Commentary Magazine


Contentions

A Horrid Idea

Understandably, the issue which has garnered the most attention in the card-check debate has been the elimination of the secret ballot in the workplace. Fundamental rights or American traditions are not wiped out everyday to satisfy a special interest group which happened to heavily finance one party. But equally pernicious is the mandatory arbitration provision. Two former National Labor Relations Board members explain:

Less publicized and arguably even worse, the EFCA injects government into collective bargaining. If a union and an employer cannot agree to their first contract in 120 days, the government will appoint a panel of arbitrators who will.

Mandatory arbitration is devastatingly bad policy — it throws a monkey wrench into the collective bargaining process. Nothing would more certainly make private bargaining a waste of time. Why make concessions at the bargaining table that would simply move the starting point for arbitration?

An arbitration panel’s power to dictate terms is virtually limitless. Such panels could impose uncompetitive wage rates and unworkable work rules. Arbitrators could also impose mandatory union dues and discharge for failure to pay.

There are multiple reasons why this is simply terrible labor policy. For starters, it promotes labor instability as unions will hope to elicit from the government what they cannot achieve in negotiations. They have every incentive to stake out the most extreme position so as to set up acceptable final demands, whose satisfaction will depend on the whim of government arbitrators. Arbitrators who have no history in that workplace nor specialized knowledge of the business will be less inclined to “get it right” in devising a “fair” contract. Moreover, the cost, time, and uncertainty associated with a phalanx of government arbitrators poses another burden on the economy at a time we can least afford it.

But is it even Constitutional? Without the right of judicial review by Article III courts, it is an open question whether the government can impose contractual obligations on private firms. Where are the checks against abuse, bias, or outright error in arbitration decisions? And if you remedy the problem by providing judicial review, the process becomes unworkable, highly expensive, and attenuated, adding cases to  federal courts that have little if any expertise in this area.

At some point in the card-check debate Big Labor will want to strike a “deal.” But any “deal” including mandatory arbitration is a loser.


Join the discussion…

Are you a subscriber? Log in to comment »

Not a subscriber? Join the discussion today, subscribe to Commentary »





Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor to our site, you are allowed 8 free articles this month.
This is your first of 8 free articles.

If you are already a digital subscriber, log in here »

Print subscriber? For free access to the website and iPad, register here »

To subscribe, click here to see our subscription offers »

Please note this is an advertisement skip this ad
Clearly, you have a passion for ideas.
Subscribe today for unlimited digital access to the publication that shapes the minds of the people who shape our world.
Get for just
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor, you are allowed 8 free articles.
This is your first article.
You have read of 8 free articles this month.
YOU HAVE READ 8 OF 8
FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
for full access to
CommentaryMagazine.com
INCLUDES FULL ACCESS TO:
Digital subscriber?
Print subscriber? Get free access »
Call to subscribe: 1-800-829-6270
You can also subscribe
on your computer at
CommentaryMagazine.com.
LOG IN WITH YOUR
COMMENTARY MAGAZINE ID
Don't have a CommentaryMagazine.com log in?
CREATE A COMMENTARY
LOG IN ID
Enter you email address and password below. A confirmation email will be sent to the email address that you provide.