GOVERNMENT ACTIONS AND ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS IN FAVOR OF ORGANIZED UNIONS

      The government has subjectively created an uneven playing field for organized unions in favor of businesses when businesses already hold significant influences over organized unions. Recently the government’s subjective actions against organized unions have prompted many to question the justifications of the government’s pro-businesses and the negative implications associated with those actions on socio-economic health of the country. As the socio-economic health of the country depends on the balancing act among businesses, the government and the workers, government’ and businesses’ exploitative behaviors in the last few decades against workers have prompted and contributed to the current poor state of the country’s socio-economic health. However, all faults do not fall under these two parties alone, organized unions’ ineffective, traditional and unfair approaches to white collar workers and businesses have also played a part in contributing to the country’s current poor state. Not one party is guilt-free in participating and contributing to the current socio-economic crisis, however all parties need to take a few steps back and take a less selfish approach to their methodology and consider the overall well-being of the country and the public interest as their top priorities.

       As the balance of power between organized unions and businesses significantly shifted in favor of businesses, Republicans prejudiced actions of limiting the influences of organized unions and their ability to negotiate on behalf of workers can be looked at as an attack on the public interests and an unethical favoritism of businesses.  As anti-labor laws are continuously passed by especially Republican-led legislatures around the country, labor strife has increased. For instance, on December 2012, Republican Governor Rick Snyder approved a pair of Right to Work protections bill in Michigan, which covered both the public and private sector unions prompting protests of more than 12,000 unionized workers and supporters at the state Capitol in Lansing (Seetharaman, 2013; p.1). Michigan is the nation’s 24th state to pass Right to Work protections bill that went into effect on 28th of March, 2013. The Right to Work protection bans compulsory union membership for both private and public sector. Organized unions are unjustly prohibited to negotiate union contract provisions which regulate the collection of union dues resulting in a decrease of organized unions’ resources. The two underlying arguments in support of the Right to Work protection bills are that individuals should not be required to financially support any collective against their will and States that passed the bills are more attractive to investments, which will potentially lead to job growth. However, the negative and unjust implications of the Right to Work bills are less visible to the public and have greater effects on the country.

       Historically, the government has the job of intermediary and justifiably maintaining the balance of power in the economy and society for the interest of the public, but recent government subjective and selfish actions have significantly threatened this balance and are not deemed as necessary or in the interest of the public. According to United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, states that passed Right to Work legislation have lower averages for workers’ wages and benefits than national averages for all workers, union and nonunion alike. According to Roland Zullo (2013), Research Scientist for the Institute for Labor and Industrial Relations at University of Michigan, the Right to Work legislation removes the “threat effect” provided by unionized organizations from states (p.2). In a high density union environment, employers with non-union workforce will fairly raise wages and benefits to discourage employees from unionizing but when the “threat” is removed, non-employers have “greater latitude to lower compensation, to require workers to perform dangerous tasks or work in unhealthy environs, or to treat workers without dignity” (Zullo, 2013; p.3). Employers are taking advantage of government pro-business stance and as a result are taking exploitative actions against employees to greedily increase corporate profitability. The Right to Work protection bills reduced organized unions’ ability to gather funds. This reduction in organized unions’ ability to gather funds undermine their economic and political power, which ultimately results in lower benefits and wages for all the workers. Such government actions in favor of already dominating power, businesses, are a display of unfair favoritism and against the public interest especially when the balance of power between the two organizations is significantly in favor of one, businesses.

       Another less apparent side of the Right to Work legislation is its negative contributions and impacts on social progressive movements and organizations. Under the Right of Work legislation, organized unions will require to reallocate resources in an effort to fairly retain roles within the organizations. First off, the reallocation of resources and shift of focus to internal mobilization will reduce funds for new members organizing and reduce the “threat effect” to industries. Secondly, according to Zullo, with reduce funds; organized unions will have fewer resources to rightfully pursue legislation that benefits all wage-earners, “higher minimum wage laws, universal health care, health and safety protections, etc.” resulting in lower voter turnout among the working class and a political system that is less responsive to middle class and working class. Lastly, as a result of the costly reallocation of resources, organized unions’ activities in civic affairs such as donations to charitable organizations and funding of community activities will be greatly reduced. Many of these charitable organizations help foster youth development, provide higher education opportunities for underprivileged children, discourage criminal activities and influences on the youth and many more. By unfairly reducing the focus and resources of organized unions, the government and businesses are indirectly and unjustifiably encouraging and fostering social discords and chaos among many communities, rich and poor alike, across the country. These are only a few unjustifiable consequences of government biased actions against organized unions.

