The Law of Work
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • Osgoode Hall LLM
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • Osgoode Hall LLM
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
The Law of Work
Law of Work Archive

Epstein on American Labor Law Reform

by David Doorey February 9, 2009
written by David Doorey February 9, 2009

Richard Epstein Anti-union, anti-collective bargaining advocates are all agitated these days  in the U.S. by the possibility that the Obama administration may try to address the astounding income gap between the rich and the poor in the U.S. by enouraging more collective bargaining.  One of the leading academic voices against collective bargaining in the U.S. over the past 30 years has been Professor Richard Epstein of the University of Chicago.  Epstein, along with his former Chicago colleague Richard Posner long ago attacked collective bargaining in a series of articles applying the “law and economics” paradigm.
They’ve been pretty silent on labor law recently because, quite frankly, nothing of note has changed in American labor law since the 1940s, and American unions represent only about  7% of private sector workers.  So, really, Esptein/Posner’s preference for no unions has pretty much been the model in place for the past 20 years.  Trouble is, its pretty hard to argue that the ‘no union’ model they adore has been good for American workers.  As I’ve noted before, the trajectory of America’s slide to the worst income inequality in the advanced economic world roughly parallels the country’s decline in union density.  Can any economists out there explain how these two statistics are unrelated?  The New York Times, hardly a pro-union think tank, thinks there’s a link.  That is why it has endorsed passage of labor law reform.
The possibility that the Employee Free Choice Act might pass has awakened Epstein from his labor law slumber.  He quickly scrambled to put together this booklet explaining the evils of the legislation. Its obviously a good piece of work, well worth the read for anyone interesting in these subjects.  I’ve only scanned it so far.  It seems to be less of a ‘law and economics’ critique than a typical normative argument against unions and collective bargaining.  So most of the arguments are predictable and have been said before.
I find the arguments unpersuasive I must say, and often contradictory.  One example:  a main reason Esptein argues that allowing unions to be certified by means of collective membership cards on behalf of a majority of workers rather than by means of a hotly contested and (usually) nasty election is that union organizers will bully and intimidate workers into signing cards, so we won’t know if the card represents a voluntary choice by the employee to support collective bargaining.  The irony in this argument is that it is the same one made by advocates of a card-check model, but in reverse:  they argue that a vote cannot ensure employees have a freely chosen to reject unions when the employer has told employees that bad things will happen to them if they vote for the union.
Epstein is against proposals to increase the penalty for employers who threaten employees before the vote because he argues that this doesn’t happen that much and the law should not focus on the exceptional, ‘hard cases’ in any event.   However, he is very interested in focusing on the exceptional case  when it comes to the possibility of unions threatening employees.  He  writes quite a lot about  that, although I am not aware of any studies that show this happens all that often.  I doubt it does, at least in Canada, and the reason is not hard to see.  If a union threatens an employee to sign a union card, there is a very strong possiblity the entire application for certification will be thrown out by the labour board.  Therefore, the incentives  work against unions using threats to obtain support.  The employer, on the other hand, can benefit in the American model (where there is no ”remedial certification”) by threatening workers before a vote, since the penalties for doing so are so weak.  If the employer can cause employees to vote ‘no’ by threatening to fire them all if the union wins, it has a good chance of defeating the union in the end, even if its threat is found to have been unlawful.
This is one problem the Employee Free Choice Act is trying to address.  But even if you are convinced by Epstein’s arguments, the big question remains:  How would you fix the fact that  the middle class in the U.S. has largely disappeared and that the real wages of most workers has been falling for years while the rich are getting richer?   Espteins’ argument is to preserve the status quo in which unions are weak, collective bargaining is all but irrelevant, and the individual employment contract model predominates (see p. 103-104).  Do you agree with this approach, or would you suppport Obama trying to rejuvinate collective bargaining in the U.S.?

3 comments
0
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmail
David Doorey

Professor Doorey is an Associate Professor of Work Law and Industrial Relations at York University. He is Academic Director of Osgoode Hall Law School’s executive LLM Program in Labour and Employment Law and a Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School’s Labor and Worklife Program. Professor Doorey is a graduate of Osgoode Hall Law School (LL.B., Ph.D), London School of Economics (LLM Labour Law), and the University of Toronto (B.A., M.I.R.).

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

previous post
Top 10 Employment & Labor Articles (Feb. 7)
next post
Advice for Future Labour Law Professors

You may also like

This Blog Entry is About the Lunacy of...

