The year was 2017. I had just graduated from Anoka Technical College with an associate degree in Welding Technology. I’d benefited greatly from the training I received from my instructors at ATC, and my opportunities in welding were broad. With a particular interest in pipe-welding, I had many options, and I was told that the best was to join the pipefitters union Local 455, a member of the United Association (UA), a national pipe-trades union covering pipefitters, steamfitters, plumbers, sprinkler fitters, and others.
The benefits of joining Local 455 seemed obvious: good pay, tight community, and a highly acclaimed apprenticeship program. The personal economic and career benefits were undeniable. With great excitement, I submitted my request for membership.
After two years, I had left Local 455 and the UA; disgruntled, discouraged, and determined to avoid the unjust and injurious UA union system. What I had seen was “Union America” (as one member described it), and what follows is what that looks like from inside UA Local 455 in St. Paul, Minnesota.
The United Association presents itself as protecting working Americans. For workers outside their unions, nothing could be further from the truth. The United Association uses lies, fear, groupthink, and political activism to control the pool of labor and cripple non-union industry; worse, it intentionally limits union membership to keep its members’ own pay high and exclude fellow Americans from the job market. Union members brazenly call their special status “Union America”—a broken and corrupt system that benefits itself to the detriment of broader working Americans. In writing this, I don’t mean to argue that every member of the UA is malicious, or that the UA as a whole ought to be scrapped. However, if the United Association wishes to fulfill its stated purpose of improving the condition of working Americans, it must be radically reformed.
It was at a union meeting one night that I knew I had to consider leaving. A member spoke glowingly of the rigid legal protections that unions enjoyed in California, effectively barring non-union workers from employment. He wanted to see the same conditions prevail in Minnesota. The business manager responded and explained that, while friendly politicians can’t technically make union membership a requirement, they can draft requirements that, essentially, only the union can fulfill. I looked around the room, expecting someone to question the ethics of what was effectively state-sanctioned hiring discrimination. The room was silent.
I was stunned.
This highlights the core problem with the United Association as it currently exists: its high wages are directly predicated on the exclusion of pipefitters from the labor market. Working to improve workers’ skills and negotiating for a higher wage to go along with that is a good thing – but a higher wage that is dependent on the economic disenfranchisement of other workers is both unethical and unsustainable. As the businesses manager stated, the United Association hasn’t officially barred non-union pipefitters from employment, at least not in Minnesota. However, the principle is the same. The United Association uses state license laws, prevailing-wage, and project-labor laws to exclude private pipefitters from the job market. State license laws are intended to ensure competency; in fact, they enable unions like the United Association to possess a virtual monopoly on labor. Lobbyists ensure that the licensure requirements are almost impossible to fulfill except through unions like the United Association. Meanwhile, project-labor laws prevent private contractors from bidding on projects unless they forgo the employment of their own labor for union workers. Non-union workers may be barred from working on certain jobsites unless they join. And while organizations like the UA clearly operate for-profit, they possess nonprofit status under special stipulations drafted just for unions. This allows them to operate as nonprofits while maintaining an economic stranglehold on the market and engaging in political activism.
To further consolidate skilled labor within the union, the UA opposes the expansion of apprenticeship programs outside the union and lobbies policymakers to implement apprenticeship standards so high that even the union may not meet them. When the union does not meet these standards, they are simply falsified. As an apprentice, I was encouraged by union instructors to record work experience in areas where I had none in order to meet state requirements.
Union members tend to oppose anything that extends technical knowledge outside the union. This mindset is exemplified by a conversation I had with a fellow apprentice. He expressed disappointment that someone could learn pipe welding at a trade school. This was a bad thing, he thought, because it meant that non-union workers could learn the skill, and thus weaken the union’s grip on the industry. This isn’t just an opinion held by a few members—it’s systemic, and it comes right from the top. At union meetings, members will stand up and demand that fewer people be admitted to the union and granted the opportunities that union members profit from. These are the same people who once interviewed for the chance to join the union; they could just as easily have been non-union themselves.
UA local unions not only suppress opportunities for nonunion workers but also seek to limit union membership to protect the high earnings of current members; in other words, the UA is doing the exact opposite of what it claims to do: instead of “protecting” workers, the UA intentionally excludes potential pipefitters from the labor market to limit supply and drive up prices. Worse, this exclusion means that less pipefitting work gets done. American industries processing steam, petrochemical, water, and other materials suffer from a loss of valuable skilled labor.
