As discussed in the previous essay, the supreme court will be considering whether employees can be compelled to pay fees to public unions to cover the cost of collective bargaining. While the legal issue will be settled by money and the courts, my focus is on the moral issue of whether this is morally acceptable or not.
Proponents of unions advance the classic free-rider argument in favor of this compulsion. Public unions are generally required by law to provide services to non-member employees. Because of this, if employees did not pay fees to offset the costs of these benefits, then they would be exploiting the employees who did pay. This would be tantamount to stealing from those who paid. This argument is morally compelling, and this can be illustrated by the following analogy.
Imagine that a Lunch Group was formed by people who went to lunch together and this group provided lunch and other benefits in return for a membership fee. Now suppose that a law was passed that required the Lunch Group to provide lunches to anyone who happened to be in the same restaurant as the group when they had lunch. While this would be a great deal for any freeloader who happened along, it would not be fair for the paying members of the Lunch Group. Since people could get the benefits of the Lunch Group without contributing, the group would soon be destroyed: paying members would have little incentive to remain, outsiders would want to exploit the group and thus the funding would soon be exhausted.
Naturally, some of the free-riders might argue that they are entitled to the free lunch, but that they should not be expected to contribute to the group because they do not like the other benefits and disagree with the conversations held by the group members. They just want the free lunch. This is, of course, analogous to the free speech argument advanced in favor of not paying the union fees: the employees want the benefits of the union, but do not want to pay and justify this by claiming that they do not agree with the political views and activities of the union. However, this seems absurd.
The no-free lunch reasoning is normally very appealing to conservatives. For example, it is something of a stock conservative position that people who can work should work rather than freeloading on the social welfare system. They, not surprisingly, criticize people who exploit the system as free riders. This same principle should apply in the case of public unions: if free riding on others is morally wrong, then free riding on a public union is morally wrong as well.
Fortunately, there is an easy solution to the problem—one that is typically endorsed by conservatives: workers should be free to join the union or not and they should be free to pay the fees or not. But, if they elect to not pay the fees, then they should receive none of the benefits. Just as a business is not required to provide free stuff to people just because they want it, the same should apply to the unions as well.
If the law is going to compel unions to provide services to non-union members, then the law must also compel those people to pay their fair share. Otherwise, the state would be mandating the equivalent of free lunches, something that typically violates conservative principles.
Except, it seems, when it comes to busting unions. After all, a very effective way to destroy a union is to compel it to provide services for free. This will encourage free riding and will thus deplete the union funds to the point where the union is no longer able to be effective—something that would please many conservatives. It is thus somewhat ironic that some conservatives are using a tactic that explicitly violates a basic principle of conservatives to weaken and destroy unions.
For example, it is something of a stock conservative position that people who can work should work rather than freeloading on the social welfare system.
By labeling this as a conservative position, can we infer that in your view liberals are in favor of freeloading on the social welfare system?
That would be an unwarranted inference. That conservatives have view X does not entail that liberals have view not-X.
Liberals do, however, tend to have a narrower definition of “freeloading” relative to conservatives.
I think that if you really want inferences like this to be unwarranted, you ought to be a little less biased in your wording. “it is something of a stock conservative position” is quite clear in its inference. Perhaps you ought to phrase it in a more neutral way … “It is a commonly held position among both liberals and conservatives that people who can work should work …”
By labeling this a “stock conservative position” you are making your intent quite known – despite how clever you were in leaving yourself an “out”.
I do endeavor to be clever as wisdom is beyond my reach.
In 1911, there was a fire at the Triangle Shirtwaist Company that killed almost 150 workers, mostly immigrants. It was an important event in the history of labor in this country; it opened the nation’s eyes to appalling conditions and the exploitation of workers, and made a very strong case for labor unions.
Since that time, there have been dozens of labor laws and regulations passed – age restrictions, safety considerations, minimum wage laws, sick leave, family leave, anti-discrimination laws – and the formation of federal, state, and local government watchdog agencies protecting the rights and lives of workers.
During most of the 20th century, I would join those who say that the labor unions, and the tactics they were often forced to resort to, were a necessary entity in the evolution of how we do business today.
However, today I would argue that unions have, for the most part, served their purpose. (Disclaimer – in addition to the experience I had as an adjunct, I was the victim of another union “attack” in NYC; these two incidents along with my general opposition to many of the political positions of unions in general may contribute to a bias on my part).
I would also argue that the benefits to workers that collective bargaining provides are minimal – a small percentage of what the unions actually do with their money and influence in a political arena despite what their accounting might show. In my case, our union forced a strike that cost me a lot of money – pushing for “benefits” that ended up hurting me (and the students) in the end. I will expound on those if anyone is interested.
Around the same time (2005) in NYC, the transit workers went on strike. They essentially shut down the city – subways, buses, taxis – all went quiet while their demands were negotiated. They already had great working conditions – limited hours, safety regulations, competitive pay, plenty of personal and sick leave – but they were demanding benefits over and above what anyone else in the country had – benefits that had been proven to be unsustainable in a free market – benefits that could only be provided on the backs of taxpayers. They were demanding a defined-benefit pension plan and full retirement at age 50 after 20 years of service (to be lowered from a 25/55 plan); a 6% per year wage increase, expanded maternity leave and a health insurance plan that required no contribution on the part of the employee. Who in this country has this?
