Having to manage a relationship with a union didn't work out well for me, so I'll start off by saying that I am not a fan of unions on a personal level. I feel that there was once a very strong need for unions, and that there is no doubt that the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 was passed because companies full of corrupt and greedy managers treated employees like disposable commodities. I also feel that unions have led the way towards the passage of many of today's state and federal laws and guidelines that protect workers rights, and that many of the "Best Practices" that are present in good companies have come as a direct result of the efforts of unions from past negotiations. Unions have affected many great changes in the present day workplace, and they should be applauded for their efforts. That being said, they have done their jobs so well that they have made themselves irrelevant in today's global economy.
At one point, 35% of the American workforce were represented by a union. Today, that number is down to 12%, and most of those that still maintain membership in a union are public employees. Private sector employees make up less than half of that 12%, and only about 5% of all union employees are under the age of 25. I have written extensively about current state and federal labor laws, company best practices, and recruitment and retention initiatives that have made the need for unions all but nil, so I won't waste any more time on that subject (check out some of my past blogs for a recap on subject).
Regardless of how I feel about unions, however, one thing that I am confused about, even as an HR professional, is how the Governor of Wisconsin can decide that he no longer wants to be forced to collectively bargain with already established unions for various public employees? I'm not saying I don't agree with him, because when I worked with a union workforce I prayed every day that I could figure out a way to work with the 90% of great employees that were present at the company and avoid dealing with the 10% who had nothing but their own best interests in mind. But I was always under the impression that the union had elected leaders to represent them, and that I was following the NLRA by dealing with these elected representatives for the workforce. I have no doubt that dealing with individuals vs. a small team of elected union officials would do nothing but benefit those 90% of the employees who do a great job and who could stand out as individuals based on effort, experience, talent and promotability. Being able to negotiate your own future as an individual should be everyone's goal in a democracy, and being able to individually excel is every person's right in this world. Did I have the right to bargain individually with those 90% vs. the union leadership team? I don't think so. So I'm left wondering, how is Gov. Walker attempting to do this?
I've read as much on the internet over the past few days that I can find, and the only plausible explanations I can find are that there are differences in the NLRA regarding public and private sector employees, and differences in state statutes and rights vs. federal statutes and laws. We all had our Civics classes in school and we know that the Constitution is the "law of the land." The right to unionize, as far as I can tell, is loosely addressed in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights which states in part, "Congress shall make no law...prohibiting...the right of people peaceably to assemble." This right, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, has been interpreted to give public and private employees the right to free association, including the right to join a union. However, the Constitution does not grant the public employees the right to collectively bargain with employers. This right is based on applicable provisions in state constitutions, federal statutes or state statutes. In Wisconsin, statutes permit bargaining by municipal employees. Impasse resolution procedures include mediation and arbitration. Strikes are permitted after impasse resolution procedures have been exhauusted. What does this mean? Well, people a lot smarter than me obviously must feel that Governor Walker has every right to decide to end collective bargaining (outside of wages, which he is proposing to limit as well) with public employees.
Does he have this right under the NLRA, or Wisconsin State Constitution, or through state or federal statutes? I'd guess he feels he does or he wouldn't be pushing this bill through the legislature. I can tell you that if I had decided to limit or end the collective bargaining rights of the union that I worked with based on my desire not to do so, I would have been slapped with an NLRB charge much faster than I can type this blog. Did I have the right to do so? I don't think so. I know I didn't have the authority to do so. Does Governor Walker have the right? I don't know. He seems to think he does, and with all of the protests and arguing that I have seen and heard, I haven't heard anyone really bring up the NLRA. I'm guessing that he has every right to do so. The question is, what happens next to unions? Is this just a states rights issue where other states will certainly follow Wisconsin's lead if this vote is successful? You bet other states will follow Wisconsin's lead. Will a company try to use the same argument that the State of Wisconsin government is using to effectively end most collectively bargain with its employees? I don't know that either, but you better believe everyone is watching closely.
I for one believe the citizens of Wisconsin elected these leaders, and if they don't like what these leaders are doing, they need to elect new leaders during the next elections. That is what happens in a free democracy. I don't think unions provide anything to good workers outside of seniority, as I feel that an employer who fails to offer good wages, benefits and working conditions, and who fails to follow state and federal laws, will not only be unable to recruit or retain employees, but will risk shutting their doors as they become uncompetitive with other companies. Do you need a union to ensure that companies remain competitive with their competition? Absolutely not. It has the opposite effect in many instances.
I will finish by stating that the budget deficits in these states are not the unions fault. Very bad decisions have been made by executives and government leaders that have caused this issue to come to the forefront, and I believe as many people do that those that were responsible have not been held accountable, while the effects of their decisions are being felt by everyone beneath them. If you do a root cause analysis, you cannot say that the economic crisis affecting the world was caused by unionism. It wasn't. Unions get a bad rap because most people aren't in unions and they see or hear about wages or benefits that union employees receive that they don't. It's the "It's not fair" argument, and it's the Union's main argument for trying to unionize businesses. "Unionize and you too can get some of these wages and benefits..." This debate is much larger than I wish to get into on this blog, but I will conclude that it is not the union's fault that Wisconsin has a budget deficit in 2011.
Perhaps in my next blog we'll talk about corporate greed, shareholder value, acceptable value and ROI, what drives the world economy, what defines a socio-economic class, etc. Today, I'm just interested in what is going to happen in Wisconsin.
By the way, I'd like opinions on whether people believe the Democratic Senators in Wisconsin have abandoned their positions and should be replaced, or whether they are doing their jobs by leaving the state to force concessions? I'm trying to decide if I have the right to refuse to do my work if I don't agree with what my boss says...
No comments:
Post a Comment