Unions

[Martin Hash]

scan0153.jpg

scan0211.jpg

Union membership has long been a friend of our family. My grandfather, whom I dearly loved, was a loyal member of the Operating Engineers, and my great-grandfather was in the painters union; my wife, Gwynne, was a member of the Nurses Association, and I was in the IBEW. There’s no exhortation I haven’t heard and no issues I haven’t debated. I’m fully privy to the moral underpinnings of union creation. I know unions are an absolutely essential component of the Capitialism formula, however I’m leery of unregulated power, no matter whose side the angels are on, and anytime a group of people exploit their unity for selfish interests my suspicions & hackles are raised.

Let me list my grievances:

First off, the U.S. Supreme Court found there is a freedom of association guaranteed in the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, saying that “the freedom of association is an essential part of the Freedom of Speech,” [NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 1958]. The fact that employees of a business can be forced to join a union is counter to that freedom. In a worldwide scenario, Article 20(2) of the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" expressly provides that no one may be compelled to belong to an association. Additionally, Article 11 of the "European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR)," has been found to guarantee the right of “Negative Freedom of Association.” [British Rail, Young, James and Webster v. United Kingdom 1981]. These are called “Right to Work” statutes in the U.S. Surely if socialist Europe provides this liberty it is an essential freedom in America!

Secondly, one of the rights Americans have long enjoyed is the right to keep our vote private. In fact, the “Right of Privacy” has become part of the public geist and now even enjoys judicial protections [Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 1965]. Union attempts to take away that privacy with their “Card-Check Rule,” where non-union workers are forced to publicly sign a union membership card in the presence of union organizers during a vote, thereby suffering pressure via social stigma, ridicule, and shunning, is contemptible.

Thirdly, Union’s power of collusion to strike is ripe for abusive extortion. Unions are specifically exempted from the collusion antitrust laws that businesses are subject to! ["Clayton Act" 15 U.S.C. § 17 1914] The reasons those laws exist is because collusion hurts our economy – and that includes union collusion.

Forth, Unions maneuver their members into a confrontational atmosphere with their employers, often encouraging a self-righteous contempt for “white-collar” workers. This is counter-productive and socially reprehensible: to think that people who use their brains rather than their hands are morally inferior and ethically suspicious is the worst kind of bigotry and prejudice.

Fifth, Unions, by their very nature, are collectivist, which makes them vulnerable to totalitarian authority. Historically, this weakness has been exploited by dubious, dishonest, and often illegal criminal elements (the Mob) that have infiltrated Union leadership in the past.

Having said all this, am I against private Unions? Certainly not! For the Capitalist system to work there must be adversarial relationships on all sides: owners & employees, customers & management, owners & management. If there is collusion at any level, the concept breaks down. Private unions are vital as a bulwark against the excesses of owners & managers. They need the power of Mutually Assured Destruction. On the other hand, Government unions have no adversarial relationship. They select their own "managers" (elected officials), and their "customers" (us) can be ignored - there is no countervailing restraint. As president Franklin Delano Roosevelt said:

“All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations.” - Letter on the Resolution of Federation of Federal Employees Against Strikes in Federal Service - August 16, 1937

[Haven]

Funny how the National Labor Relations Act says employers are prevented
from:

* Interfering with, restraining or coercing employees in their rights
under Section 7. These rights include freedom of association, mutual aid
or protection, self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor
organizations, to bargain collectively for wages and working conditions
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other
protected concerted activities with or without a union. Section 8(a)(1)

But where is the employee (with or without a union!) protected from the
union to choose to do or not to do these things? I guess if they don't like
the union then the employee can quit.. but then what is the union for
again?

Over at http://www.yourunionnews.com/?Benefits_of_unions they've got a
list of union benefits and they're even pushing to extend the anti-trust
exemption to cover freelance writers stating:

"So for us, it is still a violation of anti-trust law for us to do many of
the things for our members that other unions do as a matter of course."

I do not see how any of their own listed benefits of unions require such
an exemption. Nor do I see how any of their listed benefits of unions
even requires a union. Those sound more like the benefits of a Professional
Association.

What is it exactly that they would like to do? Collude? Force other
'freelancers' into their collusion? I want these intentions as a matter of
course clearly enumerated. Not being able to track down a copy of the
"Freelance Writers Protection Act" I left them a message with a link to
this forum posting on their feedback page.