The Good and Bad of Unions
Private employees unions (I will leave out public employee unions from this discussion, as they are a different animal) enter the public discourse a lot less frequently than they did in my youth, say in the 1970's. At that time, union power and actions and negotiations and strikes were very frequent stories on the evening news. However, one thing I have noticed throughout my life is that commentators seems to be either all-in for or against unions. I actually think the issues are more subtle, and that unionization is a mixed bag.
On the pro side, unions are basically free association. It is the right of any set of individuals to band together for negotiating leverage.
On the pro and con side is the role of government. Early on, the government acted to stop individuals from exercising their free association rights and forcibly break up unions and bar their activities. Today, I would probably argue the government has slid the other way by writing rules to tilt negotiating power away from employers towards unions (the obvious counter to this is if it is true, why have private unions withered over the last two decades).
On the con side, and it is a big con, is the tendency of unions to push beyond just wage and working condition negotiation into advocating for productivity destroying rules (e.g. featherbedding, strict job categories, etc). These productivity destroying rules have helped to undermine whole industries, and, ironically, the unions themselves. They embody an inherent contradiction in that the wages gains the union wants require productivity gains to support, productivity gains which are impossible under union-preferred work rules.
Here is a great example of the negative side of these union rules, from a NYT report on why New York subways cost so much more to build than do similar projects in the rest of the world
It is not just tunneling machines that are overstaffed, though. A dozen New York unions work on tunnel creation, station erection and system setup. Each negotiates with the construction companies over labor conditions, without the M.T.A.’s involvement. And each has secured rules that contractors say require more workers than necessary.
The unions and vendors declined to release the labor deals, but The Times obtained them. Along with interviews with contractors, the documents reveal a dizzying maze of jobs, many of which do not exist on projects elsewhere.
There are “nippers” to watch material being moved around and “hog house tenders” to supervise the break room. Each crane must have an “oiler,” a relic of a time when they needed frequent lubrication. Standby electricians and plumbers are to be on hand at all times, as is at least one “master mechanic.” Generators and elevators must have their own operators, even though they are automatic. An extra person is required to be present for all concrete pumping, steam fitting, sheet metal work and other tasks.
In New York, “underground construction employs approximately four times the number of personnel as in similar jobs in Asia, Australia, or Europe,” according to an internal report by Arup, a consulting firm that worked on the Second Avenue subway and many similar projects around the world.
That ratio does not include people who get lost in the sea of workers and get paid even though they have no apparent responsibility, as happened on East Side Access. The construction company running that project declined to comment.
The article also touches on one of my frequent themes, about why Progressives still support huge public sector payrolls when these actually reduce the government services they are passionate about:
Public officials, mired in bureaucracy, have not acted to curb the costs. The M.T.A. has not adopted best practices nor worked to increase competition in contracting, and it almost never punishes vendors for spending too much or taking too long, according to inspector general reports.
At the heart of the issue is the obscure way that construction costs are set in New York. Worker wages and labor conditions are determined through negotiations between the unions and the companies, none of whom have any incentive to control costs. The transit authority has made no attempt to intervene to contain the spending.
“It’s sad, really,” said Lok Home, owner of the Robbins Company, which manufactured much of the tunneling equipment used for East Side Access. “Because if they controlled the costs, they could do twice as many expansion projects and still have more money for maintenance.”
Right... you are free to be fired from your job if you refuse to have union dues withheld from your wages.
That's real freedom of choice [/sarc]
You're also free to be fired from your job if you don't show up on time, leave early, refuse to follow the dress code, won't work while in the workplace, etc.
And yes, that is real freedom of choice, no sarc involved. Absent state involvement, if the employer decides to contract exclusively with a union for labor relations, your freedom of choice, and it is real freedom of choice, is to decide whether to deal with that employer through his exclusively contracted agent, or not. There is no "right to work" for someone other than under the agreed conditions.
You, sir are most assuredly an expert in splitting very fine hairs into infinitesimal strands . You are making distinctions that do not, in practical terms, make a difference.
It's not about splitting hairs, it's about people pretending that having to join a union to take a particular job abridges your freedom any more than having to wear a tan polo shirt and chinos to work, or having to be there at 9am instead of whenever you feel like wandering in in the afternoon, or having to actually work instead of sitting around playing solitaire on your phone.
Even with all state involvement, a whopping 10% or so of US jobs are union jobs. If you don't want to join a union and pay the associated dues, go get one of the other 9 of 10 fucking jobs. Otherwise, stop whining about it.
