broad coalition to support this proposed amendment, which became commonly known as the “Workers’ Rights Amendment.” Unlike in Tennessee, where labor fought a defensive fight against an aggressive institutionalization of long-standing state practice, unions and allies in Illinois were on the offensive, making sure that “no matter what happened with the political climate, workers would always be prioritized and their rights would be protected,” according to Alyssa Goodstein, the communications director of the Illinois AFL-CIO, in a conversation with Truthout.
In addition to the two labor chairs of the Vote Yes for Workers Rights campaign (the presidents of the Illinois AFL-CIO and the Chicago Federation of Labor), the campaign worked with other organizations, including local unions, community organizations, Equality Illinois (an LGBT rights organization), Sierra Club and Democratic elected officials. The campaign was able to raise $15 million, according to Joe Bowen, a spokesperson for the campaign. Most of the funds came from Illinois-based unions, but also additional money raised from national affiliates, considering the high stakes of this referendum. This money was spent on a robust TV campaign, starting in August, a digital ad program and canvassing program, which targeted all potential supporters, from communities of color to traditional conservative strongholds.
Bowen, an electoral campaign veteran, told Truthout that Vote Yes for Workers’ Rights was the “most coordinated campaign that I ever ran.” He noted that grassroots volunteers from a variety of organizations, from unions and beyond, “went out every day, making phone calls from Pilsen to Peoria. [The volunteers] really stepped up to the plate. [It was great] seeing people excite because they could vote for themselves.” In the end, 58 percent of voters supported the amendment, which cleared the threshold of at least 50 percent of all total ballots cast supporting the amendment. What was particularly impressive was that the Workers’ Rights Amendment outperformed Democratic candidates in traditionally Republican areas, according to Bowen.
Like Tennessee, Illinois also faced opposition from similar types of actors. One of the main institutions against the Workers’ Rights Amendment was the Illinois Policy Institute, a libertarian organization which is affiliated with the State Policy Network and the Koch brothers, and the related the Government Accountability Alliance, which donated $1 million to a campaign to defeat the amendment. In addition, Dick Uihlein, the billionaire owner of Uline, a major logistics and distribution company, donated $2 million. The Illinois Chamber of Commerce also came out against the amendment but did not spend much political capital or any money. This anti-amendment coalition also included Republican leaders and elected officials. Similar to Tennessee, the anti-union side made outrageous arguments, ranging from claims that such an amendment would raise property taxes, hurt schools or even make vulnerable children under state care more vulnerable, according to Bowen. Yet in the end, the Yes campaign did an effective job educating voters and union members about the amendment and succeeded in creating a winning coalition in a very diverse state with a robust economy and a large industrial and service sector.
Looking Forward
While Illinois labor leaders are excited about this victory, they see the future similar to the leaders in Tennessee. As Illinois AFL-CIO President Tim Drea told Truthout, “Illinois has about an 18 percent unionized workforce, which is higher than most states, but … [in] this campaign … unions came together and said all workers need a voice. We fought for that 82 percent who are voiceless at job.” The Vote Yes coalition can afford a victory lap, and can enjoy knowing that their rights protected constitutionally and can withstand changing partisan victories. As Bowen stated from his conversations with voters and workers on the doors, “Many people are worried about how they are treated at work and being paid fairly.”
In addition to continuing to organize within Illinois, the Yes on Workers’ Rights campaign hopes they can have a contagion effect in the Midwest region and beyond. Given the Democratic trifectas now in place in nearby in Michigan and Minnesota, campaigners in Illinois are excited to share their experiences and strategies with others. Drea told Truthout that other states may be inspired to pass protections for workers’ collective bargaining rights following Illinois’ victory, as “state legislators will have wind in their sails.” He wanted other places with less union-friendly laws to know “the Illinois AFL-CIO is willing to assist other states in an endeavor to protect workers’ rights. We’re very, very happy to help out other jurisdictions. We are happy to assist.”
