Why Unions?

I have never been a member of a Union and my Union experience is almost all second- or third-hand recollections from individuals who were directly involved.

When a High School student I was surprised by a brief monologue given by my geography teacher. I don’t recall how the discussion began. He became flush with emotion, his voice raised and I heard anger in his voice as he described “scabs” crossing the picket line. I estimate that this brief flurry of emotion and anger occurred 37 years ago – yet, I remember it as if it were yesterday.

And what of the Employee Free Choice Act?

The act contains several key provisions worthy of discussion:

Public voting by employees. The current situation provides for a secret ballot to determine whether they want to form a union. Public voting has the potential for Union organizers to intimidate those against into voting in favor a union. One wonders if public voting is such a good idea why Mr. Madison and Mr. Jefferson excluded it from the U.S. Constitution.

Arbitration. The Act would require that if within a specified period union and employer could not agree on the terms of a collective bargaining agreement, their dispute would be submitted to binding arbitration. The arbitrators would thus determine those terms. I am immediately reminded of the quoted attributed to President Reagan: “A government large enough to give you all you want, is big enough to take it all.”

NLRA reform. The will strengthen the very weak machinery for enforcing the prohibition in the National Labor Relations Act of unfair labor practices, such as employers' discriminating against employees who support unionization. This part of the Act is a good thing.

Growing up in Michigan a number of my friends parents were employed directly, or indirectly, in the automotive industry. A large number of those so employed were union members. My Aunt Barb retired comfortably after 35 years with, “Generous Motors” as a worker on the Buick assembly line in Lansing. So I am not unaware of the benefits of unions.

The America today is not the America of the 1970s and international competition has shaped the labor landscape more than reluctant employees or unfair practices by business. The America of the 1950s-1970s was the peak of the labor movement with nearly one in four being a member of one union or another, and most of which concentrated in heavy industry. Industry which has increasing moved overseas.

Rewriting rules for Union membership will not change the fundamental underlying physics of the situation: once an item becomes a commodity there is little remaining value to exploit. And, heavy industry (steel, automobiles, etc) is now a commodity and best sourced from the lowest cost vendor: Hardly the situation from which to negotiate benefits and higher hourly rates.

Only the state sponsored monopolies of Federal employees and state teachers appear to immune from the natural laws of labor – and, then only with gobs of subsidies.

What may we expect to see as a result of this Act?
1. Increase in labor v. management hostility.
2. Organized labor energized by this success pressing to squeeze as much as possible from management.
3. Strikes.
4. Jobs moving overseas.

Bottom line: The decline of unionism is a direct consequence of international competition. Squeezing unaffordable concessions from management will only hasten the movement of U.S. jobs overseas.

Source: Many of the ideas and some of the words courtesy of The Becker-Posner Blog