The double standard at work: European Corporate investment and workers’ rights in the American South
- Cet article est une traduction de :
- Deux poids, deux mesures : Les investissements des entreprises européennes et les droits des travailleurs dans le Sud des États-Unis [fr]
Résumés
Au cours du dernier quart de siècle, les sociétés multinationales basées en Europe ont intensifié leurs investissements directs étrangers dans les États du sud des États-Unis. Dans leurs pays d’origine, ces entreprises européennes qui investissent dans le sud américain respectent généralement les normes internationales en matière de liberté d’association et de négociation collective. Pourtant, dans leurs opérations du sud des États-Unis, certaines entreprises lancent des campagnes antisyndicales agressives et s’opposent à la négociation collective lorsque les travailleurs forment des syndicats. Il s’agit d’un échec de la diligence raisonnable dont les entreprises devraient répondre.
Entrées d’index
Mots-clés :
droit international du travail, normes OIT, droits des salariés aux États-Unis, entreprises européennes aux États-UnisKeywords:
international labor law, ILO standards, employee rights in the United States, European companies in the United StatesPlan
Haut de pageNotes de la rédaction
This article is based on a 100-page report published by the AFL-CIO and the European Trade Union Institute. The full report is available at: https://www.etui.org/about-etui/news/the-double-standard-at-work-european-corporate-investment-and-workers-rights-in-the-american-south
Texte intégral
1The American South, as defined in this study, refers to the slaveholding states of the « Old South » that launched the Civil War when the federal government prohibited the extension of slavery to new states. These were Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, Alabama, Virginia, North and South Carolina, and finally Florida.
I - Historical, cultural and social background
A - European Direct Investment in the American South
2Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina and other states that formed the slave-holding Confederacy in the Civil War - have become targets for large -scale foreign direct investment by European firms in many economic sectors. Natural economic factors such as available land, seaports, access to raw materials, lower-cost energy, transportation networks and nearness to markets often drive such investment decisions. But in many instances, negative features of Southern states’ economic, social and cultural landscapes also affect firms’ choice of investment locations.
3They include:
-
A harsh anti-trade union culture promoted by economic and political elites, with special emphasis on union-weakening « right-to-work » laws;
-
A strict « at-will » common law employment regime, making it easy to fire workers for any reason so that employees remain in a state of constant fear about their job security;
-
The country’s lowest minimum wages, unemployment insurance and workers’ compensation benefits for work-related injury or illness;
-
Low standards and weak enforcement of environmental standards, land use rules, waste disposal requirements, workplace health and safety and other regulations, resulting in greater threats to the environment, public health and worker safety.
B - Southern States’ Inducements to European Investors
4Powerful government, business and media figures in Southern states should try to address these problems. Instead, they boast about them as reasons why European companies should invest there. Here are some statements by Southern state governors in recent years:
- 1 « TN touts “low-cost labor force” to lure foreign business », Associated Press, 2/09/2015: www.Tenn (...)
« Tennessee is proud to be a right-to-work state with a low-cost labor force. We have very low unionization rates - factors which continue to make our state attractive for foreign direct investment »1.
- 3 R. Bell, « South Carolina: Union jobs aren’t welcome here », Greenville (South Carolina) News, 20 F (...)
« We discourage any companies that have unions from wanting to come to South Carolina because we don’t want to taint the water. We’re kicking unions every day, and we’ll continue to kick them »3.
- 4 P. Wolf, « Mississippi Puts Three More Nails in the Union Coffin », Wolters Kluwer, 22 April 2014: (...)
« Mississippi has some of the lowest union participation in the country... I believe that Mississippi’s right-to-work status is a competitive benefit for the state, and I intend to keep it that way »4.
C - Southern States and Trade Union Representation
- 5 « Union Members – 2020 », U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 22 January 202: https://www.bls.gov/news (...)
5Hostility to trade unions and collective bargaining in Southern states is deeply rooted. U.S. Southern states are clustered at the bottom of all states for levels of trade union representation. Eleven Southern states are in the lowest 20; six of them are in the bottom eight states. Average union representation in the South is 6%. In the North and West, it is 17%, with New York state highest at 24% of its workers represented by unions5.