But as Tennessee’s history has demonstrated, the mere presence of Democratic majorities in a state does not translate into protections for workers and unions, so labor and community leaders need to lead this fight. Democratic leadership at the national and state level would do well to realign themselves with labor as well. The explosion in new organizing and historic high levels of support for unionization in the U.S. suggests that mobilizing and supporting unions and workers are the key to electoral success in 2024.
Americans are sick and tired of seeing CEO pay and billionaire wealth in the stratosphere while working families are struggling with soaring costs. This election day, voters in several states used direct democracy to do something about it. They voted to hike taxes on the wealthy, raise wages and build union power, help ordinary people afford basic necessities, and tackle the problem of big money in politics.
Massachusetts Hikes Taxes on the Rich
Sixth time’s a charm. Massachusetts fair tax advocates had tried and failed five times since 1962 to undo the regressive flat income tax rate embedded in their state constitution. This time they were victorious. By a 52-48 margin, voters approved an income surtax of 4 percent on annual individual income above $1 million, with revenue going mostly towards public education and transportation.
In the months before the election, with polls showing the initiative was popular with the electorate, opponents launched a big propaganda campaign. They argued the measure would lead to an exodus of rich taxpayers, double the taxes of tens of thousands of residents, and slam middle class families with a huge tax burden if they sold their homes. Fortunately, voters were not swayed by this misleading messaging.
“Massachusetts voters support a fairer tax system, and greater, more stable investment in transportation and public education,” Fair Share Campaign Manager Jeron Mariani said in a statement. The surtax is expected to generate an additional $1.2 billion to $2 billion per year.
A corporate-backed “tax the rich” proposal, Proposition 30, failed in California after Governor Gavin Newsom and others slammed it as a giveaway for Lyft. The rideshare company, which stood to benefit from electric vehicle subsidies funded through the tax, spent $45 million on the campaign.
Nebraska and Nevada Raise State Minimum Wages
With Republicans continuing to block a raise in the federal minimum wage, advocates in Nevada and Nebraska took the issue directly to voters and won handily.
In deep red Nebraska, they won a state minimum wage hike to $15 an hour by 2026, up from the current $9 an hour. The National Employment Law Project and the Economic Policy Institute estimate this action will benefit about 150,000 Nebraskans.
Nebraska voters passed the measure by a 58-42 margin while also re-electing Republican members of Congress who’ve opposed federal minimum wage increases. Rep. Adrian Smith, who had blasted President Biden’s $15 federal minimum proposal as “economically harmful,” garnered 78 percent support.
In Nevada, voters approved a state constitutional amendment to increase the minimum wage to at least $12 an hour by 2024 and eliminate a loophole that has allowed companies offering health benefits to pay their workers less than the state minimum. Greedy employers have taken advantage of this two-tier system by paying lower wages while offering only shoddy insurance that many workers couldn’t even afford.
Illinois Guarantees the Right to Unionize
Illinois pro-labor groups built on the momentum of a nationwide unionization surge and the highest public support for unions since the 1960s to garner strong support for a workers rights measure. The constitutional amendment codifies the right to organize and bargain collectively and prohibits the state government from passing anti-union “right-to-work” laws, such as those in effect in 27 states.
Final results might take weeks because of the high bar required for a constitutional amendment (60 percent of those voting on the measure or a majority of those voting in the election). But with 58 percent support as of Wednesday, victory appears likely.
In an op-ed published before election day, Illinois AFL-CIO president Tim Drea explained that inserting these rights in the state constitution “will protect Illinoisans from the whims of any anti-worker politician that may come along in the future.”
DC Eliminates the Subminimum Wage for Tipped Workers
Voters in the District of Columbia had a déjà vu experience this year with Initiative 82, a ballot measure to phase out the city’s subminimum wage for restaurant servers and other tipped workers. Back in 2018 they’d overwhelmingly approved a virtually identical measure — only to have the powerful restaurant industry lobby succeed in getting the DC Council to overturn it.
Once again, DC residents voted to get rid of the tipped wage, this time by an overwhelmingly 74-26 margin. If this victory sticks, the city’s tipped wage, currently $5.35 per hour, will rise gradually until it matches the local general minimum wage by 2027. Eight states have eliminated the subminimum wage for tipped workers, and a recent One Fair Wage analysis found that restaurant workers in Seattle, where the minimum wage for all is now $15.75 — earn 23 percent more than their DC counterparts.