        Government’s biased legislations such as The Right to Work have unjustifiably strengthened the hand of employers and weakens the organized unions and labor forces, resulting in greater economic disparity, increased social inequality and prompted public unrests. As such, there has been “increase in protests and litigation” across the Right to Work states (Walsh, 2013; p.1).  The Right of Work litigation is just one of many factors that continue to dwell with the decline of organized unions. As organized unions’ memberships decline resulting with decimation and stagnation of benefits and wages, public frustrations and “labor militancy” increased as evidence by recent protests at Walmart across the nation and one-day strike by fast-food workers in New York City last November [2012] (Greenhouse, 2013; p.3). Professor Gary N. Chiason, a professor of industrial relations at Clark University, stated that now is a good time for organized unions to attract workers because of “job insecurity and stagnant wages” (Greenhouse, 2013, 2). Additionally, workers’ have received discriminatory cutbacks on benefits, unemployment, food assistance and cash assistance, which can be attributed to prejudiced legislations by government’s pro-businesses stance to unjustifiably strengthening the already dominating employers‘ power over the helpless workers and their families (Walsh, 2013; p.3). The government special interest in businesses rather than public interest has prompted exploitative actions by businesses against progressive movements and programs across the country. While workers are protesting against the Right to Work legislation and other Republican-led legislations against the unions, the AFL-CIO is taking those legislations to court. The AFL-CIO is suing the states’ Employment Relations Commission to overturn the Right to Work legislation, calling it unconstitutional (Seetharaman, 2013; p.1). Today, organized unions continued to allocate their resources to their legal battles against government’s prejudiced actions against worker rights, contributing to the depletion of organized unions’ funds and ultimately decrease support of progressive programs and movements.

       As organized unions get ready to write a new chapter in history, union leaders should objectively consider alternative solutions to union crisis especially when worker rights, the public interests and democracy in the workplace are at stake. Just like unions were unprepared in the 1920s and were forced to adapt and change according to the time and needs of society, today's unions need to look at the broader scope for answer otherwise 80 years from now, unions may not be around at all. According to Roland Zullo, the United States is heading toward what he would call a “pre-New Deal” environment when the unions were smaller and dispersed; tended to “sort of pop up in areas where there was local strength,” involving collective action or protest to force employers to deal with that particular issue (Walsh, 2013; p.1). Organized unions should utilize workers’ frustrations and “labor militancy” to rally up and reorganized unions under alternative or new models similar to how they reorganized during the Great Depression in 1930s. However, according to Walsh,  Wayne State University’s Labor and business professor, Marick Masters indicated that the challenge organized unions have to face is “to convince people that they are engines of economic opportunity and growth.”  In his speech at the Conference on New Models of Worker Representation in Chicago on March 7, 2013, Richard Trumka, AFL-CIO Chief, argued for a “non-traditional models” in order for the union to survive (Jamieson, 2013; p.1). According to Jamieson, Mr. Trumka argued for a “new models for organizing workers and put a renewed focus on young people.” Mr. Trumka’s argument came about as “only 4.2 percent of U.S. workers are between the ages of 16 and 24” were in a union in 2012. He considered the young people as an untapped market, where cyber-savvy young people are the future of unions, utilizing social networks to air grievances and organized online. However, without objective government supports, organized unions will continue to struggle in their effort to reorganized.  

       The current efforts by organized unions to maintain their traditional ideologies are ineffective and unjust in providing improvements to the workers’ rights, benefits and wages. Organized unions’ closed system is ineffective against globalized markets and continues to unfairly create more harm to progressive causes and movements rather than providing added values for society. Organized unions need to fairly and objectively negotiate for all workers, not just their members, for better wages and working conditions. This can be achieved through partnership agreements with other organizations, reorganization of internal structure, effectively deployment of resources and strategic reorganization in sectors that have seen significant job growths in the global economy.

