Laboring Under Apprehension

I come from a union family, so it has been a source of disappointment for me to observe the decline in union membership that's been underway for some time. There's a new bill up for consideration in the House which makes it easier for workers to unionize, and it is meeting expected resistance from business interests.

The issue at hand is whether a union can organize workers after receiving signed cards from a majority of workers that detail their desire to do so. Currently, employers can force a secret ballot vote among employees and utilize techniques that drag the process out over months or possibly years. It is an old argument — managers say the card system allows organizers to bully workers into agreeing to unionize, while labor representatives argue that the secret ballot format gives management time to pressure, intimidate, or fire union supporters over a longer period of time.

Business representatives and anti-union conservatives are casting the argument in an odd light. They are claiming to be the defenders of workers' rights, implying that the card system would somehow rob workers of their ability to choose to organize in secret. There's also the matter that Senate Republicans are already threatening a filibuster, and it is likely that Bush would veto the measure.

Anyone who has lived in this country in the last 20 years or so knows that the middle class is getting squeezed more and more by inflation, higher prices for living basics, and stagnant wages. The middle class was at its most robust in the 1950's, when labor union members made up more than a third of America's workforce. According to the article cited above, today's union membership levels are around 7%, although the Bureau of Labor Statistics put union membership levels at 12% in 2006, down a half percent. That works out to about 15.6 million workers.

In 2005, the trends were more seriously downward, with 31 states carrying union membership levels below the national average. Obviously, there's more union activity in the north and in New England than in many other areas, but membership was low even in some states where you might think union was strong; in Massachusetts, for example, the rate was only 13.9 percent.

It is no secret that membership levels have been receding. As someone who is unabashedly pro-union, that worries me. The fact that so many conservative and pro-business operatives are planning to throw everything they've got into killing this legislation, though, gives me a little bit of optimism.

The bill is expected to pass the House, but if Bush continues to become more and more of a lame duck, he may not be able to hold enough of the Senate together to kill it. Labor is still a lobby with considerable resources. I think a main danger to this bill's passage may be that it might get used as a bargaining tool, since it is not especially polarizing, or interesting, subject matter to most Americans. It should be, but it isn't.

The motivation behind anti-labor efforts is simple: being fair to workers costs business more money, so profit margins go down. It is not a complicated sentiment to understand, but it is base, and I would argue that it is unpatriotic.

Most American workers, presented with the facts about the opportunities provided to them by collective bargaining and unionization, would opt for unions overwhelmingly. Labor unions have been key in guaranteeing everything from health coverage to pensions to bathroom breaks — they are a cornerstone of any workable social contract between business and the workers that make it happen.

In recent years, the SEIU has been on the rise in American labor, successfully organizing in Arizona, Florida, and even Texas. As you may recall in the Houston Janitor Strike, the SEIU organized several cleaning contractors and spurred them on to a victory which, by 2009, will even include health care coverage. I was surprised that such a push turned out so well for them here in the South. As it is a right-to-work state, Texas is usually barren ground for unions.

This might sound strident, but we haven't talked much about labor here at The Texas Blue yet, so let me carve out some space for myself right now: American business could not in any way flourish were it not for the environment in this country and the abilities and talents of the American workforce. Therefore, business has an implicit duty to at least provide that workforce with a living wage, with job security, and with good, safe working conditions. It is in business' best interest to provide for the health and well-being of their workers, and pensions and care for long-term, faithful employees only strengthen our society and the morale of our workforce.

Talented, hard-working people are not a commodity, and business interests have run roughshod over unions for decades legislatively. Labor is looking to this bill as a possible path to revitalization, and they are wise to do so.