Are Unions a Dying Breed?

In the developed world, unions have a pretty strong place in contemporary society, a factor that is most certainly not the case in the United States. “In 2010, the percentage of workers belonging to a union in the United States (or total labor union ‘density’) was 11.4%, compared to 18.4% in Germany, 27.5% in Canada, and 70% in Finland. Union membership in the [U.S.] private sector has fallen under 7% — levels not seen since 1932. Unions allege that employer-incited opposition has contributed to this decline in membership. The most prominent unions are among public sector employees such as teachers and police. Members of unions are disproportionately older, male and residents of the Northeast, the Midwest, and California. Union workers average 10-30% higher pay than non-union in the United States after controlling for individual, job, and labor market characteristics.” Wikipedia.

We’ve seen a “right to work” battle in Wisconsin as a Republican Governor and a GOP legislature decimated union rights and membership among state workers, resulting in an unsuccessful attempt, led by local union activists, to recall Governor Scott Walker. As union membership hits new walls, new working patterns, desperation for jobs at any cost by workers who are seeing a deeply impaired job market where even educated and skilled people are finding low level opportunities in what I have referred to as the new “barista economy,” union membership continues to fall. While openings in engineering, medical, accounting, finance, IT, mathematics, scientific research and most senior corporate management sit in a small sliver at the top of the job opening chart, the vast majority of “new opportunities” are at the low end of the earnings spectrum: hospitality, food services, construction, and retail. Many are part-time and contract workers for limited-duration jobs.

While battle lines for pro-labor forces may have migrated into attempts to raise the minimum wage, there are still efforts further to erode union power, particularly within state and local governments. In 1977, in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, supported the position that states can require workers to join unions and pay dues as long as those dues are not used for political purposes. Roughly half the states have such requirements.

But that decision has returned to the Supreme Court (Harris vs. Quinn) in an effort to reverse the 1977 decision: “…William L. Messenger, an attorney for the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, said the court should reconsider that precedent. Forcing public employees to support a union with which they might disagree violates their constitutional rights of association and free speech, he said… ‘Our position is that in the public sector when government is involved, compulsory fees are illegal under the First Amendment,’ Messenger said.” Washington Post, January 21^st. The Court has already heard the oral arguments between the various factions and is expected to rule shortly.

The issue was initiated as Illinois government-worker union money was used to support two Medicaid waiver programs which involved jobs for union workers. Dissenting conservative union members screaming that their money was being used to support liberal programs against their political leanings. They believed that their First Amendment “free speech” rights were being trampled.

With an exceptionally conservative majority in the Court, many might leap to the conclusion that these justices will indeed hammer in the last few nails into the coffin of American union membership.  After all, “in a 2012 decision written by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., the court’s five most consistently conservative justices questioned whether the previous rulings ‘have given adequate recognition to the critical First Amendment rights at stake.’” Washington Post, January 19^th.

But a strange question, posed during the January 21^st oral arguments, from an exceptionally conservative justice, Antonin Scalia, might suggest a different outcome: “But [during those] oral arguments, Scalia indicated that Messenger might be asking for too much… ‘What our cases say is you . . . can be compelled not to be a free rider — to [have to] pay for those items of bargaining that benefit you as well as everybody else,’ Scalia said. ‘You don’t have to pay for stuff that is not within that description, stuff that doesn’t benefit you at all.’” Washington Post, January 21^st.

The recent and current sessions of this conservative court seem to relish reversing or at least considering reversing long-standing precedents from earlier sessions. This willingness to reverse, not based on some new macro social or scientific truth or discovery but purely on political grounds, creates chaos in how people and institutions should behave, encouraging people with different political leanings to undo laws they just don’t like. For conservatives who are smiling, they should indeed remember that there will be a time for a liberal majority… and reversing long-standing rulings because they don’t jibe with your political beliefs is a very unprofessional way to run a court… much less the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

I’m Peter Dekom, and we have turned into a nation of bitter and polarized voices screaming at each other, further placing a wedge down the middle of our republic.