Northern and Western States |
Union Density |
Southern States |
Union Density |
Californie |
18% |
Alabama |
9% |
Connecticut |
18 % |
Arkansas |
6 % |
Illinois |
15 % |
Floride |
8 % |
Massachusetts |
13 % |
Géorgie |
7 % |
Michigan |
17 % |
Mississippi |
8 % |
Minnesota |
17 % |
Caroline du Nord |
4 % |
New Jersey |
18 % |
Caroline du Sud |
4 % |
New York |
24 % |
Tennessee |
5 % |
Pennsylvanie |
15 % |
Texas |
6 % |
Washington |
19 % |
Virginie |
5 % |
Average: |
17,4 % |
Average: |
6,2 % |
Union density in selected states (percentage of workers represented by trade unions)
D - Southern States and Social Standards
6Southern states are almost uniformly in the bottom half among all states - and more often in the bottom one-third - of social indicators for living standards, health, education, workplace safety and other measures of well-being in the states of the United States:
-
- 6 « Population Below Poverty Level by U.S. State »: http://factsmaps.com/population-below-poverty-lev (...)
Ten Southern states are in the bottom 20 states for the percentage of population living in poverty, and seven of the Southern states are in the bottom 106.
-
- 7 « Household Income 2016 », U.S. Census Bureau, September 2017: www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/li (...)
In the same way, ten Southern states are in the bottom 20 states for median household income, and seven are among the lowest 10 states in all7.
-
- 8 « America’s Health Rankings Annual Report: 2017 Edition », United Health Foundation: https://assets (...)
Ten Southern states are among the 20 « least healthy » states in the United States, using such measures as smoking, obesity, physical inactivity, low birth weight, drug deaths and other indicators; eight Southern states are in the bottom 108.
-
- 9 « Death on the Job: the Toll of Neglect », AFL-CIO Report, 26 April 2018: https://aflcio.org/report (...)
Every Southern state except Florida and Georgia is in the bottom half of the United States for rate of workplace deaths. The average rate of workplace fatalities in Southern states is 4.7 deaths per 100,000 workers. The average rate of workplace fatalities in the high-union states is 2.8 deaths per 100,000 workers9.
-
Southern states have the lowest minimum wages, unemployment insurance, and compensation for workplace injuries and illnesses.
E - The « New South » and Labor Rights
7European companies investing in American Southern states should know the historical trajectory of the still-tenacious Southern culture of anti-unionism, low wages, and racial divisions that keep Southern states in the bottom ranks of social indicators.
- 10 J. C. Cobb, The Selling of the South, University of Illinois Press, 2nd ed., 1993.
8Writing about Southern states’ efforts to attract business in the 1950s, historian James C. Cobb recounts anti-union propaganda saying that if « they [unions] come in you will share the same restroom with Negroes and work side by side with them. It comes right out of Russia and is pure communism, nothing else »10.
- 11 G. Friedman, « The Political Economy of Early Southern Unionism: Race, Politics, and Labor in the S (...)
9A leading American economic historian traced the trajectory of Southern anti-unionism and its relationship to state and local politics in the South in the first half of the 20th century - a trajectory that has continued into today: « The South avoided forms of working-class collective action and political competition that were common in other industrialized places [...] Instead of the vigorous party competition found in other democracies, the South was long dominated by a lily-white Democratic Party [...] Elsewhere, strong labor unions connected workers’ aspirations for higher wages with broader campaigns for social reform [...] There were periods of extraordinary union growth and strength in the northern states. But northern unions were undermined by union weakness in the American South. Nowhere else in the United States did state officials work so closely with employers against labor »11.
F - The Democratic-Republican Party Transmutation
10Foreign readers should understand the historic role reversal that has taken place between the Democratic and Republican parties in the South. For more than a century after the Civil War, which had been prosecuted by Abraham Lincoln and the Republican party, the Democratic party was the racist party that dominated political and economic systems in the South.
- 12 The term « liberal » in the American political context means what Europeans would call « social dem (...)
11But in the 1980s, during the conservative, anti-union presidency of Ronald Reagan, the Southern power structure « flipped » to the Republican party. By then, the national Democratic party had moved more strongly toward policies favorable to workers and unions12. Most Southern states now are considered solidly « Red » (in American political terminology, this means conservative, pro-business and Republican), as opposed to more progressive, pro-labor Democratic party « Blue » states.
G - Challenge for European Firms
12This is the history and political context in which European multinational companies place their investments when they locate operations in the American South. Their challenge is: will they be part of the problem, adopting Southern-style anti-labor ideology and union-busting practices that go hand in hand with low regional economic and social standards? Or will they be part of the solution, applying home country standards of respect for workers’ rights to freedom of association, trade union organizing and collective bargaining, and thereby contributing to genuine social progress and enduring social justice in the American South?
