The idiom of the wolf in sheep’s clothing comes to mind
when discussing the prevalence of “Right to Work” laws in the U.S.
“Right-to-work” is a term used across the U.S to refer to laws that prevent established
unions from requiring new and existing employees to pay union dues, or be
active members of said unions. These
laws are pitched to voters as protections intended to defend against the
excesses and overreach of union power and influence, while maintaining the
benefits of unions. However, while “Right-to-Work” proponents would like to
have you believe the laws are pro-worker, in actuality, they are
unapologetically anti-union. Contrary to the implications of these laws and the
rhetoric used to defend them, being anti-union is more likely to harm than help
a worker. Unions, and more generally collective bargaining, have been an
essential component in improving the situation of the worker, by fighting for
higher wages, fair hours, and safe work conditions, in the U.S, but also
world-wide since the industrial revolution. Free-ridership, shifting blame from
employer to union, misnomers, and misinformation are some of the tools
“Right-to-work” allows employers to use to harm unions, and ultimately turn the
worker against himself.
Free-ridership is the economic concept of benefitting
from a situation while doing nothing to sustain the process by which the
benefit is received. In this case, it refers to the propensity of workers in “Right–to-Work”
states to take advantage of those laws by abstaining from union membership and
obligations, while receiving union benefits. Union dues and a high membership
percentage are the essence of how unions derive their power, which, although able
to be abused, is essential to how unions fight on the behalf of the worker. Proponents
of “Right-to-Work” laws argue that the significant shift in union membership
over the decades is due to anti-union sentiment, and not due to the laws, which
they claim only serve to protect the worker.
To combat these claims, Casey Ichniowski conducted a study comparing union and association
membership in various states with and without “Right-to-Work” laws. He
hypothesized that if the argument that union membership decline was in fact due
to anti-union sentiments within workforces, then membership of labor
associations, a non-bargaining form of unions, would be at the same level as
collective bargaining unions. What he found was that associations were more
common than unions in “Right-to-Work” states, leading him to conclude that “unmeasured
antiunion sentiment in RTW states is not a compelling explanation” for the decline in union
membership (Ichniowski 273).
Furthermore, his study supports the idea that free-riders are the cause of the
decline of unions, due to the fact that “associations are as vulnerable to free
riders in RTW and non-RTW states” (Ichniowski
259). The fact that they are more common than bargaining unions in
“Right-to-Work” workforces suggests that it is the free-ridership allowed
within those workforces, and not a prevailing anti-union sentiment, that is
causing the decline in membership.
Jake Rosenfeld claims that modern day union’s
“strikes no longer have a beneficial effect on worker wages”, and that unions
do not offer as much material incentive for membership as they used to (Rosenfeld
236). However, others such as Stephen J. Trejo argue that unions are still
beneficial to the worker, specifically in the case of overtime pay where “union
workers are much more likely than non-union workers to receive premium pay for
overtime” (Trejo 254). Trejo then goes on to claim that unions supports the
conclusion that workforces that are highly unionized are better off than their
“Right-to-Work” counterparts, by comparing instances of both workforces in
measurable qualities such as salary, hour stability, benefits, and overtime
hours. His finding suggest that overall, areas that are unionized have more
stable hours, more comprehensive benefits, and have greater employment numbers.
These finding are explained by the fact that it becomes more affordable to hire
new employees rather than overwork existing ones, because of union-demanded
premium pay for overtime. This also has the effect of increasing union
membership, by necessitating a larger workforce, and consequentially, larger
unions. Trejo refers to this as
“adjusting employment vs. adjusting hours”, but it is more than that (Trejo
255). Employers are reluctant to pay employees more, or hire new employees to
cover the missing time after a reasonable forty hour work-week, so they resort
to lowering base wages, so that weekly salaries remain the same after overtime
premiums are taken into account. Unions ensure that this exploitation of
workers does not take place.
