Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

When labor's agenda supports the market

This Web only Speakout has not been edited.

James Hansen

Published April 30, 2008 at 5:59 p.m.

Text size  

More Speakout

More stories »

It's called free market hypocrisy, and it afflicts the business community every time labor is pitted against profit.

For example, corporations have always eschewed government intervention into their business. Laissez faire, the theory that less government is best in business affairs has helped generate profits. Laissez faire has been adopted, more or less, by every administration since Jimmy Carter was president.

Precious little government oversight led to massive profits in the mortgage industry, at least until it collapsed recently because of a lack of regulation. Now mortgage bankers are whining for more government in the form of a bailout, the same as the savings and loan industry sought and received under the administration of President Bush's father.

On the state level, we have another example of free market hypocrisy. Much of business community is supporting a so-called "right-to-work" law, which the unions appropriately call right-to-work-for less. A right-to-work law would allow the government to intervene in labor-management relations, undermining the freedom that employers and workers now have to negotiate the best agreement possible for both sides.

Right-to-work laws exert downward pressure on wages, and employers believe lower labor costs increase profits. This is not always a valid viewpoint, but it is widely held in the business community, especially among small businesses.

That is why the Colorado Association for Commerce and Industry, (CACI), the state chamber of commerce, has joined the leader of the right-to-work campaign--an out-of-state anti-worker interest group--in supporting the effort to place the issue on the ballot in November. Never mind that CACI officials have in the past testified before the legislature many times that its members oppose government meddling in private business.

And that's how the so-called free market works.

It is only "free" when the marketers want it to be. But if government control means more profits, they prefer more and bigger government. In reality, then, it is only a sometimes free market, and not the deity that business professes to worship.

So Colorado labor has decided to join business in participating in the sometimes free market.

A coalition of labor unions and community groups--Protect Colorado's Future-- was recently successful getting the language of two ballot initiatives approved by the Colorado Secretary of State. The group will soon be gathering signatures to put the issues on the ballot.

One of the approved initiatives would require that employers have just cause for firing employees; the other is a corporate fraud initiative that would hold corporate executives accountable for committing fraud. In addition, the secretary of state's office is expected to rule on the language of several other initiatives that would protect union families if right-to-work is passed by the voters.

Critics of labor's strategy in combating the right-to-work issue are already trotting out their predictable argument, which is basically that anything the unions propose will hurt business. But that dog might not hunt this time.

The just cause and corporate fraud initiatives both received more than 70 percent approval in recent public opinion polls. If that opinion is transferred to the voting booth on Nov. 4, the unions will be cheering for the free market, or the sometimes free market, anyway.

James Hansen is active in organized labor. He can be reached by e-mail at Jayhans@aol.com.

Comments

  • April 30, 2008

    7:21 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    kyjohnso writes:

    Right to work laws make it illegal to force workers to join a union if they don't want to. This sure sounds like more freedom and a free market for labor to me. There is no evidence that right to work laws have a downward push on wages (looking at the average wages between right to work and non right to work states isn't sufficient to show this). There are many advantages to organized labor, but collective bargaining for wages only decreases real wages and forcing people to join a union decreases them further. Maybe a little basic economics would be more convincing than rhetoric.

  • May 1, 2008

    5:46 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Acemon writes:

    James Hansen has a stake in organized labor, so it's difficult to see him as an impartial party. For myself, I have zero interest in being represented by a union, nor do I want part of my paycheck to support union employees and overhead, nor union causes. I have always done better negociating for myself, and when a workplace was run poorly, I left and took my skills with me, which was a loss for the employer. As far as corporate fraud is concerned, I seem to recall a fair amount of union fraud. What would the Protect Colorado's Future coalition do to prevent union fraud or union mismanagement?

  • May 1, 2008

    8:06 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Mike_In_Hartsel writes:

    Over the years I have been a member of the telephone workers union, the airline workers union, and Teamsters. I refuse to ever again work in a company where I must join a union.

