Global Unions

An interesting proposal was made in the N.Y. Times last week about labor unions extending membership to workers across the globe, and not just within one country. The writer, Jennifer Gordon, a professor at Fordham Law School, believes that workers are migrating at an increasing rate, and that it makes sense to provide membership protection across borders. That way they could more easily move to regions with a shortage of workers, or return to their home countries when the job outlook improved.

Her primary interest, however, seemed to be the greater protection it offered from employers' poor working conditions. Specifically, she felt that if the United States recognized such a union, it would lead to better enforcement of labor laws, since the workers would be more willing to testify against employer-violaters if they didn't fear immediate deportation, which is the situation now.

This is an idea worth exploring, although it presents problems. For instance, Gordon would require that the workers promise to report violating employers or risk deportation if they refuse. But this only trades one power imbalance for its opposite, but equally unfair counterpart. The temptation would be too great for a worker to finger his boss as a way to maintain his residency, especially if the worker had some other reason to fear deportation.

I hope Gordon's idea gets some serious attention. But it got me to think about the current state of the labor movement in this country. Instead of coming up with new approaches, the old guard keeps insisting on the same tired old class warfare. I'm referring to the ban on secret ballots in the Employee Free Choice Act, which was recently introduced in Congress. That could mean that a company's workers could have union recognition if they collected signed "authorization cards" from a majority of employees.

How could anybody in his right mind call this an election? It could mean that union promoters could harass other workers, with no regualtion at all, so that they would have to sign the cards just to stop the harassment. And with no deadline for a vote, any worker could expect to have it continue no matter how many times he refused to sign as a matter of principle.

I don't think that unions need to do this to regain their power. The role of a labor union is changing because the workforce is changing, inevitably, as the world moves at greater speed toward global, or transnational, trade agreements. Technology is making it possible for any worker with a sound basic education to have his or her skills transferred to new industries or to a totally different occupation. Like it or not, companies will have less and less of a need for a workforce of permanent employees, in any particular location, who will be expected to have the same job for an extended career. That means that labor unions will need to organize a more diverse membership than ever before.

At any rate, organized labor will be entering a period of transition, with much excitement and volatility ahead.