Dale Crafts’ April 23 column (“PRO Act is bad for Maine workers, infringes on privacy rights“) was a very well-written one-sided opinion.

Perhaps one reason why lies in the answer to the question of “why is the PRO Act so important for today’s workers”?

The PRO Act, or Protect our Right to Organize, is the result of decades of erosion of the rights of workers who only want to improve their workplace — a place at which they spend a third or more of their life.

Unionization is not on most workers’ minds. Poor working conditions, wages, and safety top the list of why many workers decide union representation is wanted or needed. These workers have a right to organize themselves, but face a system that’s skewered against them, and the anti-union lawyers are pretty good at what they do. Not every workplace wants or needs a union, but those that do should be able to exercise that right, free of employer interferences.

With over 25 years of union membership with many of those years as an activist breaking bread with many union organizers and folks who were unionizing their workplaces, I’ve heard firsthand about constant barrages of anti-union tactics such as employees being fired — tactics designed to instill fear among the workers.

And non-believers can ask some of the nurses at Maine Med. They’ve been organizing for months. People may hear of “union-busting” lawyers on the floors, they’ll learn about potential nursing cutbacks, then they’ll hear the doom and gloom “all hands on deck meetings” where all the bad things about unions are told repeatedly.

Mr. Crafts also failed to mention that under the PRO Act, newly-organized workers are entitled to a timely first contract, and company anti-union tactics laws would be enforced with steeper penalties.

As for organizers seeing one’s signature or being coerced by the organizer, what about the employers? Most companies don’t even let the organizers on their property. The only reasons organizers would go to people’s homes is because their employer won’t let them talk with them on company property or anti-union tactics.

The PRO Act is not “bad” for workers as Mr. Crafts asserts, but he is counting on people’s fears to help business owners ensure that their workers won’t have any say or input — otherwise known as “workplace power” — on their issues at their workplaces, and that employers will retain all of the power over their employees.

This act is not about being pro- or anti-union; it is about ensuring any worker’s rights are protected. I am in the hopes that all four of our elected folks in D.C. see through Mr. Crafts’ sort of rhetoric and support this bill.

Joseph Mailey, Auburn

Copy the Story Link

« Previous

Cynthia Stancioff: Civic participation ‘alive and well in Farmington’

Next »

Josh Woodburn: Perry a ‘voice of reason’ for Paris Select Board