FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Organized Labor and the Dreaded Two-Tier Contract

From the vantage of organized labor, the worst statutory event ever to occur was passage (over President Truman’s veto) of the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act.  Besides outlawing a union’s ability to conduct secondary strikes and boycotts (in other words, prohibiting workers from freely engaging in a meaningful display of union “solidarity”), Taft-Hartley ushered in the toxic era of the so-called “right-to-work” state.

A right-to-work state is one that allows employees to hire into a union facility—a facility that routinely offers better wages and benefits than a comparable non-union facility—but, preposterously, does not require these employees to join the very union that made those economic advantages possible.  At first blush, such a sleazy, “backdoor” arrangement seems grossly unfair if not downright illegal.

But right-to-work provisions aren’t illegal.  Indeed, they are not only legal, a whopping 28 states (including Michigan and Wisconsin, their illustrious labor histories notwithstanding) have adopted them.  So what has Taft-Hartley wrought?  It has given sharp-eyed pilgrims the right to publicly rejoice in the hard-earned benefits of union membership—including being able to cite the union contract when filing a grievance—without having to become union members.

Not to stretch the analogy, but isn’t this bullshit a bit like the soldier who spent all his time in the motor pool, having never once seen actual battle, and then insisting on being awarded a combat ribbon because a lot of the other guys got one?  While U.S. companies smugly refer to this union-busting device as “freedom of choice,” organized labor calls it “freeloading,” which it clearly is.

As crippling as the Taft-Hartley Act was, one can argue that implementation of the “two-tier wage and benefit configuration” has been equally debilitating.  Unlike the post-war Taft-Hartley, the two-tier didn’t raise its ugly head until the late 1970s, when the UAW (United Auto Workers) was first exposed to it, but since then—in the wake of hundreds and hundreds of corporations having jumped on the bandwagon—it’s done incalculable damage to the labor movement.

Basically, the two-tier arrangement is exactly what it implies.  One pay scale is transformed into two.  Under a two-tier, instead of everyone in a union shop receiving—as was historically always the case—identical pay and identical benefits for doing identical jobs, the company is allowed to create a secondary progression ladder.

And under the provisions of this secondary ladder, all future employees are locked into not only what wages they can make, but what benefits they can receive, including vacation time, pensions, and in some cases, health coverage.  Why on earth would a union agree to such contract language?  Because they had a gun to their heads.  The mighty UAW once had more than a million members.  Today, they’re a shell of their former selves.  Membership stands at 390,000.

Understandably, these two-tier configurations—particularly the most radical versions—didn’t emerge fully formed.  For one thing, in the beginning, most companies weren’t sure where the plans would lead (or how best to sell the idea to the union), and for another, if the union were given the slightest hint at what the most ambitious versions would be, they would have risen en masse, and run away screaming from the bargaining table.

Which is why the first two-tiers were presented as “hiring rates.”  For example, in the West Coast paper industry, local unions agreed to having their new hires paid less than seasoned employees doing the same job, so long as the differential adhered to a graduated index.

During their first three months a new hire would receive 80% of the full rate.  The next three months it would be 85%.  Then 90%.  Then 95%.  Only after one year would they receive the full rate.  No one really objected to this, including the new hires themselves, who thought it was a “fair” system.

But all of this quickly morphed into what we find today:  A permanent and disaffected collection of “haves and have-nots.”  Under a strict two-tier arrangement, today’s new hires can never earn what a senior person earns doing the same job, no matter how long they remain on the payroll.  One can readily imagine what effect this has on union solidarity.  It’s been devastating.

 

More articles by:

David Macaray is a playwright and author. His newest book is How To Win Friends and Avoid Sacred Cows.  He can be reached at dmacaray@gmail.com

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550
Weekend Edition
December 06, 2019
Friday - Sunday
Jeffrey St. Clair
Eat an Impeachment
Matthew Hoh
Authorizations for Madness; The Effects and Consequences of Congress’ Endless Permissions for War
Jefferson Morley
Why the Douma Chemical Attack Wasn’t a ‘Managed Massacre’
Andrew Levine
Whatever Happened to the Obama Coalition?
Paul Street
The Dismal Dollar Dems and the Subversion of Democracy
Dave Lindorff
Conviction and Removal Aren’t the Issue; It’s Impeachment of Trump That is Essential
Ron Jacobs
Law Seminar in the Hearing Room: Impeachment Day Six
Linda Pentz Gunter
Why Do We Punish the Peacemakers?
Louis Proyect
Michael Bloomberg and Me
Robert Hunziker
Permafrost Hits a Grim Threshold
Joseph Natoli
What We Must Do
Evaggelos Vallianatos
Global Poison Spring
Robert Fantina
Is Kashmir India’s Palestine?
Charles McKelvey
A Theory of Truth From the South
Walden Bello
How the Battle of Seattle Made the Truth About Globalization True
Evan Jones
BNP Before a French Court
Norman Solomon
Kerry’s Endorsement of Biden Fits: Two Deceptive Supporters of the Iraq War
Torsten Bewernitz – Gabriel Kuhn
Syndicalism for the Twenty-First Century: From Unionism to Class-Struggle Militancy
Matthew Stevenson
Across the Balkans: From Banja Luka to Sarajevo
Thomas Knapp
NATO is a Brain Dead, Obsolete, Rabid Dog. Euthanize It.
Forrest Hylton
Bolivia’s Coup Government: a Far-Right Horror Show
M. G. Piety
A Lesson From the Danes on Immigration
Ellen Isaacs
The Audacity of Hypocrisy
Monika Zgustova
Chernobyl, Lies and Messianism in Russia
Manuel García, Jr.
From Caesar’s Last Breath to Ours
Binoy Kampmark
Going to the ICJ: Myanmar, Genocide and Aung San Suu Kyi’s Gamble
Jill Richardson
Marijuana and the Myth of the “Gateway Drug”
Muzamil Bhat
Srinagar’s Shikaras: Still Waters Run Deep Losses
Gaither Stewart
War and Betrayal: Change and Transformation
Farzana Versey
What Religion is Your Nationalism?
Clark T. Scott
The Focus on Trump Reveals the Democrat Model
Kollibri terre Sonnenblume
Do Bernie’s Supporters Know What “Not Me, Us” Means? Does Bernie?
Peter Harley
Aldo Leopold, Revisited
Winslow Myers
A Presidential Speech the World Needs to Hear
Christopher Brauchli
The Chosen One
Jim Britell
Misconceptions About Lobbying Representatives and Agencies
Ted Rall
Trump Gets Away with Stuff Because He Does
Mel Gurtov
Hong Kong, Xinjiang, and the Insecurity of China’s Leadership
Nicky Reid
Dennis Kucinich, Tulsi Gabbard and the Slow Death of the Democratic Delusion
Tom H. Hastings
Cross-Generational Power to Change
John Kendall Hawkins
1619: The Mighty Whitey Arrives
Julian Rose
Why I Don’t Have a Mobile Phone
David Yearsley
Parasitic Sounds
Elliot Sperber
Class War is Chemical War
December 05, 2019
Colin Todhunter
Don’t Look, Don’t See: Time for Honest Media Reporting on Impacts of Pesticides
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail