Unions are beneficial

We often hear about the top 1% or the middle class, but what about the disenfranchised classes in the United States. Those who are immigrants or second generation Americans; those unable to earn a High School Degree; those who have mild mental illnesses; those with no ambition; or those who are just unlucky.   Traditionally, the democratic party defends these workers through supporting Unions. However, the political agenda of Unions is often at odds with the political view of its members. This disconnect between union members and union leaders creates an opportunity for employers and conservative politicians to capitalize on in order to break union power.

The power of Unions comes from its members. Unions garnish paychecks of its members for union dues. For example, a small teamsters office of three or four employees will take roughly $50 a month from its 400 members at one food processing plant. This amounts to at least $20,000 a year. This is just one source of income as the union represents several factories of workers. Union leadership also offers various types of insurance and credit cards to its members. Thus another stream of revenue from its members for its political agenda. These revenue sources are used to enrich the union’s lawyers and representatives as well as to promote the socialist agenda of Union leaders in Washington, D.C.

If the Unions are using money from its members to lobby in Washington D.C., its members should agree with its positions. Some do, maybe even most, but not all. Many enjoy the benefits of working in a Union, while voting conservative during elections. Most union members do not influence politics by voting. Some are legal residents, but not citizens, and cannot vote. Others choose not to vote because they do not believe their one vote makes a difference in our broken political system. The latter is most prevalent. So again the question arises, can someone take its members money and use it for political purposes the members oppose or at least do not support?

And what do they do to earn this income? When an employee feels mistreated by management at the factory, then they file a grievance with the Union to rectify the injustice. But whatever the outcome of the grievance process, employees are never satisfied. If the employee is reinstated in their job, then others will feel the employee took advantage of the system. This perpetuates the idea that unions protect the worst employees at the expense of others. Hard working employees see the union garnishments as an imposition because they have never needed to file a grievance. While other employees feel the union should defend their rights with more vigor. These employees believe the unions are not stronger because union representatives worry more about factory management than about employee rights.

Is it better to work in a union factory than a non union factory? The answer is yes. Union factories provide slightly better pay. The biggest advantage to working in a union factory is that the union provides more security. Although, members argue about the usefulness of unions, it seems that in a union factory, management treats its employees with more respect. Even though union members still get terminated, it is usually for very serious offensives, and sometimes not even then. Workers at the factory, even if they don’t like management and their union representatives, they have a greater sense of job security. That sense of job security is very valuable. More valuable than the $50 monthly union dues.

So what is the lesson learned for politicians and managers who want to break unions. The answer is that companies need replace the unions by providing the feeling of security for its workers by treating them with more respect. Companies need to be increasingly more loyal to their employees. Thus undermining the key benefit of unions. If employees do not feel a need to file grievances, then unions will be inconsequential. A more involved government would more objectively arbitrate these grievances than a politically motivated union in collusion with management. This is not to say some workers don’t need to be directed into new occupations, but that a worker should not be arbitrarily terminated because of management’s whim or need for a scapegoat. To terminate someone, management needs a legitimate reason. An employer should no longer be able to terminate an employee at will. By replacing unions with more government involvement and companies treating workers respectfully, unions will not be needed. Without the need for unions, unions will be unable to gather money to push their political agenda. This would be a win for conservative politicians as well as for companies hindered by unions.