(Incidentally, in the 1970’s, an earlier strike led to the implementation of a 20/50 pension agreement – this created a surge of early retirement of the most skilled workers, increased costs associated with providing more training and increased benefits for younger workers, and the ultimate financial and physical collapse of the entire transit system. The plan was re-revised in the 1980’s to the 25/55 model).
So while you might argue that it is immoral for someone to “freeload” on the good work of the unions, I would argue the opposite – that the original purpose and benefits of unions are now a matter of law and it is immoral for them to force themselves into workplaces under the guise of “important collective bargaining”, while exploiting workers for their own political agenda.
A major conservative opposition to public service unions in general is one that you don’t mention – it’s that the “employer”, as a government entity, really has no skin in the game. Any private or public company has to weigh the competition for employees (via salary, benefits, perks, and other work/life offerings) against company profit. While you tend to insist that this is merely exploitation – smart companies like Apple, Google, Dell, Amazon, and plenty of smaller companies understand that they will do much better in the long run with happier, satisfied employees – and go to great length and expense to offer innovative benefits so they can keep the best people in the company.
The government has no such obligation – they do not have to compete for shareholder value, nor do they have a need to leverage employee happiness with profitability, growth, or progress. They have no bottom line to serve – their point of negotiation is simply the taxing authority of the government entity – be it local, state, or federal. This skews the negotiations, makes them entirely unfair, and undermines the very definition of “bargaining”.
I don’t think I like your analogy, either – “Free Lunch” at a restaurant is not analogous to the kinds of benefits a union provides. Perhaps the lunch group might have lobbied for an expanded menu, or better climate control in the restaurant – but the “Lunch” in this case is analogous to “Employment”, which is what the restaurant/business provides.
So if we’re going to expand on your analogy, and we presume that the Lunch Group is committed to acting for the benefit of its members, perhaps they do some good – using the above examples. Maybe they even negotiate a discount for members, or a promotional “Eat here ten times, the eleventh lunch is free” kind of thing. Perhaps they might work to include specialty items on the menu at the request of their membership, or make sure there is a reserved section so there is always seating available for members.
However – what if, in the interest of its members, the Lunch Group decides that the restaurant should be vegetarian – because their position is that meat is bad for your health, or that factory farming is cruel to animals? It is still their belief that they are acting for the benefit of their members, but their “benefit” is now one sided and exclusionary. For the other patrons of the restaurant – whether dues paying members of the Lunch Club or freeloaders – their experience has changed, possibly to the negative, to meet the political or other beliefs of the club. What happens if the Lunch Club then starts to donate the dues to farming collectives, or PETA? Or what if the Lunch Club is staunchly temperate, and works to have the alcohol license of the restaurant surrendered? Those are the kinds of causes Unions support. It has nothing to do with “Free Lunch”.
Put another way – what if the Lunch Club suddenly decided that they felt unsafe in the restaurant, and lobbied for the purchase and storage of a shotgun at easy reach in the kitchen? Or perhaps the restaurant had a catering business, and the Lunch Club lobbied to discourage the catering side to provide services to same-sex weddings? I bring this up because I suspect that your support of unions has little to do with your membership in them, and more to do with the fact that you are, in general, politically aligned with their left-leaning agenda.
Continuing the vegetarian analogy, the club, in order to serve its own ends, would not care if the restaurant no longer attracted a large enough clientele to stay in business – as long as it promoted vegetarianism and its own causes. (I’ve never known a militant vegetarian, but I’m sure they must exist somewhere …) If it were somehow a public service restaurant, they would demand government subsidies to keep its doors open. The cause becomes political, and no longer (or never did) focuses on the needs of the clients or the restaurant itself.
Everyone wants “Free Lunch”, it is a clear, but biased benefit in your analogy. If all that Unions did was negotiate for better working (or eating) conditions that everyone agreed upon, there would be no issue. But they don’t – they do what is in the political best interest of the union – in service of their own wealth and power – even if i means (as it has so often in the past), the bankruptcy of the very restaurant / business they are committed to serve.
Like DH, I recognise that the “Lunch Club” analogy fails badly in the case at issue here. It does not represent the issues in dispute.
I read the Janus petition and the respondents’ briefs, and some of the legal commentary.
A better analogy would be this: There is only one source for Lunch in the town. The Lunch Club has been formed, and it negotiates with the sole supplier of food what everybody will eat for lunch. Everybody in town must eat this lunch in full, whether they want to or not. Those who refuse to join the Lunch Club must still eat the Lunch of the Day, and pay a percentage (typically about 80%) of the Lunch Club’s membership fees to the Lunch Club for the service of dictating and providing the lunch.
Of course, not all union situations can be represented by this model, but this is the case before the court now.
Afterthought: it is interesting that, even though the analogy I gave is closer, it is still not what the Janus cases hinges on. The claim is that by paying this “agency fee”, Janus is also being forced to support speech and influence on government he does not agree with. I’d really need to work that into the analogy as well to be a fair representation.
Well done. My response was unresearched and anecdotal, dealing with my general understanding of and experience with unions – yours was much more to the specific point.
Thank you. Your response was in fact much better than mine, containing more information and a wider view. I couldn’t match it, so I hoped a narrow focus might be an effective complement. In Internet discussions, sometimes the big picture alternative view gets results; sometimes the refutation of a step in the argument. In the nature of Internet discussions though, any result rarely shows until after the discussion is over, if at all.