    Just what do you call "just cause"? I'll tell you. Nothing, that's what. If a company hires someone who cannot do the work you are saying the company cannot correct that mistake by getting rid of the employee? Move to France where that is already in effect.

    Unions want to force their will upon the marketplace. Fairness and union intervention are not compatable.

  • May 1, 2008

    8:27 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    jacka writes:

    VOTE YES ON AMENDMENT 47 - ITS YOUR JOB, ITS YOUR RIGHT-TO-WORK, ITS YOUR RIGHT TO CHOOSE.

    UNIONS AND THEIR BUSINESS CONSPIRATORS STAND UNITED.

    I just can't wait to see Dallas, Chicago, etc... use the complicit Coloraod chambers and economic development fools rally cry against RTW.

    Can you imagine they host new companies looking to relacate here and the the CEO asks so the chamber here supports the Detroit Solution, tell me again why Colorado is so business freindly?

    At least CACI is standing up for their membership and not conspiring to sell Labor Peace.

    Selling Labor Peace is a corrupt Union tactic, adoption of this by any business organization extends the corruption to that group and their business supporters.

  • May 1, 2008

    10:12 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    stangreer writes:

    AFL-CIO kingpin James Hansen sheds crocodile tears for employers when he laments that state Right to Work laws violate businesses' "freedom of contract."

    The fact is, for nearly 80 years, federal law has prohibited businesses from negotiating contracts with employees that prohibit the employees from joining and paying dues to a union.

    Does Mr. Hansen want to repeal this "restriction on the freedom of contract"? I think not.

    And as long as this restriction remains in place, it is only to fair to the individual worker that contract clauses that force him to join or pay dues or fees to a union as a condition of employment also be barred.

    If you're for banning "union free" contracts, but against banning "union only" contracts, you're not for the "freedom of contract." You're just for Big Labor special privileges.

    Stan Greer
    National Right to Work Committee
    Springfield, Va.

  • May 1, 2008

    11:36 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    kyjohnso writes:

    Where are the comments from people who agree with Hansen and oppose 47?

  • May 1, 2008

    12:39 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    vudumom writes:

    I'm for and against the right to work. I do not think people should be forced to pay union dues if they do not want to be in a union.I do think people should at least be fired for a legitimate reason. My husband has been in a union for a long time. Though he doesn't like the way everything is done in a union, our family has benefitted greatly by my husband being in a union. There seems to be this myth floating around that once your in a union you can't be fired. This is totally untrue. My husband has seen his company fire people who do not live up to their standards immediately. He has seen people get fired after one day. So at least in the trade that he is in that myth is not true.
    People should have a choice whether to pay union dues or not ,but be prepared not to recieve the same benefits the union offers. Negotiate a different contract with your employer.

  • May 1, 2008

    3:14 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    mytwosense writes:

    Is SASQUATCH seriously telling us that high wages driven by the unions are to blame for our current inflation??? Dear Lord, these are the people who claim to be economic experts!

    --shakes head--

    Stan Greer, federal law also prevents workers from being forced to join a union, doesn't it? I think you are trying to confuse voters who don't have a clear understanding of the "Right to Work" measure you're so desperate to push through.

  • May 1, 2008

    3:26 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    mytwosense writes:

    By the way Mr. Greer - how come it's ok for anti-union factions to "union" together to advance their interests, like your OWN organization, yet this is not ok for American workers to do??

    Where in the Constitution does it state that only non-profits and corporations can peacefully assemble together, but not individual Americans???

