Why the Employee Free Choice Act is Bad for America

The roots of our country's trade unions extend deep into the early history of America. Labor strikes in America began in the late 18th century. By the 19th century, recorded efforts by unions to improve the workers' conditions, through either negotiation or strike action, became more frequent.

Those who claim that this country still needs unions state the following:
Union members earn better wages and benefits than workers who aren’t union members. On average, union workers’ wages are 30 percent higher than their nonunion counterparts. While only 14 percent of nonunion workers have guaranteed pensions, fully 68 percent of union workers do. More than 97 percent of union workers have jobs that provide health insurance benefits, but only 85 percent of nonunion workers do. Unions help employers create a more stable, productive workforce—where workers have a say in improving their jobs.

Sounds good doesn't it? But obviously not all agree.

Take schools for example. It is easier to levitate then it is to fire a New York City schoolteacher who is a member of the Teachers Union.
"We tolerate mediocrity," said New York's Schools Chancellor Joel Klein, because "people get paid the same, whether they're outstanding, average or way below average."

And who pays for this mediocrity? We do...parents, students and dedicated teachers.

This is only one example. Unions also protect bad police.
"People don't know this, but police unions, particularly in New York, for example, have been lobbying so that officers who are accused of misconduct don't have to talk to their own police administrators," Kamau, a former police detective, says.

Everybody knows who a bad employees best friend is...their union. Pay your dues, show up at work long enough, don't do anything criminal and it's just about impossible to get fired.

Having a union may be good for some workers. And certainly, some companies have botched employee relations so badly they deserve to have their workers represented by a union.

But for the economy as a whole, a large increase in the number of unionized businesses would be a tremendous drag on growth, especially in dynamic sectors such as technology.

Yet that’s exactly what union backers in Congress are pushing for with the misnamed Employee Free Choice Act. The measure was passed Thursday by the House. It’s expected to receive more skeptical reception in the Senate — where it deserves to die.

The bill would allow a union to be established when a majority of workers sign check cards giving their consent. Such a system would effectively supplant the current process of using supervised elections to decide on union representation.

The check-card system would deny workers the protection implicit in a secret ballot, leaving them exposed to intimidation from union organizers who collect the cards.

Unions are pressing for this change because they know it would mean many more bargaining units, many more members and a vast increase in the flow of mandatory dues revenue.

Yet a massive increase in unionization would lead to economic stagnation as the inflexible work rules of labor contracts percolate through more American businesses.

The economy grows by adding new work to existing work, a process that is spontaneous, unpredictable and often disruptive to the typical union contract, which divides work into strictly defined categories.

Unions tend to retard growth because it is in their interests that industries remain the same, in terms of technology. Any change can put unions in conflict not only with management but with the new innovations that make familiar products obsolete.

“Only in stagnant economies does work stay docilely within given categories,” she wrote. “And wherever it is forced to stay within prearranged categories — whether by zoning, by economic planning, or by guilds, associations or unions — the process of adding new work to old can occur little if at all.”

It’s no accident that the companies that produce the most amazing innovations of our day are largely non-union. The process of adding new work to existing work would be retarded if entrepreneurs must face down unions whenever someone comes up with a new idea that upsets existing arrangements.

Almost as bad as the check-card system is a provision in the bill that would impose binding arbitration when union and management cannot agree on an initial contract.

Normally, it takes several months to a year to achieve an initial contract. But the bill would give both sides only 90 days to reach agreement, after which federal mediators would be called in. If the two sides are still unable to settle, the dispute would go to arbitration.

This would dramatically tip the balance in favor of unions. If management takes a tough line, the union could simply run out the clock, knowing it will likely receive a better deal through the arbitration process — which would be controlled by individuals with no stake in the company’s future.

The secret ballot protects workers from intimidation from both labor and management. It has worked well for decades, and it should be retained.