Organized labor, i.e. unionism, has been
steadily losing ground for decades. And most of what’s left are public sector
unions, which are coercive monopolies. That was the reason for last year’s New
Jersey symposium “to redefine labor for the 21st century,” sponsored by
Democrats. It was covered by the New Jersey Star-Ledger in an article By
Jonathan D. Salant, How
organized labor can have a future in 21st century America.
The problem is, the whole debate came down to
how government force can be used to “give workers a voice to advocate for
better pay.” Pro-union advocates lamented GOP efforts to roll back forced
unionization. But if force is unionism’s only asset, who needs them? A worker’s
“voice” shouldn’t, and ultimately doesn’t, grow out of the barrel of a gun. It
grows out of the productive skills he can contribute to those who would pay
him. As one opponent put it:
What concerns those who oppose requiring employees to join unions
is what kind of solution the group will propose.
"Our criticism of union officials and the way they operate is
that they rely so much on government-granted powers," said Patrick
Semmens, vice president of National Right to Work. "In New Jersey, they
have the power to compel workers to pay fees and if they don't, they can have a
worker fired."
"An approach that respects the individual rights of workers
not to be forced to join a union, that's the reform that Congress ought be
looking at," he said.
And the rebuttal argument:
"There is no shortage of defense being played," Norcross
said a forum at the Teamsters Local 676 union hall in Collingswood.
"Elections have consequences. Boy, do we know that now."
Republicans are
seeking to weaken what's left of
traditional unions. Even the House Education and Labor Committee, which
Norcross and DeSaulnier sit on,
was renamed Education and the Workforce under GOP rule.
More than half of the states, 28, now have so-called Right to Work
laws, and a national Right to Work law has been introduced in both houses of
Congress.
Such laws allow employees to get the benefits of membership, such
as higher wages and benefits, without having to pay dues or other expenses,
while putting the unions at a financial disadvantage.
Of course,
dues or other expenses are not just used to negotiate on behalf of the worker.
They are also used to fund political advocacy the dues payer often doesn’t
agree with. furthermore, it is incredibly arrogant and unfair to force a worker
into a union based on “the union is good for you, whether you like it or not,
so you must join whether you agree or not.” It is up to each worker to decide
for himself if it is in his interest to join the union, and thus be bound by
all of the restrictions of the union rules.
I left these comments:
Whether by design or not, it’s noteworthy that a
trade union official should be the main reference for this article. That’s
because private sector trade unions offer a good model for effective unions. I
say the following as a member [ret.] myself of the United Association of
Plumbers and Pipefitters union. To be relevant, unions must. . .
- Offer something of value in return, not just make
demands. They can take responsibility for fringe benefits like health
insurance and retirement coverage, and apprenticeship and journeyman
training and education. This relieves the employer of these burdens and
gives workers more control of their own economic security. My union funds
these benefits out of the pay package negotiated with our employers.
- Recognize that, contrary to the slogan, equal pay does
not mean equal work. People in the same job can be vastly different in
productiveness and other factors based on individual attributes. Therefor,
no rigid seniority or tenure rules. Employers should not be stifled in
putting together the most effective workforce, nor should more ambitious
and conscientious workers be stymied from advancing.
- Stop fixating on the Marxist notion of us (workers) vs.
them (capitalists). Employer and employee interests are much more aligned
than a fool like Karl Marx cared to acknowledge. Employers need quality,
dedicated workers, and workers need good advancement opportunities
(including the freedom to quit one job for a better opportunity
elsewhere). The average worker doesn’t care about any “workers
movement”—nor should he. We’re not cogs in a collective machine. We are
individuals.
- Stop aligning with the political Left. Stop trying to
legislatively stifle others freedom of speech. Stop obsessing over
economic inequality. My father once told me in regard to my paycheck,
“Don’t worry about the other guy. Only worry about yourself.” It’s good
advice. One person’s achievement does not come at anyone else’s expense.
Unions should focus on increasing the economic value of their members, not
cutting others down. That’s how you get higher pay.
- Stop trying to legally compel companies to deal with
unions. There is no such thing as “collective bargaining rights,” if the
employer doesn’t view negotiating collectively as being in his self-interest.
The more we try to compel employers to accept unionization (and compel
workers to join unions), the more they’ll resist doing it—and the more
right-to-work laws you’ll get (which wrongly outlaw voluntary union
shops). Unions must appeal to the economic self-interest of both companies
and individual workers. You’ll see unions become more relevant when you
remove coercion from the equation.
Finally, we must recognize that unionization is
not universally good for all workers or all industries. Many if not most
workers don’t see union membership as a value. Workers, like employers and
everybody else, are individuals that care about their own economic
self-interest. Contrary to the pessimists’ propaganda, Americans’ standard of
living has grown strongly even as union membership has declined. Unions are
good for some workers. It’s been good for me. If it weren’t, I wouldn’t have
been a part of it. But I recognize that unions are not advantageous for all. I
know plenty of non-union people who have done well. Unions should be good for
individual members, not peddled as some kind of nirvana for some abstraction
labeled “working class”.
Most of the above is a good description of my
union. To have a future in 21st Century America, the champions of unionization
should take a page from New Jersey’s trade unions. Offer something of value to
individuals in exchange for membership. Offer something of value to employers
for agreeing to hire its members. Persuasion will go a lot further than
coercion.
-----------------------------------------
Despite a certain level of coercive government
backing, private sector trade unions face stiff competition from non-union
contractors, unlike public sector (government) unions. So, we still must face
market discipline and economic reality.
More from the article:
As unions continue to lose influence, workers are trying to get
their kitchen-table issues addressed at the ballot box.
Even as Republicans won the White House and held onto both houses
of Congress in the last election, four states, Arizona, Colorado, Maine and
Washington, voted to raise their state's minimum wages. The federal wage is
$7.25 an hour.
"What we've seen in the worker movement is a lot of action at
the ballot box to gain benefits that were formerly done at the bargaining
table," Asaro-Angelo said. "Folks realized they could do this on
their own."
At the “bargaining” table, unions are backed by
coercion in the form of laws requiring companies to recognize and “negotiate”
with unions based on a vote of workers, which also forces those who vote
against union representation either joining the union or being fired.
But if coercive unionization is losing ground,
the answer is not legislative coercion.
For the record, while I sympathize with the
right-to-work impetus, I disagree with right-to-work laws. As I observed in my
Objective Standard article End
"Collective Bargaining Rights" and "Right-to-Work" Laws:
“Right-to-Work” laws emerged as a reaction to other
rights-violating laws that impose an alleged “right to bargain for better
wages”—”bargain,” here, meaning “coerce”—which “right” is otherwise known as
collective bargaining “rights.” These “rights”—which are not rights but
government-granted permissions to violate the rights of others—emerged under
laws such as the National Labor Relations Act, also known as the Wagner Act,
which force companies to “bargain” with unions.
A proper, rights-protecting government does not pass such laws.
Nor does it outlaw voluntary union shops. As long as there is no fraud,
breach-of-contract, or other rights-violating actions, the government has no role
in labor-management relations.
Nor does the government pass minimum wage laws,
compulsory paid sick leave laws, and the like.
Unions can have a future if organizers realize
that they can not just take by force, but must and can offer enough value to
employers to entice them to voluntarily recognize them. And if they can’t get a
voluntary collective bargaining agreement with the employer, or voluntary
membership from individual workers, then the union should not exist.
Related Reading:
No comments:
Post a Comment