"Unions: So Beneficial, Membership Is Mandatory"

With all the talk of what looks to be the Strongsville City School District's inevitable upcoming teacher's strike, we have heard and read much discussion about the "Board," "Unions," "Scabs" and many other organized labor terms that have been at the forefront of the debate.

My purpose is not to divert into a lengthy discussion of the history of organized labor, but more importantly, at least in my opinion, discuss a truth that organized labor likes to conveniently forget:

As an employee, unionized or non-unionized, you do not own anything but your own labor.  No debate.  No emotional pleas.  You can tell everyone that you deserve more.  You can tell yourself that working at corporation or school XYZ for 20 years and supporting their products, etc. should equate to you receiving more money, but in the end, it does not.  Nor should it.  That is the real world and for good reason. 

As an employee, you did not develop an idea, fund its research and development and risk your own capital on building that idea into a living, breathing entity that produces goods or services and employs others.  So, just because you are an employee, does not entitle you to the rewards that these risks may produce in forms of profits.  I find it entertaining that employees of a company believe since the company has a good year and turns a larger profit, the employees should in turn be compensated more by their employer.  

Sorry, but that is the decision of the employer, not the employee.  You're free to go find work elsewhere if you feel undervalued, because if your that good at what you do, you will be paid for it by someone.  If not, then you're probably just a bit envious of someone having more than you.  A hard truth for a lot of people to swallow is this:  In the end, everyone is replaceable.  Some not as easily as others (take Steve Jobs for example), but the show will go on in your absence.  The company will not collapse without you.  You may think your the linchpin that holds it all together, and you may indeed perform well, but in the end, no offense, the roof isn't falling down when you step out of the building.

But back to "deserving more" because your employer is "making more."  Let's see how this same type of scenario plays out in the employees life and tell me if it sounds fair:  

I'm a plumber.  Your friend used my services last week and paid $50.00 for me to fix his leaky faucet.  When you tell your friend of your own leaky faucet issue, he  recommends my services to you and he let's you know my $50.00 rate for that type of job.  When I arrive at your home, I notice you have two Mercedes in the driveway and your home is fairly large, so when you show me your leaky faucet, I quote you $150.00 for the job.  "What!?"  You proceed to tell me that it's the same exact issue your friend had with his faucet and he told you that I charged him $50.00 for fixing it.  I agree, but then tell you that I decided to add $100.00 onto the bill because I can tell that you have been doing well financially and can afford to pay me more a bit more. 

Think you'd go for it?  If you said yes, you may want to consider a financial advisor and a CT Scan...and put down your copy of the Communist Manifesto.

Sorry, but labor's pay is not determined by how much a company has made in profits.  You are not entitled to any of that money simply because you are an employee.  You are entitled to your agreed upon wage for the labor that you have agreed to provide, if you provide it within the terms set by the employer.  Nothing more, nothing less.  If you want to be compensated like an owner of a corporation, then I suggest starting your own corporation and making it a successfully run business.  No matter how successful that company becomes, you still took zero risk and contributed zero funding to it's start up and development as an employee.  If you did, you wouldn't be an employee, you'd be part owner. 

So, where do unions come in here?

I am not against unionized labor in the private sector.  I am 100% against unionized labor in the public sector, but we will save this for another blog post.

In this post, I'm choosing to instead discuss the topic of unions requiring members and non-members to pay compulsory dues.  Dues are the union members fees that they are required to pay in exchange for the union's representation and negotiation with their employer for wages, working conditions, benefits, etc.  For purposes of finishing this blog today, I will not be getting into the political allocation of these dues by union leaders, but my focal point is understanding why exactly are these dues "compulsory" to begin with.

I am a firm advocate of making union dues non-compulsory.  Returning to my first section for a moment, it is clear that working for a company is different that owning it.  So, why on earth should unionized labor, who took zero risk, fronted zero capital at any time, be permitted to tell me that the non-union employee that I just hired must pay "agency fees" (these are the equivalent to union dues for non-union employees).  Why should a union be able to mandate that this non-union employee have to pay anything at all to them...after all, he came here to make money, not give it away to an organization he has no interest in joining.  Did they miraculously attain a stake of ownership of my company and now have say?  Don't think so.  I did all of the work.  I can move where and when I wish...right? 

Well, unfortunately, wrong, that is unless you are located in a Right To Work state.  Just ask Boeing who tried to move it's West Coast plant to South Carolina this past year and was held up because the move was going to cost too many union jobs (South Carolina is a Right To Work state if you were wondering).  Why do we let unions hijack the decision process of our corporations, schools, etc?  Since when did the employees have the ability to make decisions of the management?   These decisions affect the profitability and viability of a company and should be made by stockholders and ownership, not employees.  Unfortunately, as an employee, like it or not, your job doesn't entitle you to any decision making...or at least it shouldn't.

Well, as a small business owner, these questions have long bothered me.  So I started to ask some questions to union members and I found that I could not get any straight answers, and sometimes, no answers at all.

If what unions do is so good and so necessary, why do they need to make it mandatory that you join (or pay them)?  Shouldn't people want to be part of and pay for such a great service naturally?  I don't get it.  Why not give people the choice if you are so sure that your services are necessary?  Union leaders sure spend a great deal of time talking about how much good they do for their members...and members spend a lot of time talking about how much they love their union.  So why fear making dues voluntary?  This question continues to go unanswered by union supporters, or at least with any logic.

Here's the real answer.  Unions are nothing without union dues.  They cannot have power without the finances.  They cannot control policy without money.  Without money, they have no power.  So if you give workers a choice to join a union, then you are now threatening their piggy bank if workers begin to "opt out," and they will not let that fly.  Take a look when you have a moment at the private sector union membership rates in Right To Work states.  Watch how it has literally fallen off the map once it is not made compulsory.  Yes, non-union electricians somehow still know how connect "them frisky wires" down in places like Alabama.  Can you believe it?  Non-unionized electricity!  Who would've thought it was possible right?  

What gives the union a right to force another citizen (employee) to pay dues to their organization if that employee chooses not to be represented by that union?  Under federal law, unions are required to offer non-union members their full representation without making it necessary to become a card-carrying union member in exchange for these non-union employees paying agency fees to the union. 

However, my point is this:  What if I, employee X, make the voluntary choice as a free citizen that I do not wish for union representation, perks, benefits etc. and wish to negotiate directly with my employer on my working conditions, wage, hours, terms etc.  I may personally choose to work in a hot, dark room for 18hrs a day with a lunch break.  Maybe I need the money?  Shouldn't that be a decision between myself and my employer and not determined by a union that I have no desire to join? 

So that being said, if I wished to determine my own working contract with an employer that currently uses unionized labor, why do I need to pay agency fees if I am rejecting all of your benefits, perks, representation etc.?  Yeah, I'm turning down your representation, negotiating my own terms and funding my own health care and pension separate from the union.  I have that right as a free citizen, right?  I would hope so.

The question remains:  tell me what is it exactly that I am receiving via my forced contributions to your union in this case? 

The answer:  Nothing.  It's still just about getting your money any way they can.

Please check out http://www.nrtw.org/rtws.htm and join the fight to make Ohio a Right To Work state!

-Myron