Our nation has lost a great hero and champion of working people. Crystal Lee Sutton was a courageous woman who stood up for herself and her coworkers under the most difficult circumstances. She was an inspiration to organizers in this union and beyond, particularly Southern women who went on to lead their own campaigns after learning from her example.

It's well-known that Crystal's story was the inspiration for the academy award-winning 1979 film Norma Rae, but I wish more people knew the real story of Crystal Lee Sutton and her co-workers, and the strength and honor they showed as they fought to organize the textile giant JP Stevens. They stood up and proved that workers in the South could organize and change their jobs and their lives against all odds--across racial lines, and over the objections of anti-worker companies.

For decades, JP Stevens called the shots in Roanoke Rapid, North Carolina, paying poverty wages and offering deplorably unsafe working conditions. Workers routinely lost fingers, inhaled cotton dust, and lost hearing due to the deafening drone of machinery. JP Stevens was so vehemently anti-union that it systematically purchased small unionized textile mills in the south only to close them down. But as determined as JP Stevens was to keep its workers down, Crystal Lee Sutton was even more determined to lift them up and bring them a union.

Sutton knew that she and her co-workers deserved more out of their employer and in 1973, she found a way to bring that change when she agreed to help organize the plant with the assistance of the Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union (ACTWU) and its lead organizer, Eli Zivkovich.

JP Stevens mounted one of the most vigorously hostile union-busting efforts ever seen in U.S. history, amounting in over 122 unfair labor practice findings. But Sutton could not be deterred and at the end of a 10-year boycott, the 3,000 workers at JP Stevens won their 17 year fight with a strong contract.

She fought her whole life for working people, and as she fought cancer, she continued to be an advocate for the needs of working people. Once again, Crystal's story is of both an extraordinary woman and of every woman. Like so many other working families, after a lifetime of paying premiums, her health insurance coverage failed her. She took her challenges head on, and never stopped fighting for what was right. While she fought cancer she spoke out about the struggle she had with the health care system and the toll it was taking on her family.

Crystal Lee Sutton is an inspiration to every worker who holds out hope and is prepared to fight for justice and respect at work. Our condolences go to her family, but they should know that we will not forget her, and she continues to inspire our union and workers throughout the world.

* Read the Statement on the passing of Crystal Lee Sutton from Bruce Raynor, President, Workers United, SEIU

Throughout the middle part of the 20th century--when more than a third of working Americans belonged to a union--American workers generated economic growth with increased productivity and were rewarded with higher wages. But this link between greater productivity and higher wages has broken down.

In the past 50+ years that have passed since America's middle class was expanding and the economy was soaring, former labor secretaries Robert Reich (1993 - 1997) and Ray Marshall (1977 - 1981) have seen an economy weakened by a combination of personal greed, individual irresponsibility and unsustainable financial conditions. In Sunday's Chicago Tribune, Reich and Marshall explain why the Employee Free Choice Act is critical to getting our economy back on track.

While the debate surrounding the Employee Free Choice Act continues to grow, the underlying principles behind the measure shouldn't be swept under the rug or marginalized for political convenience. We have a president and secretary of labor who both support making it easier for workers to join unions. We shouldn't squander this opportunity for change.

Our country's history, Reich and Marshall say, has shown that unions are necessary to give the middle class the bargaining power it needs for better wages and benefits and the opportunity to fulfill the elusive American dream.

The years following World War II saw the largest increase in union membership in U.S. history, and along with it came increased productivity and shared prosperity. We can repeat this, but we must reform our obsolete labor laws so workers can join unions without the roadblocks so many face.

Putting more money in workers' pockets would provide a needed boost for the long-term growth of U.S. economy by giving consumers the purchasing power they need to buy more of the goods and services our economy produces. Especially, say the former labor secretaries, because "a vital component of our nation's recovery is making sure that we don't return to a bubble-and-bust economy, where the rich get richer, the poor get poorer and the middle class gets squeezed."

Today, employers are "more than twice as likely as they were in the 1990s to use 10 or more tactics...to thwart workers' organizing efforts." A very important feature of the Employee Free Choice Act, Reich and Marshall remind us, toughens penalties against companies that violate their workers' rights by using union-busting tactics like intimidation, harassment, or threat of fire.

