Wednesday, April 26, 2006
Lessons From A Union Contract Vote
On Friday April 21, 2006 something very enlightening happened. Pittsburgh’s teachers reversed an earlier vote that had rejected a proposed contract. And the second vote was not merely a reversal; it was an overwhelming 2 to 1 vote to accept the contract. The thing that makes this such an interesting development is the way the two votes were conducted. In the first vote, the teachers were assembled in an auditorium and voted at the site. For the second vote, the union members were allowed to fill out their ballots in private and mail them in.
The head of the teachers’ union, by calling for the mail-in vote, was able to get the vote he wanted. However, the mail-in vote reveals a weak spot in the union’s hold on its members. When members are free from the pressure of their more raucous and vocal compatriots they are able to better weigh how they will be affected by the outcome of a vote. Under the vehement exhortations of the hard-core members, voters may not calmly reflect on their best interests and have their vote swayed against their own best interest.
This is a tremendous lesson. We hear labor leaders who want to have unions be able to gain collective bargaining representation by simply having a majority of workers at a company or facility sign a card that asks for a vote. They claim that signing the card is the equivalent of an affirmative vote. But the Pittsburgh teacher situation demonstrates the influence that the presence of “true believers” can have on a vote. Thus, the urgings of union leaders desperate for new members through a change in the representation voting procedure must be rejected.
Instead, we should be going the other way. All union votes should be a truly secret ballot that can be filled out in privacy and mailed in. This would minimize or eliminate the fear of retribution or ostracization. Members and potential members ought to be free to cast their votes without being concerned about whether or not they voted the “right” way.
The head of the teachers’ union, by calling for the mail-in vote, was able to get the vote he wanted. However, the mail-in vote reveals a weak spot in the union’s hold on its members. When members are free from the pressure of their more raucous and vocal compatriots they are able to better weigh how they will be affected by the outcome of a vote. Under the vehement exhortations of the hard-core members, voters may not calmly reflect on their best interests and have their vote swayed against their own best interest.
This is a tremendous lesson. We hear labor leaders who want to have unions be able to gain collective bargaining representation by simply having a majority of workers at a company or facility sign a card that asks for a vote. They claim that signing the card is the equivalent of an affirmative vote. But the Pittsburgh teacher situation demonstrates the influence that the presence of “true believers” can have on a vote. Thus, the urgings of union leaders desperate for new members through a change in the representation voting procedure must be rejected.
Instead, we should be going the other way. All union votes should be a truly secret ballot that can be filled out in privacy and mailed in. This would minimize or eliminate the fear of retribution or ostracization. Members and potential members ought to be free to cast their votes without being concerned about whether or not they voted the “right” way.
