Employee freedom is about protecting a worker’s choice, not a union
It’s a myth that those in union leadership are “pro-worker” — like everyone else, they are in it for themselves.
In the real-world of private-sector industry, businesses retain customers by providing them with a good or a service at a price they are willing to pay. In the world of public-sector unions, however, coercion, cronyism and deceit are the favored methods of retaining members and driving up revenue.
Unions have successfully lobbied in many states for laws that limit — if not altogether prohibit — public- sector workers from leaving their organizations. But even in states where workers are free to do so, labor bosses go out of their way to make things as difficult as possible.
Nevada school teachers, for example, have a mere two-week window — in the middle of summer — to opt out of union membership. Even cell phone contracts are easier to terminate than these 60-page labor agreements.
Some states, however, are even worse. In California, employees who decide to opt out are forced to keep paying a portion of their dues to a union that they have already decided does not adequately represent their interests. Unions call these mandatory dues “agency fees” — claiming that non-union workers are “free riders” who benefit from union-negotiated working conditions. And yet, these same unions refuse to allow workers the option of negotiating directly with the employer.
According to the labor bosses who are living fat off of union dues, mandatory payment to their organization is the only “fair” solution. When put in context, it’s not hard to see why they think that way. After all, what might happen if employees were given freedom to choose for themselves how, or even if, they are to be represented in the workplace?
Polling done for National Employee Freedom Week (August 14 – 20) has shown that more than two-thirds of union members believe workers should have the right to represent themselves in contract negotiations if they decide to opt-out of the union, thereby eliminating the need for these so-called agency fees. Among the rank and file, belief in the freedom of worker’s choice is apparently still strong.
But, union leadership remains intensely focused on discouraging such individualism. Normally, low customer satisfaction encourages organizations to adjust their product or service. But not unions. Their decades-old campaign to coerce public-sector employees into membership has had a real impact on workers, public policy and even taxpayers.
While overall union membership has dropped over the decades, laws designed to force public workers into collective bargaining agreements have helped shape unions into some of the most powerful political forces in America — routinely ranking as the largest political donors year after year. Unsurprisingly, with this much political power, unions have worked hard to increase the size of government — looking to corral ever more dues-paying members. Collectively, this has burdened taxpayers with astronomical increases to the cost of government.
According to a recent study by the Heritage Foundation and the Nevada Policy Research Institute, if union membership was simply made voluntary nationwide, state and local governments would have saved between $127 and $164 billion in 2014 alone. Just as all workers should have the right to judge for themselves the value of a union, they should also have the right to decline membership. And that right should be easily exercised. Such a policy would benefit employees, employers and the taxpayers.
Of course, none of this matters to the union bosses who pull the strings. To these opponents of employee freedom, workers are seen as little more than a walking bunch of membership dues — just waiting to be cashed. And that says everything you need to know about how “pro-worker” public sector unions really are.
Michael Schaus is communications director of the Nevada Policy Research Institute (npri.org.), a nonpartisan, free- market think tank.