Share

Labor Board Limits Political Strikes

by: Robert Schwartz  |  Labor Notes

photo
Immigration protesters march on Mayday in Los Angeles. The massive immigrants rights marches in May 2006 may have been the largest political strike in US history. (Photo: Monica Almeida / The New York Times)

    An overlooked order by the Labor Board's lead lawyer this summer dealt a serious blow to the rights of U.S. workers to protest government policies.

    On May Day 2006, hundreds of thousands of immigrant workers walked off their jobs to protest restrictive immigration legislation. Some were fired, and brought complaints to the board. Ronald Meisburg, the National Labor Relations Board general counsel, responded by posting a directive on "political advocacy" this July that enables bosses to immediately fire employees who participate in work stoppages of a political nature.

    The directive, as yet apparently unnoticed by both unions and labor lawyers, cannot be appealed.

    Traditionally, workers around the world have used two kinds of walkouts to achieve their goals, economic strikes over workplace issues and political strikes directed at government policies.

    Political strikes in the U.S. are not as common as in Europe and Latin America. But they have happened, as in the 1970s strike by coal miners for black lung legislation and in this year's walkout by West Coast dock workers against the Iraq war.

    The massive immigrants rights marches in May 2006 may have been the largest political strike in U.S. history. In the aftermath, numerous workers, mainly Latino, were fired from their jobs. Among them were employees at three restaurants. La Veranda, a Philadelphia eatery, terminated five workers who told their manager they would miss work. In Fresno, California, a restaurant fired eight of 13 workers for violating its attendance rules. And an Applebee's restaurant whose location is unclear in the directive fired several workers who left work early. None of the workers belonged to a union.

    The 2006 May Day cases appear to be the first to reach the NLRB where workers lost their jobs because of a politically inspired work stoppage.

    Since labor law gives all workers-not just union members-a protected right to strike over matters affecting their livelihoods, some of these workers filed unfair labor practice charges at the NLRB seeking reinstatement and back wages.

    The workers asserted that they had the same rights as union strikers, in particular, the right to conduct stoppages over workplace-related matters without permission.

    Meisburg's office dismissed the workers' charges. In his directive, Meisburg, a management lawyer appointed by President Bush, asserted for the first time that work stoppages are protected by the National Labor Relations Act only if they are "directed at an employer who has control over the subject matter of the dispute."

    Thirty years ago the Supreme Court ruled that workers can take part in political activity in their workplaces if the issues involved have a substantial impact on workers' rights or job conditions. Meisburg said his position was consistent with a footnote in that case, although no other legal authority had drawn such a conclusion.

    Although the Meisburg directive does not go so far as to make political strikes illegal, the effect is the same. Unless the next general counsel reverses the order, union and non-union workers who hit the bricks over government policies on immigration, health care, or fuel prices, no matter how closely related these matters are to their employment, do so at the risk of immediately and permanently losing their jobs.

    --------

    Robert Schwartz is the author of "Strikes, Picketing, and Inside Campaigns: A Legal Guide for Unions."

  

»


Comments

This is a moderated forum.  It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

A national strike (yes, the

A national strike (yes, the way the European workers get clout) before this "rescue" vote took place would have been dramatic and may have led to more protection for the American Worker. This shameful directive by a Bush appointee must be reversed. Unfortunately, our union leaders have been meek when they could have shown real leadership in these times.

I applaud this decision.

I applaud this decision. Most of the workers who took part in the 2006 demonstration are from Central and South America. Their homelands would be better served if they used the drive and fortitude they exhibited in leaving their homes to go to a foreign land in a more constructive way than in protest of this country's policies. Why don't they join together to throw out the oilgarchs who keep their home countries in a third-world condition?

General Strike now! Jail the

General Strike now! Jail the financial predators and demand the right to vote with one's own taxes!

This is not a free country

This is not a free country anymore. only the top 1/10% of 1% matter. the rest of us - freeze, starve, die, whatever it doesn't matter. All the the comments on this and other boards and blogs are empty and meaningless. It's over "they" won. "They" in instances like this NLRB thing, are just ending our Constitutional rights. And the great American public- bend over "and please may I have another sir?" Ignorance and freedom don't go together It's all disgusting and depressing. Enjoy the Brave New World all of you. I don't care anymore.

What MichaelG fails to

What MichaelG fails to comprehend is that the oligarchs who keep their countries in a third world condition are aided and abetted, maintained and supported, by the US ruling elite. Failure to understand this simple fact is at the root of the general ignorance that such statements as his exhibits. Most Americans are too broadly under-informed concerning the class struggle of labor, too broadly ignorant of the class warfare that has been taking place for decades in this country as a matter of national policy, to mount any meaningful protest, so when a group of 'foreigners' actually asserts some power, reactionaries such as Michael and his ilk cannot help but condemn them, instead of supporting their fellow workers in the on-going struggle against the oligarchs and elite rule. Wake up Michael. These people are our brothers and sisters, and deserve our unconditional support. The job you save may very well be your own.