Pay Secrecy and the National Labor Relations Act of 1935

 

Click, open in new tab or window,

and/or download, to see in full resolution

Created and published on July 7th, 2021
Edited on July 21st, 2021

Janus Decision Reveals Two-Faced Nature of Collective Bargaining Law

     The title of this speech is “Janus Decision Reveals Two-Faced Nature of Collective Bargaining Law”. This title alludes to the Roman god Janus, the two-faced god of duality, transitions, gates, beginnings and endings, passages and doorways. I make this reference because, in my study of labor policy, I have discovered that numerous false dichotomies and false choices exist, and persist, about multiple topics in labor law, which cloud the way we think about what fair and free association with unions ought to look like.

     Recently, the Supreme Court handed-down its ruling in the case of Janus v. A.F.S.C.M.E. Council 31. The plaintiff in that case - an Illinois public employee and child support specialist named Mark Janus - sued the public-sector union A.F.S.C.M.E. (the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees), as well as various departments of the Illinois state government.

     Mr. Janus and his attorneys argued that it violated his First Amendment rights to be compelled to pay what are called “fair share” dues. “Fair share” dues (also called agency fees) cover the costs of the expenses incurred by the union. These expenses include engaging in collective bargaining on behalf of workers, and administering contracts.

     According to Janus, unions are private, independent organizations which are third parties to the employer-employee relationship; and therefore, his First Amendment -recognized freedom from association ought to preclude him from being compelled to pay to fund the transmission of political speech in which the union is involved (especially as a public-sector employee who has elected not to join a union). Mr. Janus felt that he was being compelled to pay a union that didn't represent him adequately, and as a result, was being compelled to pay to fund the transmission of political speech with which he disagreed.

     Janus also argued that, as a public sector employee, the government exerted an undue influence over him as an employee. Not only is the government his employer; when the government negotiates labor disputes involving public sector unions, it negotiates disputes which involve itself. This means that there is a potential conflict of interest, and so, the government's status as a neutral arbiter is questionable.

     Janus and his supporters say that, considering that it is a matter of public policy whether public employees are hired - and whether government agencies are created or abolished (as well as when, and how) - then it stands to reason that the collective bargaining in which public sector unions engage is innately political activity, and political speech. Also, that a non-unionized worker cannot rightfully be compelled to pay the union for anything it does.

     One month ago (on June 27^th, 2018), the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mr. Janus.

     This reversed the 1977 Supreme Court decision in D. Louis Abood v. Detroit Board of Education. Janus also reversed the effects of the 2016 case Friedrichs v. California Teachers' Association, which allowed Abood to stand. As you may remember, that was due to a 4-to-4 deadlock, which resulted from the death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, which prevented the court from coming to a majority ruling, resulting in the case's dismissal, allowing the lower court's ruling to stand.

     As a result of the Friedrichs case, the question of compulsory union dues for public sector workers was left unresolved for the subsequent two years. This allowed the continued collection of dues from non-unionized public-sector workers; essentially on the grounds that they could not logistically refuse the so-called “benefits” of union negotiation (which they, of course, do not consider to be benefits).

     To repeat, the decision in Janus reversed the decision in Abood. And what the Abood ruling did was set up a clear distinction between requiring workers to pay “fair share” fees, for the costs incurred by the union (to engage in collective bargaining, and to administer contracts), versus requiring workers to pay dues to the union to fund the transmission of political speech. This “speech” can include political activities in which the union is involved, and as far as the First Amendment is concerned, it amounts to petitioning, and, some would argue, lobbying. Under Abood, public sector employees could be compelled to pay for collective bargaining costs, but not to support the union's political speech (and any lobbying efforts it might be undertaking).

     In my opinion, Abood v. Detroit Board of Education was a wise ruling, and Janus v. A.F.S.C.M.E. was not; because the Janus decision shatters the distinction between collective bargaining costs, versus costs of political speech indirectly associated with bargaining. While it is true that collective bargaining by public sector unions is innately political activity, there are arguably some “benefits” of union negotiation which cannot logistically be refused or avoided by employees (unionized or not). Specifically, the expenses incurred by the union for engaging in collective bargaining on behalf of employees to secure and administer contracts which affect the quality of safety and health which are enjoyed equally by unionized and non-unionized employees who work at the same workplace.

