In this Townhall column Ed Feulner discusses our antiquated labor laws and mentions something that gets far too little attention, namely the tension between the National Labor Relations Act and the First Amendment. In their eagerness to prop up unions and shield them from criticism, the politicians who voted for the NLRA chose to place restrictions on freedom of speech by employers. They are not allowed to directly communicate with workers once a union has been certified. The union is the sole representative of all the workers and management is forbidden to bypass the union and communicate with the employees.

That might be about quality issues, as Feulner mentions. Management has to bargain with the union, not just convene the workers for a discussion. More significant, I think, is the prohibition against communicating directly to the workers what the company is offering in wage and benefit increases. In the early 1960s, a General Electric executive named Lemuel Boulware wanted to diminish the perception that unions are responsible for all economic gains and came up with a strategy of formulating GE’s “fair, firm offer” and telling the workers about it prior to contract negotiations with the union. The union cried foul and the case went to court. GE lost, the Second Circuit holding that it was a violation of the “duty to bargain in good faith” that the NLRA imposes on employers to undercut the union that way.

Freedom of speech? Oh, that….. well, it’s not an absolute and has to take a back seat to more important concerns, like making it appear that unions are the cause of all improvements for workers.