Days ago, it called to me from the next room.  What had been white noise was now blaring.  I could not believe my ears.  However, I just sat there.  I did not jump from my chair and go to the next room so that I might see and hear the disturbance.  I was in a state of shock.  I rarely watch the television; I listen to it.  I do not have the tube in the room where I work.  Nevertheless, this anti-union commercial caught my attention.  

The set was turned to Cable News Network.  This seemed contrary to what I would expect; nevertheless, I heard it.  At the time, I dismissed this intrusion as an event, one in isolation.  Then this morning, while preparing breakfast, and in a room with a view of the small screen it played again.

My thoughts were many.  Why was this maligning message being presented?  Who was responsible for this slander?  Moreover, how much did this production cost?  Forget the money spent to fabricate this ditty; airtime is extremely expensive!  Apparently, union busting is no longer a tasteless practice; it is a respected art.  This frightens me.  Philosophically and politically, I honor, the words proclaimed in Aesop’s Fables, The Bundle of Sticks, “Union gives strength.”
I suspected and yet, needed to know with certainty, are CNN employees’ union members?  I telephoned the corporate offices and I was told, “No, they are not.”  I was not surprised.  Were this network unionized workers would protest the propaganda.  Administrators would not air such a scathing commercial, for fear of what they might create.  Those that secretly support a union will not speak.  They might lose their jobs.  

I researched further.  I know that a very good friend of mine, a Progressive, is anti-union.  For Jill, the amount of each paycheck matters.  She notices the immediate loss of nominal fees and does not think the benefits she receives from a union membership are worth much.  Jill has no inkling of how unions have affected her daily life for the better.  Nor does she consider how they have influenced her future.  She knows that in this job, she is not a member and that makes her happy.

My friend does not realize that unions have helped those in all avenues of life.  Thanks to unions, laws were passed and people were and are treated more humanely.  Jill does not recall a time when people would labor at their jobs for 10 to 12 hours a day.  She does not recollect the introduction of benefits.  In Jill’s lifetime, staying in bed when ill, was always been an option.  Time could be made to attend to personal affairs.  

In Jill’s lifetime, employers did not exploit children as they once did.  Times were never very hard, though in recent years they are becoming harder again.  Jill, as many, is comfortable with what is and cannot imagine what was or will be if there are no unions.  

Granted, a union can become as bureaucratic as a big business.  Members must assert their needs and wants.  They must participate if they want to ensure that decisions are to their liking.  That is doable and wiser than working in a world without unions.  Without unions, we would not have the power and pleasures we have now, or so I believe.  Yet, after this viewing I realize unions are being threatened as never before.  Forces more powerful than me are working to destroy the strength that union provides.

According to the Center for Media & Democracy, this novel advertisement is the work of “The Center for Union Facts.”  

“[It] is a secretive front group for individuals and industries opposed to union activities.  It is part of lobbyist Rick Berman’s family of front groups including the Employment Policies Institute.

The domain name www.unionfacts.com was registered to Berman & Co. in May 2005.

In May 2006, the Center for Union Facts launched its first TV ad campaign.  The 30-second spot, running on Fox News and local markets, has “actors posing as workers” saying “sarcastically what they ‘love’ about unions,” like paying dues, union leaders’ “fat-cat lifestyles,” and discrimination against minorities.  The ad campaign cost $3 million, which was raised “from companies, foundations and individuals that Mr. Berman won’t identify.” [1]

Another TV ad will be filmed in June.  Labor and economics professor Harley Shaiken said the effort “to create an antiunion atmosphere” more generally, as opposed to business-funded ads against a particular union organizing drive or strike, “is a new wrinkle.”  An AFL-CIO spokesperson called the ad’s accusations “unfounded and outrageous.”

Mr. Richard B. (Rick) Berman is a former labor lawyer and restaurant industry executive.  For years, Berman was a lobbyist for the food, alcoholic beverage, and tobacco industries.  At present, he heads several advocacy groups, including the Center for Consumer Freedom and the Employment Policies Institute.  Mr. Berman serves as the General Counsel for the American Beverage Institute.  Through his “fronts,” Mr. Berman has constructed many similar advocacy-ad campaigns.  

