THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Volume XIII, Issue # 175, July 15, 2011
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Government Committed to & Acting in Accord with Conservative Principles
Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity
THE RIGHT TO WORK: A FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOM
By Mark Mix
COMPULSORY UNIONISM, OR VOLUNTARY UNIONISM: WHICH SQUARES WITH THE BASIC RIGHTS & LIBERTIES
GUARANTEED TO AMERICANS? THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF THE INDIVIDUAL PERSON IN AMERICAN SOCIETY
TO ASSOCIATE OR NOT ASSOCIATE, WHEN IT COMES TO MEMBERSHIP IN LABOR UNIONS & SIMILAR ORGANIZATIONS --
HIGH TIME TO PUSH HOME THE POINT THAT ALL AMERICAN WORKERS IN ALL FIFTY STATES SHOULD HAVE THE LEGALLY
GUARANTEED & PROTECTED RIGHT OF FULL FREEDOM OF PEACEFUL ASSOCIATION IN TRADE & INDUSTRIAL UNIONS &
THAT THIS RIGHT SHOULD INCLUDE FREEDOM NOT TO ASSOCIATE IN SUCH ORGANIZATIONS
FULL STORY:
Boeing is a great American Company. Recently, it has built a second production line — its other is in Washington State
— in South Carolina for its 787 Dreamliner airplane, creating 1,000 jobs there so far. Who knows what factors led to
Boeing's decision to do this? As with all such business decisions, there were many. But the National Labor Relations
Board (NLRB) — a five-member agency created in 1935 by the Wagner Act (about which I will speak momentarily) —
has taken exception to this decision, ultimately based on the fact that South Carolina is a right-to-work state. That is,
South Carolina, like 21 other states today, protects a worker’s right not only to join a union, but also to make the choice
not to join or financially support a union. Washington State does not. The General Counsel of the NLRB, on behalf of
the International Association of Machinists union, has issued a complaint against Boeing, which, if successful, would
require it to move its South Carolina operation back to Washington State. This would represent an unprecedented act
of intervention by the U.S. national government that appears, on its face, un-American. But it is an act long in the
making, and boils down to a fundamental misunderstanding of freedom.
Where does this story begin?
THE WAGNER ACT & THE TAFT-HARTLEY ACT
In 1935, Congress passed and President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed into law the National Labor Relations Act
(NLRA), commonly referred to as the Wagner Act, after its Senate sponsor, New York Democrat Robert Wagner. Section
7 of the Wagner Act states:
"Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form,
join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection."
Union officials such as William Green, President of the American Federation of Labor (AFL), and John L. Lewis, principal
founder of the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO), hailed this legislation at the time as the “Magna Carta of
Labor.” But, in fact, it was far from a charter of liberty for working Americans.
Section 8(3) of the Wagner Act allowed for “agreements” between employers and officers of a union requiring union
membership “as a condition of employment,” if the union was certified or recognized as the employees’ “exclusive”
bargaining agent on matters of pay, benefits, and work rules. On its face, this violates the clear principle that the freedom
to associate necessarily includes the freedom not to associate. In other words, the Wagner Act didn’t protect the freedom
of workers because it didn’t allow for them to decide against union membership. To be sure, the Wagner Act left states
the prerogative to protect employees from compulsory union membership. But federal law was decidedly one-sided: Firing
or refusing to hire a worker because he or she had joined a union was a federal crime, whereas firing or refusing to hire a
worker for not joining a union with “exclusive” bargaining privileges was federally protected. The National Labor Relations
Board was created by the Wagner Act to enforce these policies.
During World War II, FDR’s War Labor Board aggressively promoted compulsory union membership. By the end of the
war, the vast majority of unionized workers in America were covered by contracts requiring them to belong to a union in
order to keep their jobs. But Americans were coming to see compulsory union membership — euphemistically referred to
as “union security” — as a violation of the freedom of association. Furthermore, the nonchalance with which union bosses
like John L. Lewis paralyzed the economy by calling employees out on strike in 1946 hardened public support for the right
to work, as opposed to compulsory unionism. As Gilbert J. Gall, a staunch proponent of the latter, acknowledged in a
monograph chronicling legislative battles over this issue from the 1940s on, “the huge post-war strike wave and other
problems of reconversion gave an added impetus to right-to-work proposals.”