Probably the best example of this policy of disenfranchisement is the pictured flier, which I saw inside the union hall. The flier claims that bureaucrats are trying to destroy the UA apprenticeship program. Of course, I was surprised to learn that apprenticeships would be targeted by politicians, since politicians usually support work and skill training regardless of political affiliation. As neither the flier nor the website directly referenced the bill in question, I did my own research. In June 2019, the Department of Labor proposed an expansion of apprenticeship programs, awarding $183.8 million to support the development and expansion of training programs. This included industry, employer, government, nonprofit and union training programs. The United Association told its members that union apprenticeships were being attacked. In truth, the DOL was merely seeking to expand apprenticeship options, including union apprenticeships.
I found one mason’s union honest enough to state the true reason for its opposition to expanded apprenticeships: competition. More training programs would pose a threat to union power by expanding the number of skilled workers. Despite their claims to be advancing skilled labor, unions like the UA are opposed to the growth and advancement of skilled labor, especially when such advancement includes non-union Americans. In this case, the UA lied directly to its own members, stirring unjustified outrage to goad them into action.
To justify their obvious abuses of power, Local 455 and the UA instill in their members a strong sense of “solidarity,” meaning a sense of goodwill and identity shared between union members. The union even teaches one-sided courses on union history to apprentices designed to foster loyalty. Union solidarity often expresses itself in positive actions, like generous stipends to the widows of deceased members. However, solidarity is also exploited to excuse the marginalization of non-union workers, a lack of financial transparency, a dysfunctional justice system, and general cronyism. The United Association is not financially accountable to its members. Local unions are required to pay whatever amount the UA demands. No explanation is given for why the money is needed, or where it is going. Union officials tell members that they do not know where the money is spent. Similarly, the training arm of Local 455 (the Joint Apprenticeship Training Committee, or JATC) does not inform members how it spends the money taken from their paychecks. Members of Local 455 are understandably frustrated by the lack of transparency. But there is little that they can do to demand accountability. Criticisms of both the Local 455 and the UA are kept private, as no one wants to risk appearing disloyal. Hiding issues only makes them worse, though, and little improvement can be made until someone brings them to light. Attempts to do so get nowhere within the union.
Accountability within the union is essentially nonexistent, as union solidarity overrules justice. I saw this at a union meeting where an internal case was formally addressed. A woman from the neighboring Minneapolis pipefitters Local 539 charged that a member of Local 455 had laid her off due to her sex. After that case was formally introduced in the meeting, there was no discussion of any evidence that might prove or disprove the allegation. Instead, the charges were put straight to a vote by the membership of Local 455. Of course, Local 455 voted overwhelmingly to drop all charges. This kind of “justice” is common throughout 455, and completely stifles any real attempts at reform. The union’s handling of internal affairs made it clear to me that no reform could come from within.
Criticisms of the union are perceived as personal attacks, and union members often respond in kind. Worst of all is the general dehumanizing stance taken toward non-union workers. Members of the Local 455 regularly refer to nonunion Americans as “rats,” and they shun working or interacting with them. This treatment of fellow workers is not limited to the United Association; the Teamsters roll out a large inflatable rat at pickets and protests to represent non-union workers. If your organization’s stated goal is protecting workers, and you malign workers as rats and try to make it illegal for them to get jobs like those of your members, you’re doing something wrong. In the past, this hatred has, albeit rarely, crossed the line into the murderous. In 1993, a “rat” named Eddie York was shot and killed for crossing a picket line to work. The union’s violent past may seem distant, but intimidation is still around.
The United Association argues that unions are necessary to protect workers’ safety and rights. They say that without the protection of unions, businesses will exploit workers for financial gain. Businesses certainly can abuse their power to exploit workers. But the United Association has become its own machine of exploitation. Unions, like private corporations, must be held accountable. Furthermore, the benefits provided by unions—like safety and good training—are provided by other entities in the public and private sector. OSHA sets standards for workplace safety, and the National Labor Relations Board protects the rights of all workers from abuses by their employer (or union). The safe, ethical treatment of workers is nationally mandated. Unions are not always necessary to ensure such safety, though their efforts to do so are helpful for union members.