The principles that are the foundation of the Employee Free Choice Act -- giving workers a direct path to form unions, toughening penalties against employers who break the law and helping workers secure a first contract in a reasonable period of time -- are ones we must never waiver on.

The sooner the Employee Free Choice Act is enacted, the better -- for U.S. workers and for the U.S. economy. Because in this economy, "people should be able to bargain, not beg, their way into the middle class."

Read the whole editorial here.

Union members across the country earn significantly more than non- union workers. Over the four-year period between 2004 and 2007, unionized workers' wages were on average 11.3 percent higher than non-union workers with similar characteristics. That means that, all else equal, American workers that join a union will earn 11.3 percent more--or $2.26 more per hour in 2008 dollars--than their otherwise identical non-union counterparts. [CAP Report: Unions are Good for the American Economy, 2/18/09]

Latino Union Workers Earn More & Have Better Benefits.  The most recent data suggest that even after controlling for differences between union and non- union workers --including such factors as age and education level -- unionization substantially improves the pay and benefits received by Latino workers. After controlling for workers' characteristics, the union wage premium for all Latino workers is 17.6 percent or about $2.60 per hour. The union advantage for Latino workers is even larger with respect to health insurance and pension coverage. Unionized Latino workers were about 26 percentage points more likely to have health insurance and about 27 percentage points more likely to have a pension than their non-union counterparts. [CEPR Report: Unions and Upward Mobility for Latino Workers, 9/08]

The NLRB Ruled Against a Fort Collins based dry-wall firm specifically on accusations it interfered with union organizing by Latino workers.  In 2000, the Denver Post reported, "Phase 2, a Fort Collins-based drywall and steel stud framing contractor has had an ongoing battle with the Rocky Mountain Regional Council of Carpenters over the firm's treatment of its Latino immigrant workers. Recently, the National Labor Relations Board ruled Phase 2 had interfered with workers attempting to join the union. The company was ordered to post information about the union on several job sites." [Denver Post, 12/3/00]

• Unionized Denver drywall workers earn an average of  $4.25 per hour than non-unionized drywall workers.  The Orlando Sentinel reported, "A seasoned union drywall worker in Denver earns $17.25 an hour, and receives benefits worth an additional $5 an hour, union leaders say. Nonunion drywall workers are typically paid as little as $13 an hour, and receive no benefits." [Orlando Sentinel, 1/22/06]

Higher Wages & Benefits Help U.S. Economy by Giving Workers the Ability to Purchase More Goods & Services: According to the Center for American Progress Action Fund report, unionization is good for the economy overall and "putting more money in workers' pockets would provide a needed boost for the U.S. economy." Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich stated that higher wages and higher benefits would give workers the purchasing power they need to buy more of the goods and services that this economy produces. [CAP Report: Unions are Good for the American Economy, 2/18/09]

Workers at Laradon Hall Waited 18 Months for Their First Contract and Faced Continuous Intimidation. Roberta Ayala, a teacher's assistant a Laradon Hall in Denver, described how hard it was for she and her coworkers to get their first contract after voting to join a union. She wrote, "Eighty percent of us signed cards supporting the union. But the school refused to recognize our decision. We filed for an election and that's when management began harassing and intimidating us. They even fired several teachers' assistants--making our staffing problems even worse. They wanted to scare us. They wanted us to give up. But it didn't work--we won our election... Management continued their intimidation tactics even after we won our election. The facility experienced a 70 percent turnover in staff because of the campaign waged by management... Eighteen months after our election, we finally won our first contract. We finally won a voice in classroom decisions. But it shouldn't have been this hard to win improvements for our students." [SEIU, "Faces of the Employee Free Choice Act," accessed 5/19/09]

It Took Over a Year for DIA Train Workers to Get Their First Contract After Joining a Union. In 2000, the Denver Post reported, "The company that operates and maintains Denver International Airport's train system and a union that represents 40 of the firm's workers reached a contract settlement late Thursday afternoon, averting a threatened midnight strike. Workers represented by the International Union of Elevator Constructors were seeking their first contract with the train firm, Adtranz, after 13 months of bargaining. The new labor pact contains wage and benefit increases for the Adtranz workers, said Dale Coalmer, business manager for elevator constructors union Local 25." [Denver Post, 2/18/00]