When dozens of Senators and Congressmen who backed compulsory unionism were ousted in the 1946 elections, the new
Republican leaders of Congress had a clear opportunity to curb the legal power of union bosses to force workers to join
unions. Instead, they opted for a compromise that they thought would have enough congressional support to override a
presidential veto by President Harry S. Truman. Thus Section 7 of the revised National Labor Relations Act of 1947 —
commonly referred to as the Taft-Hartley Act — only appears at first to represent an improvement over Section 7 of the
Wagner Act. It begins:
"Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form,
join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and
shall also have the right to refrain from any and all such
activities. . . ."
Had this sentence ended there, forced union membership would have been prohibited, and, at the same time, voluntary
union membership would have remained protected. Unfortunately, the sentence continued:
"...except to the extent that such right may be affected by an
agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a
condition of employment as authorized in section 158(a)(3)
of this title.
This qualification, placing federal policy firmly on the side of compulsory union membership, left workers little better off
than they were under the Wagner Act. Elsewhere, Taft-Hartley did, for the most part, prohibit “closed shop” arrangements
that forced workers to join a union before being hired. But they could still be forced to join, on threat of being fired, within
a few weeks after starting on the job.
BOEING'S INTEREST, & OURS
It cannot be overemphasized that compulsory unionism violates the first principle of the original labor union movement in
America. Samuel Gompers, Founder and first President of the AFL, wrote that the labor movement was “based upon the
recognition of the sovereignty of the worker.” Officers of the AFL, he explained in the American Federationist, can
“suggest” or “recommend,” but they “cannot command one man in America to do anything.” He continued: “Under no
circumstances can they say, ‘you must do so and so,' or, ‘you must desist from doing so and so.’” In a series of
Federationist editorials published during World War I, Gompers opposed various government mandate measures
being considered in the capitals of industrial states like Massachusetts and New York that would have mandated certain
provisions for manual laborers and other select groups of workers:
"The workers of America adhere to voluntary institutions in
preference to compulsory systems which are held to be not
only impractical but a menace to their rights, welfare and
their liberty."
This argument applies as much to compulsory unionism — or “union security” — as to the opposite idea that unions
should be prohibited. And, in a December, 1918, address before the Council on Foreign Relations, Gompers made this
point explicitly:
"There may be here and there a worker who for certain
reasons unexplainable to us does not join a union of labor.
This is his right, no matter how morally wrong he may be.
It is his legal right and no one can dare question his
exercise of that legal right.
Compare Gompers’s traditional American view of freedom to the contemptuous view toward workers of labor leaders
today. Here is United Food and Commercial Workers union strategist Joe Crump advising union organizers in a 1991 trade
journal article:
“Employees are complex and unpredictable. Employers are
simple and predictable. Organize employers, not employees.”
And in 2005, Mike Fishman, head of the Service Employees International Union, was even more blunt. When it comes to
union organizing campaigns, he told the Wall Street Journal, “We don’t do elections.”
Under a decades-old political compromise, federal labor policies promoting compulsory unionism persist side by side with
the ability of states to curb such compulsion with state right-to-work laws. So far, as I said, 22 states have done so. And,
when we compare and contrast the economic performance in these 22 states against the others, we find interesting things.
For example, from 1999 to 2009 (the last such year for which data are available), the aggregate real all-industry Gross
Domestic Product of the 22 right-to-work states grew by 24.2 percent, nearly 40 percent more than the gain registered by
the other 28 states as a group.
Even more dramatic is the contrast, if we look at personal income growth. From 2000 to 2010, real personal incomes grew
by an average of 24.3 percent in the 22 right-to-work states, more than double the rate for the other 28 as a group. But the
strongest indicator is the migration of young adults. In 2009, there were 20 percent more 25-34-year-olds in right-to-work
states than in 1999. In the compulsory union states, the increase was only 3.3 percent — barely one-sixth as much.
In this context, the decision by Boeing to open a plant in South Carolina may be not only in its own best interest, but in
ours as well. So, in whose interest is the National Labor Relations Board acting? And, more importantly, with a view to
what understanding of freedom?
PUBLIC SECTOR UNIONISM
As more and more workers and businesses have obtained refuge from compulsory unionism in right-to-work states in
recent decades, the rationality of the free market has been showing itself. But the public sector is another and a grimmer
story.
