State of the Unions

I decided to load on a copy of my final paper that I wrote for my Labor Relations class. I did a lot of head shaking over this. Considering the way the presidential campaign is swinging, I guess that the Muslim factions and Labor Unions are pretty comfortable sharing a bed.

Public Sector Unionization: Why It Is Growing and How It Affects Everyone
Nancy S. Adams

In this paper I am presenting some statistical trends in public sector unionization along with an overall statistical trend in unionization of both the public and private sectors. I compare and contrast the difference in unionizing in the private sector and public sector that shows why there was such a big shift into public sector unionization. This leads to the a presentation of the pros and cons of public sector unionization and its affect on all citizens. Lastly, I discuss some union backed legislation along with a ruling by the Supreme Court against union dominance.

Recent Statistics
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Union membership rose in 2007 and accounts for 12.1 percent of employed wage and salary workers. This is only a 0.1 percent raise from 2006 statistics. In comparison, union membership rate in 1983 was 20.1 percent.

Public sector membership rate is nearly five times that of the private sector employees. The professions that have the highest union membership rate are in education, training, library occupations, and protective service occupations (police, firefighters, EMTs). Local government workers have the highest union membership rate.

1.6 million wage and salary workers were represented by a union even though they were non-members. A little more than half of that number were government employees.

Union Shift from Private Sector to Public Sector Growth
The loss of private sector union membership, and the inability to rally, has been blamed on various factors. One factor of blame is the change in the economic environment. The markets are more open to foreign competition. Companies were finding it more cost effective to move out of country, taking advantage of globalization. Major advances in technology made movement of business easier and lucrative, along with cheaper labor costs. Unions could no longer guarantee their members both higher wages and job security. It made joining a union increasingly unattractive.

A second factor to be considered in the decline of private sector union membership dates back to the Reagan administration years when there was a recession. Many companies faltered under the weight of union demands and contracts. A great percentage of workers were without jobs. This brought about a new era of thinking for many companies and a reorganization. Human Resource departments made changes that would give workers a reason to give union organizers the cold shoulder. Company administrators and supervisors realized that if they treated employees in a more union-like manner, the employees would not feel a need to bring the union in to represent them.

With the loss of favor in the private sector, unions needed a fresh source of membership. They turned, in full vengeance, to the public sector. This was a virtually untapped source of membership.

Comparison: Private vs. Public
Growth in employment in the private sector is higher among nonunion members than union members while employment growth in the public sector is about equal between union members and nonunion members. In order to understand the difference in union growth in the two sectors, one must understand the difference in job growth.

Job growth rate in each sector is comparable. However, in the private sector, employment growth is due to both the growth of existing firms and the creation of new firms. Older firms may phase out, which results in the loss of union membership. While the growth of existing unionized firms can add to membership it does not offset the loss of a whole unionized firm. When new firms are created they, of course, start out as nonunion. Unions have to go through the whole process of fresh organization. This takes much time, effort and money.

In the public sector, employment grows with population growth and the demand for services. There is not a major loss of jobs or union members since there is not a loss of jurisdictions and government units generally always continue to exist. Most job growth is brought about by expansion into jurisdictions that are already organized. Therefore, union membership can grow without the need for new organization.

While private sector jobs can be lost because of globalization, technology, and foreign competition, public sector jobs are more stable. It is also because of this stability that there is a higher rate of union membership in the public sector compared to the private sector. Private sector goods and services can be lost to the global market and foreign competition while public sector services cannot be traded. Public sector union bargaining may be threatened with the possibility of outsourcing some of the services to the private sector. Most governments are unwilling to lose their control over their services this way, though.

In the private sector, unions have a more difficult time delivering higher wages when the the firms they work for are facing lower profit margins and flow of income due to competition from global markets. In the public sector there are no such constraints or competitions. When compensation increases that increase can be offset by higher taxes. This, of course, affects all citizens.

The Good and the Bad of Public Sector Unions
With unions moving more heavily into the public sector their role becomes more political. Government agencies and officials begin pandering to the unions. Unions promise financial backing and votes for candidates in exchange for wage increases, passing union endorsed legislation and government protected jobs.

State and local government officials begin supporting card checking (compare this to someone watching over your shoulder as you vote) to push through unionization. With this accomplished within the public sector, it only builds a stronger base to pass legislation calling for card checking in the private sector. Card checking creates bigger and stronger unions that expand their power. Officials are elected through campaign support and then lobbied to implement policies that favor the union.

When unions gain power and officials bow to them in exchange for time in office, wage increases that are covered by higher taxes and contracts that cannot be broken begin to wreak havoc on the government’s economy. Some local governments, such as Vallejo, California, have gone bankrupt under union wage contracts.

Public sector unions are something that have had positive results for some public sector professions. The unions create a more job secure work environment for employees. Wages,benefits, and employment conditions are equalized. Employment is protected by a contract and not contingent on political or personal viewpoints of the employer. With job security, public employees are more productive and there is far less turnover. This saves money that would be used for training new hires. Also, with fewer turnover, this makes the protective and safety service departments more stable and efficient. It creates a sense of comfort and security for the community.

The Legislative Leash
The constitutional principles of the first amendment has protected the rights of each state to set its own policies regarding the unionization of government employees. These states are known as Right to Work States. Unfortunately, some states have enacted laws that empower union officials to exert monopoly-bargaining control over public safety employees and other public sector employees. Now the union backed Congress members are poised to pass a bill known as H.R. 980—The Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act. This is a monopoly-bargaining bill and will strip hundreds of thousands of safety service employees of the freedom to negotiate on their own with their employers and MUST be represented by the union. This bill has already received the stamp of approval by the House of Representatives with the support of nearly every House Democrat and many House Republicans.4 On May 14, 2008 a Motion to Table this bill was passed by the Senate.5

Union advocates contend that this bill is to protect the right of safety service employees to join a union. That right is already under protection in every state. Opponents of the bill believe that a better title for it would be The Police/Fire Monopoly-Bargaining Bill.

History has shown that states that enact monopoly-bargaining laws experience a dramatic increase in strikes and work stoppages. As public officials are forced to give in to union demands, it becomes a heavy cost for the citizens. Politicians are more likely to cave into the unions to gain their support. Problems are not fixed and costs are not cut, taxes are just increased. This leads to the public supporting an inefficient government.

The only hedge against such legislation is a Supreme Court ruling in the case of Daniel Locke v. Edward Karass. The ruling states that employees not protected by Right to Work laws still have the right to refrain from formal union membership. Union officials may charge nonmembers for union activities such as collective bargaining that relates to their jobs. However, unions cannot force them to pay for non-bargaining activities like union politics and lobbying. The Court is yet to determine where and how to draw the lines that will set the criteria for determining whether an employee can be forced to fund Big Labor’s lawsuit machine.

In the meantime, Big Labor is busy trying to push another bill through Congress known as H.R.800 entitled The Employee Free Choice Act, which is totally misleading. It is a bill that will promote card checking and intimidation of employees. This bill would force an employer to recognize and bargain with any union that presented signed cards from a majority of its employees. Senate Republicans have managed to block the bill, so far. At present it has passed the House of Representatives.

Unions can be a very good thing for employees to help give them a voice and change unfair employment practices. However, when Unions become power hungry and take away its members rights of choice and the rights of others to choose to not be respresented by a union it gives itself a black eye and a bad name. Members and nonmembers alike should be allowed the choice of whether or not to pay for funding campaigns of candidates for whom they would not choose to vote. If Public Sector Unionism keeps growing the way it is, U.S. citizens will no longer have a voice in choosing which politicians they want to run our government or how our government is run at all.