The Weird Subculture of Anti-Labor Lawyers

[Omaha Steve]

Matt sent me this in an email. How much does an anti-labor lawyer make?

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=9826E3465083B39A5F24B636609E98F5?diaryId=9881

by: Matt Stoller
Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 17:38

This morning, I read an op-ed in the Philadelphia Inquirer by a labor lawyer named James R. Redeker of the firm Wolfblock titled 'How employers can mitigate 'card check'. As one of the biggest fights this cycle will probably be over unionization legislation, it's a good idea to get a sense of what all sides think about the policy. Redeker is part of the complex of anti-union consulting and law firms who specialize in strike-breaking and labor elections, firms that sell things like EFCA Defense Kits and present testimonials from corporate officers thanking them for help breaking strikes. Defeating EFCA is the number one priority of the US Chamber of Commerce, as well as a range of business groups and social conservative organizations.

It's a weird subculture of business, the sort of raw ideological enforcement arm of an apolitically branded corporate world. In his piece, Redeker went through a variety of strategies on how employers could resist unionization even if the Employee Free Choice Act passes. He finished his op-ed with the argument that the Employee Free Choice Act would have the unintended consequence of forcing employers to make "nonunion workplaces better for employees." I asked Redeker why businesses oppose the bill, if the supposed unintended consequences of the legislation are improved conditions for workers. Here's what he kindly wrote back.
Matt Stoller :: The Weird Subculture of Anti-Labor Lawyers

Businesses oppose the bill because unions cause unnecessary operational costs (not counting wages and benefits), low employee morale, adversarial, loss of business agility and favoritism and deny employees the full value of their wages by taking dues. Hoffa, for example, makes 10 times what the average Teamster makes and a 189 Teamster officers and employees make over $100,000. This money comes out of the pockets of employees, many of whom have no choice about whether to pay dues. There is no moral justification for this looting of the American workforce.

The unintended consequence is not only from EFCA itself but from the fear of EFCA and what employers have to do to ensure that neither they nor their employees will be jeopardized by the injection of third parties and their agendas into the workplace. It is that fear of unchecked union organizing that will force employers to improve their workplaces so that their employees will not be subject to the appeal of union organizers.

I am still learning about the Employee Free Choice Act, but this explanation seems very weird. If unions lower employee morale and "loot the American workforce", then why would employers be forced to improve their workplaces to compete with them? Also, why is it a problem for employers to be forced to improve their workplaces?

I'm going through anti-union consulting firm websites right now (just Google 'Employee Free Choice Act" and you'll find them), and this is a very weird subculture. Most of their arguments boil down to a belief that making union organizing too easy will allow employees to join unions, which they shouldn't do because it's bad for businesses. I'm still trying to find out if there are any other arguments here aside from ideological beliefs about what employees should or shouldn't be doing.

I mean, Redeker clearly thinks that the legislation will be bad for workers, but I just don't understand why that is. If the unintended consequences of the opposed legislative package is that non-unionized employees are treated better, I can see why businesses don't want to shell out cash to improve conditions, but how is that a problem for the workers themselves? I can see why you'd oppose card check as avoiding a ballot election, but employees don't seem to oppose de-certification of unions by card check, only the formation of unions by card check.

As Redeker indicates, this is not so much an economic as a moral question: "There is no moral justification for this looting of the American workforce." I guess we'll have to be satisfied with the notion that one union leader makes a lot of money and some union leaders make over $100,000 a year, and we should oppose that because no one in the business world makes that much.

[GrantDem]

1. Heaven forbid...

It is that fear of unchecked union organizing that will force employers to improve their workplaces...

[pberq]

2. Amazing this guy would actually say this

". . .unions cause unnecessary operational costs (not counting wages and benefits), low employee morale, adversarial, loss of business agility and favoritism and deny employees the full value of their wages by taking dues."

Maybe he just made a mistake and meant to say the opposite of most of that?

Never mind the statistics that union workers are paid more and have better benefits - how would that lower morale???