On Friday, the U.S. House of Representatives was full of spirited debate on a piece of legislation called the Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal Act. Forced arbitration, the practice of revoking the right of employees or consumers to taking a company to court for any disputes or class-action suits, is often entrenched deep within the fine print of contracts to help the company avoid public scrutiny. By forbidding the use of court action, this practice limits the employee or consumer’s recourse in disputes to the direct benefit of the company. If you support workers then you must support the bill.
The fight is being led by Reps. David Cicilline and Doug Collins, for the Democrats and Republicans respectively. The Democrats each took turns making pro-worker appeals, citing studies which show that over half of non-union workers are unable to pursue legal action against their companies. Furthermore, forced arbitration rulings often benefit the corporation, with employees being favored less than a quarter of the time — half as often as if they pursued their claim in court. While in many instances arbitration can be a cheaper way to solve small-dollar claims, there are also more instances where court is more suitable. The bill gives the consumer or employee voluntary arbitration or court proceedings, depending on their situation.
This practice of forcing arbitration is clearly flawed and explicitly against labor interests. But we have Republican congresspeople (and two Democrats) who manipulate the wording and present this issue in terms of freedom semantics. Rep. Tom McClintock (R-California) said, “The net result of this bill will […] deny consumers and employees the right to choose a much simpler and less expensive way to resolve their disputes.” However, the current practice of forcing arbitration directly contradicts this. A casual reading of the bill will show that arbitration is still an option when it is in the best interests of the employee or consumer, but makes it an actual choice. This reframing is intentional; McClintock is purposefully making this an issue about freedom and painting the claim of the bill acting against the freedom of Americans.
The same technique is widespread in labor politics. In the case of Right-To-Work laws, the name alone is meant to invoke a sense of freedom, self-sufficiency and empowerment, when in reality the laws weaken unions by promoting freeloading from non-union members who reap the benefits of union action without any contribution to the union itself. But the language is meant to confuse the constituents; how can a bill which is advertising an American’s right to work contradict the interests of the working class? The reality is that this contradiction is exactly what anti-union, pro-corporation politicians are aiming for. Pro-union policies are overwhelmingly popular with workers, but the need to appease corporate donors sometimes supersedes that. Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) — with many corporate industrial donors — re-introduced Right-to-Work laws in 2017.
No politician would be so bold to assume they can win in an election while alienating the middle-class voters who make up over 50% of American households. That doesn’t change the fact that for many politicians, there is plenty of monetary incentive and lobbying pressures that entice officials to take the side of the corporation over the worker. Walking this tightrope with the way they frame their positions is the method by which politicians can have their cake and eat it too — keep their jobs and their donors — at the expense of the worker.
Americans at large need to evaluate their representatives at all levels more closely. In the information age, seeking transparency, whether financial information or bill summaries, is not the arduous task it once was. It can’t be expected that the public read the fine print of every bill that goes through Congress, but the political parlor tricks used to manipulate them can be easily exposed. Appeals to our freedoms and our rights have a great impact on those who fight for the right to unionize, who work day and night striving for an American dream that is promised to them. But these appeals must be taken with caution as these rhetorical devices are often meant to conceal the true goals of political figures. A confused public is an easily controlled one. To preserve our own interests against those of corporate America, it is necessary that we are the ones controlling our elected representatives — not the other way around.
Opinions expressed on the editorial pages are not necessarily those of WSN, and our publication of opinions is not an endorsement of them.
Email Scott Oatkin at [email protected].