| 1/29/2007 10:25:00 AM | Email this article • Print this article | Fixing the state's labor peace act
Guest Opinion
by Raymond Hogler
The Colorado General Assembly is considering a bill to change current rules about contract negotiations between a labor union and an employer.
So much misinformation has been written about HB 1072 the public is being asked to believe passage of the bill will be an economic disadvantage to the state - but it will actually result in taxpayer savings.
For three decades "modified" union security law imposed burdens on organized labor and administrative costs to taxpayers without discernible benefits to citizens. To understand the issues, some background is necessary.
Gov. John Vivian signed the Colorado Labor Peace Act into law in April 1943. It was part of a union opposition campaign in the south and west against the National Labor Relations (Wagner) Act of 1935. The campaign ended in the 1947 federal Taft-Hartley amendments, which made substantial changes in rights of unions regarding membership.
Taft-Hartley abolished the "closed shop," allowing unions to require membership for employment. It substituted a 30-day period before an employee had to pay union dues. The 1947 federal law, like the Colorado law, required a secret ballot among employees to approve a contractual requirement of dues payments.
Congress dropped the election requirement in 1951 because 97 percent of employees in 46,145 elections voted for union security. Federal legislators decided the second election was costly, time-consuming and unnecessary.
Despite federal experience, Colorado continues to require a second election. Between 1978 and April 1998, the Colorado Department of Labor conducted 351 Peace Act elections. Unions won 234 of the contests, and, by a simple majority vote, would have won 321. Cost of the elections was estimated at $215,865. The number isn't extravagant, but benefit of the elections is negligible.
Years of research failed to demonstrate significant correlation between outlawing union security and economic advantage for a state. Research shows the laws are associated with higher levels of labor conflict and lower levels of state social capital, an indication of cooperative, beneficial relations among citizens.
Social capital promotes constructive dealings between employers and employees and between enterprises and business. For most employers, competitive advantage is attained by mutually satisfactory employment relations, not by paying lowest wages.
Justifications for the legislation are straight forward. After workers vote in favor of union representation, the union negotiating team should be able to take the issue of union security to the bargaining table, just as employers take their proposals. Under HB 1072, workers would have several opportunities to voice desires about an "all-union" agreement.
Elimination of the second election doesn't compel an employer to agree to a union security arrangement. If a union or an employer believes union security isn't in their best interest, they reject it in the negotiation process. If an all-union agreement is tentatively accepted, the contract is subject to ratification by the bargaining unit.
If a majority opposes the security provision, they can vote against it.
There are other protections for workers under an "all-union" agreement. The contract provision is effective only during the negotiated contract - usually three years. Workers have the right under the National Labor Relations Act to rescind the "all-union" agreement by petitioning the National Labor Relations Board. The board will conduct an election to invalidate the security provision.
Experience of other states demonstrates no economic downturn will occur because of HB 1072. Workers will continue to have all rights available under federal law, including the right to vote for or against unionization using a secret ballot.
HB 1072 is important because majority rule is the bedrock of American democracy. We routinely vote on matters of fiscal consequence such as financing new roads, schools, other public institutions. The minority cannot choose to opt out of majority decision.
The current law requiring a second election is profoundly anti-democratic. The late Milton Friedman pointed out laws against union security deprive workers of freedom to enter contracts ensuring everyone who benefits from collective action will pay a fair share. If the Peace Act offered a useful model, presumably other states would have adopted it by now, but not a single state has considered it.
Colorado is the only state with such an idiosyncratic and peculiar treatment of union security. It's time to consign the law to the scrap heap of bad political choices.
Raymond Hogler, J.D., PhD, is a professor of management at Colorado State University in Fort Collins.
|
Article Comment Submission Form
|
