Unions exist in almost every industry from manufacturing and construction to banking and government. Their objective is to represent workers by acting as a bridge between management and employees. Among other important issues, unions facilitate negotiations for increased wages, benefits, and improved working conditions. While a union’s historical purpose is to offer redress for employer violations of employees’ civil liberties and moral rights the tactics that unions have taken in doing so also raise moral issues. To address the ethical concerns posed by both unions and employers throughout American history, the Government has taken on a regulatory role by passing legislation that circumscribes the actions of both parties. In order to fully
…show more content…
It was not uncommon for laborers from unrelated fields and companies to be called to boycott and sympathetically strike against their employers in support of fellow union members working for other companies, even other industries. This significantly impacted many morally responsible employers who were undeserving of the aftermath that results from a strike, namely financial. In addition to ethically questionable tactics during collective bargaining with employers, there was a growing concern among the population regarding the manner in which unions treated their current and prospective members. In the period following the Wagner Act, critics contend that non-union members were treated unfairly and discriminated against in the workplace. In fact, many companies were union only shops that required all of their employees to join or were closed shops, which proscribed that only existing union members be hired. Many castigators equate forcing workers to join unions with infringing on their individual rights of autonomy, therefore violating their liberty …show more content…
The argument being made against the union is one of free association. In order to keep their jobs, the unions compel workers to pay them money, which in turn is being spent on political causes that the individual workers may not support themselves. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, California unions spent $88,000, of which $68,000 came directly from employee union shares, to support a ballot against same sex marriage. A Los Angeles Times exit poll found that 42% of union households did in fact support gay marriage. Their dues were spent lobbying for a political cause they did not consent to support. In fact, with the national population of gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, and transgender (GLBT) people conservatively estimated at 3.5-4%, the assumption can be made that some GLBT union member 's contributions were spent lobbying against their own rights to marry. Should the courts rule against the union employees would be free from having to pay dues that support politics unless they actually agree to lend financial support to that particular political cause. Should this happen, unions would be in financial trouble. They can expect to collect less money under a system that respects peoples’ freedom to make their own political choices. Naturally, unions are campaigning against this outcome by claiming it is an attempt to bankrupt and effectively abolish unions. Many
It was not uncommon for laborers from unrelated fields and companies to be called to boycott and sympathetically strike against their employers in support of fellow union members working for other companies, even other industries. This significantly impacted many morally responsible employers who were undeserving of the aftermath that results from a strike, namely financial. In addition to ethically questionable tactics during collective bargaining with employers, there was a growing concern among the population regarding the manner in which unions treated their current and prospective members. In the period following the Wagner Act, critics contend that non-union members were treated unfairly and discriminated against in the workplace. In fact, many companies were union only shops that required all of their employees to join or were closed shops, which proscribed that only existing union members be hired. Many castigators equate forcing workers to join unions with infringing on their individual rights of autonomy, therefore violating their liberty …show more content…
The argument being made against the union is one of free association. In order to keep their jobs, the unions compel workers to pay them money, which in turn is being spent on political causes that the individual workers may not support themselves. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, California unions spent $88,000, of which $68,000 came directly from employee union shares, to support a ballot against same sex marriage. A Los Angeles Times exit poll found that 42% of union households did in fact support gay marriage. Their dues were spent lobbying for a political cause they did not consent to support. In fact, with the national population of gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, and transgender (GLBT) people conservatively estimated at 3.5-4%, the assumption can be made that some GLBT union member 's contributions were spent lobbying against their own rights to marry. Should the courts rule against the union employees would be free from having to pay dues that support politics unless they actually agree to lend financial support to that particular political cause. Should this happen, unions would be in financial trouble. They can expect to collect less money under a system that respects peoples’ freedom to make their own political choices. Naturally, unions are campaigning against this outcome by claiming it is an attempt to bankrupt and effectively abolish unions. Many