Canadian Law of Work Forum (CLWF)
  • Home
  • About
    • Professor David Doorey
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Submissions
  • Student Blog Initiative
  • Home
  • About
    • Professor David Doorey
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Submissions
  • Student Blog Initiative
Canadian Law of Work Forum (CLWF)
Law of Work Archive

Harvard Law Professor Sachs: On Unbundling Economic & Political Unions

by David Doorey January 21, 2014
written by David Doorey January 21, 2014

Ben Sachs, Professor of Labor Law at Harvard has just published an article in the Yale Law Journal entitled “The Unbundled Union:  Politics Without Collective Bargaining“.  In it, Ben argues for modest reforms to American labor law that would protect and frame a protected legal right for workers to join and participate in ‘political unions’ which do not engage in collective bargaining.  A political union would engage in political activities, such as campaigning, lobbying, policy activism, and social activism, but would not bargain.  Sachs argues that the law should encourage political unions of this sort because the decline in unionization to a mere 7% of the private sector had created a huge vacuum of political responsiveness in America.  The wealthy control public policy.

Professor Sachs, Harvard University

Professor Sachs, Harvard University


Whereas in the past, the labour movement provided a reasonable counter balance to the influence of wealth, that is no longer the case. Today, “the preference of the vast majority of Americans appear to have essentially no impact on which policies the government does or does not adopt”.  That’s because there is no longer a collectively organized and financed voice of the middle class left in America.  Nothing has filled the void left in the wake of the decimation of American unions.  Sachs argues that this should be of great concern to Americans.  Campaign finance reform aimed at lessoning in some modest way the political influence of corporations and the mega-rick hasn’t worked.  The best hope to build a countervailing voice to corporate and individual wealth is to build a collective political form of unionization.  The workplace is the most effective location for collective organizing.
The trouble is that the traditional model of collective action, labor law, was designed around the concept of collective bargaining, not political organization and voice.  This model won’t work as a device to promote collective political voice without reform.  Thus, Sachs argues that labor laws should be reformed to recognize the right of workers to join political unions distinct from collective bargaining unions.  The law would need to include anti-reprisal provisions to stop employers from firing workers who join political unions.  It should permit dues checkoff to help the political unions gain resources, noting that no employee could be required to join or pay political dues; joining a political unions would be purely voluntary.  The arguments for allowing mandatory dues checkoff in the collective bargaining context don’t apply in the case of a purely political union. The law should permit speech in the workplace relating to political unions and campaigning, like collective bargaining union speech is permitted.  Employers would have no duty to bargain or negotiate with a political union.
Sachs argues that purely political unions would not likely attract as great a level of employer opposition as collective bargaining unions, since the impact on the employer’s economic interests are not as direct, if they exist at all.  Some employers, and others who benefit from the lack of political voice from the lower and middle classes would still object and resist collective action by workers in any form, since it poses a risk to the status quo.  However, Sachs surmises that the American public would like have less tolerance for discrimination by employers for expressing political opinions than they seem to have for employers who publish workers for trying to engage in collective bargaining.  He argues that a legal model that permits political organizing at the workplace level could help to slowly rebuild a middle-lower class political voice in America.
Implications for Canada?
What do you think of Professor Sach’s argument?  In Canada, the problem of disproportionate political influence of the wealthy has been buffered somewhat by: (1) a stronger labour movement, especially its much greater presence in the public sector; and (2) the New Democratic Party, which traditionally has kept middle/lower economic class issues in the political discussion.  Does this  ensure that the rich do not have a disproportionate influence on public policy?  Make no mistake, the political right in Canada would like nothing more than drive union representation down to American levels.  I’ve noted before that Canada is lagging the American decline in unionization in the private sector almost perfectly, but with a lag.  Union density in the private sector in Canada presently sits at about 14% of the workforce.
I’ve argued in this Queens Law Journal article (Graduated Freedom of Association) something similar to Professor Sachs, but in the Canadian context.  My argument is that Canadian law should recognize a second ‘less thick’ version of freedom of association in which workers can come together in a workplace and act collectively outside of formalized collective bargaining, and that the law should protect them from retaliation.  Hence, I proposed that the law protect the right of workers to form associations (unions or otherwise) and to speak collectively through those associations at work and in the community, without fear of reprisals.  Employers would not be required to ‘bargain in good faith’ like an employer with a certified union.  But the employer would be required to meet with the association, listen to its representations on behalf of its members, and engage in a ‘meaningful dialogue’ with the association.  These are the rights that the Supreme Court of Canada has said are minimally guarateed by the Charter, so that public sector employees already have these rights. But private sector employees are only protected from reprisals if they join a ‘trade union’ [not other types of associations], and employers are only required to acknowledge trade unions that have been certified by the government as representing a majority of employees.
My proposal would legally recognize two new concepts into Canada:  (1) nonunion employee associations; and (2) a form of limited minority trade unionism.   This model would operate alongside the traditional majority trade union model presently found in labour relations legislation, as a supplement to it, not a replacement.  The underlying theory is the same:  the law should facilitate greater access to collective voice for workers who wish that option, and should not be limited to just majority, exclusive, trade unionism.
Issues for Discussion
Do you think the law should promote forms of collective worker voice and organization that extend beyond traditional formal, majority trade union collective bargaining?
Do you think workers who would not otherwise support full-fledged majority trade union bargaining might support a union or association that doesn’t bargain, but that focuses on political organizing and campaigning on broader social and economic issues?   Why or why not?
Do you agree with Professor Sachs that the decline in union representation the US creates a serious problem of political unresponsiveness to the concerns of the middle and lower economic classes?
Is that problem remedied in Canada by some means?
 
