Unions, Labor Law, and Collective Bargaining

In all most all civil jurisdictions, there exists a set of laws enacted to guarantee workers the right to form labor unions so as to collectively bargain for their terms of employment. In addition there exists a national body which is vested with the authority to oversee fair practices in relation to labor management. Put simply, the unions exist to harmonize the relations between the employers and the employees while the state labor agency regulates the relations between the employers and the unions.

The issue of the unionization of the labor force employed in the private sector remains highly contentious due to a lack of general consensus among the key stakeholders; the employers, labor unions and government as to what constitutes its ideal form. The view held by a majority of the employers is that they have the inbuilt capacity to manage their workforce without the intervention of the unions. The existence of unions therefore curtails their ability to effectively meet their corporate objectives (Blanpain & Baker, 2004).

Civil right groups, on the other hand, argue that the absence of labor unions indirectly legitimizes the exploitation of workers. The primary goal of any business entity is the maximization of profit which is pegged on its ability to derive maximum output using minimum input. In the ideal scenario the business makes huge profits by employing the least amount of the resources at its disposal. However, this is not possible due to the presence fixed costs which have to be incurred to sustain key operations. The business can only exercise control over the variable costs in a bid to achieve its goal of minimum input, maximum output.

In this respect, the cost of semi skilled and unskilled labor represents a variable cost. This is due to the fact that it is easily available and therefore the wage rate varies with the forces of demand and supply in the labor market. According to the laws of economics, high supply leads to low demand and thus a reduction in the price of a commodity. The relatively high supply of the semi skilled and unskilled labor force therefore compromises the bargaining power of its members as individuals in regard to their terms and conditions of employment (Blanpain & Baker, 2004). This therefore implies that they can only seek remedy effective through collective bargaining facilitated by labor unions.

The issue of labor unions is therefore paramount particularly in the regulation of employment practices adopted by business entities in regard to the skilled and semi skilled segment of the labor market. It is important to note that the skilled and semi skilled labor constitutes the majority of the labor force in the economy. Industries, in particular, rely heavily on this type of workforce in running their back office operations. This labor force therefore plays a major role in enhancing the viability of an industry based economy such as that of the United States.

On the other hand, the contribution of the employers to the general well being of the economy cannot be downplayed. Economic theory explains the process of production as being facilitated by capital, land, labor and entrepreneurship. According to the capitalist ideology, capital is the most important factor of production as it guarantees the existence of all the other factors. The communist ideology, on the contrary, singles out labor as being the most important factor of production. It argues that capital, cannot generate additional capital by itself and can only do so by employing labor (Blanpain & Baker, 2004).

In actual sense, these two factors of production supplement each others’ efforts in the process of production. In the absence of capital labor becomes redundant; in the absence of labor capital cannot generate additional capital. Therefore the employers play a crucial in stimulating economic activity as they provide capital and lend their entrepreneurship skills to the economy. The nation’s lawmakers should therefore take into consideration the interests of both the employers and employees when drafting laws aimed at regulating the labor market. This represents the best way to guarantee perpetual harmonious relationships between employers and their employers and thereby address the prevailing imbalances in the labor market.

The federal government is actively involved in the regulation of employment practices embodied by the private sector. The government’s initial involvement is traced back to the enactment of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) in 1935. NLRA was developed with the main aim of promoting collective bargaining. It sought to achieve this by safeguarding the workers’ freedom of expression and association thus enabling them to organize themselves as a single group and determine the appropriate civil organization to advance their interests as employees(Blanpain & Baker, 2004).

In spite of its noble intentions, partisan interests led to the amendment of NLRA through the Labor Management Relations Act in 1947 and the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act in 1959. These amendments represent a set back to the earlier gains made by NLRA as they gave more leverage to the employers by encroaching on the bargaining power of employees through the unions which act on their behalf.

The existing labor laws have been criticized for being either too harsh or lenient to the employers. This has divided the House right between the middle. The Democrats argue that the current labor laws suppress the unions’ active involvement in fighting for the rights of the workers thus undermining their collective bargaining power. The Republicans, on the other hand, believe the ability of the employers to effectively manage their businesses has been compromised by what they term as the cartelization of labor markets through NLRA. This has impacted on the flexibility of the employers in determining wage rates through individual bargaining of employment contracts (Blanpain & Baker, 2004).

As a conservative Democrat, I am not obliged to take any sides. This is especially after having read and understood the proposed Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) also referred to as the card check legislation, which enjoys overwhelming support from members of my party. In addition, I have taken time to study the recommendations of the report developed by the Dunlop Commission on the Future of Worker-Management Relations. The best way forced is to incorporate these two great labor reform proposals into a single document which comprehensively addresses the underlying issues.

According to my personal observation, the future of the economy is tied on the ability to develop labor policies which adequately address the current stalemate. Currently, big corporations in the U.S. are relocating to countries whose labor markets are more flexible in bid to fight back competition from companies in these same countries. Our economy is therefore being gradually transferred to these countries.

In this respect, the first issue that needs to be immediately addressed is the development of better labor-management partnerships. This will ensure that the employees are more directly involved by working hand in hand with the management to develop working conditions that are mutually agreed upon. This is as proposed by the Dunlop Commission based on the evidence gathered during its term. Our lawmakers lose the point when they base their arguments on who between the employers and the unions should have more bargaining power. Working together, as opposed to individually, develops synergy with unimaginable benefits.

The card check legislation, if passed, will aggravate the current crisis in the labor market. The advancements made by the American society in the last century, whether socially, economically or otherwise, are tremendous. The current society is more united in spite of its diversity. The election of the first black president is a clear indication of the radical evolution of the American society. Unity is strength. The country stands to benefit more by exploiting the current unprecedented oneness of the American people. In this respect, the best labor policy for the nation is one which brings all the stakeholders to the negotiating table and not one which addresses partisan short term interests. It may take time to achieve this but that does not mean it is impossible. Everyone should be made to understand that they are working towards the common good of the nation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References:

Blanpain, R. & Baker, J. (2004) Comparative labor law and industrial relations in industrialized market economies. Kluwer Law International