As for worker quality, the United Association continues to undermine non-union jobs and training through legislation and political advocacy. UA unions might in fact be the only source of “quality” labor in certain areas, but that’s because they have essentially outlawed non-union labor (a key part of apprenticeship programs) through political action. In states and counties where non-union businesses are free of union-designed legal obstacles, they may offer such apprenticeships themselves. Even in Minnesota, with its powerful unions, opportunities for good apprenticeships exist outside of the union. The Industry Consortium for Advanced Technical Training (ICATT) partners with businesses in Minnesota to provide apprenticeships, for example. These programs are evidence that American workers can receive solid training, pay, and benefits in or out of a union, and their access to these things does not require giving exclusive legal protection to unions. Take the workforce-development program of S & B Engineers and Constructors in Texas. It offers apprenticeships and training for employees in a 12,500-square-foot facility, specializing in multiple trades and crafts. It can do this, in part, because of the lack of union monopoly. Texas is a right-to-work state, which means workers cannot be denied employment based on a lack of union membership or refusal to support union activities financially.
One recent example of a union attempting to eliminate private competition through legal machination is a Teamsters union’s lobbying for AB 5 in California. The law forced certain independent trucking contractors to work as employees, thus placing them under union jurisdiction. The Teamsters union claimed that this was necessary to prevent drivers from being “misclassified” as independent contractors and exploited. But the Teamsters had a vested interest in the law, as independent contractors are not required to associate with the Teamsters union, while employees often are. Increased membership bolsters Teamster influence and income. The Teamsters claim to represent workers’ best interests, but the truck drivers who lost the opportunity to work independently and protested AB 5 might disagree with that assessment.
The United Association’s local and national stranglehold takes many forms, and ending it will require social, political, and economic activism. The underhanded practices of the Local 455 and the UA must be recognized across the state and nation. Labor unions claim to protect all American workers and seek better conditions for them. This may be true for some unions. In the case of the United Association, it is patently false. UA unions have established their unjust advantage through the construction of pro-union policy; thus, our goal must be legal reform. The state licensing system, project-labor agreements, and laws on prevailing wage are all designed in part or entirely to exclude non-union workers from employment (as UA Local 455 members and officers admit, behind closed doors) and must be amended or eliminated. Additionally, financial pressure must be applied to unions to motivate internal reform.
Where the law permits, builders should allow non-union contractors to bid on jobs. When you look for a company to service your furnace or air conditioner, consider supporting non-union workers, instead of contributing to the local union’s lobbying funds. When you hear about a union strike or boycott, don’t assume that the union is necessarily in the right. Do your own research and determine whether you think the strike is worth supporting. Additionally, the public can donate to organizations such as the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, which provides legal aid to both union and non-union workers. The National Labor Relations Act guarantees both the right to unionize and the right to refrain from unionizing – but in practice, the right to unionize is protected everywhere, while the right to refrain from joining a union is actively penalized in many states. Workers cannot be prevented from joining or forming a union by their employer, but workers opposed to the union can be forced by their employer or by the union itself to chip in money from their paychecks toward union activities. This double standard unjustly favors unions at the expense of workers. To correct it, labor regulations giving unions the power to coerce workers into membership must be repealed. Right to Work laws protect workers from being discriminated against based on their union membership or lack thereof. Unions like to call such laws “right to work for less” laws; but the only people making less under Right to Work are those collecting dues and those denying job opportunities to their non-union neighbors.
Members of the Local 455, the United Association, and the labor unions of America have the power to change their unions for the better. The integrity of their unions depends on it. While some members are aware and approve of the union’s unethical practices, many union workers are diligent, honest workers. Many have families and other obligations, so they do not regularly attend union meetings. They may not be unaware of the union’s practices, or they may tolerate the situation because they depend on union work to support their families. Such individuals are in a tough position. Their current livelihoods are dependent on union membership. Unions ensure loyalty by controlling the pay and benefits of their members. Expulsion from the union for behavior deemed “prejudicial to the best interest of the United Association” means the loss of employment, healthcare, and possibly pension for a worker.
Union corruption does not automatically mean unions should be broken up, but they should be held accountable. For their members, UA unions negotiate contracts, provide quality training, and protect health and safety on the job. Unions are often beneficial to workers and society, but if their power goes unchecked, they may begin to abuse it. Corporations and businesses are held accountable under the law to prevent them from exploiting workers. Society should hold unions to the same standard—a higher and better standard then that of “Union America.” To be part of Union America means to enjoy dishonestly gained special economic privileges. We must remove the legal protections at the legislative, administrative, and licensing levels that give unions the power to exploit non-union workers and the economy for their own financial gain. This is the reason I left the UA. I want to make an honest living in America, not in the United Association’s “Union America.”
Karl Ludwig is a former UA Pipefitter union member who resides in Minnesota.
