A Principled Examination of Union Busting

As battles brew across northern bastions of union power threatening to erase decades of accumulated privilege more than balanced budgets are at stake. Are we at a watershed moment in America history or are we experiencing a temporary aberration before returning to the status quo? Beyond debating competing policies for dodging fiscal catastrophe partisans on both sides of the barricades may want to pause a moment and look at this fight through the lens of civil rights and economic privileges.

Civil rights comprise a "broad range of privileges and rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and subsequent amendments and laws that guarantee fundamental freedoms to all individuals." The key to this definition is that civil rights are recognized as belonging to individuals, not corporations. One of the tenets of a civil right is that the exercise of one person's civil rights must never impinge on another's. Thus I can enjoy the right of free speech but I cannot have a "right" to make you shut up if I don't like what you're saying. True civil rights never conflict.

Corporations are not people and cannot properly be said to have civil rights. On the other hand corporations, including unions, can and do have economic privileges granted to them by both the federal and state legislatures. Under our Federalist system of government these privileges may vary from state to state but in no case are they supposed to violate anyone's civil rights. Outside of that exactly which privileges a corporation or a union enjoys is a matter for the voters to decide.

Freedom of association is a basic civil right, which means that everyone's right to join a labor union is as sacrosanct as their right to join the church of their choice. Or not. Forcing an individual to join a particular church or a particular union is a blatant violation of their civil rights. To that end the Taft Hartley Act outlawed closed shops in 1947.

Corporations, including government entities, are free to recognize and negotiate with unions but they are not free to refuse to do so. Rather, a complex and overlapping set of federal and state laws, regulations, and appointed boards dictate rules under which corporations can be forced to recognize unions. If they don't like it their only alternative is to close their doors or move elsewhere, which many do.

This drastic remedy is not available for government entities, a fact that gives public sector unions a great deal more bargaining leverage than private sector unions. In addition, government entities cannot easily go out of business, a fate that befell many large corporations that were heavily unionized. Serious debate has begun on creating bankruptcy laws for state governments, so this may change for states that don't solve their budget woes.

Like corporations, the economic privileges granted to unions are purely legislative and are not a matter of civil rights, except where these rules improperly abridge the civil rights of individuals.

So, whose "rights" are being violated in the Battle of Wisconsin?

Is every worker in Wisconsin free to join a union? Check. Do corporations, including government employers, follow the requisite laws passed by the legislature when dealing with unions? Check. Do these laws change from time to time depending on the will of the people, which is what democracy is all about? Check. If you don't like the laws being passed by your representatives do you have the ability to choose new ones come the next election? Check.

But what about the worker who chooses not to be represented by a union, preferring instead to represent himself? In right-to-work states this fundamental civil right is honored. Not so in union shop or agency shop states, of which Wisconsin is one. In those states privileges granted to unions allow them to force individuals to pay union dues as a condition of being employed by corporations that have been forced to recognize a union even if these individuals can't be made to join that union themselves.

Union advocates argue that violating an individual's civil rights in this manner is justified because nonmembers would otherwise enjoy the benefits of union representation without having to pay for them. I suppose the devout could similarly argue that non church goers should be forced to tithe because they are enjoying the benefits of having others pray for peace and prosperity. Whether you agree with this logic or not it remains the case that the only people in Wisconsin whose civil rights are being violated are people who would prefer not to fork over dues to unions that turn around and use this money to elect politicians they loathe.

The rest is a matter for democracy to decide, and may the best candidates win. Perhaps the most ironic observation in this seminal battle of the looming war of all against all was made by Peter Barca, the Democrat's Assembly leader in Wisconsin. "Our democracy is out of control," he opined. Really? Many of us believe that's exactly how we got into this mess in the first place. I guess it takes being on the losing side to finally recognize that such a thing is possible.