By Frank Emspak

For those not familiar, the Princess and the Pea is a fable where a princess can’t sleep because of a pea under her mattress. Although it’s technically about someone finding true love because of their weird sleeping habits, it can also be interpreted as being about the fragile egos and impossible desires of the mega-rich.

My takeaway from this fable is that a little annoyance can go a long way. The tactic of using a small annoyance to build a popular campaign is part of a strategy to rebuild our unions. This tactic should contribute to building political support for the pending court cases aimed at undercutting Act 10. We can build support and membership for public sector unions who might undertakes this strategy and position unions as allies or advocates for groups, beyond the immediate focus of union organizing efforts.

In Wisconsin union density has dropped by about 50% compared with pre-Act 10. The biggest hit, of course, was the public sector. But “right to work”, attacks on Project Labor Agreements, and prevailing wage didn’t help. Nor has the loss of plants like GM in Janesville, Oscar Meyer, and Master Lock, as well as the continued migration of unionized financial services work out of the state and out of the union, as carried out by Tru-Stage.

However, this past year organized labor has moved from defense to offense, with some important organizing victories… and now with legal attacks on Act 10. In addition, a parallel judicial effort is underway to force a decision as to whether the Public Authority, the legal home for the University of Wisconsin Hospitals and Clinics, is a public entity subject to state laws or a private entity subject to the NLRB.

Both legal challenges seek to regain rights lost under Act 10. At the same time, efforts to organize on the ground continue.

Over the course of the 20th century, the legal framework tended to follow the actions on the ground. In the thirties, after the first national labor relations act was declared unconstitutional, a huge wave of organizing swept the country along with the expected repression and unrest. It was then that the courts reversed their view, and the NLRB was declared constitutional.

The Brown v Board of Education decision, ending de jure segregation, followed a similar path. By 1954, there had been almost 10 years of protests and increasing unrest, especially in the South. Legal segregation was an international embarrassment to the US, and so the US Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional.

Here in Wisconsin, prohibitions against public sector unions, especially teachers unions, ended after another record number of disruptions among public school teachers at the beginning of the fall school year. It is important to note that the new laws provided a means to allow state, county, and municipal governments to recognize a union. But in exchange, the union was required to follow a system of rules to be eligible to use those means. In both Federal and State labor law, the range of remedies permitted to unions under the new collective bargaining systems restricted their ability to use direct action: that is, strikes, secondary boycotts, or a closed shop. While the laws did compel an employer to bargain if the union followed the procedures laid out in the respective laws, nothing in either state or federal legislation compelled the employer to reach an agreement with the union.

Winning the Legal Battles

It is all of our interest to build a political and organizational environment to make it easy for the courts to ratify the situation on the ground.

While the courts do act independently, they are also attentive to public opinion, and they are especially attentive to managing unrest. I think it is fair to say that the chances of a favorable court ruling would be increased if University faculty and staff, as well as nurses, could convincingly show they had overwhelming support amongst their fellow workers. 

There may well be majority support for collective bargaining amongst nurses and other public sector workers. A large percentage of the public supports unions. But it is one thing to support collective bargaining in a poll, and another to participate in achieving it. As of yet, that last step has eluded us. Or to put it another way, there is every reason for an organizing committee to act like a union and mobilize around an issue in the workplace without waiting for the possibility that the legal situation will be clarified in labor’s favor. In fact, the achievement of a new collective bargaining law, or even the return to the status quo ante, does not guarantee progress. It guarantees a system of control. It guarantees a process. It may allow an increase in the financial stability of our unions, but given the undemocratic nature of the budget process in Wisconsin, the process cannot be counted on to provide the relief public sector workers need and deserve.

However, developing a majoritarian, on the ground, workplace-centered movement will achieve what we all need: strong democratic unions with workplace organizational strength. The existence of such a movement may help convince the judges to restore laws that provide labor rights, and procedures that make sense.

How can this be achieved? Demonstrating and demanding collective bargaining rights is certainly a first step, but it is only one aspect of the fight. Mobilizing the workforce on an issue of importance to themselves is another. Mobilizing in the workforce as part of a conscious campaign to show what a collective of workers can do can be key to the achievement of any legal victory.

What might a workplace issue look like? It would need to be something that is important to the workforce. It would need to be measurable. It would need to winnable: that is, an issue that the employer could agree to, without the need to go to the legislature for money or permission. Workers could be asked to support this union-driven campaign without necessarily joining the union, but there would be no question in anyone’s mind that the campaign was a union initiative, aimed at improving or remedying an important problem.

What type of issue do we have in mind? Here’s an example which would apply to medical personnel at all levels, but also to the thousands of academic staff and technicians employed by the UW and other public agencies: the “right to know”. (Remember, this is just an example. Depending on the workplace, workers in any particular place may decide on another issue). The “right to know” means that anyone exposed to any chemicals, drugs, solvents, insecticides, pesticides, or other potentially carcinogenic substances would have the right to know that they had been exposed; when, to what, and the relevant scientific information with respect to potential health hazards. Management would be responsible for making this information available in some comprehensible format. This makes common sense. It is something that could be achieved, if the employer wished. It is needed. It is the type of campaign that demonstrates to all, even those of our fellow workers who are undecided about the union, what the union can do to improve working conditions.

A serious campaign of this nature would also demonstrate to the courts that without a union the employer did little or nothing. Hence the issue of collective bargaining is not some theoretical legal issue or abstract right, but a potential lifesaving matter for workers.

A campaign like this would show that collective action—the essence of unionism—makes sense. As such, the union organizing campaigns presently underway would have a specific, meaningful activity to show non-members why it is important to join the union: not only because they will gain rights which may pay off in the future, but because they will exercise collective rights they have here and now, and help pave the way for a better future. If, for some reason, the court cases are not definitive, a campaign such as the one described will have given the unions and workers involved the experience of a successful collective action, and thus grow their capacity to effectively mobilize on other issues.

Frank Emspak

Professor Emeritus, School for Workers, University of Wisconsin