I few years ago, Harvard gave Ben Cohen, of Ben & Jerry's an award -- I forget the name of it -- but its an annual award for "progressive" business leaders (I know, its an oxymoron, but I just work here). Anyway, I went to his talk, and was at the cocktail party/dinner afterwards. So I used the opportunity to ask Ben Cohen, politely I thought, what he would do if his workers decided to organize a union. He literally jumped back from me and said, without hesitation that he would be hurt. I asked him, why he thought that workers exercising their rights had anything to do with him (whether they like Ben or not), and did he really believe that the most ideal form of leadership is benevolent dictatorship (a good boss). Needless to say the Provost rescued our honored guest before I could get my answers. Still, I always find it interesting that all these guys (and gals) in the progressive business community simply can't imagine workers doing things for themselves including representing their interests collectively as anything other than an assault against them. I've even heard the occasional union leader suggest that only workers who suffer a bad boss need to organize -- as opposed to the more obvious conclusion that I would draw that if we are to be a true democracy then workers should not only have the right to participate in decisions that affect them, but have an obligation. That the default position of labor law should not be union free -- but in fact, organized. And that rather than labor law being a series of barriers over which workers have to climb to establish the right to collective bargaining, that labor law should be a series of barriers over which workers must climb (with the state certifying that a majority of workers have freely chosen after a vigorous campaign) to abolish their collective representation, relenquish the right to participate in decisons and opt for individual representation. Elaine Bernard