Andy Shallal, the owner of nine Busboys and Poets restaurants in the DC area, applauded the victory. “I have respect for my fellow restaurateurs but I really believe they are on the wrong side of history on this one,” Shallal wrote in a statement. Phasing out the tipped wage, Shallal believe, “will bring us one step closer to being a more equitable society.”
Cities in Maine, California, and Missouri Address Housing Costs
After successfully passing rent control measures in 2020, voters in Portland, Maine voted in a new slate of tenant protections. Question C — approved by 55 percent of city residents — strengthens protections for tenants by ensuring they receive at least 90 days notice for lease terminations and rent increases. The initiative also restricts security deposits to amounts equal to one month’s rent and prohibits fees for applications, credit reports, and background checks.
In California, San Francisco voters approved Proposition M — a groundbreaking “empty homes tax” to fund affordable housing. By taxing units that are vacant for the majority of the year, the city will generate tens of millions in annual revenue to invest in housing stock acquisition and rental subsidies for elderly and low-income residents. Contending with the Bay Area’s parallel vacancy and homelessness crises, the measure’s victory will help “restore the power of democracy and our political institutions to the people,” said field director Gwen McLaughlin.
A measure in Los Angeles, ULA, is on track to institute a similar model — taxing real estate transfers worth over $5 million at 4 percent and properties over $10 million at 5.5 percent. The revenue, which could reach over $1 billion per year, would also fund a suite of affordability solutions: creating more affordable housing stock, directly subsidizing rent, and providing legal resources for low-income tenants. Typical business interests vociferously oppose ULA, spending millions against its grassroots coalition of renters, workers, and anti-homelessness experts. But as pandemic-era eviction protections near expiry, Angelenos are choosing people power over the real estate lobby.
And in Missouri, Kansas City voters passed a $50 million bond to create a fund for building and revitalizing thousands of units, priced to be affordable for those making no more than 30 percent of the area’s median income.
South Dakota Expands Medicaid
Once again, ordinary folks in this deep red state have done an end run around their elected officials and used direct democracy to help their economically disadvantaged neighbors. Back in 2016, a bipartisan coalition with strong faith community support pulled off an incredible victory against financial predators, winning a ballot measure to impose a strict interest rate cap on payday loans.
Over 72 percent of Arizonans voted in support of Proposition 209 — a groundbreaking ballot measure designed to crack down on predatory medical debt. The initiative caps interest rates at 3 percent on new medical debt and increases the amount of home equity, personal property, assets, and income protected from certain creditors.
“Before now, voters had never taken up medical debt on a statewide ballot measure, but Arizonans have charted a path forward to take on predatory lenders through direct democracy,” said Kelly Hall, executive director of the Fairness Project — a national non-profit which helped fund and organize around the initiative. “We’re looking forward to working with citizens in other states who want to pass more ballot measures to protect working families from exploitative lending practices.”
More than 100 million Americans have medical debt, according to a recent investigation by NPR and Kaiser Health News. The toll is especially hard on Black communities, with 56 percent of Black adults owing money for a medical or dental bill, compared to 37 percent of white adults.
New Mexico Makes Pre-K a Universal Right
After federal actions to fund early childhood education stalled in the Senate earlier this year, over 70% of voters in New Mexico approved a ballot measure that would make the Southwestern state the first in the nation to enshrine a right to early childhood education in its constitution.
The measure would authorize lawmakers to draw from a state sovereign wealth fund to pay for universal preschool and child care. The state constitution obligates that 5 percent of the fund — currently valued at $26 billion — be withdrawn annually to support public schools, hospitals, and universities. The passage of this ballot measure would pull an additional 1.25 percent annually for education, directing roughly $150 million to early childhood education and another roughly $100 million for K-12.
Arizona and Oakland Address Dark Money in Elections
As a handful of Americans (individuals and special interests alike) flooded the midterms with untraceable billions, inequality threatened to further distort our democracy. In response, voters rebuked dark money and defended the power of their own ballots.
