Right to Work/Unions/Reform

Rather than tie up the LTE thread with a long commentary, I offer this separate post. For the wary, this is not a polemic, or at least not entirely. But, as a preamble, and I as I have said before, people have a right, or should, to freely choose representation by agents in their dealings. I recently bought a house. I had a realtor represent me, and a lawyer, Mike Wells, to handle the closing. I freely chose both. If a group of people freely make the choice for collective representation in dealing with their employer, so be it. It is the matter of being able to choose that causes a problem for me, and I'm not just talking about "card check" in this instance, see below about how much free choice (so beloved in this forum re other matters) people really have.

One other item: on a daily basis, I probably have contact with more union members, representatives, and officials than anyone else in this forum, except John Piner, who is my coworker. Oh wow, Stab talking with union hacks, how does that go? Very well, my opinion of unions stays out of my work, and my contacts are cordial and cooperative. Sometimes when I encounter a knotty problem, I will counsel an employee to seek assistance from his/her union representative (gasp); that's what those dues should be paying for.

Right to Work
This is an imperfect solution to a problem with unions, that problem being that employees generally have very little, if any, say-so, in whether they are to be members or pay dues/agency fees. Now, in truth, I doubt that individual employee rights were at the heart of the legislation that produced right to work, the Taft-Hartley Act.

The National Labor Relations Act had essentially placed unions above the law. The American post-WW2 economy was wracked by strikes, 5000 in one year, to the extent that the R's could campaign on a slogan of "Had Enough?" Apparently, the electorate felt that way, and confronted President Truman with a Republican Congress. That Congress passed an act that went further than Taft-Hartley, outlawing automatic dues checkoff. Truman vetoed the bill and his veto was sustained. The bill was rewritten and passed, thus beginning what I think is the so-called war on unions cited by my esteemed cousin (no sarcasm in that reference). In my opinion, the mission here was simply to dilute union power, with no real worry re employee rights v. unions.

As wars and dilution go, the war was poorly fought and RTW was not much in the way of dilution, as union membership increased into the 1960s, both in real numbers and as a percentage of the workforce. Then, membership began to decline, but most noticeably in states without RTW laws. There were other factors involved, but those, including unions' part, are outside of this commentary, at least for the moment. RTW laws have no doubt been a factor in businesses' selection of work sites and in union organizing efforts, to varying degrees. I suspect, however, that RTW's effect is a bit overstated, at least in the case of businesses that are unionized, as unions have ways of encouraging membership, applying car keys to vehicle paint finishes, to cite an example.

I also think that some employers are not altogether sold on RTW, as it may lead to disharmony between employees, and in places complicate grievance resolution procedures. The disharmony stems from the union argument about "free riders," non-dues paying employees who have access to union services without paying. In non-RTW states, employees can decline union membership and thus (in questionable theory) unwilling political participation but must pay reduced "agency shop" fees. By itself, this seems fair enough, though I emphatically question the accounting used to compute collective bargaining costs v. other expenses. Note, "by itself," see immediately below.

RTW is, as I said, an imperfect way to address the fact that employees have little actual say-so in membership. Very few unionized employees have had the opportunity to vote on representation, as few as 7% of all employees, according to one source. There are not many union representation elections, and far fewer decertification elections, so membership for people being hired by unionized businesses membership is not a choice in many states. Either accept membership or walk. And, as a practical matter, non-membership might be an iffy matter in RTW environments, as suggested above.

So, how to reconcile the varying arguments/concerns?

Employee Rights Act
Such an act has been introduced into Congressional hoppers, where it gets all the attention the leadership thinks it deserves, but hope springs eternal. The bill I read varies a bit from what I propose, as I would go a bit further and make it a union reform act as well. Provisions follow (OT, please read, then fire away).

1. All representation elections must be secret ballot, goodbye card check.
2. All strike votes must be secret ballot.
3. All strike-ending votes must be secret ballot.
4. The current short interval between organizing and elections must be returned to the previous length.
5. Use of union dues for politics or contributions to advocacy organizations is prohibited. Unions may solicit contributions for politics, etc., via direct contact, not via checkoff.
6. Mandatory recertification elections. We elect our political representatives every so often. Let's call it every 3 years. Employers should be free to campaign as they wish, or free to tell employees they're content to work with unions (some are). Employees might also wish to consider voting on representation by another union during these elections. In the American marketplace, we usually have choices for products and services, along with the choice to decline.
7. Taft-Hartley RTW law repealed, not necessary now, since dues are going for collective bargaining only, and unionized employees now have a say in membership.
8. Application of antitrust and corporate tax laws to unions.
9. End to exemption from criminal prosecution for acts during labor disputes that would otherwise be prosecuted if committed by the rest of us.
10. Transfer of investigation of union malfeasance/criminal activity from Department of Labor to Department of Justice. (OT, shouldn't the Feds be looking into the destruction of Quaker propety at that Philly project?).
11. Elimination of discriminatory PLA's and other directives (such as an NJ requirement barring non-union contractors from working on post-Sandy clean-up) that require use of union-only labor (imagine if instead of "union-only" those directives said "white").
12. Repeal of Davis-Bacon. (Both 11 and 12 would save taxpayers money).
13. Restrictions on NLRB ability to issue orders re organizing, etc., as opposed to resolving union v. employer and employee v. union issues.

Public Employee Unions
I really don't like the idea of public sector unions, and considered suggesting leaving RTW provisions applicable to them, as I really do not feel that one should have to be a union member to work for one's own government. And remember, both FDR and George Meany opposed the idea. But, as little as I like public sector unions, it would be be unequal protection under law to apply similar rules, so no distinction should be made.

OK, we have employee rights protected, workplace fairness improved, and equal application and protection under the law instituted, taxpayers save a few bucks, and the IRS collects a few more. Let the counterfire begin.