Labor Unions are cartels like OPEC that have been granted legal privileges by the government. They are free from taxation and antitrust law. They can compel their employers to provide property for union use and nonmembers to pay dues.
Union workers earn higher wages by limiting employment at unionized facilities, forcing others with skills similar to union workers into nonunionized jobs. The increased supply of workers in the nonunionized facilities suppresses wages. Because the union wage is above the equilibrium, there are surplus laborers, and the unions must decide who is employed and who is not. Often race was used to exclude workers from unions.
Noncompetitive markets allow unions to thrive and often governments protect them from both domestic and foreign competition. If the protection disappears, the higher wage paid to union workers also disappears, or the industries that hire them fade away.
For generations, unions have supported Democrats over Republicans. Now that the Democrats hold the White House and large majorities in both chambers of Congress, the unions are expecting advantageous legislation. The Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) is an example.
The "card-check" provisions of the EFCA have been widely debated. George McGovern appearing in a YouTube video for employeefreedom.org explains that he opposes the bill because it takes away the rights of workers to express their preferences for representation through a secret ballot, permitting union organizers to sign-up workers through forms authorizing union representation, the "card-check."
Groups like American Rights At Work, in "Lies and Distortion on the Secret Ballot," claim that charges made by McGovern and others about taking away the secret ballot are false.
Business special interest groups have launched a $120 million campaign to derail reform of the nation's broken labor law system by lying about the Employee Free Choice Act. Their only line of attack - that the bill somehow takes away so-called "secret ballot" elections for joining a union - is blatantly false.
The Employee Free Choice Act not only strengthens the current process for workers forming unions, but also provides for a more fair and democratic method for men and women to join unions.
By clicking the link, "more fair and democratic method," in the quote above the American Rights At Work explains their differences with groups complaining of the loss of a secret ballot.
Careful Democratic majority sign-up procedures are the most effective way to determine the wishes of a majority of employees. Under majority sign-up procedures, employers are only allowed to recognize a union if a majority of employees has signed valid written forms authorizing union representation. Any employee who does not sign an authorization form is presumed not to support union representation.
They believe that the card-check is more democratic than a secret ballot and go on a length explaining why.
For the curious, I have included wording from the Employee Free Choice Act of 2007 (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House), which is presumably similar to the bill that will soon be introduced in Congress. The key paragraph of section 9 dealing with card-check supplanting secret ballots reads,
(6) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, whenever a petition shall have been filed by an employee or group of employees or any individual or labor organization acting in their behalf alleging that a majority of employees in a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining wish to be represented by an individual or labor organization for such purposes, the Board shall investigate the petition. If the Board finds that a majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for bargaining has signed valid authorizations designating the individual or labor organization specified in the petition as their bargaining representative and that no other individual or labor organization is currently certified or recognized as the exclusive representative of any of the employees in the unit, the Board shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual or labor organization as the representative described in subsection (a).
The Congressional Research Service describes this portion of the EFCA.
Employee Free Choice Act of 2007 - Amends the National Labor Relations Act to require the National Labor Relations Board to certify a bargaining representative without directing an election if a majority of the bargaining unit employees have authorized designation of the representative (card-check) and there is no other individual or labor organization currently certified or recognized as the exclusive representative of any of the employees in the unit.
There are several reasons I don't like the bill. It supports cartels, who will demand higher wages that consumers will pay for through higher prices or lower quality goods. It supplants a secret ballot with a procedure that opens union formation to intimidation, and can anybody doubt that unions would fail to utilize that tool? It takes from entrepreneurs the management of labor, and how it will interact with capital and other resources, with scant empirical support for the notion that labor is somehow disadvantaged compared to management in wage negotiation. Does anyone doubt that research and development, innovation and product quality will decline? Finally, it places the federal government at the wage negotiating table. I do not want to see a presidential or senatorial campaign centered discussing the appropriate wage that should be granted by the National Labor Relations Board. Both Democrats and Republicans would bid up union wages to win votes. Wages would be based on political power and not productivity. Does anyone really want to see the politicization of wage negotiation?
Posts
I think that the EFCA is a horrible idea. Legislation such as this will surely open up wage negotiation which will displace the equilibrium of labor demanded and thus create a surplus of labor and ultimately frictional unemployment. Wage should be decided by the market’s invisible hand and not cartels like these union organizations. In my opinion, unions should be restricted to rural areas only, where job supply is low so that businesses’ wage scales are kept competitive with those in more populated areas.
ReplyDeleteYour student, Mark Balko
sure, unions would cause much more grief than they need to, but if unions were to be that specialized woudn't they be more productive than say, the same job market with less specialized employees? Yes, they would be a pain in the butt, but on the other hand, maybe their productivity would be enough to where we could forgive them.
ReplyDeleteHaving the politicization of wages negotiated due to presidents and senators waging up union wages to earn more votes is wrong. The labor-force participation rate that is in the labor force will increase because of the wages of unions being raised. The unemployment rate will also decrease, but just because we have more workers in the unions doesn't mean that we will be getting more and better goods- like you said Wages would be based on political power and not productivity. In return these workers would be getting efficiancy wages that are aboue equilibrium wages paid by firms to increase worker productivity, but having that will hurt the economy because pushing the wages in unionized industries above the equilibrium level will create a surplus of labor. The turnout would be a political battle not an economic battle.
ReplyDeleteGwen Doyen- Bruceville-Eddy
This past weekend I was in Lincold-Douglas Debate, our topic had to do with Federal Bailouts of Major Corporations. I am definently against any bailout or special assistance to any section of society because it is not just nor is it upholding the United State's responsiblity of equality. Therefore, in the case of unions getting special treatment I strongly negate the action. There seems to be to much power given to these unions and in my opinion this will take away people's rights to individualism. Also just becasue someone is not in a union they should not be given lower wages then those who are in a union. How is that demonstrating a just government? Honestly, the whole card-check deal just sounds shady. To me it seems that this allows unions to manipulate its members. Another point I will address is the Union's ability to demand dues from nonmembers. No one should be punished for not joining a union, instead those that are a member should pay the dues. The union should have no effect on those not involved. Finally, the question of political power and and productivity. The Employee Free Choice Act is wrong! No act that is supposed to help the economy and those involved should be based on political representation. I agree with Mark Balko when I say that wage negotiation should be left to the economy as a whole not politicians.
ReplyDeleteDevin Smith
Bruceville-Eddy
I cannot believe anyone who honestly thinks that the Employee Free Coice Act is at all helpful or in any situation correct. This act not only takes from our labor workers but also from the economy itself. I do not believe that wages should be decided by polictical powers and that labor workers should have to decide to either be in or out of a Union and on top of that be punished by paying a fee if one does not join. Yes a union may have higher wages but what happens to those who are not chosen whom are much better qualified for the jobs being offered. Eventually the act reduces the quantity in labor and will give less wages to everyone. So I too stand by the opinion that wages should be negotiated by our own economy and letting our economy take its natural course.
ReplyDelete-Ami Barragan
I agree that the Employee Free Choice Act does not help workers or the economy. The thing I think is odd about the Act is that if a worker is not in a union, they would have to pay to join in just to receive the benefit of higher wages? I agree with you when you stated "it supports cartels, who will demand higher wages that consumers will pay for through higher prices or lower quality goods," this is not a thing to want to promote because we are already struggling as it is with prices getting high frequently. Who knows how things in the economy would work out if they let this Act happen.
ReplyDelete