Will House Vote to Make Workers Worse Off?
"If Big Labor succeeds in pushing the FLCA through the House, as expected, the Committee will go all out to stop it in the Senate.”
'The Action of the Union in the Arbitration Will Have the Effect of . . . Causing Harm to Its Own Members'
Blogging for National Review Online late last week (see the link below), the Heritage Foundation’s James Sherk furnished an especially outrageous example of how Big Labor often wields its government-granted monopoly bargaining power in ways that hurt employees economically. Big Labor court actions like the one discussed by Sherk expose as nonsensical union propagandists’ contention that all employees benefit from union monopoly bargaining, and should consequently be forced to pay union dues as a job condition whether they choose to be union members or not:
A collective-bargaining agreement . . . covers every worker under one contract — ignoring individual contributions. . . . In today’s economy where most employers see employees as valuable “human resources” [that approach] often holds workers back.
Union members at the Giant Eagle grocery store in Edinboro, Pa., learned this the hard way. The store gave two dozen industrious employees raises above their union pay scales. United Food and Commercial Workers Local 23 objected that this would permit some newer hires to make more than senior members. The union took the store to court.
Last November the District Court sided with Local 23 and ordered Giant Eagle to cut the workers’ pay. As the Judge noted: “The net result of the Union’s dispute is that some of its members will have their raises rescinded — in other words, the action of the Union in the arbitration will have the effect of taking away raises of certain members, thereby causing harm to its own members.”