So, I guess they can threaten you to the point of fearing for the safety of you, your family, or your property. It's the "Boys-will-be-boys" law, as long as it's done under the color of labor "negotiations".
Unfortunately, those quasi-legal threats all too often spill over into actual violence that is not punished.
Hmm... getting testy, are we?
Perhaps a bit. It pisses me off that supposedly pro-market people want labor markets to be oases for the protection of special snowflakes from market actors -- which, absent state intervention, is all that unions are.
Yes, they do have to "employ these people". In the U.S. (can't speak for other countries), if a group of people who work for an employer decide to form a union, the employer is forced by law to negotiate and enter into a contract with that group. In fact, employers are forbidden from terminating employees for union activities - even during the union formation process. Do a Google search of "is an employer required to negotiate a contract with a union".
Regarding your second point, I don't know of any law that requires an individual to work for an private employer. It does happen in the public sector with a military draft - people are forced, under threat of violence - to work for the government's military.
Unions are not "forced" to represent all workers in Right to Work states. They choose to become the exclusive representative of workers in their job category. They could opt to only represent union members but they don't.
Unions seek to gain control over workers' property, their labor, and make the worker dependent and without liberty in their work. Voluntary associations are one thing, but exclusive representation is government supported taking of the worker's most fundamental property, his right to work and make contracts.
For instance, it is a primary principle that an English free man of full age, under no disability, may control his person and his personal activities. He can work six, or four, or eight, or ten, or twelve, or twenty-four, or no hours a day if he choose, and any attempt to control him is impossible under the simplest principle of Anglo-Saxon liberty.
Yet there is possibly a majority of the members of the labor unions who would wish to control him in this particular today; and will take for an example that under the police power the state has been permitted to control him in matters affecting the public health or safety, as, for instance, in the running of railway trains, or, in Utah, in labor in the mines. But freedom of contract in this connection results generally from personal liberty itself; although it results also from the right to property; that is to say, a man's wages (or his trade, for matter of that) is his property, and the right of property is of no practical use if you cannot have the right to make contracts concerning it.
The only matter more important doubtless in the laborer's eye than the length of time he shall work is the amount of wages he shall receive. Now we may say at the start that in the English-speaking world there has been practically no attempt to regulate the amount of wages. We found such legislation in medieval England, and we also found that it was abandoned with general consent. But of late years in these socialistic days (using again socialistic in its proper sense of that which controls personal liberty for the interest of the community or state) it is surprisingly showing its head once more.
--Popular Law-making: A Study of the Origin, History, and Present Tendencies of Law-making by Statute, Frederic Jesup Stimson (1910)
Yes, that's the point. It's in the union's best interest to represent those workers.
Right to work states do not forbid employers to bargain exclusively through a union; the REQUIRE it. and they also require workers who are not members to passively bargain through the union, in that they are required to work under the terms of the union contract.
This is exactly how the union would have it. While the union may whine incessantly about the requirement to represent non-members, they don't really want that requirent eliminated. They know that, if workers who would are covered under their CBA could forgo the CBA and forge their own agreements on their own terms, the union would soon fall apart in short order.
"if the employer decides to contract exclusively with a union for labor relations,"
Except that almost no employers DECIDE to do so. It is forced upon them by laws that implicltly (through precedent) legalize criminal acts to force that "choice" upon employers.
Employers CHOOSE dress codes, etc. They do not willingly choose unions.
"absent state intervention"
Yeah, about that, what color is the sky in your world? You might as well argue that it pisses you off when people complain from all the manure accumulated from people's wishes becoming ponies.
The reality is extensive and tyrannical state intervention in this matter makes unions the most special protected snowflakes of all.
"This is exactly how the union would have it."
You keep saying that as if you know what you are talking about. Are you a current former union worker or union official? If not, what makes you think that you know "how they would have it?"
No, unions do not want to be forced by law to deliver services to people who aren't members, who don't pay them for representation, and who aren't bound by their other rules, any more than employers want to be forced by law to bargain exclusively with unions.
Only in the sense that it's in your best interest to hand over your wallet to a mugger.
You may not think that worker free riders are muggers, but I assure you many union folks do. They feel that closed shops are only fair because they preserve the bargaining power of the union.
Yep, same goes in DC. They know its corrupt, but are too dishonorable to fix it because its how they make their living.
Awwww..... that makes me want to see the world's smallest violin play them a sad song.....
I am not sure that unions are FORCED to represent all workers. In my organization, the union clearly states that they choose to represent all workers in bargaining matters, not just those who pay members. However, union representation is not present in the grievance process for non-payers. Also non-payers are not part of the office party that the union puts on.
" If not, what makes you think that you know "how they would have it?""
The expectation that the union doesn't want to end itself.
Stop and think. The requirement for the union to "represent" non-members cuts both ways - the non-member workers are required to work under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement. The only alternative to covering them under the CBA is to allow them to cut their own deals with the employer. If unions could thrive, or even survive in an environment where employees were free to choose to cut their own deals or rely on the union, then CBA's wouldn't have closed shop clauses.
Tell you what - you go to a union in a right to work state, and suggest to them that they allow employees the option of cutting their own individual deals, and tell us how that goes.
No, in the sense that the only alternative is to let those workers cut their own individual deals. If they were willing to do that, there'd be no reason for closed shop clauses.
That's what you and Knapp seem to be missing - you see a false dichotomy between a closed shop and representing non-members. There's a third option - letting the non-members cut individual deals with the employer. That violates the very nature of a union, which is a non-competition pact among the workers.
The motivation for right-to-work was to let workers "work around the union" i.e. cut their own deals, not to put them under the union contract without being members.
Exactly, because the alternative is to let those non-members cut their own deals, which, as Jeffrey Deutsch points out, destroys their raison d'être.
The fun bit is that the non-union guys that the union feels forced to represent always take home more pay than their union counterparts who pay dues to the union so the kleptocrats in charge of the union can buy those $10,000,000 houses and luxury golfclub retreats for top union brass.
I was just reading about Joe Ricketts who told his employees that if they voted to unionize they would leave him with no choice but to shut down the business. They voted to unionize and promptly lost their jobs.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/11/03/561830256/billionaire-owner-shuts-down-dnainfo-gothamist-sites-a-week-after-workers-unioni
Tell you what -- you move to the real world and tell me what it looks like. Although you wouldn't have to, since I'm already here (and am a former union worker and steward).
push beyond just wage and working condition negotiation
Interestingly enough I was thinking about this the other day.
The common wisdom is Reagan, both directly and allowing corporations to get away with more, was the great union buster in the US.
I'm starting to think it was Nixon with the creation of OSHA. OSHA essentially put the government in competition with unions on one of their key functions: workplace safety and working conditions. With that gone the reality of economic limitations on wage and benefit negotiations robbed unions of the two main benefits they could provide to every member. The others you mention, in the end, only benefit the leadership and their favorites. Overtime those are not enough to sustain broad support.
I wish the New York Times would ask Elon Musk how his Boring Company would magically overcome this stuff.
Easy: by insisting on operating non-union, which will require either special dispensation from the legislature to allow it, or spending private money to build and operate it.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-sachs-unions-supreme-court-20140710-story.html
See link.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-sachs-unions-supreme-court-20140710-story.html
Um no. He can close the plant. He can move the plant. He can open a different plant. He is not forced to do anything. If he elects to stay in business, then yes, he has to negotiate.
See link below.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-sachs-unions-supreme-court-20140710-story.html
A certified union in the US exercises quasi-governmental powers bestowed on it by act of Congress - it regulates the supply of labor to certain employers, it levies de facto taxes on workers and employers, and it answers to the federal government for many of its activities. It's misleading to treat certified unions, private sector or not, as if they are voluntary. Congress allows them to use governmental powers to regulate employers involuntarily.
Historically, a lot of union "repression" by Pinkertons and such was basically just property protection. Certainly some of it was powerful people trying to unfairly use violence to control less powerful people. But a significant amount was hiring guards to get the unionists away from blocking the worksite. Most of the US political discussion in the second half of the19th century focused on this position - unions are okay to exist, but they can't block factories and it's okay to use guards to expel them.
A union that isn't government certified and cannot use violence to prohibit the worksite from using nonunion workers is basically just a fraternal organization. They could have social benefits, training benefits, offer apprenticeships and scholarships, pool together for benefits and insurance, but if they cannot use private force or state force, then a union is unlikely to ever exert a monopoly. Without the violence to enforce a cartel, classical economics suggests cartels eventually wither due to defectors.
And running away from armed thugs to avoid being mugged is, meh...no big deal. Not being forced to do anything.
So the free market is full of thugs?
So the mine owners were wrong in forcing West Virginians to work for them? They had no other options so they had to work for mine owners that paid little and cared less for their safety? Those owners were just as guilty correct?
Thomas: Your analogy is off. Customers in bakeries pay for bread if they want bread. If they don't also want cookies, they don't have to buy those, too.