The first approach organized unions can take to justly improve workers’ rights, wages and benefits is strategic reorganization in sectors that have seen significant job growths in the global economy. Today white-collar workers represent 62% of the United States workforce and are looking at organizing against companies “lackluster” demands to keep up profits at the expense of the workers but yet organized unions are reluctant to recruit and organize those white-collar workers (Kenney, 2013; p.1). Traditionally, organized unions organize in blue-collar sector, where manufacturing is dominate but as corporations continue to outsource manufacturing jobs overseas, organized unions are faced with a decline in their economic and political power. Despite this obvious trend, organized unions’ egocentric and subjective ideologies prevent themselves from recruiting from fields of work that are growing in the global economy. The increase unrest among professional workers is opportunities for organized unions to seek out and broaden their memberships pass manufacturing, service and public-sector jobs. According to Gordon Deane, the president of the National Organization of Legal Services Workers, there are more interests in unions among professionals who are “feeling pushed around at the office” but yet those professionals are not fairly received by the current traditional unions (Kenney, 2013; p.1). If organized unions wish to increase public supports, encourage fair government supports and tip the balance of power back to a neutral position, they will need to objectively seek out improvements for the public interests rather than self-interest.   

        The second approach organized unions should consider is to objectively and effectively reorganize their internal structures. The globalization of the labor markets have made outsourcing a common practice among corporations in order to maintain their competitive advantages and increase their survivability against the greedy but fair breast called capitalism. But with an increase in this unfair process and no legal consequences associated with it, unions’ ability to leverage their workers in the collective bargaining process for improvements in workers’ rights, wages and benefits has significantly declined contributing to a poor socio-economic health.  A healthy socio-economy is based on a healthy and fair relationship among businesses, the government and the people. If one is oppressed, the whole system will collapse. Organized unions need to redefine unions laws with the subjects of global competition and businesses’ health in mind rather based solely on the notion of fairness. Under National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), organized unions have exclusive representation of all the employees, where they received the power to bargain with employers on contracting issues related to “wages, hours, vacation time, insurance, safety practices and other mandatory subjects” (Ozimek, 2012; p.2). These requirements unfairly restrict the bargaining rights of both employees and employers due to their costly nature. Organized unions need to objectively adjust their policies and resources according to the demands of each workplace and industry and focus on value creation for business owners rather than impose their monopolistic power and unnecessarily corner business owners to look for alternative situations. For this democratic policy of allowing for market forces to dictate workers’ compensations and benefits to succeed, organized unions are required to “concede the powers of exclusive representation and mandatory good faith bargaining” and objectively trust the market, the government and businesses (Ozimek, 2012; p.2).  This methodology will allow a free-market structure to take place. Additionally, by eliminating the legal incentives to form majority supported unions, employers will be less fearful of unions and will be obdurate to suppress the organizations. The negative aspect of such policy to be considered is that organized unions will lose their ability to bring employers to the table and negotiate with them if they give up their exclusive representation policy. This policy will only work if both parties fairly and objectively act in the best interest of the public and economy rather self-interests.

       Organized unions are starting take to the street and objectively opening up discussion for alternative organizational models to combat the capitalist exploitation of workers across the country. Increased public frustration of corporation’s exploitation of workers in favor of corporate profitability has prompted many non-unionized sectors (white collars, etc.), who have never considered unionizing or have been unfairly ignored by organized unions, to consider organizing and justifiably defend against businesses’ exploitative actions. In the face of extreme globalize market, organized unions and the free market forces are gathering to bring back the balance of power between the corporation and the labor forces. However, without a true guidance and leadership along with a strong and fair intermediary, the government, organized unions are reaching the point where the balance of power is completely one-sided, prompting a collapse of the United States’ socio-economic health. But as of now, the free-market forces are fairly but sickeningly regulating the corporation from truly demolishing organized unions and becoming a monopolistic power themselves in the labor markets, putting the society’s economic health at risk. The government needs to step in and perform their ethical responsibilities to prevent such an event from occurring.