H - The « Right-to-Work » Fraud
13Political, media and business leaders repeatedly trumpet « right-to-work » laws in every Southern state as a reason for European companies to invest there. The phrase is simply a marketing slogan cleverly adopted by anti-union forces in the 1940s. The phrase does not appear in any legislation, and it has nothing to do with rights or work. « Right-to-work » laws prohibit employers and unions from agreeing to « fair share » dues payment by nonunion members so that the cost of representation is borne equally by all represented workers. The union has a legal obligation to represent nonmembers as well as members in the bargaining unit covered by the collective agreement.
- 13 « The Problem of Compulsory Unionism? », National Right-to-work Committee: www.nrtwc.org/about-2/th (...)
14« Right-to-work » proponents talk of « individual liberty » and « no forced tribute to union bosses ». But behind the rhetoric, the real goal is to divide workers and deprive unions of resources so they are less able to defend workers’ interests. The National Right-to-Work Committee, an employer-sponsored organization devoted to undermining trade unionism in the United States, calls union representation: « Monopoly bargaining [...] a special coercive privilege given to unions by federal law [...] every worker loses his or her right to negotiate directly with the employer on his or her own behalf [...] trampling of individual rights [...] coercion to herd workers into collectives against their will [...] enthrones union-boss control over workers »13.
II - Case studies of European companies in the American South
15European companies in the United States often launch aggressive campaigns of fear and intimidation to break workers’ organizing efforts. When they adopt U.S. management-style strategies and tactics, European companies violate international standards on workers’ freedom of association and collective bargaining - the same standards that European companies celebrate in their public pronouncements on corporate responsibility.
- 14 For an analysis of the anti-union consulting industry in the United States, see J. Logan, « The Uni (...)
16The full report on which this article is based gives detailed cases studies of anti-union conduct by major European firms including Airbus, Volkswagen, Nestlé, IKEA, Fresenius and more. All these companies held « captive audience » meetings, mandating workers’ attendance, filled with speeches and videos containing implicit threats that workers will lose their jobs or that the workplace will close if they choose union representation. The speeches and videos are prepared by consultants specializing in breaking unions - a multibillion-dollar industry in the United States14.
17Such anti-union campaigns are not required under U.S. law. Nothing prevents European companies from remaining neutral and letting workers decide for themselves whether to join a union and bargain collectively, without a harsh anti-union campaign of fear and intimidation. European companies can consistently apply international standards in their American facilities - the same standards they apply at home.
18Here are examples of management interference in workers’ organizing efforts.
A - Airbus in Alabama
- 15 C. Sims, « Alabama plant unionizes in spite of Bentley’s warnings that it could kill jobs », Yellow (...)
- 16 S. Higgins, «Alabama governor on how they snagged Airbus: We’re a right-to-work state », Washington (...)
- 17 B. Appelbaum and C. Payne, « A Look Inside Airbus’s Epic Assembly Line », The New York Times Magazi (...)
19In July 2012, the European aerospace giant Airbus Corp. announced a new aircraft manufacturing factory in Mobile, Alabama. Alabama attracted Airbus to Mobile by offering $158 million of public money to make the move. The governor said: « I think being a right-to-work state is the reason many international companies look at Alabama and the other right-to-work states »15. Airbus Americas Chairman Allan McArtor echoed this view: « I don’t think there is any question that right-to-work states have an advantage on recruiting out-of-country employers [...]. I don’t think there is any secret of the fact that it is an advantage »16. An in-depth analysis made clear the key factors in Airbus’ Alabama choice: « It helps that in Alabama, labor is cheap. It is expensive to ship parts from Hamburg, but because the Mobile workers are not unionized, Airbus can hire fewer of them and pay them lower wages »17.
20Airbus management instituted a program of captive-audience meetings obligating employees to attend and listen to anti-union speeches and watch anti-union videos full of implicit threats to close the factory if workers formed a union. One statement is particular stands out: « If the union pulls you out on strike for higher wages and benefits, we can permanently replace you. The law lets us do that ». The ILO’s Committee on Freedom of Association has found that the permanent striker replacement feature of American labor law violates Convention 87 on freedom of association, one of the ILO core conventions.
