The big news on the Big Labor front lately has been the secession from the AFL-CIO of several big unions, comprising about a quarter of its membership. Does it mean anything? Alan Reynolds thinks that it may be a small step toward competition among labor unions, which wouldn’t be a bad thing. You can read his column here.
While I agree with most of what Reynolds writes, I don’t see the AFL-CIO breakup as presaging a free market in labor representation. For that to happen, we would have to repeal the National Labor Relations Act, which takes unionism out of the realm of individual choice and makes it a matter of “workplace democracy.” If a majority wants a particular union, everyone gets it, and they get it indefinitely. No other private organization, for-profit or non-profit, operates under such rules.
But Reynolds is absolutely correct in saying that neither the “let’s pour money into trying to elect friendly politicians” approach of current AFL-CIO prez John Sweeney or the “let’s pour money into trying to organize more workers” approach of Andy Stern (the leader of the dissident faction) does anything for individual workers. Sweeney and Stern are both stuck in a 1930s mentality dominated by ideas of power and solidarity. They don’t understand that few people today think that way. Trying to sell the union model of 1935 to workers in 2005 has the same chance of success as selling slide rules.