Arizona voters, for example, overwhelmingly approved Proposition 211, known as the Voters’ Right to Know. The measure will require public disclosure of donors who give over $5,000 to independent campaign expenditures of over $50,000 in statewide campaigns (or half that amount in other campaigns). In an otherwise highly polarized state, Arizonans found common ground through their disdain for dark money and desire for political transparency.
Voters in Oakland, California also opted to require donor disclosure on political ads. The city’s successful Measure W will also restrict former elected officials’ lobbying capacity, cap campaign contributions, and allocate democracy vouchers to local voters, who can then publicly finance candidates at their discretion.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) has introduced a bill that would ban states from implementing so-called “right-to-work” laws, which suppress union activity and make it more difficult for workers to form unions.
The bill, which was previously introduced in 2017 and 2020, is known as the Protecting Workers and Improving Labor Standards Act. It would rescind “right-to-work” laws — which are currently in place in 27 states and Guam — that prohibit unions from collecting dues from non-union members who are still covered under a union contract.
Labor organizers have long advocated against such laws, saying they lower wages and worsen working conditions not only for pro-union workers, but for all workers in states where “right-to-work” legislation is implemented, as data has shown.
“Republicans and their corporate interest backers have imposed state laws with only one goal: destroy unions and discourage workers from organizing for higher wages, fair benefits, and safer working conditions,” Warren said.
“At a time when labor unions are growing in both size, popularity, and delivering real wins for workers, Democrats are making clear that we stand in solidarity with workers everywhere, from Starbucks baristas to Google cafeteria workers and everyone in between,” she went on. She also advocated for the passage of the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act, which would massively expand the ability of workers to form unions in the U.S.
The bill is cosponsored by 18 senators and 12 House representatives, including prominent progressives like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) and Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Washington). It has little chance of passing the Senate filibuster, which forces bills to clear a 60-vote threshold to pass.
The bill also has the support of many major labor organizations, including the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Unions (AFL-CIO), the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union (RWDSU), the International Association of Machinists (IAM) and the United Food and Commercial Workers Union (UFCW).
As a press release on the bill points out, “right-to-work” laws result in 5 percent lower union rates and a decrease in overall wages for full-time workers of about $11,000 a year, according to the Economic Policy Institute. Further, according to the AFL-CIO, workers in these states have worse health benefits and workplace fatality rates. These states also have a nearly 15 percent higher poverty rate.
Pro-union advocates and labor experts say that “right-to-work” laws severely kneecap unions financially, as they require unions to represent workers that may not even be paying dues. Supporters of “right-to-work” claim that it gives workers more choice and boosts employment, but research shows that this isn’t true: states with such laws don’t have higher employment, and, as a result of unions being weakened, workers have less bargaining power and less choice than workers in stronger unions.
A ban on “right-to-work” has been proposed before, in the PRO Act. But although the PRO Act passed the House last year, it’s never been taken up in the Senate, as several conservative Democrats are opposed to its passage.
We look at how the tragic shooting death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins during the filming of Rust last Thursday on a set in New Mexico is drawing attention to cost-cutting decisions and overall safety in the film industry. Yahoo News is reporting the gun that killed Hutchins had been used by crew members just hours beforehand for live-ammunition target practice. The film’s lead actor and producer Alec Baldwin later shot the revolver after he was reportedly handed it by the first assistant director, David Halls, who told him it was a “cold gun,” meaning it was not loaded with live ammunition. Halls was fired in 2019 from his position as assistant director on the movie “Freedom’s Path” after a gun “unexpectedly discharged” and injured a crew member. All of this happened after some of the unionized IATSE below-the-line crew members had walked off the set of Rust earlier on the day of the shooting to protest their housing, payment and working conditions. New Mexico is a “right to work” state, so producers were able to hire nonunion replacements and continue working on the film. We speak with Dutch Merrick, prop master and armorer for over 25 years and past president of IATSE Local 44 Property Craftspersons, Hollywood, who notes, “Hollywood handles firearms every single day,” and calls the process “carefully regulated.” Despite safety protocol and expertise, he says, Hollywood crews are getting “worked to death” with 80- to 100-hour workweeks, which he suggests played into the accidental shooting.