B - Fresenius in Alabama
- 18 Fresenius Annual General Meeting media packet, 19 May 2019: www.fresenius.com/media/FSE_AGM_2019_Pr (...)
- 19 Findings by RWDSU research department on kidney dialysis service locations in the United States.
21Fresenius is the world’s largest provider of products and services for people with kidney failure and other chronic diseases. Almost two-thirds of the company’s kidney dialysis treatment clinics and more than half its employees - nearly 60,000 - are in the United States18. The American South is the center of Fresenius operations: 40% of all Fresenius locations are in 10 Southern states - far out of proportion among the 50 states19. In Alabama, the company has 95 dialysis clinics, more than half of all the service facilities in the state.
22Workers in Alabama clinics reached out to the RWDSU union for help in early 2017. Fresenius management forced workers into captive-audience meetings filled with anti-union speeches and videos attacking the union and suggesting that the clinic would close and workers would lose their jobs if the union won the election. Anti-union consultants trained supervisors to hold one-on-one meetings with employees to convey the same prediction of dire consequences.
- 20 NLRB, Bio-Medical Applications of Alabama/Fresenius Kidney Care and RWDSU Local 932, Order Denying (...)
23In spite of management’s tactics, workers at two Mobile-area clinics voted in favor of union representation in August 2017. However, worker in several other locations abandoned or lost their elections under management pressure. Fresenius management resisted bargaining where workers voted in favor of the union, with fruitless legal appeals that ultimately were rejected20. Finally, two years after the organizing effort began, Fresenius and the union reached a collective bargaining agreement.
C - IKEA in Florida
- 21 J. Logan, « The Socially Responsible Corporation? IKEA’s Labor and Union Avoidance Practices », 201 (...)
24In 2007, Netherlands-based IKEA opened its first Florida store in Sunrise, near the large Fort Lauderdale metropolitan area. When workers at IKEA’s Florida store began organizing in early 2016, IKEA management responded with an aggressive, fear-inducing, anti-union campaign of interference with their organizing rights. These included spying on workers’ union activities, telling workers that management would undertake a « witch hunt » against union supporters, and turning « team meetings » into anti-union forums with implicit threats of negative consequences if workers pursued an organizing effort21. As a result of IKEA management’s aggressive anti-union campaign, the organizing move faltered, and employees at the Florida store remain unrepresented.
D - Nestlé in Georgia
- 22 « Addressing human rights impacts »: www.nestle.com/csv/impact/respecting-human-rights/human-rights (...)
25Nestlé identifies freedom of association and collective bargaining as a focus of its human rights initiatives22. But in the United States, Nestlé’s commitment to workers’ rights falters. When 100 workers at the company’s distribution center in McDonough, Georgia, tried to form a union, Nestlé management responded with a massive campaign to suppress it. The company brought in teams of Human Resources managers from around the United States to break workers’ organizing will. They conducted a series of anti-union meetings and one-on-one meetings with individual employees filled with implicit threats to close if workers voted in favor of union representation.
- 23 NLRB Region 10, Nestlé USA Distribution Center and RWDSU Southeast Council, Case no.10-RDC-194739, (...)
26In spite of Nestlé management’s anti-union offensive, workers voted 49–46 in favor of union representation in an NLRB election in April 2017. Nestlé first filed objections to the election alleging union misconduct. The NLRB dismissed the objections, saying « the Employer has failed to establish that its objections to the election [...] tended to interfere with employee free choice » and « the employer’s objections should be overruled in their entirety »23. Nestlé workers and their union finally began bargaining with management in June 2017 and reached agreement on a contract in 2019.
E - Schnellecke in Alabama
27Schnellecke Logistics is a German-based auto parts with two facilities in Alabama and another in Tennessee, each with hundreds of employees. In its Sustainability Report, Schnellecke says: « In Germany, 94% of the company’s 6,700 employees are represented by trade unions. In the rest of Europe, unions represent 57% of workers in Spain, 58% in Portugal and 83% in the Czech Republic. More than 80% of Schnellecke’s 6,700 workers in Mexico are union-represented, and 88% in South Africa ».
28In the United States, the number and the percentage of union-represented employees is zero.