Management of Exempla St. Joseph Hospital Delayed First Contract with Nurses For 18 Months, Waiting for the Workers to Give Up. In 2002, the Denver Business Journal reported, "Emergency department workers at Saint Joseph Hospital are cutting union ties after failing to reach a contract with the department's management. Eighteen months ago, about 60 workers at Exempla Healthcare's Saint Joseph Hospital became the first health care employees to unionize in Colorado in more than 20 years. The small group, however, couldn't strike a deal with Saint Joseph's outside emergency room management company, Maricor. 'We never should have organized a subcontractor of a hospital. ... They are not going to let the tail of the dog wag the dog,' said Ernest L. Duran Jr., president of United Food and Commercial Workers Local 7, the union that represents the hospital workers. 'We didn't have the power. People think the negotiating process is this sophisticated, intellectual process. It's not. It's all about power.'" [Denver Business Journal, 2/22/02]

When Nurses at St. Anthony's Were Organizing a Union Vote, Management Brought in Outside Anti-Union Consultant to Scare Them Off. In 2003, the Denver Westword reported, "Three years ago the SEIU was involved in an effort to unionize nurses at St. Anthony's two area hospitals. St. Anthony hired Kansas City-based Management Science Associates, a firm that specializes in battling union drives in the health-care industry, and soon the nurses were deluged with anti-union propaganda and forced to attend meetings warning them about the dangers of forming a union. 'The only reason we were trying to organize was to have a voice,' says Bernie Patterson, a St. Anthony nurse who was active in the union drive. 'Our Catholic, non-profit hospital hired a consulting firm and spent millions to fight us. It was really ugly.' Patterson's group eventually had to withdraw its petition for an election because many of the nurses who originally supported the union were frightened away. 'Even the nurses who believed we needed a voice were losing their confidence,' she says." [Denver Westword, 6/12/03]

Union Members in North Dakota and Across the Country Earn Significantly More Than Non-Union Workers. Over the four-year period between 2004 and 2007, unionized workers' wages in North Dakota were on average 13.8 percent higher than non-union workers with similar characteristics. That means that, all else equal, North Dakota workers that join a union will earn 13.8 percent more--or $2.28 more per hour in 2008 dollars--than their otherwise identical non-union counterparts. [Unions are Good for North Dakota's Economy, 2/18/09]

• Employee Free Choice Would Pump Money Into Rural Economies. The League of Rural Voters writes, "Declining worker incomes have meant declining incomes for farmers and ranchers who produce food, fiber and biofuels. And that means less money has been coming into the rural economy. A big reason for shrinking worker paychecks is that big business has made it nearly impossible to join unions and bargain for solid benefits and fair wages (15 - 25 percent higher than non-union jobs). In fact, thousands of people are illegally fired every year just because they tried to organize a union. The Employee Free Choice Act can help level the playing field by making it easier for people to join unions and bargain for a better standard of living. It can give regular working folks the purchasing power to revive the economy - and to buy the products we grow and sell in rural America." [League of Rural Voters, 5/19/09]
• Higher Wages & Benefits Help U.S. Economy by Giving Workers the Ability to Purchase More Goods & Services. According to the Center for American Progress Action Fund report, unionization is good for the economy overall and "putting more money in workers' pockets would provide a needed boost for the U.S. economy." Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich stated that higher wages and higher benefits would give workers the purchasing power they need to buy more of the goods and services that this economy produces. [CAP Report: Unions are Good for the American Economy, 2/18/09]

Workers At Dakota Gasification Co. Waited More Than a Year for Their First Contract. In July 2001, the Bismarck Tribune reported, "Tuesday's decision by the Dakota Gasification Co., board of directors to approve its first union contract for plant workers ends months of uncertainty for both sides. It also means that the 447 plant workers who were represented by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers during contract negotiations can now become union members. Their membership was pending a union-bargained contract, which hit some rough sledding the last two months, including a confidential strike vote and federal mediation." [Bismarck Tribune, 7/12/01]

• Union Accused Management of Changing Items in a Negotiated Contract. In June 2000, workers at Dakota Gasification Co. voted to join the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. In June 2001, the Bismarck Tribune reported, "Dakota Gasification Co. workers have ratified what they believe is the company's contract offer, but negotiations could end up in a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers approved their version of the contract Tuesday, charging that plant owner Basin Electric Power Cooperative changed or deleted a number of negotiated items. Union business manager Gary Leinius said if Basin doesn't accept the contract ratification after it's presented to them Monday, the union will make a formal complaint based on bad faith negotiations." [Bismarck Tribune, 6/14/01, 6/21/00]

