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:
