The laughably misnamed Employee Freedom of Choice Act has passed the House (as expected) with every (or nearly every) Democrat voting in favor, including those from North Carolina. This bill is designed to make union organizing easier and many people assume that more unionization would make the economy more fair for workers. That belief is on a par with the belief that raising the minimum wage makes workers wealthier.

My Freeman colleague Sheldon Richman has written a provocative column in which he questions the assumption that federal regulation of labor is actually pro-worker. The National Labor Relations Act gave union bosses most of the advantages they wanted, but it also imposes some restrictions.

Sheldon is right in regarding the impact of regulation as mixed and hard to analyze. My view is that the only clear winners from the whole jumble of federal dictates and prohibitions in this area are the people who run the kinds of labor organizations favored by federal policy. Just like old-line trucking firms benefited from the anti-competitive trucking regulations that were in place until the early 80s, old-line unions benefit from current regulations on labor representation.

Benefits for union officials do not necessarily mean benefits for the workers they represent.