However, it is a common flaw in social thinking to take
for granted the conditions that one lives in. Like the proverbial frog in
boiling water, when change occurs slowly, few take notice, and the true extent
of what is going on may remain hidden. Abstract concepts like work weeks,
strikes, and retirement benefits are quickly forgotten when employers rail
against unions and their more tangible dues. After all a union’s objectives are
accomplished, there is not much left for them to do, but there is a constant
upkeep cost associated with organization. Eager to dismantle the organizations
digging into their profits, employers point to unions as complacent, lazy,
greedy, and unnecessary. Unfortunately, to those that have never worked without
the hard-won benefits of collective bargaining, this may sound true.
Recently, the trend has been towards decreasing union
membership, and a study by Bruce Western of Harvard University shows that
“Union decline forms part of an institutional account of rising inequality”
(Western 513). Western’s studies support the proposition that employers exploit
the lack of unions by decreasing wages where they can, as observed by the rise
in wage inequality. The tendency for union workers to have higher wages than
non-union workers, arguably an argument for further unionization, is exploited
to turn workers against unionism. Union power is decried as something that must
be kept in check, banking on the historical tendency of Americans to be anti-establishment,
while disguising the employer as a benevolent force. In reality both companies
and unions have been known exploit their influence over large groups of people
for political power, as Edwin M. Epstein states in his discussion on the topic:
“business and labor-as do other social interests-have sought to influence the
election of officials and to bring before the public ballot measures supportive
of their organizational needs” (Epstein 33).
The issue with these campaigns against unions is not the
subject matter, but rather the approach. If employers played fair and argued
the benefits of independent workers, there would be no cause for alarm, and
rational workers could decide for themselves whether they wanted to unionize or
not. However, this is not common, and their agendas are often pushed forward
with such as the mentioned “Right-to-Work” which has nothing to do with any
actual right to work, but rather the ideas mentioned before. The use of
misnomers has risen lately to polarize voters and they are not just a cheap
tactic, but an unacceptable corruption of the democratic process. Rather than
rely on the collective decision of an active and informed populace, the use of
misnomers blame and emotional rhetoric suggests that they are hoping for a
knee-jerk, emotional response from voters.
It is no secret that unions occasionally end up
embroiled in some scandal. Whether it’s an unethical use of their power
extended to politics, or their lack of purpose with regards to certain occupations,
it often becomes tempting to “trim the fat” and dismiss them as a bureaucratic obstacle
to progress. However, it is of the utmost importance for democratic societies
to remain informed, have an understanding of the faults in human nature, and be
aware of historical precedents and trends. The push for “Right-to-Work”
legislation should be recognized for what it intends to do, and not what it
appears to be. These laws create exploitative conditions against unions that
would not be tolerated by any other organization, commercial or charitable, in
an attempt to defeat them by employers. These laws represent only a small part
in an on-going trend of obscurity and deceit in politics, which is
dishonorable, shameful, and should be made to stop.
Works
Cited
Epstein, Edwin M. "Corporations
and Labor Unions in Electoral Politics." Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science
425.Political Finance: Reform and Reality (1976): 33-58. JSTOR. Web. 01 Oct. 2015. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/1040933?ref=no-x-route:16bb1e97d207eed23edd6046660ad9ff>.
Ichniowski, Casey. "Right-to-Work
Laws, Free Riders, and Unionization in the Local Public Sector." Journal of Labor Economics 9.3 (1991):
255-75. JSTOR. Web. 01 Oct. 2015.
<http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/2535144?ref=no-x-route:5f34d04cb60b3eff60ae06039572c3c2>.
Rosenfeld,
Jake. "Desperate Measures: Strikes and Wages in Post-Accord America."
Social Forces 85.1 (2006): 235-65. JSTOR. Web. 02 Oct. 2015. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/3844415?ref=no-x-route:fd813e0e10c5ff86f700001b8353f79d>.
Trejo, Stephen J. "Overtime Pay,
Overtime Hours, and Labor Unions." Journal
of Labor Economics 11.2 (1993): 253-78. JSTOR.
Web. 01 Oct. 2015. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/2535281?ref=no-x-route:9c6096f903a8d4b360ea560d40dc2385>.
Western, Bruce. "Unions, Norms,
and the Rise in U.S. Wage Inequality." American
Sociological Review 76.4 (2011): 513-37. JSTOR. Web. 01 Oct. 2015. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/23019206?ref=no-x-route:de00cf1458aa5649811cabd91bfc277b>.
No comments:
Post a Comment