CEPR just published a disturbing report by John Schmitt and Ben Zipperer showing the likelihood that a pro-union worker is fired during an organizing campaign and, more to the point, that a worker organizing for the campaign is fired. They conclude that "almost one-in-five union organizers or activists can expect to be fired as a result of their activities in a union election campaign." That, of course, is the nice thing about firing workers who try to organize. You only need to fire one or two for the rest to get the message.But it will come as no surprise that companies routinely violate labor law to disrupt workplace unionization. The penalties for offenses are low and the cost of collective bargaining is high. Firing a worker and paying the fee five years later is simply a good investment. What's interesting about Schmitt and Zipperer's data is that they break it out by time period:
The obvious correlation is political. We see illegal firings spike when Reagan is elected. A sharp drop when Clinton takes office. And then a quick rebound when Bush assumes the presidency. The changes here aren't statutory in nature: Rather, business adjusts to what it thinks will be tolerated by the National Labor Relations Board and the administration more broadly. Obama's ascension, and the cowed business environment that helped produce it, will probably force that line back down again. It's important to say that this is not about the Employee Free Choice Act. Rather, this is what the Employee Free Choice Act is about. It's impossible to organize a workplace when companies feel able to illegally fire pro-union workers with impunity. People need their actual jobs more than they need a hypothetical raise. The Employee Free Choice Act is one way to solve the problem. There may be others. But either way, the problem needs to be solved. Crime should not be tolerated. Not even when it's against labor unions.
The obvious correlation is political. We see illegal firings spike when Reagan is elected. A sharp drop when Clinton takes office. And then a quick rebound when Bush assumes the presidency. The changes here aren't statutory in nature: Rather, business adjusts to what it thinks will be tolerated by the National Labor Relations Board and the administration more broadly. Obama's ascension, and the cowed business environment that helped produce it, will probably force that line back down again. It's important to say that this is not about the Employee Free Choice Act. Rather, this is what the Employee Free Choice Act is about. It's impossible to organize a workplace when companies feel able to illegally fire pro-union workers with impunity. People need their actual jobs more than they need a hypothetical raise. The Employee Free Choice Act is one way to solve the problem. There may be others. But either way, the problem needs to be solved. Crime should not be tolerated. Not even when it's against labor unions. 
