Many years ago I was part of a company that unionized. At one point in the process I was vice-president, chief steward and negotiator all at the same time. We had our own local and unlike many other unions, we at the local level were in the driver’s seat. The business agent made it clear that the national union would back us up, whatever we decided at the local level as well as back us financially as we got started.
When we negotiated our first contract it was apparent to everyone that we had the power to put the employer (a private company) out of business. This also meant that we had the power to put ourselves out of work. This, to my mind, was the proper balance. Part of that balance was also the fact that our company was one of many in the same business. Any strike would be against the employer and not against any innocent bystander.
Philosophically we had to be able to accept that merit was out of the equation in a collective agreement, and we even began to police ourselves to some extent while in negotiations. In general meetings I remember appealing to the body of workers to take pride in themselves and their own work, not for the sake of the company, but for the sake of being able to hold their own heads up, as union members, as part of a brotherhood of men good at what they do and deserving of decent wages for it.
But it took some severe blows and cuts in pay for us to initially have the numbers to form the union, and the balance in the minds of the majority had to be that the sacrifice of individual merit and freedom for the collective was worth it. And that always has to be the calculation.
To some extent, there is a parallel between the necessity of unions and the necessity of something like the death penalty. What I mean is this. Unions are more of a last resort in impossible circumstances. There was a time when they was a widespread need for them, at the height of the industrial revolution. Because they fill a need to protect people who have very little power on their own, the Church teaches that there should be that right to organize. But like the Church teaches about capital punishment, I believe there is less and less need for unions, particularly in the private sector, as employers competing with each other for employees have become enlightened in large measure as to how to treat their people without being forced into it. And to give the unions their due, in large measure it was they that brought about the enlightenment.
The public sector is another matter altogether. Insofar as the government holds a monopoly on the services it provides to the public, there should be no legal right to strike for public sector unions. If it is law that kids must go to school, then teachers should have no right to shut that school down. If it is law that everyone should have a license plate on their vehicle, then emplyees at the DMV should not have the right to shut down that service. And so on. And in private sector companies that have been granted a monopoly by the government to provide a service, there should also be no right to strike.
Unless there is some financial or other price to pay for the kind of attitude I have seen in many unions (I’ve been to General Motors plants) then the balance is not there, and a union becomes no more than an extortion gang. That is why GM should have been allowed to fold a long time ago. There has to be a price to pay for the work ethic I have witnessed, in this case from the union shop right up through the management. They all created the mess and they all should have to bear the cost of it, not the general taxpayer. But we need to bear in mind that this situation was also enabled by a distortion in credit availability such that outrageous prices for cars did not stop the general public from buying and therefore efficiency was unnecessary in production. A direct parallel to the housing bubble.
In certain states, to take a particular job you must join the union. That does not mean that you are responsible for the organizations and causes that union supports. Feeding your family comes first and if taking the work means paying dues, Catholic moral teaching does not hold you responsible, unless there is a real choice of jobs available. Some unions in some jurisdictions allow you to direct your dues to a charity, instead of the union, if you object to that union’s use of your money. But in that case, if you find yourself behind the eight-ball, so to speak, don’t expect the union to come to your defence.
Sorry for rambling away from your question. Bottom line, where there is local control of the union, there is a better opportunity to change the local union. Where the national and international unions control everything that goes on, the local is just a pawn in the bigger game, just as it is in the case of governments. I’ve personally known people who have been threatened and had threats against their families for rocking the boat in the local union, against the wishes of the corrupt national union. That particular union I won’t name but it was renowned at that time for its corruption.
They go to court, the judge says they have to go to work, and there’s not penalties. The kids lose out. The taxpayers lose out. 