Thursday, June 11, 2009

Unions? We Don't Need No Stinkin' Unions!

You already know that it is only thanks to unions that we have an 8-hour work day, a five-day work week, protections from dangerous work conditions, wages sufficient to support a family, benefits like health insurance, sick time and pensions.

But did you know that if Wackenhut had not been able to stall a union's demands for safety equipment, heroic security guard Stephen Johns might still be alive?

Stephen Johns, the 39-year old man who was murdered yesterday at the Holocaust Memorial Museum, wasn't just a Wackenhut-employed security officer. He was also a member of the Security, Police and Fire Professionals of America--a union.

That union approached Wackenhut about the dangers Holocaust Museum officers face, and asked them to provide their employees with bulletproof vests. You can imagine how that turned out.

[D]uring contract negotiations with Wackenhut two years ago, the union pressed for company-issued protective vests. Although Wackenhut seemed open to the idea, vests have not been issued, Faye said.

"I hammered this in our negotiations two years ago because of how sensitive that museum is," he said. "Our guards needed more protection." He said that one of the guards at the museum was "verbally assaulted by one guy walking by, saying anti-Semitic remarks. For that reason, I made that the center of the negotiation."

Authorities said Johns was not wearing a protective vest.

Yes, Virginia, unions are still fighting employers over basic issues of life and death. But the days when a John L. Lewis or Samuel Gompers would have shut down every monument and museum in the capitol before letting their members go to work unprotected against violent extremists are long gone.

Wackenhut is one of the world's biggest beneficiaries of the repugs turning over government functions to the private sector. Second only to KBR, Wackenhut sucks up American tax dollars in private security and corrections contracts around the world.

Wackenhut knows that the castrated NLRB won't punish it for stonewalling its union, but that shouldn't stop the rest of us from holding the giant corporation responsible through negligence for the death of its loyal, six-year employee Stephen Johns.

The ability to treat employees - living, breathing human beings - as cannon fodder is what drives the frantic opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act.

Which should be renamed the Stephen Johns Memorial Employee Rights Protection Act.

Cross-posted at They Gave Us A Republic ....

6 comments:

RichMiles said...

I KNEW something like this was going to come up. I didn't know the details, but I knew somehow that Johns died as a result of negligence or stonewalling on the part of his employer. I mean really, who DIDN'T know, who WOULDN'T know, that it was possible for the HOLOCAUST Museum, of all places, to provoke an anti-Semitic nutcase to come in with guns blazing? And that the security guards would be in danger of getting shot? Who couldn't figure that out?

The heartless fucks at Wackenhut, that's who. I mean, they're not the only ones, not by a long chalk. But they are the most recent ones getting caught putting corporate profits ahead of employee safety. And how much do bulletproof vests cost anyway? What, a couple thousand dollars? I really don't know, but I can't imagine them being much more than that. So in essence Mr. Johns is dead to preserve a decimal place on the Wackenhut balance sheet. Something like .0001% or something is my guess.

I hope Johns' family sues the ass off Wackenhut, and makes it cost them far more than it would have to just buy the vests in the first place. Cost is the only thing these fuckin' assholes understand.

I am so SICK of corporate greed! But we haven't seen the last of it. Sad to say....

Eric Schansberg said...

The same unions that (supposedly) were so powerful to do everything in the first paragraph were unable to get their workers in vests?

For such an inexpensive item, why didn't the union sacrifice an infinitesimal percentage of worker compensation to get the vests? Either it wasn't that important to the workers &/or or to the union-- at least until the shooting.

Jack Jodell said...

I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments expressed and points raised by Rich Miles, and must shake my head in disbelief at Mr. Schansberg's comments. In the first plkace, providing workers with on-the-job safety aids is not a union's responsibility, but rather the company employing said workers. Pushing and negotiating for a better and safer work environment (including all necessary equipment to ensure that) is the union's responsibility, and they met that through their contract demands. It is utterly absurd to infer that the labor union should be equipping the company's workers with equipment. What's next? Should the union or its workers also pay for jobsite snow and ice removal to prevent workers from injury in the winter? Should the union or its workers also provide jobsite kitchen inspectios to ensure food safety in the company cafeteria? Should unions or their workers provide gas masks for those working in mines or other potentially toxic or hazardous environments? Or should unions or its workers provide the hardhats and safety belts necessary on a construction site? Mr. Schansberg's anti-worker and pro-greedy corporation bias is glaringly evident here.

kentondem1 said...

Jack, get used to Schansberg's rhetoric.

He is a "certifiable" nut job, check out his web page.

Eric Schansberg said...

I didn't say that the unions should *provide* vests, but noted that they chose to have higher compensation over having vests. Why did they do that? Because they wanted to hurt their workers or they (reasonably) thought that it wasn't worth the cost? I'll go with the latter.

Note that the cost of hiring a worker has various components-- and a firm would be perfectly happy to spend $X on wages as $X on an additional safety feature.

This is a mutual responsibility and results in mutually beneficial trade. The firm will respond-- especially to a union [labor market cartel]-- to provide what workers [or at least the union] wants.

Should we take this a step further and say that the firm has a responsibility to provide full body armor for workers-- without reducing compensation?

Eric Schansberg said...

KD, you're confusing rhetoric with arguments-- and ironically, used an ad hominem to make your point. ;-)

I would echo KD's invite to my website and especially my blog, SchansBlog. Thanks for the plug!

I'm sorry that JJ missed the point of the second question (in my original comment). Would anyone like to take a shot at the first question?