The biggest myth about labor unions is that unions are for workers. Unions are for unions, just as corporations are for corporations and politicians are for politicians.
Nothing shows the utter cynicism of the unions and the politicians who do their bidding like the so-called “Employee Free Choice Act” that the Obama administration tried to push through Congress. Employees’ free choice as to whether to join a union is precisely what that legislation would destroy.
Advertisement
Workers already have a free choice in secret-ballot elections conducted under existing laws. As more and more workers in the private sector have voted to reject having a union represent them, the unions’ answer has been to take away secret-ballot elections.
Under the “Employee Free Choice Act,” unions would not have to win in secret-ballot elections in order to represent the workers. Instead, union representatives could simply collect signatures from the workers until they had a majority.
Why do we have secret ballots in the first place, whether in elections for unions or elections for government officials? To prevent intimidation and allow people to vote the way they want to — without fear of retaliation.
This is a crucial right that unions want to take away from workers. The actions of union mobs in Wisconsin, Ohio, and elsewhere give us a free home demonstration of how little they respect the rights of those who disagree with them and how much they rely on harassment and threats to get what they want.
It takes world-class chutzpah to call circumventing secret ballots the “Employee Free Choice Act.” To unions, workers are just the raw material used to create union power, just as iron ore is the raw material used by U.S. Steel and bauxite is the raw material used by the Aluminum Company of America.
The most fundamental fact about labor unions is that they do not create any wealth. They are one of a growing number of institutions which specialize in siphoning off wealth created by others, whether they are businesses or the taxpayers.
There are limits to how long unions can siphon off money from businesses without facing serious economic repercussions.
The most famous labor union leader, the legendary John L. Lewis, head of the United Mine Workers from 1920 to 1960, secured rising wages and job benefits for the coal miners, far beyond what they could have gotten out of a free market based on supply and demand.
But there is no free lunch.
An economist at the University of Chicago called John L. Lewis “the world’s greatest oil salesman.”
His strikes that interrupted the supply of coal, as well as the resulting wage increases that raised its price, caused many individuals and businesses to switch from using coal to using oil, leading to reduced employment of coal miners. The higher wage rates also led coal companies to replace many miners with machines.
The net result was a huge decline in employment in the coal-mining industry, leaving many mining areas virtually ghost towns by the 1960s. There is no free lunch.
Similar things happened in the unionized steel industry and in the unionized automobile industry. At one time, U.S. Steel was the largest steel producer in the world and General Motors the largest automobile manufacturer. Not any more. Their unions were riding high in their heyday, but they too discovered that there is no free lunch, as their members lost jobs by the hundreds of thousands.
Communities that pass laws requiring collective bargaining
have enslaved themselves. Why would any government or
community grant monopoly power to the small groups that
provide education/police/fire services?
They knew not what they did.
However, I don't know if I agree with the statement that "government is a monopoly". If it truly were a monopoly, I am guessing we would not see quite so many jobs leaving our country for another.
Until the government is forced to go into furlough days, shutdowns, etc. from lack of $$. They may not lose their jobs as some of the private sector union workers, but when they work less and less and are not paid during the furloughs, they will find out a cost for their unions. Or, will one day wake up when they are retired to find that the state has gone bankrupt and is no longer required to fund their pensions. One way or another, even for public sector union workers they will find there is no free lunch.
An Excellent article by Mr. Sowell. He's so logical that when you read his writing you can't help but agree with him. There are a few more aspects of the proposed law: The EFCA did not require a majority of the workers who signed the union card, but only 3 out of 10. If that minimum was met then the company automatically had a union and went to arbitration, no secret ballot just automatically have union representation and dues.
It's so typical of the left to demonize others for the very things that they embrace: savage corporate CEO's for huge salaries and bonuses then have the same situation within the labor unions, who of course do not have to open their books to reveal the salaries, perks, and bonuses of their bosses/thugs. I'll willing to bet the thugish Trumka makes as much in salary and bonuses as any CEO in corporate America. However, he doesn't contribute anything to the economy, but is a parasite sucking dues out of the folks that earn a living. Maybe one day the sheep will get tired of being taken.
I live in the metro Detroit aria. Have been indirectly and directly involved with ALL three car companies since 1983.
Unions AND management are BOTH responsible for their demise.
Of the "big Three" Ford has all ways been
the most hostile to the UNIONS.
And funny how that worked out for them in the long run as they are the only one of "the Big Three" that is viable financially and STILL A PRIVATE company.
Having said that,...
Union Dues are nothing more that LEGAL EXTORTION.
If you want a JOB you HAVE to join the UNION,.. AND you HAVE to PAY DUES.
WI legislature is making dues optional.
It IS one of the things the UNIONS are trying to stop.
When I was in Unions If I could have NOT payed dues I wouldn't have payed it.
You want UNIONS??
Fine.
Go get a job in DETROIT. Oh,.. wait you can't.
THERE ARN'T ANY!!!
AND if the UNIONs had their way, THE REST OF AMERICA would resemble DETROIT soon too.
Thanks UNIONS. AFL-CIO, UAW, SEIU, TUA, WGA.
UNIONS are n the process Destroying America.