Union Accused MDU Resources Group of Failing to Negotiate in Good Faith. In August 2008, "The International Union of Operating Engineers/Local 49 filed an Unfair Labor Practices charge against Knife River, a construction materials and mining subsidiary of Bismarck-based MDU Resources Group Inc. Knife River is an aggregate producer in Sauk Rapids, Minn. Local 49 business manager Glen Johnson said the 25 workers at the Minnesota plant approached Local 49 for representation in negotiating a contract in January. After nine months without success, Local 49 filed the charges, saying that Knife River was not negotiating fairly and in good faith... Johnson said he believes the company is deliberately trying not to come to an agreement, because after a total of 12 months they are no longer legally obligated to negotiate the contract." [Bismarck Tribune, 8/13/08]

Union members in Pennsylvania and across the country earn significantly more than non- union workers. "Over the four-year period between 2004 and 2007, unionized workers' wages in Pennsylvania were on average 9.4 percent higher than non-union workers with similar characteristics. That means that, all else equal, Pennsylvania workers that join a union will earn 9.4 percent more--or $1.77 more per hour in 2008 dollars--than their otherwise identical non-union counterparts." [Unions are Good for Pennsylvania's Economy, 2/18/09]
 
Unionization rewards workers for productivity growth. "Slow wage growth has squeezed the middle class and contributed to rising inequality. But increasing union coverage rates could likely reverse these trends as more Americans would benefit from the union wage premium and receive higher wages. If unionization rates were the same now as they were in 1983 and the current union wage premium remained constant, new union workers in Pennsylvania would earn an estimated $2.5 billion more in wages and salaries per year. If union coverage rates increased by just 5 percentage points over current levels, Pennsylvania's newly unionized workers would earn an estimated $852 million more in wages and salaries per year. Non-union workers would also benefit as employers would likely raise wages to match what unions would win in order to avoid unionization." [Unions are Good for Pennsylvania's Economy, 2/18/09]
 
Employee Free Choice Would Pump Money Into Rural Economies. The League of Rural Voters writes, "Declining worker incomes have meant declining incomes for farmers and ranchers who produce food, fiber and biofuels. And that means less money has been coming into the rural economy. A big reason for shrinking worker paychecks is that big business has made it nearly impossible to join unions and bargain for solid benefits and fair wages (15 - 25 percent higher than non-union jobs). In fact, thousands of people are illegally fired every year just because they tried to organize a union. The Employee Free Choice Act can help level the playing field by making it easier for people to join unions and bargain for a better standard of living. It can give regular working folks the purchasing power to revive the economy - and to buy the products we grow and sell in rural America." [League of Rural Voters, accessed 5/19/09]
 
Higher Wages & Benefits Help U.S. Economy by Giving Workers the Ability to Purchase More Goods & Services: According to the Center for American Progress Action Fund report, unionization is good for the economy overall and "putting more money in workers' pockets would provide a needed boost for the U.S. economy." Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich stated that higher wages and higher benefits would give workers the purchasing power they need to buy more of the goods and services that this economy produces. [CAP Report: Unions are Good for the American Economy, 2/18/09]

Union Members in Nebraska and Across the Country Earn Significantly More Than Non-Union Workers. Over the four-year period between 2004 and 2007, unionized workers' wages in Nebraska were on average 13.7 percent higher than non-union workers with similar characteristics. That means that, all else being the same, Nebraska workers that join a union will earn 13.7 percent more--or $2.40 more per hour in 2008 dollars--than their otherwise identical non-union counterparts. [Unions are Good for Nebraska's Economy, 2/18/09]

• Higher Wages & Benefits Help U.S. Economy by Giving Workers the Ability to Purchase More Goods & Services: According to the Center for American Progress Action Fund report, unionization is good for the economy overall and "putting more money in workers' pockets would provide a needed boost for the U.S. economy." Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich stated that higher wages and higher benefits would give workers the purchasing power they need to buy more of the goods and services that this economy produces. [Center for American Progress Action Fund, "Unions Are Good for Workers and the Economy," 2/18/09]