29When workers at the Vance facility tried to form a union in 2017, Schnellecke betrayed its commitments with a fierce attack on their organizing efforts, which included:
-
Threatening employees that management would to fire a union supporter because of his union activities;
-
Interrogating employees about their union activities and sympathies, and the union activities and sympathies of other employees;
-
Threatening employees with discharge if they talked about the union;
-
Telling employees not to attend union meetings because top management knew which employees attended union meetings;
-
Telling employees that management had the names of employees who engaged in union activities;
-
- 24 NLRB Order, Case Nos. 10-CA-199183, 10-CA-199732 and 10-CA-201235 (Oct. 25, 2017).
Discharging two union supporters because of their union activities24.
30The destructive effects of management’s threats, intimidation and firings of union activists took hold among the rest of the workers, and they abandoned their organizing efforts.
F - Skanska in Tennessee
- 25 Skanska-BWI Global Framework Agreement: http://bwiconnect.bwint.org/default.asp?index=43& Language= (...)
31In 2001, Skanska and the Building and Woodworkers International union federation (BWI) reached a Global Framework Agreement. The agreement says: « Employee rights to form or join trade unions shall be recognized in accordance with each respective country’s laws and principles. Trade union representatives of the employees may not be discriminated against and shall be provided access to work sites as required to fulfill duly and legally assigned obligations to their members. The employer and its representatives shall respect the trade union’s activities »25.
32In U.S. states with high levels of trade union representation, Skanska generally lives up to these commitments. But in the American South, Skanska has accepted the region’s anti-union ideology and culture and engaged nonunion subcontractors in a system that perpetuates economic and racial disparities and exploitation of immigrant workers.
33At the site of a large-scale hotel construction project in Nashville, Tennessee, Skanska engaged a nonunion contractor named MR Drywall Services to drywall hotel interiors. That contractor in turn engaged a nonunion drywall labor supply company, First Class Interiors of Naples, Florida (FCI), to provide workers to complete the work. Most of the workers were Latino immigrants who do not speak English. Without union representation, they were unaware of wage and overtime pay requirements.
34Those drywallers employed by FCI took spontaneous action when, according to workers, the contractors failed to pay them for overtime work and for the final weeks of their regular working time. Their claims included:
-
Improperly classifying the workers as independent contractors, thus depriving them of Social Security coverage, workers’ compensation coverage, unemployment insurance coverage and other benefits related to proper classification as employees;
-
Failure to pay the legally required 150% of regular pay for overtime work beyond 40 hours per week;
-
Improperly deducting payments from workers’ wages for required equipment;
-
Failing to pay workers for their last two weeks on labor on the project; and
-
Wrongfully dismissing workers who protested their treatment.
- 26 Alvarado Martinez et. al. v. First Class Interiors et. al., U.S. District Court, Nashville Division (...)
35Dozens of workers protested at the Skanska building headquarters in May 2018 demanding their unpaid wages. Skanska managers sent them away with no satisfaction. The workers filed lawsuits in federal and state courts against Skanska, MR Drywall, First Class Interiors and the J.W. Marriott project. Workers sought $1.6 million in back pay related to those companies’ treatment of their wages, hours and working conditions26.
- 27 Agreed Order, Chancery Court for the State of Tennessee, Martinez et. al. v. Skanska USA Building e (...)
36The state court case was settled in March 2019. Skanska agreed to pay $181,514 « for the benefit of approximately 96 employees of First Class Interiors of Naples, LLC and who were not paid for work performed as described in the complaint »27.
G - Thyssenkrupp and Outokumpu in Alabama
- 28 Outokumpu, Sustainability: Our People, at: www.outokumpu.com/sustainability/people-and-society/our- (...)
37In 2012, Outokumpu Oyj Corp. bought the stainless steel factory in Calvert, Alabama, constructed by the German-based multinational firm Thyssenkrupp Steel in 2009. Outokumpu is based in Helsinki, Finland. On its website, the company says: « All employees of the Group’s operations are free to join trade unions in accordance with local rules and regulations. More than 80% of our permanent employees are covered by collective agreements »28.
38Outokumpu inherited the benefits of a huge incentive package given to Thyssenkrupp of $1.073 billion, the largest in Alabama history. But Outokumpu inherited more than tax breaks from Thyssenkrupp. It inherited, and then perpetuated, violations of workers’ trade union rights that U.S. labor law authorities found unlawful.
39When Thyssenkrupp workers began an organizing effort with the United Steelworkers union in 2010-2011, management responded with an aggressive campaign to break it. Management held frequent captive-audience meetings with anti-union speeches and videos.
40The National Labor Relations Board found that management:
-
Threatened workers that they would lose everything and that collective bargaining would start from zero if they voted for union representation;
-
Spied on workers’ union activity;
-
Prohibited employees from talking about the union at work; and
- 30 Ibid.
41The NLRB ordered management was to post in the workplace a notice written by the NLRB acknowledging its unlawful conduct and promising not to repeat it30.
42In 2019, more than six years later - the last five under Outokumpu - company management still had not obeyed this order. Outokumpu had an opportunity to rectify Thyssenkrupp’s anti-union conduct when it took full control of the Calvert plant at the end of 2012. It failed to take any action. Instead, the company intensified its defiance of the NLRB’s order. Rather than applying its promised policies respectful of workers’ freedom of association, Outokumpu bent itself to Alabama’s anti-union ideology in violation of its own stated principles.
H - Volkswagen in Tennessee
- 31 M. Pare and D. Flessner, « The Costs of Jobs: The VW impact - Jobs versus $800 million in incentive (...)
43In 2008 the state of Tennessee gave Volkswagen the largest single subsidy ever recorded by that time - more than a half-billion dollars - to set up an auto assembly factory in the city of Chattanooga31. After it opened in 2011, workers at the plant began an organizing effort with the UAW. Workers in every Volkswagen plant in the world are represented by trade unions and bargain collectively with the company- except in Tennessee.
- 32 See letter from Sen. Lamar Alexander and Sen. Bob Corker to Dr. Martin Winterkorn, 19 September, 20 (...)
44After the UAW organizing drive began, Tennessee’s two senators wrote a letter in September 2103 to the then-CEO of Volkswagen, Martin Winterkorn, saying « We are very concerned the UAW’s presence in your plant would greatly damage the momentum that Tennessee has developed in attracting great businesses to our state [...]. We hope that you will clarify your position with your employees and with the Chattanooga community. This is a critical issue for our state »32.
45Pressure by the Tennessee political and business elite had its intended effect: employees voted « no union » 712-626 in February 2014.
- 33 T. Evanoff, « UAW making new push at VW Chattanooga », Memphis Commercial Appeal, 9 April 2019: www(...)
- 34 M. Pare, « Blackburn says union effort at Volkswagen Chattanooga harms workers », Chattanooga Times (...)
- 35 M. Pare, « Hamilton County legislators say UAW jeopardizes Volkswagen Chattanooga’s future growth » (...)
46In the spring of 2019, the UAW filed for another election33. Volkswagen management again took advantage of Tennessee’s anti-union political culture and power structure to interfere with workers’ organizing. A new senator, Marsha Blackburn, said: « Tennessee has prospered because it is a right-to-work state with no income tax [...]. We don’t need union bosses in Detroit telling Tennessee what’s best for our workers »34. Other elected officials repeated the same threats made before the 2014 election to withhold future economic incentives if workers voted for UAW representation35.
47In the most dramatic move, VW invited Tennessee’s new governor Bill Lee into the factory to deliver a speech on April 29, 2019, to employees assembled in a captive-audience meeting. The company shut down production for the speech and denied journalists access to the meeting.
- 36 L. P. Vellequette, « Tenn. Governor urges VW workers to choose “direct relationship” as UAW vote lo (...)
48The governor’s office refused to issue a text of the speech, but workers recounted Lee describing employment relations in the nonunion company he managed before taking office. He said, « I believe that when I have a direct relationship with you, the worker, and you’re working for me, that is when the environment works the best »36. « Direct relationship » means without union representation and collective bargaining.
- 37 N. Scheiber, « Volkswagen Factory Workers in Tennessee Reject Union », The New York Times, 14 June (...)
49The onslaught of anti-union interference by the Tennessee state power structure and VW management’s open, aggressive campaign against workers’ organizing had the desired effect. In the election concluded June 14, 2019, the vote was 833-776 against UAW representation37.
Conclusion
50Nothing in American labor law or practice forces European companies to adopt practices described in this article. European companies are fully capable of acting in compliance with international human rights standards on workers’ freedom of association - standards that companies studied in this article have publicly promised to uphold - in their American labor relations practices, rather than descending to behavior and practices typical in the U.S. Southern states that violate international norms.
51European companies in the American South should:
-
Agree to binding mechanisms that ensure neutrality for workers that organize and that stop anti-union campaigns.
-
Apply due diligence in U.S. labor practices under international human rights law, OECD Guidelines, EU norms and other instruments.
-
Where workers choose unions, partner with them to raise standards in the U.S. South.
52State governments in the South should:
-
Stop selling anti-union ideology and culture.
-
Stop excessive tax giveaways.
-
Build strong labor institutions that support economic growth and develop policies that reduce inequality.
53European Governments and the European Commission should:
-
Adopt national and EU legislation requiring that European firms operating in the United States conform their behavior to ILO core labor standards.
-
Develop systematic means of scrutinizing freedom of association policies and practices of EU-based firms operating in the United States by means of independent reviews, reports and public hearings
-
Develop, promote and adopt a new EU directive on corporate due diligence regarding workers’ right to freedom of association.
54U.S. and European Trade Unions and Global Union Federations should:
-
Promote solidarity among European workers and workers in the American South.
-
Collaborate to stop the export of U.S. Southern States’ anti-union ideology and culture to Europe.
-
Unite to prevent a race to the-bottom in European-U.S. trade negotiations.
Notes
1 « TN touts “low-cost labor force” to lure foreign business », Associated Press, 2/09/2015: www.Tennessean.com/story/news/2015/09/02/tn-touts-low-cost-labor-force-lure-foreign-business/71617998/
2 C. Sims, « Alabama plant unionizes in spite of Bentley’s warnings that it could kill jobs », Yellowhammer, Alabama state business newsletter, 19 November 2015.
3 R. Bell, « South Carolina: Union jobs aren’t welcome here », Greenville (South Carolina) News, 20 February 2014: www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2014/02/20/no-south-carolina-union-jobs/5642031/
4 P. Wolf, « Mississippi Puts Three More Nails in the Union Coffin », Wolters Kluwer, 22 April 2014: www.employmentlawdaily.com/index.php/2014/04/22/mississippi-puts-three-more-nails%20-in-the-union%20coffin/
5 « Union Members – 2020 », U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 22 January 202: https://www.bls.gov/news. release/pdf/union2.pdf
6 « Population Below Poverty Level by U.S. State »: http://factsmaps.com/population-below-poverty-level-line-rate-united-states/
7 « Household Income 2016 », U.S. Census Bureau, September 2017: www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2017/acs/acsbr16-02.pdf
8 « America’s Health Rankings Annual Report: 2017 Edition », United Health Foundation: https://assets.Americashealthrankings.org/app/uploads/ahrannual17_complete-121817.pdf
9 « Death on the Job: the Toll of Neglect », AFL-CIO Report, 26 April 2018: https://aflcio.org/reports/ death-job-toll-neglect-2018
10 J. C. Cobb, The Selling of the South, University of Illinois Press, 2nd ed., 1993.
11 G. Friedman, « The Political Economy of Early Southern Unionism: Race, Politics, and Labor in the South, 1880-1953 », The Journal of Economic History, vol. 60, no. 2, June 2000, p. 384.
12 The term « liberal » in the American political context means what Europeans would call « social democratic », distinct from the more common use of « liberal » in Europe meaning free markets, reduced state regulation and other elements of what in the United States would be « conservative » policies.
13 « The Problem of Compulsory Unionism? », National Right-to-work Committee: www.nrtwc.org/about-2/the-problem/
14 For an analysis of the anti-union consulting industry in the United States, see J. Logan, « The Union Avoidance Industry in the United States », British Journal of Industrial Relations, no. 44-4, 2006, p. 651: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.334.8885&rep=rep1&type=pdf
15 C. Sims, « Alabama plant unionizes in spite of Bentley’s warnings that it could kill jobs », Yellowhammer Alabama state business newsletter, 19 November 2015.
16 S. Higgins, «Alabama governor on how they snagged Airbus: We’re a right-to-work state », Washington Examiner Magazine, 2 July 2012: www.washingtonexaminer.com/alabama-governor-on-how-they-snagged-airbus-were-a-right-to-work-state. See also CEO Wire, « Airbus America », Chairman Interview, CNBC-Dow Jones Business, 2 July 2012.
17 B. Appelbaum and C. Payne, « A Look Inside Airbus’s Epic Assembly Line », The New York Times Magazine, 3 May 2017: www.nytimes.com/2017/05/03/magazine/a-look-inside-airbuss-epic-assembly-line.html
18 Fresenius Annual General Meeting media packet, 19 May 2019: www.fresenius.com/media/FSE_AGM_2019_Presentation.pdf
19 Findings by RWDSU research department on kidney dialysis service locations in the United States.
20 NLRB, Bio-Medical Applications of Alabama/Fresenius Kidney Care and RWDSU Local 932, Order Denying Employer’s Request for Review, October 1, 2018.
