A challenge to US exceptionalism

REPORT □ ILOCHALLENGE TO USANTI-UNIONLAW A challenge to US exceptionalism The New York courtsfinedthe union$2.5 million, fined individual members,and even imposed a jail termon Local 100 President Toussaint ROGER TOUSSAINT IsOutgoing President of the Transport Worirors Union Local 100 and Vice President off the Transport Workers Union of America When think tions labour against ofinternational activists workers, in human they the often United rights think violaStates of think ofinternational humanrights violationsagainst workers, they often think of crimes suchas theunpunished murders oftrade unionists in Colombia.They mighteven think aboutthedenialof theright to organiseby the southern stateof NorthCarolinato its largely AfricanAmericanpublic workforce.But few labourleadersintheUS haveconceived thecriminalisation ofstrikes bypublicsector workers ina highly unionised northern statelikeNewYorkas an international humanrights issue. In part, thisis a product oftheassumption that theILO doesn'thave coercivepowerto enforce evenitscoreconventions. Butan evenmoresignificant contributor to thiscognitive gap is the sometimes unconsciousideologyof 'US exceptionalism '; theidea thattheUS so farsurpasses other nations initscommitment todemocracy and humanrights that thenorms that applytotherest oftheworldareirrelevant toit.Thisexceptionalismis a dangerous idea,notonlyinthesensein whichit has been used to justify humanrights violations bytheUnited States inother countries, but in the ways which it is actuallyused to deprive workers intheUnited States oftheir fundamental labourrights. One exampleofthisuse is theapplication of theso-calledTaylorLaw'inNewYorkto barall strikes inthepublicsector, andtopunish'illegal' strikes withextensive fines, thelossofautomatic duesdeduction ('checkoff) andtheimprisonment oftradeunionleaders.Courtsin New Yorkand theUS Supreme Court havenotbeen sympathetic to challenges to thevalidity oftheTaylor Law on the basis of guaranteeswithinthe United States orNewYorkStateConstitutions, and most US courts haven't expressly incorporated theILO Core Conventions into theirinterpretations of domestic labourlaw. ILOChallengeto StrikeBan NewYork's Transport Workers UnionLocal100is leadinga concerted campaign tochangethisstate ofaffairs. In November 2009,theLocal,supported byitsparent unionandthenational andglobal labourfederations withwhichit is affiliated, fileda complaint withthe ILO Committee on Freedomof Association. The Complaint charges thattheTaylorLaw, as appliedto penalisethe Local and its membersfollowing a brief2005 strike, seriously infringes on thecoretradeunion rights of freedom of associationand collective bargaining protected byILO Conventions 87 and 98.Inconjunction with thefiling ofthecomplaint, the International Commission forLabor Rights (ICLR)conveneda groupoffiveexperts on publicsectorunionism to examinetheimpact ofthe Taylor Lawstrike prohibition. Just days after Local 100 filed the ILO Complaint, these distinguished experts- Prof. Tonia Novitzof the University of Bristol (U.K.) former California SupremeCourtJusticeCruz Reynoso (US), RamapriyaGopalakrishnan, a lawyerfortheTamilNadu government workers union(India),ClaudeMelançon, a labourlawyer fromQuebec (Canada), and Prof. JimPope of Rutgers University (US) - visitedNew Yorkto investigate theLocal'sallegations inthecontext of boththe2005strike andtheunion'scurrent experienceswithcontract arbitration. The panel met witha widerangeofelectedofficials, leadersand membersof Local 100 and otherNew York unions,and experts on publichealth.(Members ofMTAmanagement, however, declinedto meet withthegroup).The climaxoftheexperts' visit was a publicevent,sponsoredby the Human Rights Institute atColumbia LawSchool,concerningwhether and how theTaylorLaw might be reformed tobetter protect bothrights and public order. The 2005 Strike The legalexperts examined theuse oftheTaylor Law to attempt to crippleLocal 100following a 60-hourstrikein December2005. Local 100's Executive Boardvotedto defyan injunction and to go ahead and strike after New York's Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), whichthenhada billion dollarsurplus, unlawfullyinsisted that theunionaccepta two-tier system ofpensionbenefits inwhichnewly hired employees wouldhavesubstantially inferior pensionsto current employees. Although theparties agreedon theterms ofa new contract as a resultof thebrief strike, the New Yorkcourts, in themidstof an anti-union media blizzard orchestrated by New York's Republican Mayor andGovernor, fined theunion $2.5million, charged employees twodays'wages for every daythey wereoutandimposedindividual fines on theunion'sofficers. Mostsignificantly ,thecourtsindefinitely suspendedtheunion's dues check-off and refused torestore itfornearly18months , inan unsuccessful attempt toleverage a unanimous pledgefrom theunion'sfour dozenExecutive Boardmembers that they would notassert a right tostrike. Thefinancial penalties wereso disproportionately large, inrelation tothe resources oftheunionand themagnitude ofthe allegedoffence, thattheonlyfairconclusion is that theywere designed to crippleor even destroy theunion, as wellas todeter other unions from contemplating strike action. Morethanfourmonths after thestrike ended, thecourts imposeda brief jailterm on Local100 President Toussaint forhisroleinthestrike. The imprisonment oftheunion'sPresident ispartofa INTERNATIONAL union rights Page 4 Volume 16Issue 52009 broader legalandpolicy framework inthestate of NewYork, whichseeksto deterlegitimate trade unionactivity inthepublicsector bycriminalising it.In contrast, thestrike itself was partofa long and distinguished history of humanrights strugglesbypubicsector workers intheUnited States. Fewpeopleremember, forexample, that Rev.Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was murdered whilesupporting the humanrights of publicworkersin Memphis, Tennesseetoorganise andstrike. 2009 ContractNegotiations The intervention of manyof the same political players who had provedobstaclesto agreement inthe2005negotiations prevented MTAmanagementfrom concluding an agreement withLocal...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.