July 21, 2019

A Cross Country Update on the Card-Check versus...

October 3, 2018

The Folly of Not Voting to Strike in...

September 16, 2018

Unifor Posts Photos of Replacement Workers as Gander...

September 10, 2018

A Wrongful Dismissal Case and the Absence of...

August 29, 2018

China Said to Quickly Withdraw Approval for New...

August 27, 2018

The Latest Hot E-Commerce Idea in China: The...

August 27, 2018

The Trump Administration Just Did Something Unambiguously Good...

August 27, 2018

Unstable Situations Require Police In Riot Gear Face...

August 27, 2018

Trump’s War on the Justice System Threatens to...

August 27, 2018

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to Follow

Law Prof. Talking #labor & #employment #law to the masses. @YorkUniversity @OsgoodeNews @LSELaw @CLJEHarvard @Jacobin @OnLaborBlog https://t.co/5V9r8VPHsh

TheLawofWork
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
3h

Looks really interesting!

SFU Labour Studies @SFU_LBST

We have partnered with UBC @AllardLaw and is sponsoring the "Mapping the Future of Canadian Labour Law" public lecture by @TheLawofWork

March 22 (Wed) 12:30pm - 2:00pm | Hybrid | Sauder Industries Policy Room @ SFU Harbour Centre

RSVP: https://allard.ubc.ca/about-us/events-calendar/mapping-future-canadian-labour-law

Reply on Twitter 1619142841447448578 Retweet on Twitter 1619142841447448578 1 Like on Twitter 1619142841447448578 10 Twitter 1619142841447448578
Retweet on Twitter David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to Retweeted
sfu_lbst SFU Labour Studies @sfu_lbst ·
9h

We have partnered with UBC @AllardLaw and is sponsoring the "Mapping the Future of Canadian Labour Law" public lecture by @TheLawofWork

March 22 (Wed) 12:30pm - 2:00pm | Hybrid | Sauder Industries Policy Room @ SFU Harbour Centre

RSVP: https://allard.ubc.ca/about-us/events-calendar/mapping-future-canadian-labour-law

Reply on Twitter 1619041468945170432 Retweet on Twitter 1619041468945170432 1 Like on Twitter 1619041468945170432 4 Twitter 1619041468945170432
Retweet on Twitter David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to Retweeted
sethdklein Seth Klein @sethdklein ·
22h

It's 2023. BC Farm Workers Deserve Basic Minimum Wage Guarantees @HarryBainsSN via @TheTyee https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2023/01/26/Farm-Workers-Deserve-Basic-Minimum-Wage/?utm_source=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=260123&utm_source=The+Tyee&utm_campaign=e12c23277b-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2023_01_26_06_07&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_979b7d233e-e12c23277b-%5BLIST_EMAIL_ID%5D

Reply on Twitter 1618852701743505409 Retweet on Twitter 1618852701743505409 7 Like on Twitter 1618852701743505409 14 Twitter 1618852701743505409
Load More

Categories

  • Alberta
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Australia
  • British Columbia
  • Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • Childcare
  • Class Action
  • Climate and Just Transition
  • Collective Bargaining
  • Common Law of Employment
  • Comparative Work Law
  • competition law
  • construction
  • COVID-19
  • Diversity
  • Employee Classification
  • Employment Insurance
  • Employment Regulation
  • Europe
  • Financial Industry
  • Fissured Work
  • Freedom of Association
  • frustration of contract
  • Gig Work
  • Health and Safety
  • Health Care
  • Human Rights
  • Immigration
  • Interest Arbitration
  • International Law
  • Labour Arbitration
  • Labour Economics
  • Law of Work Archive
  • Legal Profession
  • Manitoba
  • Migrant Workers
  • Minimum Wage
  • Nova Scotia
  • OLRB
  • Ontario
  • Pension Bankruptcy
  • Privacy
  • Public Sector
  • Quebec
  • Real Life Pleadings
  • Saskatchewan
  • Scholarship
  • Sports Labour
  • Strikes and Lockouts
  • Student Post
  • Supreme Court of Canada
  • technology
  • Transnational Law
  • Uncategorized
  • Unions and Collective Bargaining
  • United States
  • Videos
  • Women and Work
  • Wrongful Dismissal
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive
Menu
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive

2020. Canadian Law of Work Forum. All Rights Reserved.