In my view, labor unions — at least private-sector ones — serve the general societal good. But in an effort to steel-man the opposing viewpoint, let me lay out at the outset the longstanding, primary conservative objection to labor unions as I understand it (I’m open to being corrected if these are incorrect characterizations of the case against them): they artificially disrupt the free market and the inexorable laws of supply and demand that govern it, thereby reducing its efficiency and driving up prices for everyone in the process. Relatedly, they are prone to graft.
But, on the first count, the “free market” is a total myth for several reasons:
- Companies like Google (one among many) are de facto monopolies that gobble up their competition and create barriers to entry into the market that would not exist without them — and then lobby (some might say “bribe”) government entities not to break them up or enforce competitive trade rules.
- The government props up favored companies via investments using public dollars, often at public and worker expense.
- Free market actors create externalities — costs borne by the public and not by the private sector actor that generates them specifically — which therefore pose no incentive to the private actor to prevent them, as doing so would eat into its profits.
There are in addition legion other reasons to explain why the free market ideal is an unachievable pipe dream, which I will not elaborate on further for the sake of brevity.
If the proponents of the free market economy want to lobby for an economic system of anarcho-capitalism in a stateless society, then so be it. At least then their objections would be more honest in that, in theory (though not in practice), a free market would exist to protect from labor unions.
On the second score, it’s granted that labor unions are subject to corruption and dysfunction relative to their original, intended functions. But the same can be said of any large organization through which much money flows and which can be used to influence the allocation of even more money via its actions. The solution in the case of labor unions and all such organizations that have a noble aim is to root out the corruption, not to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Now, private sector labor unions are a different animal entirely than public sector labor unions, such that to categorize them together is grossly misleading.
In the latter, workers are bargaining against the taxpayer with the government as a proxy — the government being a demonstrably financially irresponsible entity that does not represent the interests of its nominal stakeholders (the public) with any fidelity. Thus the public sector trade unionists have an inherent advantage in that they are squared off with an extremely poor fiduciary manager with no real interest in fiscal solvency.
Via Reason:
If private sector unions negotiate deals that make their respective industries more expensive to operate, and thus their products more expensive, consumers have the right to buy less, or to go elsewhere to get what they want. Businesses can send fewer employees to Las Vegas conferences. Families can pinch their food budgets if labor costs at grocery stores make prices more expensive, or replace their cars less often if union benefits add too much to the price of an automobile. If too many people opt out, or buy too little, the company in question goes out of business. And unless the government offers a bailout, that’s the end of the story. When dealing with the private sector, unions generally have some incentive not to overreach to the point where their employer goes out of business.
The story’s not the same in the public sector. When government employees negotiate added salary and benefits, those who are not directly employed by the government—which is to say, the vast majority of taxpayers—can’t really opt out. So one of three things has to happen: 1) Taxes are raised to pay for the added compensation costs. 2) Services are cut in order to pay for the additional compensation. 3) The additional compensation isn’t ever paid—a situation that usually comes with, at minimum, some sort of minor political drama, if not a serious showdown. This is why the power of public sector unions is such a big deal: When they negotiate better benefits, the majority of taxpayers usually end up forced to bear the cost, somehow, whether they want to or not. With private sector unions, that’s not necessarily the case.
So my argument applies exclusively to private-sector labor unions. I don’t necessarily believe public unions should exist — but, if they do, it should be on dramatically different terms than private sector ones.
Without labor unions in the private sector, workers as individuals are at a permanent, massive, insurmountable disadvantage when negotiating their salaries. It’s an objective, measurable fact that “right-to-work” states offer jobs with fewer benefits and lower salaries. Yet businesses continue to operate within states with greater unionization rates, which would indicate that they aren’t necessarily the economic burden that their opponents make them out to be.
Related: Pence Denounces ‘Populism’ in Speech, Claims It’s Incompatible With ‘Conservatism’
The exception to this rule would obviously be highly skilled workers with unique skill sets not easily replaced — but a) by definition, this is a tiny sliver of the labor pool, and b) even these workers are in for a world of hurt when AI becomes advanced enough to replace even them (a story for another day).
Furthermore, private sector labor unions do exist in a (nominally) free market, to the extent that such a thing can exist in the real world. What they do is called “collective bargaining” because it is bargaining. It’s a negotiation that is underpinned by the laws of rational self-interest. Companies won’t agree to contracts that would render them unprofitable and workers won’t agree to contracts that don’t offer them a share in, to some extent, the profits. That’s how negotiations work.
The reason why GOP leadership (not necessarily rank-and-file membership; one poll indicates that 47% of registered Republicans support labor unions) is nearly unanimously opposed to labor unions is that it largely depends on corporate and billionaire donations to function — entities whose interests are fundamentally opposed to those of labor unionists. But, if we’ve learned one thing from the Trump phenomenon, it’s that the divergence between donor class and working class interests is increasingly clear to everyone, including American voters.