The concepts of the open shop, right to work, and having to attempt organizing a new union in full view of ownership and management, have made the organization of new union shops something that borders on the impossible, because those attempting to organize are threatened with or subjected to termination, as the Cornell University study demonstrates. In fact, preventing unionization has become a multi-billion dollar enterprise in the United States.
Even a pro-business publication like Business Week stated in an editorial in its December 18, 1946 edition, that the Taft-Hartley Act "crossed the narrow line separating a law which aims only to regulate from one which could destroy. Given a few million unemployed in America, given an administration in Washington which was not pro-union--and the Taft-Hartley Act conceivably could wreck the labor movement."
Which is exactly what the Re-publican Reagan Administration started to do when it came into power in the 1980's. And no President has been actively supportive of labor since LBJ.
We have also been fed a continuous line of anti-union propaganda for the last sixty-some years, trying to destroy the image of the unions in the eyes of the American people. These include:
-
The unions were responsible for starting most of the violence in disputes between labor and capital. The unions were responsible for less than half of the incidents that marked the start of violence. They did start much more violence west of the Mississippi than they did east of the Big Muddy. It should also be noted that even in cases where labor seemed to start the violence (the Pullman Strike of 1894 being a prime example), there is some question whether it was actually the strikers who started the violence, or agents provocateur. When FDR put Federal troops around the automobile plants in Michigan in 1937, their guns were not pointed at strikers; they were pointed at the goons hired by the owners, and the local police who ignored the attacks on the strikers.
-
That there are businesses where unions were established, promising better take home pay, and that after the unions were established, and the workers started paying dues, they ended up with a lower take home pay. This seems to be in the same category as Reagan's "welfare queen" driving her Cadillac to pick up her welfare check: a complete anecdotal fabrication.
-
The unions are guilty of inefficient practices including featherbedding, i.e. requiring more workers than the job actually needs for completion, that cost businesses extra money. The need for these practices by unions is a direct result of the Taft-Hartley Act. Unions have simply been trying to maintain their deteriorating position under the impossible rules imposed by this dastardly Act.
Are unions perfect? No. Like every human enterprise, they are only as good as the people who actively participate in the enterprise. In some past cases, the participation has been by criminals, e.g., the Teamsters. In most cases, the participation has been by people just trying to make a living, and a better future for their children. Sometimes, they have been at the forefront of social change, e.g., Caesar Chavez and the United Farmworkers.
Regardless, unions--good, bad, and indifferent--are absolutely necessary for the creation and maintenance of a large and vibrant middle class in a democratic society, as part of the system of checks and balances against a domineering capitalist elite and their monolithic corporate power. To quote Abraham Lincoln in his First Message to Congress (December 3, 1861), "Let them [the workingmen] beware of surrendering a political power which they already possess, and which, if surrendered, will surely be used to close the door of advancement against such as they, and to fix new disabilities and burdens upon [them] till all of liberty shall be lost."
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
2
1
1
