Happenings on The Office prompted Ezra Klein to think about unions:
My week with Dundler-Mifflin was not, I hasten to say, the result of a search for labor policy insights. But a couple came along the way.
He quotes Jan basically saying that if they unionize, the shop would just be closed to which he adds:
Man, fiction sure is brutal, huh? Actually, no. About 49 percent of employers openly threaten to close down a worksite when faced with a unionization drive. Untold more tell individual workers, in captive meetings, that jobs will be lost. 30 percent make good on the threat in real time, firing workers who engage in union activities. 82 percent hire unionbusting consulting firms which teach them how to most effectively shutter a union drive while either technically staying in the limits of the law, or breaking it in such a way that the gains will outweigh the eventual fines.
On a basic level, I understand the point of unions and the need for restricted union shop rules as a response to a collective action problem, but on a more theoretical level, I understand neither the unions nor the rules.
That people are fired for union activities strikes me as a horrible if not actually immoral action. On the other hand, forcing someone to pay union dues in order to hold a certain job strikes me as equally immoral. This is why I am sympathetic to Right To Work policies such as the one that will be on the Colorado ballot this fall. It seems only right that one’s union status should have no bearing on their ability to compete for a position.
Now, being a practical person, I could perhaps justify violating this sentiment if there was a good reason to think people would be better off for the restriction. Those opposed to RtW cite that the average GDP per capita, wage, and workplace safety of a non-RtW state is higher than that of a RtW state. Unfortunately, this simple correlation is greatly misleading. I decided to explore these claims controlling for a few simple factors like educational attainment, unionization, and industry and found that the RtW law has no significant, independent effect on any of these outcomes.
I feel a more fruitful labor orientation would be away from collective bargaining units focused on individual industries and regions to that of a political interest group. Incentives would have to be provided to encourage membership and avoid collective action problems (access to legal representation for example) but much action can be through governmental lobbying for pro-labor legislation. From workplace safety to health care, it makes more sense to tackle issues through the government than as negotiated with individual employers. In fact, I blame unions in large part for the current toxic structure of our health care system that ties health insurance to place of employment.
The degree of labor strife (with unions generally losing) in the country right now I think shows how ill-suited the prior system is to the global 21st Century economy. Corporations have as their self-interest an anti-union stance and the flexibility to resist union pressure in most cases. If the system dropped its current all or nothing union shop status, there would be much less reason to discriminate against union members. And if unions restructured themselves to a post-union shop world, they could continue to be relevant under RtW. After all, unions do have a significant positive effect on wages, even in RtW states.
