I wrote this letter on May 4, 2009 to the Secretary of the Department of Labor, Hilda Solis. I have witness the destruction a labor union can impose upon a company first hand. It has never made sense to me why we willfully impose anti-trust laws against corporations, but support the formation of trusts in the labor markets, i.e. unions. The motivating reason is purely political.
Secretary Solis is a hard-line pro-union individual. Therefore, I suspect her response, will be cordial, but completely opposed. In truth, I fully support right-to-work legislation, but am curious if a strict partisan would be willing to broach the subject of compromise. We shall see...
Secretary Solis,
Last week Chrysler filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. The Nation pensively awaits the fate of General Motors, suspecting a similar outcome. While there are many explanations for the demise of these two auto giants, one indisputably significant contribution is stranglehold on their labor markets imposed by the UAW.
United Auto Workers contract terms significantly restricted the fiscal ability to close non-productive plants or modify plants to produce more efficient automobiles. Car prices are ultimately determined by the market; with higher labor costs and similar market prices relative to competitors, the “Big Three” were forced to compromise on the quality of components in order to remain competitive. In turn, the UAW priced its represented employees out of the labor market and drove automakers to select more cost effective alternatives, such as placing factories in Canada, Mexico, and off-shoring manufacturing. The net result of the monopolistic stranglehold placed upon the automakers’ labor markets has been lower quality products, less flexible product offerings, reduced financial viability, and fewer domestic jobs.
It is perplexing that we uphold anti-trust law in the product and service markets, but legalize (arguably encourage) monopolies in the labor markets. Having worked in a closed union shop, I know that not every employee is willfully unionized. I also recognize the political inertia working against right-to-work legislation which supports the choice of those employees who do not wish to unionize. Therefore, I propose a compromise solution to organized labor laws that help keep labor markets competitive (i.e. oligopoly) thereby improving the competitiveness of domestic corporations, increasing the number of jobs in this country, and sustaining the strength of unions where workers choose to unionize:
1) Allow workers the choice of being union or non-union – do not impose one or the other, but prevent backfilling the jobs of union held positions during labor disputes.
2) Require more than one union to represent employees at the same firm with no union controlling more than 75% of the labor market within a particular company.
3) Restore reporting and oversight of unions to prevent corruption in union leadership.
By implementing these steps we can begin to bring manufacturing jobs back to the United States of America by making our labor markets competitive once again. We cannot expect job creation if we are not willing to let companies be profitable. After all, corporations exist to maximize shareholder value; if shareholders are not getting an adequate return on investment they will seek other opportunities leaving our nation in fiscal stagnation, or worse.
Sincerely,
Letters to Leaders
Secretary Solis is a hard-line pro-union individual. Therefore, I suspect her response, will be cordial, but completely opposed. In truth, I fully support right-to-work legislation, but am curious if a strict partisan would be willing to broach the subject of compromise. We shall see...
Secretary Solis,
Last week Chrysler filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. The Nation pensively awaits the fate of General Motors, suspecting a similar outcome. While there are many explanations for the demise of these two auto giants, one indisputably significant contribution is stranglehold on their labor markets imposed by the UAW.
United Auto Workers contract terms significantly restricted the fiscal ability to close non-productive plants or modify plants to produce more efficient automobiles. Car prices are ultimately determined by the market; with higher labor costs and similar market prices relative to competitors, the “Big Three” were forced to compromise on the quality of components in order to remain competitive. In turn, the UAW priced its represented employees out of the labor market and drove automakers to select more cost effective alternatives, such as placing factories in Canada, Mexico, and off-shoring manufacturing. The net result of the monopolistic stranglehold placed upon the automakers’ labor markets has been lower quality products, less flexible product offerings, reduced financial viability, and fewer domestic jobs.
It is perplexing that we uphold anti-trust law in the product and service markets, but legalize (arguably encourage) monopolies in the labor markets. Having worked in a closed union shop, I know that not every employee is willfully unionized. I also recognize the political inertia working against right-to-work legislation which supports the choice of those employees who do not wish to unionize. Therefore, I propose a compromise solution to organized labor laws that help keep labor markets competitive (i.e. oligopoly) thereby improving the competitiveness of domestic corporations, increasing the number of jobs in this country, and sustaining the strength of unions where workers choose to unionize:
1) Allow workers the choice of being union or non-union – do not impose one or the other, but prevent backfilling the jobs of union held positions during labor disputes.
2) Require more than one union to represent employees at the same firm with no union controlling more than 75% of the labor market within a particular company.
3) Restore reporting and oversight of unions to prevent corruption in union leadership.
By implementing these steps we can begin to bring manufacturing jobs back to the United States of America by making our labor markets competitive once again. We cannot expect job creation if we are not willing to let companies be profitable. After all, corporations exist to maximize shareholder value; if shareholders are not getting an adequate return on investment they will seek other opportunities leaving our nation in fiscal stagnation, or worse.
Sincerely,
Letters to Leaders
In true government fashion, I received a response completely devoid of personal accountability and useful information. Given the burgeoning size of our government you would think an Department of Labor employee could take personal accountability for responding to my suggestion and, Heaven forbid, actually forward it on to Secretary Solis. This response exemplifies why government cannot, and should not, be given more responsibility - it can't productively handle the responsibility it has now.
The issues that you raise do not appear to be covered by any law administered by this Agency, the U.S. Department of Labor's Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS). OLMS administers the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA), which governs labor organizations comprised of private sector or U.S. Postal employees, and section 7120 of Title VII of the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA), which deals with the standards of conduct for Federal sector unions. The LMRDA regulates internal union affairs such as the election of union officers and the reporting and disclosure of union financial matters. Regulations implementing section 7120 establish standards of conduct similar to provisions of the LMRDA. Additional information regarding the laws administered by this Office can be found at http://www.dol.gov/esa/olms_org.htm.
You may want to call the following Department of Labor toll-free referral line for additional guidance regarding your concerns: 1-866-4-USA-DOL.
This response is for information purposes only and does not constitute an official communication of the U.S. Department of Labor.
OLMS 25
