First gut. Keep the law.
I have been a union member, a Teamster in fact. My first full-time job was at a union shop, Local 232, now defunct. 90 days probation and you may or may not have a job. On day 91 the union either invited you in or you had to leave the premesis. You then would get a nice raise, start paying union dues and get your union card. The tatoo was optional.
So having been a union member, I reserve the right to be emotional and illogical about unions. My first gut is about some guy who is trying to eliminate Right To Work laws from 22-odd states that now have them. Right to Work is the soundbite meaning that sometime 60 years ago or so, closed shops were eliminated. Also certain states, not including California became 'Right to Work' states meaning that they could break the 90 day stranglehold. So the difference is essentially this. An open shop would be a place where union workers could work side by side with non-union members and conceivably have the same job but maybe get paid different rates. The union job would have the advantage of the union strongarming the wage during collective bargaining. The non-union job would have the advantage of the management deciding exactly what the employee does and when and for how much. Essentially collective bargaining freezes a job duties, wages and everything else.
A Right to Work state says you can have an open shop and the union cannot force the non-union guy to pay dues or join. This sets up a condition in which people with equal skills can be paid differently etc.
Here's the thing. I'm a consultant. Consultants are the guys who work for little specialty firms that can do one or two things better than anyone. That means we go into your company and do Job X for way more than either a union or non-union regular employee. This happens all the time. It's outsourcing. Outsourcing is exactly like making union jobs into non-union jobs, except outsourced jobs usually pay *more*. Then there are offshored jobs. They are both outsourced and moved to another country. Same thing except they pay way *less*.
So essentially, the union/non-union duopoly has been broken up two other ways. Employers have more options of what kind of employees they want to hire, for what periods of time and under what conditions. On the other hand, they have a bit less control over the spirit and motivation of those employees - their management ability and leadership ability goes down. People are loyal to who? Interesting dynamic huh? So the advantage goes to the company no matter which way you slice it.
I always tend to think of organized labor as an inefficiency, and collective bargaining as something making up for an employee deficiency. But there are businesses like that - where you're not going to get creative, inspirational management, or well-motivated workers. So unions are where they are for good reasons. The problem is not the existence of the union itself, rather the effect a union's presence has on the whole of an industry once it becomes entrenched. I can think of few things worse than the stultification that unions create in an industry that needs innovation. So I argue against union monopoly.
I'm not convinced that Right To Work is adequately effective against union monopoly, but to the extent that it does give the company a way to hire on its own terms, it can be much better for an industry in need of dynamism. Unfortunately, I don't know that there is much capital likely to go into such industries. What it takes to start an alternative to the public education system in order to get around the teacher's union is almost impossible to achieve. Right to Work injected into the LA Unified School District would be great. But that would require a political revolution.
Recent Comments