Herron: Employee Free Choice Act bad for workers, economy

The House of Representatives voted 241-185 in favor of the Employee Free Choice Act in March of… The House of Representatives voted 241-185 in favor of the Employee Free Choice Act in March of 2007. The bill was then killed in the Senate. Now, with a Democratic White House and Congress, the legislation’s passage appears imminent. Proponents of the bill argue its necessity based upon an assertion that workers’ rights to join a union are weak. The act would do three things: strengthen the enforcement of prohibitions against unfair labor practices, allow union recognition through a process known as card check and require third-party arbitration if the negotiating parties are unable to reach an agreement within 120 days. The first stipulation is reasonable and mostly uncontroversial, but the second certainly is not. The card-check process would replace the secret ballot election ‘mdash; the most common means for deciding whether or not employees want to unionize. Essentially, an employee publicly signs a card indicating his choice to unionize or not. The result is that all parties involved, including other employees, union officials and employers, would know where that employee stands. That a bill would use the word ‘free’ to describe this sort of election is reprehensible. Historically, unions and union officials have been willing to use violence and coercion in order to force employees to join unions against their will. Of course, businesses have been equally guilty of violent coercion. The goal of labor regulation should be to find a balance of power between employees and business. The act would throw off this balance. If an employee genuinely wants to express interest in unionizing, he is free to do so through the current secret ballot system. Through a card check process, however, the employee’s vote is on display to the public and his support will rest with whatever side is most intimidating. President Barack Obama supported the bill when he was a senator, and he told the AFL-CIO in April, ‘I will make it the law of the land when I’m president of the United States.’ As our economic crisis worsens, it’s important to consider what the effects of increased unionization will be. The goal of most unions is to better their workers by demanding higher wages. They are successful at this, and now unionized workers get better pay. What is not seen are the detrimental effects of these inflated wages and benefits. The principle of supply and demand tells us that as the price of a good increases, the demand for that good decreases. Similarly, if the price of labor is increased because of union pressure, the amount of labor demanded is lowered. In other words, less people are employed because it costs too much to employ a large number of people, and thus unemployment rises. Notable economists ‘mdash; Nobel Laureates Milton Friedman and F.A. Hayek, especially ‘mdash; have recognized this phenomenon. Economist Robert P. Murphy claims that ‘by distorting relative prices and insisting on inefficient workplace rules, [unions] certainly hamper the economy, no question about it.’ Also, the increased cost of labor is passed on to the consumer. It is easy to believe that every dollar of increased wages comes from the pocket of the CEO, but it comes instead from those who buy a good or service. Is it really sensible to increase the price of goods and services during an economic downturn? In 2001, Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., wrote a letter to the Mexican government stating a belief that ‘the secret ballot is absolutely necessary in order to ensure that workers are not intimidated into voting for a union they might not otherwise choose.’ Apparently, however, Miller’s support of the secret ballot stops at the border. Miller is the sponsor of the act. Why should the American people support a bill that is not even supported by its own sponsor? In the past, unions have been a driving force behind the progressive regulations such as provisions for worker safety and the abolition of child labor. Their positive contributions as an interest group have brought necessary legislation long before the forces of government would have deemed them necessary. Today’s unions, on the other hand, often seek raw self-interest without consideration of society as a whole. The act would reduce the gains in efficiency and productivity by facilitating a corrupted process of unionization, based on an undemocratic process. Our leaders in Congress must understand the potential effects of this legislation and resist political pressure from union interest groups. E-mail Mason at mph20@pitt.edu.