Rick Berman has been known to work against organizations critical of animal-rights.  He actively opposed the American With Disability Act.  Berman fought with Greenpeace.  

Mr. Berman promoted the use of a dangerous pesticide on apples.  The benevolent Berman wrote of how consumption caused no real harm.  At the time, Mr. Berman was working with or for Uniroyal, the maker of this chemical.  Later, the Environmental Protection Agency banned this insect repellent due to the high risk of cancer.

In 1993, benefactor Berman made a $25,000 contribution to Kennesaw State College.  The esteemed Newt Gingrich teaches at this University.  The gift came with a stipulation.  In exchange for the donation, Gingrich was required to impart ideas supported by the Employment Policies Institute.  The class was titled “Renewing American Civilization.”  Surely, these contrived concepts would create a Renaissance in America.

However, there were conflicts, questions were raised.  The issue was brought it to the attention of the House Ethics Committee.  After an investigation it was determined Berman’s “bequest” was solicited by GOPAC, “a new national organization dedicated exclusively to electing Republicans to state and local offices.”  The Ethic board discerned Berman recruited many large contributions for this organization.  Ethics, for Rick Berman are malleable.

All these incidents aside for Berman the beat goes on.  Berman and Company subsidizes several “advocacy groups.”  These associations seemingly present “factual and objective” information while serving their own interests.  These coalitions are typically well funded; their backers have the means to effectively manipulate a message.  Millions are poured into their productions.

The Wall Street Journal wrote of the anti-union ads in a recent article, Anti-Union Group Takes Message to the Airwaves.  In this essay they explain,

To fund the antiunion campaign, including the newspaper ads and one radio spot, Union Facts raised $3 million from companies, foundations and individuals that Mr. Berman won’t identify.  The group says it paid $150,000 to run the commercial for roughly a week on Fox News and various local stations earlier this month and will run it again through the summer.  The group plans to start filming another TV ad by early June.

Labor and Economics Professor at the University of California at Berkeley, Harley Shaiken, spoke to the subject as well.  He said “To create an antiunion atmosphere more generally, that is a new wrinkle.”  The Professor thinks the crusade is, in part, a response to the growing number of union sponsored television trailers.  

In recent years, unions have worked to gain public support for issues of concern.  When a particular union felt a candidate or a campaign might threaten wages or job security, they were there.

In the past, an advocacy group might go after a particular union; since Berman, unions as a whole are the enemy.  Berman and his benefactors want you to know, Unions are not good, at least they are not good for Berman and his bunch.

Given the power, employers will exploit their resources and employees.  Any entity that opposes them is their enemy.  These commercials illustrate that.  Other exemplars are numerous. Consider Wal-Mart, a non-union employer.  Only those in management receive a living wage.  Employees at this superstore cannot afford to shop, even at Wal-Mart.  If these archetypes are insufficient, observe your own experiences.  Do your employers care more for the people they employ or their profits?

With wages low and premiums high, few Wal-Mart workers can afford adequate, if any health care.  Medicare is often the provider for this corporation’s employees.  Less than half of the laborers at Wal-Mart are able to participate in the employers health plan.  

While the national average of workers covered by employer health insurance is 67 percent; only about 47 percent of Wal-Mart’s employees are covered by the company’s health care plan.

Wal-Mart workers want you to know their stories; they share them publicly at Wake-Up Wal-Mart.com.  The laborers acknowledge that the prices seem too good to be true; they want us all to know why.  

If this archetype is insufficient, observe your own experiences.  Do your employers care more for the people they employ or their profits?

With unions, wages will be reasonable.  The hours you are required to work will honor your health.  Ergonomics will be considered in your work place.  Safety will be more than a suggestion.  Benefits will be there when you need them.  What could be better?  A few more dollars in your paycheck might be nice; however, will that dough do the job when you are really in trouble.

A United Force of Resources to Work For You . . .

Betsy L. Angert Be-Think

0 0 votes
Article Rating