Issue 99 Your right to work! June 14, 2013

   When is a union good and when are they bad?  Unions are good when they protect labor and represent workers and employees at the bargaining table.  Not to mention the right to be in a union is an expression of freedom protected under the 1^st Amendment of the Constitution, peaceable assembly which allows for the freedom of association.  Unions become, emphasis on become, bad when they represent people who do not wish to be in a union, do things that don’t have anything to do with employment like political campaigns and dealing with an entire industry rather than an employer to employee bases which jeopardizes that industry risking its shutdown.  The result is anti-union sentiments and workers that they are trying to protect loose their job.

 So when is a union good?:  Only when it operates under these three principles, one, association with the union is 100% voluntary.  Two, union activities are limited to collective bargaining.  And finally three, bargaining is confined to the employer and the workers concerned.  It does not span an entire industry, but is the factory worker and the boss of that factory negotiating.

So how do we keep unions within proper bounds?:  The first is to forbid any contracts that make union membership mandatory for employment.  That means union shop agreements must go as under that agreement a union is recognized as a bargainer and the employee is forced to have that union represent them.  This violates the first amendment right of the freedom of association through the peaceable assembly clause.  As a result of this freedom of choice it aids the employee in keeping the union boss responsible to you.  If you feel that the union is no longer representing you, you can switch to another union or abstain from union membership altogether.  In other words the union boss and leadership will fear loosing membership and will do whatever it takes to keep their membership up.

 They must work for you:  Another way to keep unions responsible to their members is to forbid both unions along with corporations from making any kind of financial contribution to political campaigns.  The reason is to protect against union dues going to candidates or causes that go against any of the members’ values, ideology or moral choices.  This though is a bit controversial as it limits the freedom of speech, but is supported by proponents who believe this form of speech is individually based and not collectively based in a union or corporation.  It’s a debate that must be had, though I hope the unions will do this voluntarily or its members force the leadership to do so to protect their union dues from being used in ways that do not fit their values nor protect their fellow members.

 Placing limits:  The final way to keep unions good is to limit collective bargaining to the employer and the employee within a specific business.  An example of this is Ford employees will only negotiate with Fords owner and Chrysler employees will negotiate with Chrysler’s owner.  This is opposed to the current situation where the entire auto industry negotiates with all of their workers, with Ford and the other motor companies on one side while all the motor companies workers on the other.  This universal scale of negotiation is detrimental for the companies involved.  The economic conditions of each company differ so one overlapping deal will financially burden some of these auto companies.  In some cases they can adapt, in others they be forced to fire the very workers that the union was trying to protect.  In the worst case scenario the entire company collapses resulting in union workers loosing their job.  Also, the contracts that are being negotiated at this universal scale become limited because there are so many varying interests that have to be met.  If it was an employer to employee contract negotiation then it would allow for better deals. 

 Direct negotiations:   An even better situation would be if employees negotiated directly with the factory boss rather than the entire company itself.  For example, say Ford motor company has a factory in New York and another factory in Alabama.  Because taxes and the economic conditions in Alabama are less burdensome the Alabama plant is more profitable allowing for a better deal for its workers.  On the other hand the economic conditions and taxes in New York are higher, so a deal that accommodates these harsher working conditions must be made that is mutually beneficial to both factory owner and worker involved.  In other words, a union member can get customized benefits based on living and economic conditions.  With this customized negotiation, factories stay open, maintain profits and the workers get the custom benefits based on the needs of the area they live and work in.  Not to mention it lessons the chance that workers will be fired to keep costs down.  The logic is that not all agreements are good at the national or even State level, so we need customization to get the best deal per employer to employee.

 Conclusion:  Unions by nature are good and are generally responsible by way of union elections.  However, the lack of union member freedom and customization of benefits inhibits them.  It is time unions update themselves for the 21^st century with these changes.  It is time to ensure the American peoples right to work.