 
 
 
 

1 comment
0
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmail
David Doorey

Professor Doorey is an Associate Professor of Work Law and Industrial Relations at York University. He is the Director of the School of HRM at York and Director of Osgoode Hall Law School’s executive LLM Program in Labour and Employment Law and on the Advisory Board of the Osgoode Certificate program in Labour Law. He is a Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School’s Labor and Worklife Program and a member of the International Advisory Committee on Harvard University’s Clean Slate Project, which is re-imaging labor law for the 21st century

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

previous post
Can You Be Fired for Your Political Beliefs?
next post
U of T Study Find Canadian Managers are MORE Hostile to Unions than American

You may also like

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

October 3, 2018

A Successful Strike Vote is All That Stands...

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

Putin Invites Trump to Moscow for Second Meeting...

August 27, 2018

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 218 other subscribers

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

CLWFFollow

CLWF
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
RSandillRicha Sandill@RSandill·
7h

@SCLSclinic and I were so fortunate to represent this client last year. I am thrilled that this decision brings more clarity for family status accommodations rights amidst a pandemic that has tested parents, caregivers, and families like never before. https://twitter.com/CanLawWorkForum/status/1364605259071561730

CLWF@CanLawWorkForum

New from @RSandill (counsel for applicant), discussing important new "family status" discrimination decision from OHRT:

"Kovintharajah v. Paragon Linen & Laundry: When Failure to Accommodate Child Care Needs is “Family Status” Discrimination"

https://lawofwork.ca/13360-2/

Reply on Twitter 1364627677785821185Retweet on Twitter 13646276777858211851Like on Twitter 13646276777858211852Twitter 1364627677785821185
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey@TheLawofWork·
7h

Here's my latest in @jacobinmag.

If Ontario's labor laws applied in Alabama, the Amazon vote would have been held months ago so workers could get back to their jobs. Instead, the NLRA permits Amazon to conduct a months' long onslaught of anti-union propaganda. https://twitter.com/jacobinmag/status/1364613560425275392

Jacobin@jacobinmag

Amazon workers in Alabama are voting on whether to unionize, but the company is bombarding them with anti-union propaganda. In Canada, by contrast, votes are held quickly, making it harder for companies to stack the deck — a model that can work in the US. http://jacobinmag.com/2021/02/amazon-alabama-canada-labor-law-union-vote

Reply on Twitter 1364623976174092316Retweet on Twitter 13646239761740923168Like on Twitter 136462397617409231613Twitter 1364623976174092316
CanLawWorkForumCLWF@CanLawWorkForum·
9h

New from @RSandill (counsel for applicant), discussing important new "family status" discrimination decision from OHRT:

"Kovintharajah v. Paragon Linen & Laundry: When Failure to Accommodate Child Care Needs is “Family Status” Discrimination"

https://lawofwork.ca/13360-2/

Reply on Twitter 1364605259071561730Retweet on Twitter 13646052590715617304Like on Twitter 13646052590715617304Twitter 1364605259071561730
Load More...

Categories

  • Alberta
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Australia
  • British Columbia
  • Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • Childcare
  • Class Action
  • 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
  • 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.