First Contract Negotiations At Millard Processing Services Didn't Even Start Until Nearly Three Years After Workers Joined a Union. In 1995, the Omaha World-Herald reported, "The NLRB has alleged that Millard Processing Services Inc., 13076 Renfro Circle, has refused to bargain with Local 271 of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union. Workers at Millard Processing voted in August 1991 to be represented by the union, and the first contract talks started March 23, 1994. The local said it represents about 500 workers, most of whom are Hispanic." [Omaha World-Herald, 10/16/95]

• Management Agreed to Pay Back Wages Rather Than Face NLRB Hearing on Unfair Labor Practices. In October 1995, Millard Processing Services and the United Food and Commercial Workers union reached a settlement, leading to the cancellation of a planned NLRB hearing on union charges of unfair labor practices. "Among other things, the settlement calls for the company to pay thousands of dollars in back pay to at least 91 workers, with back pay to an additional 24 workers hinging on the outcome of an NLRB review... An administrative law judge was to have heard the complaints Monday, but the hearing was called off when MPS, without admitting it violated the law, agreed to: Restore an annual 30-cent-per-hour wage increase to at least 91 workers and give them back pay dating from July 18, 1994." [Omaha World-Herald, 10/21/95]


• Millard Processing Paid More Than $34,000 in Back Pay. In March 1996, the Omaha World-Herald reported, "Millard Processing Services Inc. is scheduled to pay $ 34,322 in back pay to 112 employees involved in a labor dispute, the National Labor Relations Board said Thursday. Leonard Bernstein, regional attorney at the board's office in Kansas City, Mo., said the amount is subject to some final adjustments or claims but otherwise would be carried out under an earlier board order. The United Food and Commercial Workers Local 271 had sought the wages, alleging that the company halted normal pay increases in retaliation for workers supporting the union." [Omaha World-Herald, 3/14/96]

Union Officials Alleged 32 Labor Violations During Campaign at Nebraska Beef. In the summer of 2001, Nebraska Beef workers rejected union representation by a vote of 452 to 345, but an NLRB officer recommended that the full board order a new election. "The hearing officer, Francis A. Molenda of Tulsa, Okla., recommended that the full board void the Aug. 16 election, which was won by the company... In September, the union asked the labor relations board to order another election, saying that Nebraska Beef officials committed 41 violations of federal labor law. The number of objections, later reduced to 32, became the basis of six days of hearings by Molenda in October." [Omaha World-Herald, 1/3/02]

• Workers at Nebraska Beef Said They Were Afraid of Losing Their Jobs If They Supported a Union.During the course of the unionization drive at Nebraska Beef, the NLRB "issued a complaint against the company for allegedly firing seven workers" because they led a protest complaining of unsafe conditions. Worker Jose Juan Robles "said workers are 'yelled at and reminded that they are dispensable.' Many Nebraska Beef workers are 'kept from the restroom,' he said through an interpreter. 'And many times we are not sure if we are paid for the entire time we put in because we have no time clock, and we are at the mercy of what supervisors decide.'" [Lincoln Journal Star, 8/12/01]


• Union Officials Said Nebraska Beef Workers Earned Up to a Dollar Below the Prevailing Wage at Other Plants. In August 2001, the Lincoln Star Journal reported, "Union officials say the Nebraska Beef plant in a red and white industrial structure north of Omaha's L Street arterial between 35th and 36th streets operates below the norm in terms of wages and working conditions. They estimate the average production line and kill floor wage at $8.50 an hour, as much as a dollar below the prevailing wage at competing plants." [Lincoln Journal Star, 8/12/01]


• Alleged Worker Intimidation by Nebraska Beef Included Added Security By the Company and Increasing the Size of the Bargaining Unit To Lessen the Union's Chance of Success. Testifying in front of the NLRB judge, "Anselm McCrimon, a Nebraska Beef employee and union supporter, said the company parked four semitrailer trucks near the plant entrance. That action, the union said, restricted access to the plant and intimidated workers... The trucks had never been parked that way before, McCrimon said, and were removed two or three days after the election. Newly hired security guards also showed up on election day, McCrimon said, with one driving a car with flashing lights in the area. The union also contends that Nebraska Beef hired people before the election solely to increase the size of the bargaining unit to lessen the union's chances of success." [Omaha World Herald, 10/12/01]


