As most of our readers' comments (from both sides) center around the workers' rights argument only, none seem to care to comment on either the practical or philosophical justification of a government forcing an employer to recognize a minority (or, for that matter, a majority) union, which is the only way the minority unionism model could be even remotely considered, let alone be applied.
However, in response to their comments, here is where the workers would be trampled (by right and by practice) under this inane theory:
As stated on Monday, the unions' collective argument centers around employees' Section 7 Rights under the NLRA, which provide that workers can pick representatives of their own choosing...
Well, in order to do so, the workers must be convinced that a 'representative' can do better for them than they can (either individually or collectively) themselves. If this involves an external representative (i.e. a labor union), that means that the workers must be 'sold' some product that has no guarantee of actually working for them, right?
Because unions are legally allowed to mislead workers, selling workers on unions is easy (like taking candy from a baby). In fact, unions are legally alowed to make workers promises that even the organizers know are untrue. It happens all the time in today's union campaigns.
[The case law on union promises goes all the way back to 1953, for those who would argue that the sky is green.]
The hard part for the union, however, is delivering a product that actually works. Despite the fact that, after convincing workers that unions are the answer to all things bad in the workplace, unions fail today half of the time to ever get a contract for newly unionized workers. And, of the other half, how good are those contracts?
This means the union product is failing workers--and that's under the majority rules principle--after convincing workers (hook, line and sinker) to buy the product.
Caveat emptor, right, collectivists?
Now, think about it under the 'minority rules' principle of unionism being proposed.
What realistic arguments could a union organizer make to lure only a handful of workers into joining it? Either the organizer would have to be one hell of a persuader (and there are many who are), or the workers would need to be gullible enough to believe they'll have collective 'power' as a minority-represented bargaining unit.
Okay, notwithstanding the fact that today's organizers are specifically targeting workers who have limited abilities to speak English and even less understanding about unions and labor law, we'll give the workers the benefit of the doubt and suppose for a moment that the union's organizer is a good enough 'trickster' enough to make a convincing argument to a minority population of a workforce...What then?
Why would any employer agree to any proposal by a union representing only a minorty of its workers? And since a union's only real economic weapon is its ability to call workers out on strike, what good does that do?
What would this minority union do if the business owner said "no" to the minority union's demands?...Call its minority membership out on strike?
Go ahead. Then watch the minority-union leadership watch its minority membership get replaced. What has that achieved? And, wouldn't it ,therefore, seem that the minority-represented workers would have been been sold a bill of goods? Again, caveat emptor, right?
Oh, you say, the employer shouldn't be allowed to replace the workers who wish to withhold their services...We must pass a law to stop that.
Once that law is passed, unions will be able to strike to their collectivist hearts' content, right?
Or, you say, we must pass a law that binds the employer to whatever a government-appointed arbitrator decides, right?
Good. How long do you think that will last before capital says to labor 'see ya.'
But, you argue, they're already doing that!...
Yes, and have you thought about why?
Now, on to the philosophical side:
Does not the First Amendment (of which the NLRA's Section 7 Rights are based) apply to employers, as well as employees?
If workers have a freedom to associate, do employers not have the same right? If so, the freedom to associate also expressly implies a right not to associate, does it not? Does the Consitution apply only to one class and not the other? If this is the case, then one must argue, why should an employer be required to recognize any union (be it a majority or a minority) at the point of a gun (vis a vis the government)?
Before those "pro" readers, who are seemingly part of today's collectivist labor movement, get themselves into a tizzy about all that is implied in the above, consider this:
The founders of the modern labor movement never, ever wanted government intrusion into labor relations. But today's labor leaders, in their haste to have a collectivist society have all but abandoned their founder's principles.
One may ask, Why did labor's founding fathers eschew government involvement into labor relations? It's very simple: He who lives by the sword, shall die by the sword.
A word of caution: Be careful what you ask for, collectivists, you may get what it is you're asking for.
For more labor-related news, go to EmployerReport.com