Look at Detroit MI. to see what the UNION's AND the DemocRAT party have planned for America.
A ONCE Great American City COMPLETELY DESTROYED
BY the DemocRAT Party and their UNION masters.
WAY to go AFL-CIO, UAW, AFT,TUA, WGA and SEIU.
This IS what they WILL do to YOUR town if you LET them.
As a young man I worked a number of years as a garbageman, back when we toted the garbage in buckets on our backs rather than lifted it with machines.
As municipal employees we were perforce, members of AFSCME (Association of Federal, State, and Municipal Employees.)
Come election time, our dues were used to support the union's preferred candidate for president (it wasn't Ronald Reagan) - and the union newsletter told us who to vote for.
Does anyone else think this is outragrous? It's been going on for a long time now.
So corporations are for corporations -- not shareholders?
The Left has been preaching this for decades.
The problem is, Sowell's gargantuan misstatement is half true.
The fundamental problem with corporations that cries out for regulation is the separation of ownership from management. Management seeks its own short-term gain at the expense of shareholders. Management also uses the excuse of "It's in the shareholders' best interests" to do things that shareholders themselves would be loath to do. Shareholders, on the other hand, convince themselves that they are merely Sergeant Schultz in Hogan's Heroes -- they "see nothing, nothing."
Corporations are essential to the economy because they shield investors from personal liability and thereby facilitate capital investment. But they have to be regulated. Heavily. Because when you have the smatest guys in the room running them, there's extraordinary opportunity for malfeasance.
Not to mention all the other things wrong with this column:
1. Unions helped pull labor out of semi-servitude.
2. Jobs didn't leave America because of unions. Jobs left because American workers won't work for $0.76 an hour, as workers in other countries will, to make the stuff that used to be able to be made only in developed countries and now, because developing countries have better infrastructure and vast numbers of people moving into the middle class, can be made there.
3. This piece wholly ignores the sophisticated union-suppression machine called in by companies when organizing drives are afoot.
MikeB, quit being so pedantic. You know what Mr. Sowell meant. When he meant that is that corporations look out for the interest of corporations. When they do this, they maximize shareholder investment.
While it is true that there is sometimes a disconnect between management and ownership, there are simpler ways to solve this problem than turning to govt.
Why is it those on the left actually believe that the answer to every problem is massive govt regulations.
When you want someone to spout the latest union myths, you can always count on MikeB.
1) Workers in this country were never in "semi-servitude", at least not until the unions put them there.
If you think the choice is between union jobs and working for 76 cents an hour, then you are a bigger fool than most of us think.
Companies do not have devious union busting schemes to win labor elections. All they do is tell workers the truth. Which is something that no union can abide.
Let the workforce that the union claims to represent decide for themselves if they wish to be members, and then pay the dues directly, rather than having the government or company collect the dues out of paychecks. I think we may find that the unions are starved back to a reasonable size, as many may choose NOT to support that which neither represents their position, nor their interests. If the union delivers so well, then the workers will whish to join. There's real choice! The Wisconsin issue really centers around this, not the bargaining agreements, not the employee contributions to the health and retirement. Those are short-term necessary, but revamping collection of dues is the long term solution.
I agree almost wholeheartedly with Mr. Sowell. However, there is one statement he should tweak. "(Unions) are one of a growing number of institutions which specialize in siphoning off wealth created by others, whether they are businesses or the taxpayers," ignores that private sector union members help to create the wealth they are "siphoning off". To ignore that fact is disingenuous.
His comments on public sector unions (I am forced to pay exorbitant "dues" to one myself) are a slam dunk!
The problem is the guys that set up the bad conditions have collected their marbles and moved on by the time all the lunch bills come due. So in the end it all comes down on the bulk of the workers heads. My bet are that the retirements will be restsructured even for current retirees to force the obligations down. Government is the overhead of society. Like in a corparation when the headquarters gets too big and unwieldy the corparation contracts. If not it goes out of business.
"MikeB, quit being so pedantic. You know what Mr. Sowell meant. When he meant that is that corporations look out for the interest of corporations. When they do this, they maximize shareholder investment."
So when Sowell said "Unions are for unions, just as corporations are for corporations," he meant, "Unions look out for the interest of unions. When they do this, they maximize [union members' benefits]."
MarkW: "If you think the choice is between union jobs and working for 76 cents an hour, then you are a bigger fool than most of us think."
Then you and your market economics are going to have to explain the effect of three hundred million middle class Indians and Chinese who didn't exist in 1960. They make $0.76 an hour, but they live a middle class existence, relatively speaking, in their native lands. It is no accident that the $35/hr assembly line worker here in the U.S. is now the $11.75/hr night clerk at the Courtyard by Marriott.
Once again you display limited understanding, as evidenced by your numerous non-sequiters. Where, oh where to begin??
First, corporations ARE shareholders. Looking out for a corporation IS looking out for its shareholders. Management works for the shareholders (kind of like union workers work for corporations) Too often management is looking out for management, and not for the corporation. That, we agree, is a bad thing.
Bad or evil management, like evil unions, hurt corporations. If they weren't connected through cronyism they would be fired, and many are.
You know this, MB, so why do you not understand the distinction?
