In Support for a Federal Law that Prohibits Compulsory Union Membership


InSupport for a Federal Law that Prohibits Compulsory Union Membership

InSupport for a Federal Law that Prohibits Compulsory Union Membership

Inthe jurisdiction of the American legal system, which originated fromthe English Common Law, people are defined as free agents and theyshould not be misconstrued to be commodities. The common lawprovides for every individual to own the fruit of their labor, therewards that come from their enterprise and talent and ought to befree in choosing whether to offer or withhold their talents in thelabor market (, 2014). It also goes that every person oughtto be free to choose the means by which they ought to negotiate fortheir working conditions and wages. This paper addresses variousaspects that foster my support for a legislation that prohibitscompulsory union membership.

Anaggregate look into the legislations that subject people intocompulsory union membership defines it as a scourge that underminesindividual rights. Individual rights provide that an individual isnot bound to collective bargaining as is the case in making unionmembership mandatory for every work (, 2014). On thecontrary, an individual is the sole decision maker as to where he orshe should participate in such an activity as collective bargainingit ought to be purely voluntary. To this effect, the government oughtto be in the fore front in protecting its citizens by upholding theirindividual rights. The government has the role of protectingindividuals to enable them exercise their rights without any undueinterference or harassment. This validates the discussion on theabolishment of legislations that force individuals to be members ofworkers’ unions.

TheNational Labor Relations Act disallows workers of their individualrights (, 2014). The power of compulsory union membership iscentered on the “Exclusive representation” clause. This could beviewed from the monopolistic perspective: the federal law providesthat if the organizers of a union win an election on representationby over 50% of voters, they have the power to negotiate on behalf ofeven their opponents (, 2014). By law, every union memberloses his or her privilege to negotiate with his or her employer intheir own capacity. The fact that the law only upholds the unions andthe union leaders as the ultimate deciders of the fate of workerssuppresses the ability and innovativeness of the employees. Employeesare unable to pursue their best interests since a union official willact on their behalf (, 2014).

Anothergrievance is that employees are forced to pay union dues, adding saltto the injury. It all begins by the union organizers gaining controlof the employees and the companies they work in, such that they arebestowed with the monopoly of bargaining powers (, 2014). Itthen transcends into them offering employees with contracts thatrequire them to pay dues to the unions in full. In cases where theemployer is adamant in handing employees to the unions, the law finesthem heavily for the “refusal to bargain (, 2014).”However, it has been observed that some unscrupulous unionnegotiators go to the extremes of compromising employees’ workingconditions and wage rise just to offer an appealing deal to employersfor them just to attain numbers the reasoning behind it being thatan increase in the number of members translates to higher income intheir till. It is no wonder that the union organizers haverelentlessly been in support of the forceful legislation and havestrongly opposed any attempts to repeal the law.

Itis, therefore, important at this point in time, that there is foundeda legislation that protects innocent employees from the forcefulunion membership. It worth noting, from history, that the founders ofworkers unions envisioned voluntarism as the main principle of theirendeavor. It is time that the Congress liberates the American workersfrom egocentric union organizers who have their interests beforeeveryone else’s.

Reference,.(2014). Rightto Work Frequently-Asked Questions | National Right to Work LegalDefense Foundation.Retrieved 11 July 2014, from