21 J. Logan, « The Socially Responsible Corporation? IKEA’s Labor and Union Avoidance Practices », 2018.
22 « Addressing human rights impacts »: www.nestle.com/csv/impact/respecting-human-rights/human-rights-impacts
23 NLRB Region 10, Nestlé USA Distribution Center and RWDSU Southeast Council, Case no.10-RDC-194739, 24 May 2017.
24 NLRB Order, Case Nos. 10-CA-199183, 10-CA-199732 and 10-CA-201235 (Oct. 25, 2017).
25 Skanska-BWI Global Framework Agreement: http://bwiconnect.bwint.org/default.asp?index=43& Language=EN
26 Alvarado Martinez et. al. v. First Class Interiors et. al., U.S. District Court, Nashville Division, Case no. 3:2018cv00583 (25 June 2018), Martinez et. al. v. Skanska USA Building et. al., Chancery Court, Davidson County, Tennessee, Case no. 18-1268-IV, 20 November 2018.
27 Agreed Order, Chancery Court for the State of Tennessee, Martinez et. al. v. Skanska USA Building et. al. (March 4, 2019).
28 Outokumpu, Sustainability: Our People, at: www.outokumpu.com/sustainability/people-and-society/our-people
29 Decision of NLRB Administrative Law Judge J. D. Wedekind, Outokumpo Stainless USA/ Thyssenkrupp Stainless USA and United Steel Workers, 29 February 2016.
30 Ibid.
31 M. Pare and D. Flessner, « The Costs of Jobs: The VW impact - Jobs versus $800 million in incentives weighed », Chattanooga Times Free Press, 18 September 2017: www.timesfreepress.com/news/local/story/2017/sep/18/costs-jobs-vw-impact/449258/
32 See letter from Sen. Lamar Alexander and Sen. Bob Corker to Dr. Martin Winterkorn, 19 September, 2013.
33 T. Evanoff, « UAW making new push at VW Chattanooga », Memphis Commercial Appeal, 9 April 2019: www.commercialappeal.com/story/money/cars/2019/04/09/uaw-union-vote-vw-chattanooga-car-plant-scheduled-april/3414038002/
34 M. Pare, « Blackburn says union effort at Volkswagen Chattanooga harms workers », Chattanooga Times Free Press, 18 April 2019: www.timesfreepress.com/news/business/aroundregion/story/2019/apr/18/%20blackburn-union-volkswagen/492954/
35 M. Pare, « Hamilton County legislators say UAW jeopardizes Volkswagen Chattanooga’s future growth », Chattanooga Times Free Press, 7 June 2019: www.timesfreepress.com/news/business/aroundregion/story/2019/jun/07/legislators-uaw-volkswagen/496253/
36 L. P. Vellequette, « Tenn. Governor urges VW workers to choose “direct relationship” as UAW vote looms », Automotive News, 30 April 2019 (www.autonews.com/manufacturing/tenn-governor-urges-vw-workers-choose-direct-relationship-uaw-vote-looms); T. Evanoff, « Ahead of UAW vote, Gov. Bill Lee tours non-union workplace in speech at Volkswagen plant », Memphis Commercial Appeal, 1 May 2019 (www.commercialappeal.com/story/money/cars/2019/05/01/tennessee-governor-bill-lee-touts-non-union-vw-chattanooga-prior-uaw-vote/3638585002/).
37 N. Scheiber, « Volkswagen Factory Workers in Tennessee Reject Union », The New York Times, 14 June 2019: www.nytimes.com/2019/06/14/business/economy/volkswagen-chattanooga-uaw-union.html
Haut de pagePour citer cet article
Référence papier
Lance Compa, « The double standard at work: European Corporate investment and workers’ rights in the American South », Revue de droit comparé du travail et de la sécurité sociale, 4 | 2021, 50-63.
Référence électronique
Lance Compa, « The double standard at work: European Corporate investment and workers’ rights in the American South », Revue de droit comparé du travail et de la sécurité sociale [En ligne], 4 | 2021, mis en ligne le 31 décembre 2022, consulté le 17 juin 2025. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/rdctss/2658 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/rdctss.2658
Haut de pageDroits d’auteur
Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.
Haut de page