• Four Years After the Contested Election, the NLRB Ruled In Favor of Workers and Ordered a New Election Held at Nebraska Beef. "On April 6, 2005, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ordered a new election at Nebraska Beef after citing the company for violating workers' rights in an August 2001 election, after UFCW had filed charges on behalf of the workers. The NLRB upheld a hearing officer's findings that the company used a broad range of intimidation tactics to deny workers a voice on the job in the 2001 election." The second vote never occurred. [UFCW Press Release, 5/18/05; Lincoln Journal Star, 12/29/08]

This Sunday, members of five Nebraska unions gathered to present 100 apple pies to their representatives in Congress. Part of Change That Works' "Good Jobs and Affordable Health Care Are as American as Apple Pie" campaign, these pies were much like the ones that have presented individually to public officials and Nebraska opinion leaders over the last several weeks. And, much like the many pies in this campaign that came before them, these pastries came with a clear message attached: the Employee Free Choice Act matters to Nebraskans.

At Sunday's rally, this message was delivered by Doug Wilich, an Omaha truck driver who's experienced firsthand just how unjust our current labor laws can be. His story is alarming but not unique, and I've included just a small slice of it in the video above.

When executives at Northern Berkshire Healthcare received word that the nursing home staff at Massachusetts Sweet Brook Care Centers petitioned to join 1199SEIU in January, they wasted no time before launching an anti-organizing campaign.

Their thinly veiled effort to strip caregivers of their voting rights didn't fool anyone--including the National Labor Relations Board. The Boston Regional Office of the NLRB issued a decision in favor of the long term care workers at Sweet Brook Nursing Home in Williamsburg, MA, on Monday, ruling that registered nurses, licensed practical nurses, and lead certified nursing assistants will be eligible to vote in an upcoming union election.

In their 19-page decision reached after lengthy hearings, the NLRB rejected all arguments presented by executives at Sweet Brook and Northern Berkshire Healthcare (NBH) as part of an effort to exclude the caregivers from exercising a voice at work. NBH argued that registered nurses, LPNs and "lead" certified nursing assistants have supervisory authority that would prevent them from becoming union members.

"They were trying to say that we manage the other CNAs and have the power to change things," said Betty Higley, a lead certified nursing assistant in the dementia unit at Sweet Brook. "But you're just there to make sure the paperwork gets done. There was nothing that the hospital brought up that proved we were managers -- I still work weekends, I still work holidays. You can't dispute the truth."

Caregivers estimate that Northern Berkshire Healthcare has now wasted many tens of thousands of dollars in taxpayer and patient care funds on executive junkets and a discretionary, totally meritless and unfounded legal battle against the voting rights of NBH employees at the Sweet Brook Nursing Home. Health system officials' defense is that they wanted to ensure the local's establishment was done correctly, and that the $500 an hour specialty lawyers were needed for last week's National Labor Relations Board hearings on union organizing at Sweet Brook that were held in Boston.

What were some of the many tactics Northern Berkshire Healthcare, led by CEO Richard Palmisano, employed while workers fought for the right to hold an election to have a voice at work?

1. Threatened service reductions and layoffs by hospital executives due to budgetary shortfalls at North Adams Regional Hospital.
   
2. An internal campaign of intimidation waged by the nursing home's own CEO, to guilt-trip employees by convincing them that forming a union would be equivalent to giving up their goals of improving resident care and jobs at the home.
   
3. One-on-one meetings with workers about their private voting choices, conducted by NBH executives.
   
4. Six days of NLRB hearings and testimony in Boston and Leominster, where testifying caregivers were kept away from their families and the nursing home residents for whom they care. During this hearing, NBH officials also tried to bar 35 nurses and certified nursing assistants from the election.

The answer: all of the above.

The overwhelming majority of eligible staff at Sweet Brook have already expressed, in writing, their support for forming a union at the nursing home. "Management at Sweet Brook has been doing everything in their power to prevent us from voting in a union election," said Betty Higley, a lead certified nursing assistant at Sweet Brook who attended the hearings, "They kept us away from home for almost a week. Enough is enough. Let us vote!"

Tremendous support from the workforce in question isn't stopping NBH, however--- Vice President of External Affairs Diane Cutillo said on Monday that the health-care system is appealing the decision to the National Labor Board in Washington, DC.

When executives at Northern Berkshire Healthcare received word that the nursing home staff at Massachusetts Sweet Brook Care Centers petitioned to join 1199SEIU in January, they wasted no time before launching an anti-organizing campaign.