Tactics used by Amazon to defeat the union organizing drive at the company’s Bessemer, Alabama, warehouse have highlighted the need for Democrats to pass the Protecting the Right to Organize Act (PRO Act). The legislation is a sweeping proposal that would implement the strongest protections for workers since 1935, when collective bargaining itself was first given legal protection in the United States.
If signed into law, the PRO Act would impose tougher restrictions on management during union election campaigns. The legislation would stop companies from forcing workers to hear anti-union propaganda at so-called captive audience meetings. It would ban managers from influencing the size of the bargaining unit sought by union organizers, and would prohibit stall tactics designed to allow managers to wage fearmongering campaigns to scare workers out of voting for union representation. Amazon employedall of these tactics in the run-up to the union certification vote at Bessemer, and was also accused by organizers with the Retail, Wholesale, and Department Store Union (RWDSU) of engaging in tactics that are already illegal under current law. The PRO Act would drastically increase the consequences for companies found guilty of committing unfair labor practices during organizing drives.
But while the struggle in Bessemer showcased how the PRO Act would drastically benefit workers in the U.S., the struggle to pass the legislation itself highlights the power of Amazon, which has grown in recent years to become the second-largest employer and the second-largest spender on lobbying in the U.S. The PRO Act is supported by President Biden. It has passed the House. But currently, it only has the support of 46 out of 50 Democrats in the equally-divided Senate. Of the four Democrats resisting calls to cosponsor the PRO Act, two faced election campaigns last year: Mark Kelly (D-Arizona) and Mark Warner (D-Virginia). They both received significant campaign donations from individuals employed by Amazon. Kelly received $139,270, and Warner received $44,896.
While Kelly received more money from individuals employed by the firm, the money given to Warner is particularly illuminating. It came almost exclusively from the top echelons of Amazon: prominent executives such as Jay Carney and David Clark, two men who earned notoriety on social media in recent weeks for attacking pro-RWDSU lawmakers. Clark, in particular, was the subject of ridicule for claiming that Amazon was “the Bernie Sanders of employers” because it pays workers a minimum of $15/hour. In reality, Amazon’s market power pushes down wages in warehouses throughout the logistics industry, and only four other companies have more employees on food stamps, according to a Bloomberg analysis published in December.
The deluge of money from Amazon executives like Clark came after Warner supported Virginia officials flooding Amazon with subsidies in exchange for the company placing its second headquarters (HQ2) in northern Virginia. Amazon decided on moving part of its HQ2 to Crystal City, Virginia, after a lengthy process that involved local jurisdictions publicly competing with one another to offer the company publicly funded giveaways (Carney was described by CNBC as the “architect” of the plan). The contest started in September 2017, and ended more than a year later in November 2018, with Amazon choosing locations in Crystal City, a suburb of Washington, D.C., and Long Island City, New York, a neighborhood in the New York City borough of Queens.
The company withdrew its plans to move part of its HQ2 to Queens, however, after a backlash from local officials. Progressives like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez were outraged at the likelihood of longtime residents being displaced by well-paid techies coming from outside of the community to take jobs — in plans fueled by billions in subsidies to boost the net revenue of an incredibly profitable company run by Jeff Bezos, the world’s wealthiest man. But while both U.S. senators from New York met the outcome of the HQ2 competition with silence, the same couldn’t be said for their counterparts from Virginia, who were elated. Warner was particularly vocal, releasing a statement immediately after the announcement saying that he was “really excited” about the Crystal City plans. Later that morning, he appeared at a Yahoo Finance summit where he fist-pumped when the publication’s editor-in-chief, Andy Serwer, brought up the HQ2 news.
“This process is probably the most unique kind of economic development, where the whole county is chasing it,” Warner said, hinting that the HQ2 announcement would likely be followed by news from Virginia Tech University, a publicly run institution, about the establishment of a new campus in northern Virginia, which would be built specifically to complement the Amazon facility. Warner then conceded, when asked by Serwer, that he wasn’t aware how much these Amazon developments would cost the public. “I’ve not actually gone through all the particulars of the announcement,” he said. “I’m sure Amazon extracted a good deal for themselves.”