The National Labor Relations Act affects only private-sector workers. Since the 1960s, however, 21 states have enacted
laws authorizing the collection of forced union dues from at least some state and local public employees. More than a
dozen additional states have granted union officials the monopoly power to speak for all government workers, whether
they consent to this or not. Thus, today, government workers are more than five times as likely to be unionized as private
sector workers. This represents a great danger for taxpayers and consumers of government services. For as Victor
Gotbaum, head of the Manhattan-based District 37 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
union, said 36 years ago: “We have the ability, in a sense, to elect our own boss.”
How this works is simple, and explains the inordinate power of union officials in so many states that have not adopted
right-to-work laws. Union officials funnel a huge portion of the compulsory dues and fees they collect into efforts to
influence the outcomes of elections. In return, elected officials are afraid to anger them, even in the face of financial crisis.
This explains why states with the heaviest tax burdens and the greatest longterm fiscal imbalances (in many cases due to
bloated public employee pension funds) are those with the most unionized government workforces. California, Illinois,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, and Wisconsin represent the worst default risks among
the 50 states. In 2010, an average of 59.2 percent of the public employees in these nine worst default-risk states were
unionized, 19.2 percentage points higher than the national average of 40 percent. All of these states, except Nevada,
authorize compulsory union dues and fees in the public sector.
* * *
Fortunately, there are signs that taxpayers are recognizing the negative consequences of compulsory unionism in the
public sector. Just this March, legislatures in Wisconsin and Ohio revoked compulsory powers of government union
bosses, and similar efforts are underway in several other states. Furthermore, the NLRB’s blatantly political and
unconstitutional power play with regard to Boeing’s South Carolina production line is sure to strike fair-minded
Americans as beyond the pale. Now more than ever, it is time to push home the point that all American workers in all 50
states should be granted the full freedom of association — which includes the freedom not to associate — in the area of
union membership.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Reprinted by Permission from Imprimis,
A Publication of Hillsdale College, Hillsdale, Michigan
Reprinted from Imprimis, Volume 40, Number 5/6, May/June, 2011
LINKS TO RELATED TOPICS:
Civil Liberties -- American Constitutional Rights & Liberties:
The Basic Rights & Liberties of Americans
Under the U.S. Federal & State Constitutions
Personal Rights & Liberties -- Issues Relating to
Individual Rights & Liberties under Natural & Civil Law
U.S. Constitutional Law & Political Philosophy
Political Economy -- Philosophies, Systems, & Public Policies:
Government, the Economy, & Economic Prosperity
Mark Mix is President of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, as well as of the National Right to
Work Committee, a 2.2 million member public policy organization. He holds a Bachelor of Arts in Finance from James
Madison University and an Associate degree in Marketing from the State University of New York. His writings have
appeared in such newspapers and magazines as the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Times, the
Detroit Free Press, the San Antonio Express-News, the Orange County Register, and National
Review.
The foregoing article by Mark Mix is adapted from a lecture he delivered at Hillsdale College on January 31, 2011,
during a conference co-sponsored by the Center for Constructive Alternatives and the Ludwig von Mises Lecture
Series.
Return to Top of Page
Go to the WEBSITE INDEX
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Public Issues & Political Controversies
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
Most Recent Articles
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Volume XIII, 2011
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Subject Matter Highlights
Return to POLITICAL EDUCATION Homepage
CONTACT & ACCESS INFORMATION
This is not a commercial website. The sole purpose of the website is to share with interested persons information regarding civics,
civic and social education, political science, government, politics, law, constitutional law and history, public policy and political
philosophy and history, as well as current and recent political developments, public issues, and political controversies.
POLITICAL EDUCATION, CONSERVATIVE ANALYSIS
POLITICS, SOCIETY, & THE SOVEREIGN STATE
Website of Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr.
Government, Politics, Public Policy, Legal Issues, Constitutional Law, Government & the Economy, Cultural Values, Foreign Affairs,
International Relations, Military Defense & National Security, Geopolitics, Terrorism & Homeland Security, American National Interests,
Political Systems & Processes, Political Institutions, Political Ideologies, & Political Philosophy
INDEX FOR THE ENTIRE WEBSITE
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Conservative & Free-Market Analysis of Government, Politics & Public Policy, Covering Political, Legal, Constitutional, Economic,
Cultural, Military, International, Strategic, & Geopolitical Issues
Conservative Government Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity