Stephen, J. Cabot blog

The National Labor Relations Board has certified a union vote on behalf of FedEx drivers in Wilmington, Massachusetts. The drivers had been hired as independent contractors, which permitted FedEx to encourage entrepreneurship amongst its drivers, while providing flexible, competitive service to its customers. The certification, in effect, says that the drivers are not independent contractors, but are employees.

The drivers in the home delivery division had voted 24 to 8 to become members of The Teamsters Union which would represent them in collective bargaining.

FedEx, of course, disagrees with the ruling, stating that the union engaged in “objectionable misconduct,” thus affecting the outcome of the election.
This may portend an unfortunate trend, for there are now 35 consolidated suits being brought by drivers in 30 states whose representatives would like to move forward as a class action.

There are 15,000 independent FedEx drivers who could be affected by a pro-union ruling, which would have negative consequences not only on FedEx, but also on those who do business with the carrier.

Workers at three Washington state agencies would like to decertify their union, the Washington Federation of State Employees, which has been representing them for many years.

Workers who are angry about the imposition of union dues are the force behind the decertification movement.

For them to be successful, they need to obtain signature cards from 30% of employees. Yet, the union and state agencies have put numerous barriers on the road to decertification, including a ban on releasing the street and e-mail addresses of union members.

While public sector employees represent the largest number of union members in the United States, that may be changing, and actions by workers in Washington may portend a growing anti-union trend. For a large segment of public sector workers to want to decertify their union means that they, like their private sector counterparts, finally realize that unionization imposes unnecessary burdens while providing ever-diminishing benefits.

For many years, Asian car makers, who have operated manufacturing plants in the US, were able to be highly competitive by operating in right-to-work states, thus controlling their labor costs.

Now, however, workers at such plants are grumbling about salaries and benefits and are calling for unions to represent them in collective bargaining. One such case is occurring in Georgetown, Kentucky, where Toyota workers want to be represented by the United Auto Workers. The workers are being supported in their demands by a coalition of religious and civic leaders, including Democratic State Representatives Reginald Meeks and Jim Glenn as well as Reverend John Rausch, coordinator of Peace and Justice at the Catholic Diocese of Lexington. The group calls itself the Kentucky Workers Rights Board.

In response to worker complaints, the UAW has now launched an aggressive campaign to organize the 7,000 workers at the 1,300-acre Georgetown Toyota factory.

Toyota workers at Georgetown receive about $75,000 a year in wages and benefits, including pensions, 401Ks, health care, on-site day care, access to a gymnasium, and a pharmacy.

If this is the beginning of a trend, which I believe it is, then Asian auto companies will find more congenial places to build manufacturing facilities, and the U.S. economy will suffer along with thousands of workers.

When it comes to immigration, organized labor has developed the ability to talk out of both sides of its mouth. On the one hand, it supports the importation of foreign workers who are potential union members. On the other hand, it would like to dam up the flood of immigrant workers so that they do not take away the jobs of their members. In addition, during periods of increased immigration, wages and the bargaining leverage of unions decline.

Samuel Gompers, the founder of the American Federation of Labor, opposed unrestricted immigration as did the AFL-CIO when it supported the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act, which would fine employers for hiring illegal immigrants. In later years, the AFL-CIO changed its position, mildly supporting the Immigration Act of 1990, which significantly increased the number of legal visas. Several years later, at one of its conventions, the union even accused immigration reformers of a “new hate campaign…making immigrants scapegoats for economic… problems.”

As union membership declines and organized labor becomes less important in a global economy, unions will continue to thrash about unable to decide which causes it should support. Organized labor is desperate to maintain a position of strength and influence, but it seems to be stumbling along the path that leads to the burial ground of all dinosaurs.