Their thinly veiled effort to strip caregivers of their voting rights didn't fool anyone--including the National Labor Relations Board. The Boston Regional Office of the NLRB issued a decision in favor of the long term care workers at Sweet Brook Nursing Home in Williamsburg, MA, on Monday, ruling that registered nurses, licensed practical nurses, and lead certified nursing assistants will be eligible to vote in an upcoming union election.

In their 19-page decision reached after lengthy hearings, the NLRB rejected all arguments presented by executives at Sweet Brook and Northern Berkshire Healthcare (NBH) as part of an effort to exclude the caregivers from exercising a voice at work. NBH argued that registered nurses, LPNs and "lead" certified nursing assistants have supervisory authority that would prevent them from becoming union members.

"They were trying to say that we manage the other CNAs and have the power to change things," said Betty Higley, a lead certified nursing assistant in the dementia unit at Sweet Brook. "But you're just there to make sure the paperwork gets done. There was nothing that the hospital brought up that proved we were managers -- I still work weekends, I still work holidays. You can't dispute the truth."

Caregivers estimate that Northern Berkshire Healthcare has now wasted many tens of thousands of dollars in taxpayer and patient care funds on executive junkets and a discretionary, totally meritless and unfounded legal battle against the voting rights of NBH employees at the Sweet Brook Nursing Home. Health system officials' defense is that they wanted to ensure the local's establishment was done correctly, and that the $500 an hour specialty lawyers were needed for last week's National Labor Relations Board hearings on union organizing at Sweet Brook that were held in Boston.

What were some of the many tactics Northern Berkshire Healthcare, led by CEO Richard Palmisano, employed while workers fought for the right to hold an election to have a voice at work?

1. Threatened service reductions and layoffs by hospital executives due to budgetary shortfalls at North Adams Regional Hospital.
   
2. An internal campaign of intimidation waged by the nursing home's own CEO, to guilt-trip employees by convincing them that forming a union would be equivalent to giving up their goals of improving resident care and jobs at the home.
   
3. One-on-one meetings with workers about their private voting choices, conducted by NBH executives.
   
4. Six days of NLRB hearings and testimony in Boston and Leominster, where testifying caregivers were kept away from their families and the nursing home residents for whom they care. During this hearing, NBH officials also tried to bar 35 nurses and certified nursing assistants from the election.

The answer: all of the above.

The overwhelming majority of eligible staff at Sweet Brook have already expressed, in writing, their support for forming a union at the nursing home. "Management at Sweet Brook has been doing everything in their power to prevent us from voting in a union election," said Betty Higley, a lead certified nursing assistant at Sweet Brook who attended the hearings, "They kept us away from home for almost a week. Enough is enough. Let us vote!"

Tremendous support from the workforce in question isn't stopping NBH, however--- Vice President of External Affairs Diane Cutillo said on Monday that the health-care system is appealing the decision to the National Labor Board in Washington, DC.

"Although most workers would like to join a union, very few ever get the chance to vote. In fact, employers have been stifling the efforts of workers to lawfully organize a union through elections," writes Jaime Contreras, Capital Area Director of SEIU Local 32BJ, in a Friday op-ed in Washington Hispanic. "Consequently, less than 100,000 joined a union through secret ballot election last year." "The Employee Free Choice Act would provide workers, once again, with a fair shot at joining a union. What they choose to do is their decision, just as it should be." Read the full op-ed.

(Note: Translated from Spanish by Eugenio Villasante, 32BJ)

The Saturday, Nov. 8 New York Times had a lengthy piece by Steven Greenhouse about the growing chorus for the Employee Free Choice Act, a bill that would restore free choice for people who want to join a union.

Towards the end of the article is a simple sentence that bears further examination, because it gets to the heart of why we need Employee Free Choice: the coercive campaign to which companies subject their employees in their efforts to stop workers from organizing.

Union officials say they do not dislike the secret ballot, but rather the lengthy, expensive, adversarial campaign before the vote in which companies often fire union supporters and use videos, large meetings and one-on-one sessions to pressure employees to vote against unionizing.

I'm going to attempt to cut to the core of why we need free choice restored for employees. Why do I say "restored"? Because for people who want to form a union today, there are essentially two ways you can do so:

1. Work out an agreement with your employer to recognize the union when a majority of workers say they want one. (About 500,000 people have done this in the U.S. in the last five years.)
   
2. Get really lucky after your employer forces a "lengthy, expensive, adversarial" campaign when they refuse to recognize your union.

Hang with me here, because it's really important to understand how this works in order to know why we need the Employee Free Choice Act.

Workers want to form or join a union because they feel the need to stand together with their colleagues to protect their interests on the job. Their interests could be things like workplace safety for construction workers, safe staffing levels for nurses, or decent wages and benefits for grocery store workers. They feel they're not being respected or treated well enough, and they make the significant decision to come together in a union to stand up for each other.

Make no mistake: it's a big deal for workers to take this step. You're deciding to officially come together, to ask to negotiate collectively with your employer, to stand up for yourselves as a group so you can provide for your families.

At this point, people who want to form a union sign cards that express their intent to do so. Now, the law says the workers can request to vote for a union with only 30 percent of the employees who sign cards. But what usually happens is at least 50 percent, and usually upwards of 60 percent or 70 percent of workers will sign cards saying they want to form a union. Like I said, it's a big step to come this far, and in order to be successful you need to have strong solidarity among your coworkers.

Now once the employees know they have a majority of support for forming a union, they approach their employer and ask that the company recognize the employees' union and sit down to negotiate a contract.

Here's where the roads diverge. There are some companies who immediately recognize their employees' unions. Indeed, some big name companies do just that, including AT&T, Harley Davidson, and Kaiser Permanente, because they see a partnership with their workers as a competitive advantage.

But many, many other companies laugh at the majority of workers who want a union, and demand that the majority of workers again show they want a union in a "secret ballot election," - which occurs after what Greenhouse described as "the lengthy, expensive, adversarial campaign before the vote in which companies often fire union supporters and use videos, large meetings and one-on-one sessions to pressure employees to vote against unionizing."

What does this campaign look like?

About 49 percent of employers openly threaten to close down a worksite when faced with a unionization drive. Untold more tell individual workers, in captive meetings, that jobs will be lost. 30 percent make good on the threat in real time, firing workers who engage in union activities. 82 percent hire unionbusting consulting firms which teach them how to most effectively shutter a union drive while either technically staying in the limits of the law, or breaking it in such a way that the gains will outweigh the eventual fines.

"Get really lucky," as I called option #2 for how to form unions today, entails somehow retaining a majority of supporters of a union after the multi-week intimidation campaign carried out by the same people who write your paycheck.

I need to again quote Ezra Klein at length because he explains these intimidation campaigns so well:

You hear a fair amount of talk about card check -- also known as the Employee Free Choice Act -- and you hear a lot of folks on the Right earnestly wring their hands over the idea that if workers sign cards in order to unionize, they will be intimidated! Pressured! The sanctity of the secret vote will be shattered! Which would all be fair enough, if these same folks evinced even an ounce of concern that workers are currently being threatened, intimidated, and even fired if they dare try and organize. [...]

Hearing the status quo defended as free and fair is like imagining a presidential election where you can vote however you'd like, but anyone who votes against the incumbent party is informed they will lose all access to Social Security, Medicare, and the protection of their local police and fire departments. Also, they'll be audited. But nevertheless: Folks can vote however they want.

That's the state of "free choice" in America for people who want to form unions. That's why I said we need to restore free choice with the Employee Free Choice Act.

The Employee Free Choice Act says companies need to recognize their employees' unions when a majority of them say they want to form a union. It's a system called "majority sign-up" because it recognizes the democratic principle of 50 percent +1, and respects the workers' free choice.

The Employee Free Choice Act has the support of almost every single Democrat in Congress, as well as some Republicans. In 2007 the bill cleared the House and got 51 votes in the Senate but was stopped by the threat of a Republican filibuster and veto by Bush. This year, a majority of voters support Employee Free Choice, and rejected a multi-million dollar campaign funded by wealthy CEOs opposed to the bill. Employee Free Choice is key to help rebuild the middle class. President-elect Obama supports Employee Free Choice and has promised to sign the bill as President.

Even though we will have President Obama and a solid pro-worker majority in the Senate, the Employee Free Choice Act is going to be a big battle. We're encountering a well-funded opposition that's dedicated to destroying this bill with false characterizations and misinformation.

But for the sake of America's workers - for the chance to rebuild the middle class and make the American Dream a reality - the fight for the Employee Free Choice Act will be an essential one to win.

(crossposted from Firedoglake)