The cost would soon become clear. Three months later, in February 2019, Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam signed into law a bill that gave $750 million in subsidies to Amazon. The subsidy total wasn’t as much as those offered by other jurisdictions vying for HQ2, but Virginia’s deal was made sweeter to Amazon by the state’s union-busting “right-to-work” laws. (The PRO Act would invalidate these misleadingly titled laws, which enable workers to starve unions of dues while still benefiting from contracts negotiated through collective bargaining.) Then in June 2019, Virginia Tech unveiled its plans to build a $1 billion campus, with up to $250 million coming from the subsidy package approved by the state legislature and Northam. Heralding the news, at the Virginia Tech press conference, was Senator Warner, fresh off of a three-week stretch in which he was showered with campaign cash from Amazon executives.
The first donation to roll into Warner’s coffers came on May 17, 2019. Amazon’s Vice President of Public Policy Shannon Kellogg gave Warner $1,000. Four days later, Amazon Senior Vice President Doug Herrington, who is in charge of “North America Consumer,” maxed out on donations to Warner, giving him $5,600, with half earmarked for Warner’s primary, and the other half slated to go to his general election campaign fund. Warner was not facing a primary opponent at the time of the gift. He never would. His primary contest was canceled altogether due to the lack of a challenger.
Three days after Herrington’s money came, Warner’s campaign was blessed with $2,800 from another vice president of public policy, Brian Huseman, who was described by CNBC as a top lieutenant to Jay Carney, in an article which said that Amazon public policy views influence peddling as “watering the flowers” with the goal of cultivating “a well-tended ‘garden’ of pro-Amazon policymakers, from state governors and senators down to local officials and economic development teams.” The same day that Huseman gave to Warner, David Levy, the vice president of Amazon Web Services, gave Warner $1,500. Six days later, on May 30, 2019, Carney himself donated $2,900 to Warner’s campaign war chest.
The same day that Carney donated to Warner’s reelection campaign, Amazon CFO Brian Olsavsky gave the senator $2,800. The following day, Jeff Wilke, then-Amazon CEO of worldwide consumer business, matched the $5,600 maximum donation given by Herrington. Olsavsky and Wilke were, alongside Carney, part of Amazon’s S-Team, which was described by CNBC as “the 18 most senior executives who work closely with [CEO Jeff Bezos].” Then on June 8, two days before Warner spoke at the Virginia Tech HQ2 campus press conference, David Clark, who now holds Wilke’s old position, gave Warner the $5,600 maximum. The three-week “flower watering” left Warner — who had no primary challenger and wasn’t facing a competitive general election component — with $27,800 from the top tiers of Amazon’s corporate structure.
When asked by Truthout if Warner’s hesitancy to sign onto the PRO Act was influenced by his support for HQ2, and Amazon’s aversion to unions, a staffer for the senator sent a two-word reply: “Absolutely not.”
Still, Warner’s stated opposition to the bill doesn’t deviate much from the kind of talking points one might hear from managers and lawyers specializing in the sort of “union avoidance” that Amazon has become famous for. In a virtual press conference on April 12, Warner cited his opposition to elements of the bill that would stop the misclassification of gig workers as independent contractors — something that would give workers like Uber drivers status as employees, and all the rights under labor law that come with it, such as the right to organize a union. He also said he was opposed to “some of the process issues around [the] election voting process for unions” in the PRO Act — provisions written to benefit workers trying to organize unions, like those recently thwarted by Amazon in Bessemer.
The U.S. House of Representative passed the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act this week, with 42 House Democrats from Southern states as cosponsors.
The bill is one of the most ambitious attempts to strengthen the rights of workers and unions in decades. Its centerpiece is a provision that would override so-called “right-to-work” laws by allowing unions to collect dues from represented workers in states with such laws even if those workers have not joined the union.
“Unions benefit all workers, but especially women and workers of color,” Rep. Nikema Williams, a Georgia Democrat who cosponsored the bill, said in a statement after its passage through the House.