Ruggerbunny: I think you are attributing more to the right-to-work laws than is really true, though I could be mistaken. My understanding of them if that right-to-work laws prohibit employers from requiring employees to join a union as a condition of employment. This obviously has the biggest effect on the spread of unions to non-unionized sites within partially unionized companies. But if your site is unionized after a vote, you don't have any choice about which union you pay.
The line about the union being forced to represent you is a little disingenuous. If there were complete freedom of association in the workplace, any union or other worker's association would have to offer services to prospective members. Otherwise, it would not exist. So, saying that unions are forced to represent members only makes sense where membership is forced, so the union has the option of not fulfilling the only function it would have had in a free market.
Thomas: So the government limits you to two choices: work here as a union member (or at least union dues-payer) or work somewhere else. Since there is an obvious third alternative -- work here without joining the union -- the workers are less free. It is true, though, that the option to leave that job for some other, non-unionized job is a significant constraint on unionization. That said, the fact that unions in the US attempt to organize by job type means that they are trying to prevent you from going to a non-unionized job of the same type (where, presumably, you would be the most valuable).
Thomas: So now that I've read more of your comments, I see you actually have a more nuanced position than I was crediting. Would you support an approach that does all of the following?
1. Abolished laws that prohibit employers from making membership in a union into a condition of employment.
2. Abolished laws that require employees to involuntarily join or pay a union, excluding when the employer makes it part of a package deal.
3. Abolished laws prohibiting an employer from making non-membership in a union into a condition of employment.
4. Abolished laws prohibiting any union from rejecting any employee as a member (or, equivalently requiring the union to represent the employee).
The reason I ask is that this seems like the truly libertarian approach to labor law -- permit whatever voluntary association happens..
Maximum Liberty,
You summarize the four points nicely. That's exactly the approach I support.
Essentially, repeal of both the National Labor Relations Act (Wagner) and its "right to work" amendments (Taft-Hartley). If the state is allowed to exist, its maximal role in labor relations should be enforcement of laws that prohibit aggression by either side -- strikers beating up scabs or burning down their houses, private "security" beating up strikers or burning down their houses, etc.
I'm not going to spend my precious time and energy arguing with you. I have more important stuff to do. Take care.
Both unions and licensing prevent practice of a given professsion without meeting criteria that are typically arbitrary.
Of note, comparisons of occupational licensing to guilds abounds in the realm of informed commentary:
https://www.the-american-interest.com/2017/05/17/wisconsin-takes-aim-at-occupational-licensing/
http://progressivepolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/03.2012-Stangler_Occupational-Licensing_How-A-New-Guild-Mentality-Thwarts-Innovation1.pdf
https://www.johnlocke.org/update/occupational-licensing-guild-by-association/
http://www.upjohn.org/publications/upjohn-institute-press/guild-ridden-labor-markets-curious-case-occupational-licensing
"Tell you what -- you move to the real world and tell me what it looks like. Although you wouldn't have to, since I'm already here ".
Nice insults. Unlike your thinly veiled insult, my proposal was that you test your hypothesis that unions prefer what you say they do, by proposing a way for them to avoid what they claim is an onerous burden placed on them. If you're right, then you'd be doing them a huge favor, since apparently such a solution has never occurred to them.
Now, do you have anything of substance to say? Here, I'll help you figure out what that might be:
Nowhere do you attempt to rebut the assertion that unions would be loathe to allow non-members in right to work stated to work their own deals with the employer. Is it then your contention that unions would be more than happy to allow that, rather than cover those workers under their CBA? If so, why?
Nowhere do you attempt to rebut the assertion that allowing non-members to work their own deals would bring eventually destroy the union's role at such employers. Do you then believe it would help the union, i.e. it would be more beneficial than covering non-members under the CBA? If so, then you're saying unions would actually stand to benefit from partial representation where workers are free to join and work under the CBA, or not join and cut their own deals. Well then, why do the unions insist on closed shop clauses if they're better off without them?
Nowhere do you attempt to rebut the assertion that the only alternative to covering non-members under the CBA in right to work states is to allow them to cut their own deals. How else do you propose to handle the situation in a right to work state that outlaws closed shops? The non-members are going to work there - if the union and management don't negotiate the terms of their employment, and they and management don't negotiate the terms, then how are the terms of their employment to be set?
