“The accomplice to the crime of corruption is frequently our own indifference.”

Philanthropist Bess Myerson couldn’t have envisioned the corruption that would run rampant as a result of our global financial crisis when she spoke those words. But human nature and the cataclysmic nature of the current economy have bred perfect conditions for those in positions of power to exploit and take advantage of the common man.

Accountability seems to be low on the government’s list of priorities when it comes to using taxpayers’ money to bail banks out of our financial misery. An Associated Press analysis of regulatory and company documents shows that nine out of every 10 of the most senior executives from 2006 remain employed at the banks receiving federal bailout money. The government is throwing money at the people who were at the helm as these banks fell to the deleterious whim of the economy, now expecting them to use this money — our money, as taxpayers — more effectively than they did in the past, with no evidence that this will happen.

Rebecca Trevino, a mother of three from Louisville, Ky., was laid off from her job as a Bank of America training coordinator in October. She commented in an AP article that “the same people at the top are still there, the same people who made the decisions causing a lot of our financial crisis.”

It’s fitting that this observation comes from a former BofA employee. On Jan. 27, The Huffington Post published an article revealing some questionable behavior on the part of Bank of America Corp. On Oct. 17, three days after receiving $25 billion in federal bailout funds, the bank hosted a conference call with conservative activists and business officials including Bernie Marcus, founder of Home Depot, and a representative from AIG, another bailout beneficiary. Also included in the call was Rick Berman, founder of the Center for Union Facts and according to the Center for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a lobbyist of such integrity that he once attacked Mothers Against Drunk Driving for trying to strengthen DUI laws. The conference call was conducted with the purpose of organizing opposition against the Employee Free Choice Act.

What is the Employee Free Choice Act? The Act’s stated purpose is “to amend the National Labor Relations Act to establish an efficient system to enable employees to form, join, or assist labor organizations … to provide for mandatory injunctions for unfair labor practices during organizing efforts.”

The legislation received bipartisan support in 2007, but was stalled procedurally in the Senate. It could fare better in the 111th Congress. Points of the Act emphasized by the AFL-CIO are that it will “establish stronger penalties for violation of employee rights when workers seek to form a union and during first-contract negotiations,” “provide mediation and arbitration for first-contract disputes” and “allow employees to form unions by signing cards authorizing union representation.”

This is not an argument for or against unions. However, whether or not unions receive universal public support, workers have the right under federal and international law to decide whether or not they would like to form them. Under current law, this right is severely hindered. Bosses don’t have to recognize unions unless an election takes place — elections which are often stalled in order to bring in unionbusters who threaten and coerce employees not to join a union. According to research conducted by Cornell University professor Kate Bronfenbrenner, bosses illegally fire workers in 25 percent of union organizing campaigns, and nearly eight in 10 workers believe they’re likely to be fired for trying to organize.

Since approximately 60 million U.S. workers say they would join a union if they could, according to research conducted by Peter D. Hart Research Associates in December 2006, the blockades in setting up unions affect a substantial amount of people.

This isn’t right.

Under the EFCA, employees would be able to form a union either by holding a traditional election or having a majority of employees sign petitions. This significantly limits the possibility of workers being bullied away from making the choice to form a union.

Participants in the BofA-hosted conference call were encouraged to persuade their clients to make “large contributions” to groups opposed to the EFCA legislation — along with some of the more vulnerable Senate republicans, who could enhance the almost-certain Republican opposition this bill will face. Why does the BofA care so much about keeping workers from making their own decisions?

There are numbers that indicate how little the BofA cares about its own employees — so why would it bother to promote the best interests of other workers? A recent release from the Service Employees International Union states that BofA employs 247,000 people. That’s a significant amount of the population. Now let’s compare that to CEO Ken Lewis’ salary.

In 2006, he made $99 million. That’s over 4000 times what his average employee makes. Clearly, Lewis doesn’t have to worry about fighting for his right to better pay, job security or more effective health care.

The issue at hand here is not whether or not unions are a positive institution.

It is the fundamental iniquity at work behind the BofA’s exploitation of American workers.

Where did that bailout money come from?

Working families’ tax dollars.

What is this money being used for? An attempt to kill a bill that helps working families. This opposition will hurt those families. Not by preventing the formation of unions, but by preventing workers from having the ability to make choices for their own wellbeing.

This action is, to put it quite simply, using the money of American workers to purchase the shackles that will bind them.

There’s no way around it. This is wrong. Indifference to the matter will only assist in the injustice.

 – Jessica Opoien is a freshman in English and pre-journalism and mass communication from Marinette, Wisc.