comsc US Politics | AMERICAblog News: Unions demand worker rights policy
Join Email List | About us | AMERICAblog Gay
Elections | Economic Crisis | Jobs | TSA | Limbaugh | Fun Stuff

Unions demand worker rights policy

| Reddit | Tumblr | Digg | FARK

Yesterday Ryan Grim broke a story in HuffPost Hill that a number of labor unions, including "AFT, the AFL-CIO, AFSCME, CWA, IBEW and the Steelworkers," had written a letter to, asking the company to have a clear policy about not working with organizations who advocated union busting. This followed a pressure campaign lead by the American Federation of Teachers to have stop working with the union-busting organizations Students First and Stand for Children.

I've received a copy of the unions' letter to Founder and CEO Ben Rattray. Of note is the unions' strong demand for a clear policy from Change regarding their stand on workers' rights:

An unequivocal public statement from you articulating’s position on collective bargaining, and on workers’ rights more generally, would go a long way toward clarifying what your brand represents.
The letter goes on:
As you know, leaders from a variety of labor unions and organizations over the past year have attempted to address with you the concerns we raise here. They and we are seeking clarification on how meshes two compelling objectives: remaining an open platform and (simultaneously) honoring your stated commitment to the public good over private corporate benefit. On a number of occasions, staff from unions that have raised this question with you have been assured that they should not worry about this issue, that contracts violating the spirit of your expressed goals were ending, and that was engaged in internal discussions about whom you would and would not work with in the future. Nevertheless, it appears that is entering into new contracts with groups that are not respectful of the right to collectively bargain or the benefits that flow from that right.
Organizations that weaken workers’ rights and facilitate the privatization of public services undermine the common good for private corporate benefit. Experience has shown that when these services upon which the public depends are opened to corporate interests, considerations of equal access, fairness and quality become much less important than profitability. We ask that you issue a response clarifying your position so that we can use your platform again and in good conscience recommend it to our brothers and sisters in labor and in the wider progressive community.

Last night Grim quoted a spokesperson for as saying, "As we've noted, is undertaking a company-wide process to evaluate and clarify our client policy." They also said that Change plans on reaching out to "thousands" of "stakeholders" for their input into what their policy should be. Hopefully this process is prompt.

Clearly unions representing workers affected by anti-teacher campaigns taking place on are not yet mollified by the response from them. has good, clear policies relating to other issue areas. The big hole is regarding workers' rights.

The answer to this problem is fairly obvious from a progressive standpoint, but apparently less clear-cut from a business standpoint. It isn't exactly news that corporate-funded organizations who are hell-bent on busting unions have a lot of money to spend, including on tools and advertisers like Change.'s decision to stop working with Students First and Stand for Children is one that was undoubtedly a costly one, at least in so far as these organizations have lots of money from the Koch Brothers and the Walton family and others to spend. A broad, blanket policy to not work with union busters would surely foreclose business opportunities for Change.

The flip side, as the union presidents say in the letter, is that labor wants to be able to recommend other labor unions and progressive organizations use Doing the right thing from a progressive standpoint should make clear to other liberals that they are a business worth doing work with.

Though the letter doesn't explicitly threaten a boycott of by labor and their allies, the implication is that these unions are prepared to use economic pressure strategies if the company doesn't enact a strongly progressive policy towards This may well serve to light a fire behind the already ongoing process to evaluate's client policy.

For me, the answer is pretty simple. Just as refuses to work with clients who are anti-gay, anti-immigrant, or anti-woman, they should make clear that they will not work with clients who are anti-worker.

blog comments powered by Disqus