"(and am a former union worker and steward)"
That and $5 will get you a cup of Starbuck's finest product. It's like saying that, because you were a sargeant in the infantry at some third world posting, you are intimately familiar with the policy deliberations at the top level of the Pentagon. I'm sure that headquarters spent a lot of time telling you how much they hate covering those free-riding non-members. It serves their interests to demonize them to discourage members from emulating them. That you and your peers uncritically accept that agitprop without subjecting it to critical analysis is part of the problem of unions. Did you ever stop to ask yourself how things would look if the union wasn't "forced" to represent those non-members - how their employment terms would be set, etc.? Did you ever question the false dichotomy of representing them for free* or forcing them to be members?
*Note that it's not really for free - they are usually required to pay the portion of dues calculated to directly cover the cost of collective bargaining.
Why would I have some kind of obligation to rebut evidenceless assertions?
Fine, I'll give you a freebie on the assertion: " the only alternative to covering non-members under the CBA in right to work states is to allow them to cut their own deals."
That doesn't need to be rebutted because it's obvious -- in fact, it is the problem with "right to work," because the other alternative that SHOULD exist is for the union to make contractual exclusivity attractive enough to an employer that non-members have no deals to cut, since they aren't employed in said workplace.
Sort of like how Intel doesn't have to let AMD cut its own deal with Dell, if Intel swings an exclusive CPU provision contract with Dell. Labor is just like any other commodity. Overall cartelization can't work in a free market but exclusivity as a value proposition in specific contexts can.
"Why would I have some kind of obligation to rebut evidenceless assertions?"
You had already stipulated to that by attempting to do so badly. Thank you for making a more legitimate effort in pointing out that "the other alternative that SHOULD exist is for the union to make contractual exclusivity attractive." I agree with this as a normative assertion, but I don't see it as realistic that a union could do so. Historically, the entire nation, and currently more than half the states do not have right to work, thus contractual exclusivity is legal. You'd be hard pressed to find an employer for whom the union non-coercively made their involvement, let alone contractual exclusivity, attractive enough for an employer to WANT either.
I wholeheartedly agree with you that the government should stay out of such decisions and let the market reign (see what happens when you choose substance over name calling?) Where we disagree is regarding whether unions would last 10 minutes if that happened in the current supply-demand ecosystem for low-to-moderately-skilled labor, especially if you throw in other libertarian planks like eliminating the welfare state, which competes with employment as a means of sustenance.
Also, if you're going to get the government's thumb off the scales of the marketplace then that means corporations should enjoy the same right to agree not to compete that workers do.
Overall, I agree with the article, except for one point:
"The district could not treat nonunion teachers worse or better than their union counterparts in order to encourage or discourage unionization,"
Define treat better or worse. Any difference in the compensation or other terms of employment between the union members and any individual bargainer would represent better or worse treatment to one side or the other of the union/non-union divide. How can the union prove their worth to workers if they can't get better treatment for those they represent?
Freedom and equality are often, if not always, in conflict with each other.
"Historically, the entire nation, and currently more than half the states do not have right to work, thus contractual exclusivity is legal."
Historically, the entire country was "right to work" prior to 1933, and yet unions were steadily increasing in both overall membership and organization/exclusivity bargaining in workplaces.
Then FDR had the NLRA designed by 1) employers who were sick of wildcat strikes, sympathy strikes and boycotts (outlawed by the NLRA) and 2) union bosses who were happy sitting on what they had gained and collecting dues and hated those three things as well.
So employers got what they wanted, and union bosses got what they wanted. What they both gave up was a single concession -- a binding one-size-fits-all election process. Union wins, exclusivity. Union loses, union's out of there.
What FDR got out of the deal was support from union bosses and a little bit of calm from employers (who later managed to renegotiate the deal with the Taft-Hartley "right to work" scam).
A secondary benefit the union bosses got was that they didn't have to play hardball for the workers as much on benefits like pensions and unemployment as FDR and his successors grew that stuff from the government end.
As for unionism itself, it plateaued and then started shrinking after that for the same reasons. Back when I was a union worker, I was always trying to convince my UFCW buddies that the best thing for unions would be to fight to repeal Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and state-mandated unemployment insurance. If government wasn't forcing shitty versions of pensions, health care and unemployment insurance, that's the stuff that workers would unionize to get.
"If government wasn't forcing shitty versions of pensions, health care and unemployment insurance, that's the stuff that workers would unionize to get."
That makes sense, but then why do unions consistently finance the campaigns of candidates who seek to expand those programs?
Because union bosses want to sit on their asses and collect the dues, not risk strikes and other disruptions to their dues revenues.