The suspension of the strike by East and Gulf Coast longshoreman has brought, at least temporarily, an end to what was a rapidly becoming a significant threat to our economy, workers, and the pocketbooks of American families. The situation may reach a boiling point again, but if there is a silver lining to the three-day strike, it is that Americans have finally seen the growing willingness of some union bosses to employ extreme and destructive tactics to achieve their objectives.
The apparent disregard for the broader impact of strikes on the economy suggests a troubling disconnect between union leadership and the interest of most American workers. Emboldened by increasing support from elected officials on both sides of the aisle, these union leaders pose an escalating threat not only to the nearly 160 million private-sector American workers who are not unionized, but to all Americans.
International Longshoremen Association (ILA) President Harold Daggett was shockingly candid when he declared that he would “cripple” the economy via a prolonged strike if that is what it took to achieve the union’s objectives. He showed little concern for what he described as the “guys who sell cars” or the retail workers in malls whose stores close or the “construction workers [who] get laid off” because of their strike.
Such rhetoric is both alarming and indicative of a growing willingness among some union bosses to employ destructive strategies that may benefit a select few at the expense of the many. Small businesses that rely on the supply chain suffer disproportionately during such strikes, leading to job losses and economic instability. The ripple effect can also impact retail workers and service industries, which depend on the continuous flow of goods and the patronage of the displaced workers. And in contrast to the striking union members, these workers don’t have a strike fund to support them.
Sometimes the impact is even more severe. A federal judge recently ordered Teamsters President Sean O’Brien to sit for a deposition over his “personal involvement” in the events precipitating the closure of Yellow Trucking. While several factors contributed to Yellow's closure and the loss of 22,000 jobs, there is speculation that the Teamsters and O’Brien—who posted a picture of the Yellow logo on a tombstone—saw taking a hard line with Yellow as a means to gain leverage in their ongoing negotiations with the much larger UPS.
Strikes are not the only tool in the arsenal of the union bosses. They are increasingly successful in getting friendly state, local, and even federal officials to force employers to agree to “labor peace agreements” as a condition of receiving a government grant or contract. These agreements are typically used to make it easier for a union to organize a workplace without having to go through a secret ballot election.
Earlier this year, the United Auto Workers even filed a complaint with the German government to gain leverage in a unionization campaign at an auto plant in the United States, potentially costing the company billions of dollars.
Not content with these powers, union leaders are aggressively pushing federally elected officials to give them more power by passing the so-called “Protecting the Right to Organize Act” or PRO Act. This legislation would allow unions to engage in secondary boycotts and picketing, meaning that they could go after any employer doing business with a targeted company even if those employers have no connection with the union.
The PRO Act would also overturn “right-to-work” laws enacted by 28 states that prevent employees from being fired if they decline to pay union dues.
The current law against secondary picketing and allowance of right-to-work were the result of bipartisan legislation enacted in 1947 after a period when union bosses were similarly abusing their power and threatening to bring down the entire economy as a means of leverage.
The union bosses’ all-or-nothing approach has been emboldened by the Biden administration's consistent support, even when their actions threaten broader harm to the economy and other workers. This differs from past Democratic administrations, which understood the need to balance the interests of employers and employees and did not hesitate to intervene when the vast majority of Americans were at risk.
Employees have the right to organize, and unions can play a crucial role in fostering success for both employees and employers. While unions are justified in advocating for fair treatment and wages, it's equally important that they do so without jeopardizing the economy that supports all American workers and their families. Recent actions by the ILA and other union bosses suggest that these leaders are not living up to their responsibilities.
Neil Bradley is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Executive Vice President and Chief Policy Officer.
Read Full Article »