Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

By Thomas L. Knapp

“Sixteen million workers were represented by unions in 2024,” Jim Miller writes in the San Diego Union-Tribune. “However, there were millions more who would have joined a union but couldn’t.”

Miller goes on to lament the failure of “pro-union” legislation in Congress, as well as the Trump administration’s attacks on unions in general and government employee unions in particular. But, unfortunately, his op-ed goes off the rails with that very first sentence.

There’s nothing to stop you from joining a union, whether you’re employed in a unionized workplace or not. There’s no law against it, and although some unions have their own exclusionary rules — the American Federation of Teachers (Miller’s organization) only offers “associate” membership for students, workers whose employers don’t contract with AFT, etc. — if a particular union won’t accept your membership application, chances are good that another (for example, Industrial Workers of the World) will.

You’re also never required to join a union. Don’t want to be a union member? Don’t take a job in a union workplace. “Problem” solved.

As to getting your employer to enter into a labor contract with the union of your choice, that’s a different matter.

Under the National Labor Relations Act, the government controls the process. A certain number of workers have to request an election. If a majority of employees vote yes, all of the employees have to join the union or find somewhere else to work, and the employer has to “negotiate in good faith” toward a contract.

The NLRA wasn’t written to benefit union workers. They were doing just fine already. The NLRA benefits two groups:

First, union bosses. If you can require 100 people to pay dues because 51 of them said yes, the money rolls in … and under the NLRA, you only have to worry that the workers will go on strike (and draw down the union’s relief funds) between contracts.

Second, employers. The NLRA forbids “wildcat” strikes (that is, striking while a contract is in effect), as well as boycotts and “sympathy strikes” (Workplace A going on strike and workers at Workplace B refusing, in solidarity, to unload trucks from Workplace A).

Union bosses got a more reliable source of revenue; employers got workplaces that wouldn’t shut down over labor disputes other than at contract expirations.

Workers? Well, they got screwed.

From the late 19th century until the 1930s, union membership and workplace unionization increased organically and unions fought hard for their members.

Once the NLRA went into effect, the numbers went up, plateaued, then began shrinking. And no wonder. Why would union officials fight hard for workers if that might result in strikes costing them dues revenues? Better to invest their time into “organizing” new workplaces with new dues-payers.

The Taft-Hartley “right to work” amendments only made things worse, allowing states to forbid both employers and unions from entering into “exclusive” labor contracts.

Can unions make a comeback? Sure — but only if the NLRA, including Taft-Hartley, is repealed and government gets its nose out of labor matters.

(Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism. He lives and works in north central Florida.)