Right-to-work laws proliferated across the Midwest in the mid-2000s. But their roots are in the Jim Crow South, in the milieu of anti-Black racism and anti-Semitism wielded by rich white Southerners and their Northern allies to maintain an economic system built on racial division and cheap labor.
In 1944, Arkansas and Florida became the first two states in the country to enact right-to-work laws. As labor historian Michael Pierce wrote in 2017, the anti-union measures were meant to prevent what industrialists and planters in both the North and South saw as interracial organizing’s threat to the racial and economic order. The Christian American Association, a group founded by Texas oil industry lobbyist Vance Muse in 1936, worked to pass anti-strike laws and spearheaded right-to-work campaigns in Texas, Arkansas, Florida, and California.
The campaigns to get those laws passed by ballot initiative — in a time where many Black voters were blocked from the ballot — were explicitly racist in tone and substance. Pierce writes:
During the Arkansas campaign, the [Christian American Association] insisted that right-to-work was essential for the maintenance of the color line in labor relations. One piece of literature warned that if the amendment failed “white women and white men will be forced into organizations with black African apes . . . whom they will have to call ‘brother’ or lose their jobs.” Similarly, the Arkansas Farm Bureau Federation justified its support of Right-to-Work by citing organized labor’s threat to Jim Crow. It accused the CIO of “trying to pit tenant against landlord and black against white.”
Most Southern states, with the exceptions of Kentucky and West Virginia, implemented their right-to-work laws during the mid-20th century. The Taft-Hartley Act, passed by Congress in 1947, gave these laws federal backing.
West Virginia passed a right-to-work law in 2016 and Kentucky in 2017. The measures have done what they were intended to do: No Southern state with the exception of West Virginia has a union membership rate over 10%, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistic’s most recent figures. South Carolina has the region’s lowest union membership rate at just 2.9%.
Right-to-work laws financially hamstring unions by preventing “union shops,” where all employees in a unionized workplace must pay union dues and/or join the union. The PRO Act would weaken these laws by letting unions collect dues even from employees who do not join, but who still benefit from the contract negotiations and collective bargaining done by the union.
“We have a generational opportunity to make America’s economy and democracy work for working people again,” North Carolina State AFL-CIO President MaryBe McMillan said in a statement. “The PRO Act does that by ending misleading and racist ‘right to work’ laws and creating meaningful consequences for employers that retaliate against workers for simply exercising their right to organize.”
The legislation includes a number of other provisions that would bolster workers’ rights to organize and could make union drives — like the ongoing one at an Amazon plant in Bessemer, Alabama — more feasible. These provisions include banning employer interference in union elections, such as what are known as “captive audience” meetings, a tactic used against organizers in Bessemer. Employers who violate the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) could face civil penalties, which they currently do not. Corporate directors and company officials could be held personally accountable for violating labor law. Union elections would be set by the National Labor Relations Board and employees and not be subject to the whims of employers. And workers could file a civil action against their employer if the employer violates the NLRA.
The Biden administration has come out swinging in support of the PRO Act, and in support of workers’ rights to organize. President Joe Biden released a video signaling his support for the union drive in Alabama, and the White House sent out a statement calling for the PRO Act’s passage.
“As America works to recover from the devastating challenges of deadly pandemic, an economic crisis, and reckoning on race that reveals deep disparities, we need to summon a new wave of worker power to create an economy that works for everyone,” Biden said in the statement. “We should all remember that the National Labor Relations Act didn’t just say that we shouldn’t hamstring unions or merely tolerate them. It said that we should encourage unions. The PRO Act would take critical steps to help restore this intent.”
The bill was first introduced in Congress last session, when the Senate was still led by Republicans. With Democrats narrowly controlling the Senate this year, it theoretically stands a better chance — but will likely be stymied by the filibuster, which requires a 60-vote supermajority to break. Just one senator from the South has signed on to sponsor the bill to date — Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia. Discussions are underway in the Senate about reforming the filibuster, which itself has a long history of being used to block civil rights legislation.
