The use of aggressive organizing tactics by unions that rely on pressuring management into deals that lead to the imposition of unionism without even a secret-ballot election were dealt a setback June 30. In a case arising at the Thomas Built Bus facility in High Point, the National Labor Relations Board decided to prosecute both the United Auto Workers and the parent company of Thomas Built (Freightliner) for violations of federal law.
For decades, the percentage of workers in private-sector employment who are represented by labor unions has been declining. When given the chance to vote on union representation, an increasing number of workers has been saying “No thanks” for a variety of reasons. Some don’t think that the benefits promised by the union will materialize and be worth the cost of dues. Others know that unions put a lot of money into politics that they don’t approve of.
To overcome the reluctance of workers to vote for unions in secret-ballot elections, union officials have been turning to other means of corralling workers. In what is called “top-down” organizing, union officials persuade management, through threats of economic damage, promises of easy treatment or investment capital, or both, to go along with a “neutrality agreement.”
These “neutrality agreements” say that the company will not oppose the union’s efforts to get a majority of the workers to sign cards and will grant the union the recognition it wants as the bargaining representative for all the workers — even those who don’t want it— once enough signed cards have been collected.
It’s a stacked deck in favor of the union. The workers don’t get to hear any organized voice of opposition since the company has agreed not to oppose, and sometimes even to actively promote the union and individual workers who may not want unionization are apt to be very reluctant to speak out. Furthermore, union organizers have been known to misrepresent what the cards mean or to harass workers into signing.
In the Thomas Bus case, the company required the workers to sit through meetings at which union spokesmen praised the UAW, while large numbers of organizers worked the crowd to get signatures on cards. That was done with company supervisors present. In such an intimidating and coercive setting, the organizers succeeded in getting enough signed cards to “prove” that a majority of workers wanted UAW representation. The company then granted the UAW’s demand to be recognized as the exclusive bargaining representative of the workers.
Many of them, however, were unhappy. More than 400 of the 1,100 workers signed a petition for an election to decertify the UAW. Also, several sought assistance from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, whose lawyers filed a complaint with the NLRB.
The complaint argued that the sweetheart contract between the union and the company was in violation of clear legal precedents. It amounted to unlawful assistance by a company to a union and also to prerecognition bargaining—that is an illegal contract between company and union before the union had any right to negotiate on behalf of the workers.
Even if the case turns out well and the courts say that this kind of top-down organizing is not lawful, it nevertheless points up some objectionable features of American labor law. For one thing, why should unionization be a matter of majority rule? Just because 51 percent of the workers (or even 99 percent) think a union would be good, that’s no reason to make their preference binding on everyone.
Another bad rule is “exclusive representation,” which says that once a union has been certified, all the workers must accept it as their bargaining representative. Individuals who would rather deal with the company directly are legally forbidden to negotiate for themselves. That’s an abrogation of freedom that Americans should not stand for and ought to have been declared unconstitutional many years ago.
North Carolina is a right-to -work state, which means that workers can’t be fired for not paying union dues, but that doesn’t restore their freedom to remain independent of unions if they prefer to. The choice whether to join a union or remain independent should be a voluntary, individual decision, but it’s not.
Our labor law gives unions many privileges and powers not enjoyed by other private organizations. I wonder whether any candidates will talk about the needed reforms in the campaign ahead.