     This is the so-called “free-rider problem” which many union supporters criticize; a situation in which employees who don't want to join a union, are given the benefits of collective bargaining, without being required to pay for them. To repeat, they don't think that those things actually help or benefit them; but you don't like that word, then let's just say “results”. But they might just be saying that the union doesn't help them, because they don't want to pay for it, or because they don't see how certain results of negotiation are unavoidable.

     And if they're unavoidable, then the decision in Abood was appropriate, and shouldn't have been overturned, because, as a result of Abood, for the last 41 years, public sector employees have been expected to pay “fair share” fees to compensate the union for the expenses it incurred in negotiating for those benefits.

     At worst, Janus was all wrong. At best, it solved half the problem, while allowing another problem to continue existing, and also created a new problem. What I mean by this, is that, while it was good to stop requiring public sector workers to pay to support the political speech of their union, but it was unwise to stop compelling non-unionized employees to pay fair share fees. That's because the union, as a majority union, cannot help but provide non-unionized workers with the results of the collective bargaining that the union has already engaged in on behalf of all workers at the workplace.

     The Wagner Act – the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 – requires the majority union to represent all workers in negotiations. This extends a right to private sector workers in a legal manner, what was already afforded to them by reality and reason; that is, the obligation to accept certain results of collective bargaining (like the workplace safety and health conditions they deal with every day), and to pay for it responsibly on a fee-for-service, user-fee -type model.

     The Wagner Act obligates the majority union to represent all workers. It sounds great, until you realize that it has to represent even the ones who don't pay dues, or that it has to represent people who don't want to be represented. Which could be because they hate unions, or it could be because they think the union doesn't do enough for them.

     The Wagner Act creates the free rider problem (for many, though not all, private sector workers), because it obligates the union receiving the majority vote to represent all employees (that is, all members of the collective bargaining unit, which is usually all workers at the workplace). In the private sector, the now 83-year-old Wagner Act created the free-rider problem, while Right-to-Work laws enable that problem to continue. Meanwhile, in the public sector, New York Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia's 1958 “Little Wagner Act” - which allowed city worker unions to organize – enacted Wagner Act -type majority unionism for public workers (and inspired similar reforms across the country), while the Janus decision enable that problem to continue.

     This is what I mean by public policy on collective bargaining being two-faced.

     If you think about it, the Janus decision, Right-to-Work laws, and the Wagner Act all solve half of the problem, while creating another. Right-to-Work laws and the Janus decision are symptoms of the free rider problem which the Wagner Act created in the first place. If Right-to-Work laws are a Band-Aid on the problem, then the Janus decision is like replacing the Band-Aid with a smaller Band-Aid, without the wound having gotten any smaller.

     If you look up an organization called the National Right to Work Foundation, you'll find that not only do many of these free riders not want to be free riders, some of them actually want to form their own unions. Don't you think that if people were more free to form additional unions in their workplaces, more people would join unions? Maybe then, we'd have Eisenhower-era levels of 25 to 30 percent, instead of what we have now (something like 7 to 10 percent). Sure, we'd have more so-called “yellow unions” or “business unions” (unions which are complacent with management), but we'd have more radical unions too; and also a higher number of both unions, and of dues-paying union members.

     In an article entitled “When Non-Members in a Members-Only Non-Majority Union (MONMU) Want Weingarten Rights: How High Will the Blue Eagle Fly?”, researcher C. N. o'Brien explained that, according to labor law scholar and professor Charles Morris, 5 U.S. Code S 7114 (on the representation rights and duties of unions) does not mean to make a union's representation “exclusive” in the strictest sense possible, as many people assume.

     In Section 5a of 5 U.S. Code S 7114, it states that the rights of an exclusive union representative shall not preclude employees from “being represented by an attorney or representative other than the exclusive representative of the employee's own choosing, in any grievance or appeal action”. According to Morris, the duty to bargain with representatives of employees is not limited to exclusive majority unions.

     That would mean that management would be obligated to bargain with an exclusive bargaining representative of workers, not just the exclusive bargaining representative of workers. Which means it has to bargain with any and all bargaining representatives authorized to represent workers, as long as it is exclusive. This begs the question: What does “exclusive” mean in the context of this law? Does exclusive mean that the bargaining unit is the sole representative of workers in the union; or does exclusive mean that the bargaining unit's membership is exclusive, and it is funded solely by those workers who agree to support it? Professor Charles Morris and I hope that it's the latter.

     This practice of allowing two or more unions to exist in the same workplace or bargaining unit is referred to dual unionism, minority unionism, and members-only unionism. This type of practice is a common arrangement in Japan, and in my opinion, it stands a much better chance of achieving volunteerism, competition, and just rewards for honest efforts - on the part of the union and the employee alike - than what either the Democrats or the Republicans are proposing on union law.

     Until we consider amending or repealing the Taft-Hartley Act and the Wagner Act, there will be no serious discussion of protecting workers' rights. Those rights include the right to engage in concerted activity in the workplace, to unionize, to prompt negotiation (with or without a majority of workers' support), and to engage in strikes, boycotts, solidarity actions, and many types of ordinary, voluntary activities of private sector unions which have no reason to be illegal.

     That is how we achieve the general strike; by legalizing the general strike. By repealing the Taft-Hartley Act's prohibitions on solidarity actions; secondary boycotts, solidarity strikes, secondary picketing, and even wildcat strikes. Additionally, by legalizing cooperation between various organizations engaged in boycotts and strike actions; not only unions, but cooperatives, credit unions, public interest organizations, consumer interest organizations, non-profits and charities, etc..

     While the rights of public sector workers are important, there are only 22 million of them, and the rights of some 90 million private sector workers matter too. That's why we shouldn't let the public sector Janus decision distract us from making progress with private sector unions. Fortunately, solidarity actions will be easier to do in the private sector than in the public sector, especially while anti-union administrations are in power.

     Focused cooperation between unions is less politicized in the private sector than in the public sector, because it doesn't affect public policy. Cooperation between private sector unions is therefore less controversial, because it doesn't affect as many people's lives, nor the basic way society is run. Avoiding the politicization which cooperation between public sector unions entails, will help avoid the costs associated with standing idly by while anti-union governors and presidents use the legitimate political process to get away with firing large numbers of government employees, and with appointing anti-union officials to the National Labor Relations Board.

     However, boycotts are not possible until we can fully boycott companies we don't like. Not just by refraining from buying from them, but by stopping the flow of our tax money to fund the easy-credit loans, financial and legal protections, privileges, subsidies, and bailouts, that help them start their businesses, keep them afloat, and rescue them after they make bad decisions.

     In addition to being legal in the first place, and full so as to preclude subsidization, another important step is to make larger, wider, and more interconnected boycotts possible. This can be done by urging divestment from business alliances which disguise themselves as Chambers of Commerce, and encouraging them to instead join into independent business alliances. Especially into business alliances which unite partner firms on the basis of a common interest in cooperative management, environmental conservation or other ecological purposes, sustainable improvement, and non-discrimination against vulnerable members of society.

     Encouraging firms to join into independent business alliances, and into networks thereof, will increase the level of cooperation between owners and workers who share similar visions of a free and fair society. This will do wonders to align the interests of workers and management, leading to reduced demand for government to negotiate their disputes for them, and potentially to a significant increase in the number of firms running on cooperative models, and as E.L.M.F.s (egalitarian labor-managed firms).

     As long as we have a market economy; then cooperative enterprises; employee stock ownership plans, freelancers' unions; and full, legal, viable boycotts; can all help play a part in supplementing efforts to recognize workers' rights which focus on activity in which unions are directly involved.

Recognizing that workers' rights need to be augmented, and making it legal and possible for a more broad cooperation to occur among pro-worker causes in the private sector, will help reduce antipathy towards unions. So will amending the Wagner Act to make M.O.N.M.U.s (Members-Only Non-Majority Unions) more common.

     Maybe when M.O.N.M.U.s are more common, a single union could charge fair share fees for negotiating on the safety and health conditions that affect the whole workplace; while multiple unions could negotiate for wages and benefits, but solely for their own members; and union political speech not directly related to the services it provides, is paid for on a purely voluntary basis, after the worker receives his money.

Originally Written on July 28^th, 2018

Delivered on July 28^th, 2018

Edited and Expanded on July 29^th and 30th, and August 1^st, 2018

Originally Published on July 30^th, 2018

"Janus Decision Reveals Two-Faced Nature of Collective Bargaining Law"

(A new article with the same title as another article on the same topic from June 2018.

Re-written for the 2018 Bughouse Square Debates, held in Chicago on July 28^th, 2018)

The original article on which this speech was based, can be read at:

http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2018/06/janus-decision-reveals-two-faced-nature.html

20 Goals for Labortarians: Crafting a Libertarian Policy on Unions

1. Craft a free labor policy.

2. Less government, more unions.

3. End Right to Work laws.

4. Liberalize professional licensing.

5. Fix the free rider problem.

6. Free movement and integrated markets.

7. End unions' monopolies on negotiation.

8. Protect concerted activity.

9. Continue to require bargaining.

10. Ensure the right to strike.

11. Legalize illegal union activities.

12. Make full boycott possible.

13. Keep divestment legal.

14. Unionize all walks of life.

15. Establish free union elections.

16. Free-market anti-capitalism.

17. End slavery, domination, and dominion.

18. Counter the rhetoric of self-ownership.

19. Free association and non-discrimination.

20. Promote acceptance and tolerance.

          1. CRAFT A FREE LABOR POLICY: Advance a labor policy which celebrates the contributions that the organized labor movement has made to advancing human liberty - and which is in keeping with the Libertarian Party platform, strict-constructionist and originalist interpretations of the Constitution, and frameworks to ensure free and fair markets - by consistently supporting voluntary collective bargaining activities over compulsion, hierarchy, and state interference in the affairs of organized labor.

          2. LESS GOVERNMENT, MORE UNIONS: Retain the portion of the 1935 National Labor Relations Act (N.L.R.A. / Wagner Act) which promotes the practice and procedure of collective bargaining, but also promote the radical privatization of government services wherever possible and prudent, and demand that most or all necessary government activities be performed by non-state actors. Increase overall union membership in the United States.

          3. END RIGHT TO WORK LAWS: Support the freedom of unions to exercise their right to become party to contracts with enterprises, by opposing efforts to pass Right to Work laws and amendments, in all jurisdictions and at all levels of government. Call on state governors to nullify and repeal such laws, and state and federal courts to rule them unconstitutional, due to their prohibition of union-shop and closed-shop arrangements, union security agreements which are perfectly free and voluntary (although they may have some undesirable effects). Repeal the portion of the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act which prohibits closed-shop union security agreements.

          4. LIBERALIZE PROFESSIONAL LICENSING: Make Right to Work laws unnecessary, by demanding an alternative method to preventing the domination of professions within given states by the set of unionized professionals already employed within them. Demand the liberalization of professional licensing laws, in order to accommodate independent contractors and those seeking to form unions.

          5. FIX THE FREE RIDER PROBLEM: Ensure that workers everywhere are free to “not consent and refuse the benefits” of union negotiation. Leave all employees free to refuse to pay dues to unions, but only on the condition that the employee refuse all benefits of union negotiation which he can feasibly refuse (i.e., not physical workplace safety and health conditions). Consider liability waivers as a possible solution to the safety and health free-rider problems.

          6. FREE MOVEMENT & INTEGRATED MARKETS: Fight globalism and ultranationalism, while supporting globalization, integration and interconnectedness of markets, and the free movement of labor and capital (including the freedom of locomotion for travelers and workers alike). Fight to liberalize immigration laws; end immigration quotas; lower barriers to trade; decrease tariffs, duties, and imposts; and oppose efforts of established unions to lobby for legal measures that unfairly protect or favor domestic labor. Use education to combat the stigmatization of legal and undocumented immigration.

          7. END UNIONS' MONOPOLIES ON NEGOTIATION: End compulsory unionism in the private sector, and end the rights of unions to monopolize the representation of workers in negotiation with management. Repeal the section of the Wagner Act which mandates that there is to be one exclusive bargaining representative for a unit of employees. Spread awareness of, and normalize, the practices of members-only collective bargaining, and dual and minority unionism (the presence of two or more active unions in a single workplace). Increase the diversity of the types of union security agreements which are practiced in the United States.

          8. PROTECT CONCERTED ACTIVITY: Retain the Wagner Act's provisions that require the federal government to protect the right of union and non-union employees to engage in concerted activity, and retain the protection for discussing wages. Protect these rights, as well as the right to form a union, in all jurisdictions, and at all levels of government.

          9. CONTINUE TO REQUIRE BARGAINING: Retain the Wagner Act's requirement that employers must negotiate with employees, on the grounds that a fair market is not possible unless the buyer and seller of labor have equal say in determining the price at which the labor is to be sold.

          10. ENSURE THE RIGHT TO STRIKE: Abolish the National Labor Relations Board, and repeal the provision of the Taft-Hartley Act which prohibits wildcat strikes. No union should have to request permission from a government bureau in order to go on strike, nor should any segment of a workplace or work force be denied the right to strike without the approval of a union leader.

          11. LEGALIZE ILLEGAL UNION ACTIVITIES: Demand the legalization of prohibited union activities wherever they could be engaged in voluntarily. Repeal the portions of the Taft-Hartley Act which prohibit secondary strikes, secondary boycotts, secondary and mass picketing, jurisdictional strikes, and monetary donations from unions to federal political campaigns.

          12. MAKE FULL BOYCOTT POSSIBLE: Fight for the full right of workers and taxpayers to engage in full boycott of enterprises and unions with which they do not wish to associate. Allow taxpayers to withhold their taxes from governments that would spend it to enrich their favored business cronies and favored unions. Call for tax strikes, which demand either the abolition of the entire corporate welfare state, or that individual citizens be free to decide which programs they will pay for and which ones they will not.

          13. KEEP DIVESTMENT LEGAL: In addition to supporting the full rights to engage in strikes and boycotts, fight for the right to engage in divestment campaigns. Encourage enterprises to end their membership in lobbying agencies that disguise themselves as chambers of commerce, and to instead join independent business alliances that promote fair treatment for workers. Keep divestment legal, whether against enterprises, unions, or even governments.

          14. UNIONIZE ALL WALKS OF LIFE: Fight for the rights of freelancers, independent contractors, free agents, unemployed people, welfare recipients, homeless people, ex-convicts, non-violent black market laborers, tenants, open-source workers and peer-to-peer process contributors, and people of all professions. to form unions. Additionally, to demand negotiation with their employers, and to resist state control, exploitation, hierarchy, and bossism.

          15. ESTABLISH FREE UNION ELECTIONS: Ensure that union members may vote in union elections, and that non-dues-paying members and dues-paying members alike are free to abstain from voting. Advocate for the freedom of union members to hold elections featuring voter privity, with results visible and subject to review by all members of the union(s) and workplace(s) involved.

          16. FREE-MARKET ANTI-CAPITALISM: Reject the Libertarian Party's endorsement of private property as a core principle, and oppose any attempts to have the party list “capitalism” or “fiscal conservatism” among its guiding economic principles, Promote the idea that markets must be completely immune from price distortions and undue limitations and inhibitions on markets (which are caused by the state and its cronies, their hoarding, and their participation in the capitalist mode of production), in order to be both fair and truly free. Combat untrue anti-socialist and anti-communist propaganda, and ignorance about left-wing economics, through education and peaceful civil discourse. Oppose misinterpretation of the Non-Aggression Principle that excuses or ignores intimidation, exploitation, and economic pressures that coerce people and make their decisions limited and effectively involuntary. Oppose cutthroat competition, monopolistic competition, and competition to lower prices that neglects the right of workers to receive sufficient compensation for their effort.

          17. END SLAVERY, DOMINATION, & DOMINION: Oppose the extension of markets to the realms of “living capital”; i.e., human labor and work, and other living things. Empower consumers to resist the commodification of labor, man, and nature; calling for such market activities to cease. Abolish the markets for exclusively held landed property, the product of human labor, sex work under economic pressure and exploitation, toxic chemicals and poisons that kill when used properly, and perhaps the markets for human organs and endangered animal species. Support the rights of human beings, living or dead, to resist being owned, kept, domesticated, overworked, denied the right to negotiate what amounts to the full product of their labor, and required, pressured, or threatened into performing labors and actions against their will.

          18. COUNTER THE RHETORIC OF SELF-OWNERSHIP: Oppose the characterization of liberty as “self-ownership”, in order to resist the perception of the human body and its efforts as things – tangible pieces of property - which can or should be owned, which gives the impression of tangibility, suggesting that the body can or should be owned.

         19. FREE ASSOCIATION & NON-DISCRIMINATION: Oppose discrimination and segregation in the public sector, and oppose discriminatory behavior in all ostensibly private firms which receive any forms of taxpayer funded subsidies and/or services, and/or are directly involved in interstate commerce. In the social sphere, and on residential properties, support the full freedom of, to, and from association.

          20. PROMOTE ACCEPTANCE & TOLERANCE: Fight reactionaryism, religiously motivated bigotry, anti-Semitism, Judeophobia, Islamophobia, chauvinism, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, classism, ageism, ableism, lookism, Social Darwinism, cultural monism and assimilationism, and predjuice against people of every race, color, and creed. Use education to combat ignorance of sociology, human needs, intersectionality theory, institutional privileges, commonly agreed upon parental responsibilities, the stigmatization of mental disorders (especially those that keep people from working), and the stigmatization of homelessness, poverty, and welfare receipt, especially in Libertarian circles.

Written on October 30th, 2017

On Labor: Offering Tax Incentives to Firms to Transition Power to Workers and Consumers

     If elected to the U.S. House in 2014, I will oppose the Card Check bill, as well as the Employee Free Choice Act, and all legislation designed to empower union bosses.

     The exclusive authority to regulate organized labor occurring in the states is not an enumerated power granted to the federal government in the Constitution. The federal government should only have the exclusive authority to regulate labor which occurs in the District of Columbia and in the nation's overseas possessions, and labor in industries over which the federal government exercises duly delegated constitutional authorities to regulate. I would sponsor efforts to return the power to regulate and enforce all other areas of labor policy to the states - and to the people, the labor departments and bureaus, and the local governments within them - as soon as possible.

     I believe that all federal legislation aiming to protect the so-called rights of unions and employers alike is specific legislation affording a special privilege; the General Welfare Clause was included in the Constitution in order to prohibit legislation which does not promote the welfare of all of the people equally. Special legislation concerning unions, enterprises, business associations, and lobbyists and political action committees from both sides of the aisle has only served to empower all of these organizations to participate in the regulation and control of the people. This has resulted in diminished political power for ordinary taxpayers, diminished economic power for ordinary consumers, and a less productive economy.

     I oppose the Card Check bill and the Employee Free Choice Act not because it should be illegal or any more difficult to join or organize a union, nor easier for employers to fire people for engaging in legal union activity. I take this position because the taxpayers – as both the employers of federal workers and the consumers of the services they provide – have the responsibility to ensure that the power of organized labor does not make the delivery of such services unaffordable. Federal workers should bear in mind that they, too, are consumers and taxpayers, and therefore need affordable government just like the rest of us.

     Furthermore, I take this position in order to protect the rights of minorities; in this case, the rights of minority unions alongside those of majority unions. Gaining majority status for being the certified winner in a National Labor Relations Board election should not be the sole method of invoking bargaining obligations on the part of employers; plural and proportional representation would be legal alternatives if legislation requiring majority status were abolished.

     I believe that majority unions should have a role in such bargaining, but so should minority unions, as well as consumers and shareholders, and - in the case of labor by government employees – taxpayers. But agreements between these parties can be achieved through private arbitration (following mutual company and union agreement about which materially uninterested agency shall be deemed trustworthy to arbitrate the dispute) and liens on business properties, rather than through litigation and motivated state intervention concerning what sort of bargaining between companies and unions shall be acceptable.

     I do not support any organization that interferes with individual freedom to associate through federally protected concerted activity for mutual aid and protection, and to bargain collectively on a members-only basis. I take this position regardless of whether it is an employer or a union interfering with these freedoms, and regardless of whether there is an established majority union in the workplace.

Majority unionists should understand that their desire to be the only union in the workplace only puts all of their eggs in one basket. The federal law requiring majority status vote for a union to remain in existence only exposes unions to the risk that a future federal law could empower government to require all eligible voters to weigh in on a union election at their workplace, even if they'd rather not pick a side. I believe that compulsory union voting is one of the most significant sources of political polarization and divisiveness in America today.

     As long as majority unions are free to appeal to the federal government to either abolish minority unions or diminish their power to negotiate, the prevailing union shop / closed shop dichotomy in unionized workplaces can only serve to perpetuate an environment of monopolistic competition over the representation of labor. I oppose such uses of coercive state power to enforce unconstitutional special legislation; this is activity which should be considered in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

     Unless and until it becomes politically feasible to repeal all special federal legislation empowering unions and businesses alike, I will propose amendments to the Constitution authorizing the federal government to enjoin states against giving such illegal special privileges and monopoly representation powers to majority unions (often referred to as a “national Right to Work amendment”). I take this position because in 1985 the Supreme Court ruled that nobody may legally be required to become a full member of a union as a condition of continued employment.

     Although the federal government should not be in the business of telling people in the states how to regulate labor therein, in regards to my legislative position on the federal government's jurisdiction over labor (in the District of Columbia, overseas, and in industries it was duly delegated the authority to regulate) - and in regards to my general recommendations for the states – I believe that individual freedom to choose whether to join a union can coexist alongside workers desiring solidarity in collective bargaining.

     I also believe that each government, in its respective sphere of authority to regulate labor, should provide for a more collaborative negotiation between employers and non-employers from across a wider and more diverse set of economic organizations. I would suggest that this be done by prohibiting unions (especially pro-business majority unions known as “business unions”) from making contracts with employers in a manner which does not welcome the input of ordinary people. This includes the input of not only taxpayers, shareholders, and non-shareholding but nonetheless affected “stakeholders”, but most importantly of potential employees who are all too often underinformed about their rights as a result of such contracts.

     Unconstitutionally empowering the federal government to nationalize companies and then to award controlling stakes in them to the public and/or to labor unions with majority status is not the only way to ensure that everyone gets their fair share of influence over how our society and economy are governed. There is a way to passively – rather than actively and coercively – allow ownership and management responsibilities to transition into the hands of workers and consumers.

     Moreover, there is a way to do this while promoting economic growth, without crushing the entrepreneurial spirit of the people or causing people to work past their planned retirement ages unnecessarily, and without diminishing the freedoms of individual workers and minority unions to have meaningful influence on the workplace and in the industry of their choice.

     My recommendation would involve immediately closing all tax loopholes and taxing all corporate income (including capital gains) at a flat base rate, and from there offering tax credits in order to incentivize owners and managers of firms to take steps planning and providing for the gradual transition of ownership and management of such firms to organization modes which are more hospitable to egalitarianism and a balance of workers' rights with the interests of consumers.

     Firms in the public and private sectors alike would be offered tax incentives to essentially evolve into one of any number of types of organizations. Examples of such organizations should include open shop unions; dual and minority unions; workplaces with members-only collective bargaining agreements; autonomous unions and guilds; syndicates; egalitarian labor-managed firms; cooperative corporations; consumer-driven cooperatives; worker-consumer cooperatives (i.e., mutuals); mutual aid societies; cooperative wholesale societies; and voluntary cooperatives.

     I would additionally recommend a hybrid example, combining the functions of as many of these types of organizations as possible into one firm; that is, a voluntary worker-consumer wholesale purchasing cooperative. Such a cooperative should coordinate the planning of purchasing as tightly as possible with other cooperatives like it, and be required to serve any customer who comes to it (on the condition that he or she does not request unjustifiable quantities of the goods and services offered).

     Although coordinating their efforts would save the most money, such cooperatives should remain technically separate organizations, function in a market system, be free to accept and give charitable donations, and be free to have differing practices regarding in which circumstances additional quantities of goods and services afforded to certain individuals above the base level are justifiable.

     The main objective of such a cadre of firms would be to provide a counterbalance against the oligopoly powers of sellers and distributors of labor and capital pertaining to the relevant goods and services produced by said firms. Such firms would accomplish this by pooling wealth in order to save costs in the purchasing and delivery of the relevant goods and services, providing for the affordable organization of production.

     This would occur under the condition of regular negotiation concerning any and all potential conflict which is likely to arise between consumers' demand for low prices and workers' demand for high compensation. A worker who consumes the very good or service which he or she produces, possesses good management skills, and has constructive suggestions concerning improving the workplace, might be asked to serve as a tie-breaking vote in any leadership or management of such a firm.

     The State of Oregon can do better on labor policy without the obstructive effects of association with the federal government. The federal government's ownership of vast tracts of land in the state inhibits (in those areas) the kind of productive labor which would allow the state to afford such a relationship, if only the state had the ability to fully tax the value of the land within it, instead of resorting to taxing the production of its own taxpayers through taxes on individual income. Whether they call the compensation they desire “all the fruits” or “the full product” of their labor, I would urge people of the left and right alike to oppose the eventual abolition of the individual income tax.

For more entries on unions and collective bargaining, please visit:

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2011/04/feudalism-and-class-war.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2011/05/scott-walker-vs-unions.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2012/04/private-sector-labor-policy.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2013/04/what-didnt-unions-do.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2013/09/proposal-for-cooperative-party-of-oregon.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2013/12/wisconsin-and-collective-bargaining-my.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/01/to-critics-of-wisconsin-governor-scott.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/initial-reaction-to-scott-walkers.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/initial-reaction-to-scott-walkers_20.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/compulsory-unionism-vs-right-to-work.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/conservatives-for-georgism-and-social.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/right-to-work-laws-and-union-security.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/labor-protectionism.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/social-policies-for-2012-us-house.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/on-monopoly-and-scott-walker-recall.html