There has been much discontent and anger directed toward the corner office holders at Massey Energy Company in the wake of the Upper Big Branch Mine disaster.
Though many issues exist, it is clear workers rights have come up quite frequently.
This brings up the discussion of labor unions and the lack of them at the Massey-owned mines.
It is fair to examine the purpose of union existence. A union is an organization of workers who have come together in order to protect and further the rights and interests of those workers as a whole.
These unions negotiate wages and benefits with the firm through collective bargaining.
Although unions have seen a decline in popularity, during the '40s and '50s roughly one-third of the labor force was unionized (whereas today only about 13 percent is).
However, countries like Sweden and Denmark operate with nearly three-quarters of its workforce being union members.
Corporations like Massey, and specifically CEO Don Blankenship, are generally opposed to such unions and employ union-busting tactics (such as hiring scab workers) to discourage and destroy them.
This forces the worker to be subservient to the corporation. Big business have already much power intrinsic to their nature, and they are given much more by eliminating unions.
The working man deserves a voice.
According to a 2004 study performed by John Budd of the Industrial Relations Center at the University of Minnesota, total compensation per hour for unionized members in the private sector was approximately $32.12, whereas non-unionized members made about $22.01 on average.
In the same study, it was found that unionized laborers were 24 percent to 32 percent more likely to have pension plans than non-unionized laborers.
These benefits clearly show a significant advantage unions hold.
A group of people collectively bargaining for wages stands a much better chance than a single person and helps keep the corporation honest when in paying and compensating its workers.
More importantly, labor unions allow workers to refuse work or strike due to unfair conditions or wages without the fear of being fired by the company.
It is only fair and just to allow employees the opportunity to band with a union and help them have a voice. It is also statistically accurate that unionized workplaces, especially mines, have a better safety record than those operating non-union.
A union limits the overall absolute power of a corporation over its workers. If there are problems on the job, with a union, a worker's voice will be heard through the grievance process.
Without unions, corporations don't have to listen to employees and can ignore their grievances.
A newly proposed piece of legislation, The Employee Free Choice Act, would amend the National Labor Relations Act and "establish an efficient system to enable employees to form, join or assist labor organizations, to provide for mandatory injunctions for unfair labor practices during organizing efforts and for other purposes."
This would allow people who work at a nonunionized mine to contest unfair labor.
Unions, however, certainly aren't perfect and have their flaws. From an economic standpoint, unions sometimes come under fire.
When conducting collective bargaining with a firm or corporation, the wage will sometimes float above the equilibrium level, which in turn raises the quantity of labor supplied while subsequently reducing the quantity demanded of labor. This results in some unemployment.
Yes, it is a disadvantage to the labor union system but not one reason to toss the idea out. The benefits far exceed the costs of unionized labor.
People who work in jobs under large firms, especially blue-collar laborers, deserve to have their voices heard.
This is made difficult without the presence of a union due to the shear size (and sometimes lack of care) of the big businesses and firms they work for.
By having unions, the average worker is given a voice and is empowered, thus keeping the firms in check and honest.

is a member of the 



5 comments