  • May 1, 2008

    4:21 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    kyjohnso writes:

    To mytwosense,

    Mr Greer didn't state that it was not ok for workers to "peacefully assemble together," and right to work is not about that. It is about unions being able to force people to unionize who don't want to. You can peacefully assemble all you want, but don't make me pay you to do so -

    Kyle,
    Arvada

  • May 2, 2008

    2:07 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    roger44 writes:

    Safety is better at union workplaces, I worked for employer in NE Co. who has been fined twice by OSHA on employee safety complaints, and still is not in compliance. A third complaint has been filed, just wonder what it takes to get workers a safe workplace. I've worked union and wages were higher, dues not bad at all for what you get in benefits, but there are downsides. There has to be a way to achieve a balance.

  • May 2, 2008

    9:01 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    mytwosense writes:

    Kyle, again, federal law prevents unions from forcing workers to join if they don't want to.

  • May 5, 2008

    9:42 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    stangreer writes:

    I can't address all the misleading statements by forced-unionism supporters made here, but the claim that "federal law prevents unions from forcing workers to join if they don't want to" is ridiculous.

    Federal law specifically authorizes union officials to force workers who don't join a union to pay dues or fees that can be as high as full union dues, or be fired from their jobs.

    Technically, such workers haven't "joined" the union. But how sigfnicant is that?

    If federal law permitted you to join a union over the employer's objection, but not to pay dues if the employer objected, that would your right to join a union really be protected by the law? I doubt Mr. Hansen or mytwosense would agree. I certainly don't think that's meaningful protection of the right to join. Similarly, the right not to join a union isn't protected in a meaningful way by current federal law.

    Furthermore, Mr. Hansen and mytwosense ignore the fact that current federal law specifically authorizes contracts that tell workers they do have to join a union within a few weeks after they get the job. And union officials only have to tell workers they have a technical right not to join once a year, but pay forced dues instead, in a union newsletter, for example, that workers who don't want a union aren't apt to read.

    Unless workers know they have a right not to join, and millions don't know that, they may well think they have to join. And many do, even though they want nothing to do with a union.

    Mr. Hansen and mytwosense are clearly bluffing, hoping most people who read/hear what they have to say don't know the basic relevant facts.

    Stan Greer
    NRTWC

  • May 6, 2008

    11:43 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Salty writes:

    mytwosense: You stated, "Stan Greer, federal law also prevents workers from being forced to join a union, doesn't it? I think you are trying to confuse voters who don't have a clear understanding of the "Right to Work" measure you're so desperate to push through."

    Three questions:

    1. Why do you dislike right to work laws?

    2. Do you believe all voters are entitled to a clear understanding of the "Right to Work" measure. By "a clear understanding", I establish that voters not only understand what a right to work law does but how it operates within the legal landscape as well as why it is necessary?

    3. Do you believe an individual's right to work should be linked, i.e. made conditional, upon that individual's affiliation or non-affiliation with a labor union?

    Salty

  • May 8, 2008

    8:40 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Salty writes:

    vadumom (May 1, 2008 at 13:39 p.m.)

    "Negotiate a different contract with your employer."

    As one who benefits from compulsory unionization, you ought not be so cavalier in your comments and advice to those who are compelled by force of federal law to accept union representation. Could it be you are simply unaware of the fact that it is the union that prevents an employer from negotiating with current or prospective employees over the terms and conditions of their employment?

    Near the beginning of the collective bargaining agreement your husband works under you will find a clause establishing the union as the exclusive representative of all bargaining unit employees. The inclusion of this clause establishes the union as the only entity with the legal authority to negotiate on behalf of the employees. It is this clause that prohibits the employer from negotiating terms and conditions of employment with any other entity; including current or prospective employees. With the union controlling the employer's power to negotiate, there is no employer with whom an employee or group of employees can negotiate a different contract.

    There are two solutions to this union created problem. One is to limit the membership of the collective bargaining unit to only those employees desiring to benefit from union representation. The other is to exclude the exclusive representation clause from the collective bargaining agreement. Both solutions are within the unilateral power of the labor union and both reduce the right to work debate to a non-issue. The problem is that it is not in the union's interest, financially and otherwise, to do so.

    Without the exclusive representation clause in the collective bargaining agreement, the union is powerless to force the "benefits" of union representation upon non-union member employees. If non-union member employees are not benefiting from union representation, the union is powerless to compel those employees to financially support the union. The crux of the right to work issue is that without the power to compel financial support, under threat of loss of employment, union members will be required to bear the full cost of the benefits they gain through negotiations with their employer.

    Salty

  • May 10, 2008

    4:39 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Salty writes:

    kyjohnso (April 30, 2008 at 7:21 p.m.) “Right to work laws make it illegal to force workers to join a union if they don't want to.”

    State right to work laws prevent the conditioning of an employee’s employment upon the payment of fees to the union. In right to work states, unionized employees refraining from formal union membership cannot be fired for refusing to financially support the union. This protection does not exist for employees unionized under the RLA, working in non-right to work states, or employed on federal enclaves.

    Compulsory union membership is a function of three collective bargaining agreement (CBA) clauses.

    The first defines the membership of the collective bargaining unit (CBU). If limited to only employees desiring representation or to union members, there is no need for a right to work law to protect non-union employees. The union represents only those desiring representation or who have joined the union. Employees declining union representation or membership would not be represented and would not be entitled to union gained benefits.

    Second is the exclusive representation clause which establishes the union as the only entity who can legally negotiate on behalf of the CBU. This is the clause that injects compulsory unionism into the work environment by compelling the non-union member employee to benefit from union representation.

    Third is the union security clause which appears to require formal union membership as a condition of employment. But the clause has no such power. In Radio Officers v Labor Board (1954) 347 U.S. 17, the Supreme Court stated, “This legislative history clearly indicates that Congress intended to prevent utilization of union security agreements for any purpose other than to compel payment of union dues and fees.” In Labor Board v General Motors (1963) 373 U.S. 734, the Supreme Court decreed, “Moreover, the 1947 [Taft-Hartley] amendments not only abolished the closed shop but also made significant alterations to the meaning of “membership” for the purposes of union-security contracts. Under the second proviso to 8(a)(3), the burdens of membership upon which employment may be conditioned are expressly limited to the payment of initiation fees and monthly dues. It is permissible to condition employment upon membership, but membership, insofar as it has significance to employment rights, may in turn be conditioned only upon the payment of fees and dues. “Membership‘’ as a condition of employment is whittled down to its financial core.” This Court has said as much before in Radio Officers’ Union v Labor Board:…”

    Employees not protected by a right to law fulfill the obligation of membership and secure their right to employment by rendering the demanded fees. Right to work laws operate by proscribing the obligation to financially support the union as a condition of employment.

    Salty

  • May 10, 2008

    5:11 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Salty writes:

    roger44 (May 2, 2008 at 2:07 p.m.): "Safety is better at union workplaces".

    A former employer of mine regularly posted industrial accident report summaries which I believe were issued by either the Department of Labor or OSHA (or perhaps another federal government agency). These summaries indicated the union or non-union status of the workplace. While I made no attempt to determine the percentage based on the severity of the accident, the reports concerning fatal accidents ran about 50/50 between unionized and non-unionized employer. I fail to see how that equates into safety being better at unionized workplaces.

    Unless you are willing to produce irrefutable evidence supporting your claim, your statement can only be classified as either wishful thinking or union propaganda.

    roger44 (May 2, 2008 at 2:07 p.m.): "There has to be a way to achieve a balance."

    There is. If you will read my posts you will see how it can be achieved without changing a single letter of the law. All such a solution requires is for union members to decide to end their exploitation of their non-union co-workers and compel their agents to respect the natural and constitutional rights of non-union members. However, I prefer that we, as a nation, restore to each and every American worker their constitutional right to not associate with a union. For that to be a reality, either the Supreme Court must overturn its precedent setting decisions or the national right to work act must be passed by Congress and signed into law by the President.

    Salty