Why am I Accountable to a Union for Where I Do Business?

Great Debates
1

Inspired by a GQ thread about what employers gain by hiring unions:

I remember walking through St. Louis, and there was a group of people protesting outside of a particular restaurant. The protestors’ beef seemed to be that the restaurant hadn’t hired union metalworkers, and they wanted patrons to not patronize the place on that basis.

Seemed like sour grapes to me. I mean, I’ve applied for several jobs in my lifetime, and most of them I’ve not gotten. But I’m not encouraging consumer boycotts of the places where I didn’t get hired. To me, the situation in St. Louis is the same thing, just on a slightly larger scale: the restaurant needed metalworkers for its renovation, the union wanted the job, the restaurant wasn’t prepared to give the union the contract it wanted, so the union (collectively) didn’t get the job. The only difference is, the union got rather cross about it, to the point of expecting consumers not to patronize the restaurant because of it.

I asked one of the protestors about this. I was polite about it, but firm. I asked, “What business is it of mine who this restuarant hires, so long as they’re not discriminating, or violating labor laws, or whatever?” She didn’t seem to have an answer, and the best she could come up with was “We just want everybody to be aware of this restaurant’s practices.” Well, I’m quite aware, thankyouverymuch, and they didn’t do anything wrong, as far as I could see.

So, even if you truly believe in the union cause, and even if union metalworkers really are better metalworks than non-union, am I, as a consumer, accountable to the metalworkers’ union for which restaurants I patronize? Or, in a larger sense, am I accountable to the organized labor movement as a whole for what businesses I patronize, vis a vis their hiring practices?

2

Sounds like Catholic Guilt to me.

3

We had a local store that was picketed for years. yes, years. Not sure if that’s why they closed it down but if it was and I was an employee there I would be… angry.

4

Heh.

We had a chain grocery store come through town, and when they opened up, the local grocery baggers’ union put up billboards telling customers not to patronize those stores. Those billboards (in various permutations) stayed up for at least ten years.

Of course, now all of the grocery stores in this city are, AFAIK, non-union.

5

Sometimes unions have needed to protest things that most of us would consider important, such as unsafe work practices. This fact has two implications for your question.

It might apply directly–this union could be protesting for something you truly believe workers should not have to tolerate. Maybe the business hired nonunion not just over money but due to a lower likelihood of complaints from an immigrant workforce.

Or it may apply indirectly. Because unions sometimes protest things you would feel are important, you could believe it is important to respect the right of unions to protest. You might be especially likely to feel this way if you were in a union yourself, and would like the metalworkers to support your union if you needed to protest someday.

Alternatively, you may feel confident that this particular union protest is not consistent with your interests and that other channels of complaint make unions unnecessary today.

But the first two points, I believe, are the case for respecting a union protest. If you do respect it, I don’t think you take that act as a consumer so much as you do it as a citizen or a fellow worker.

6

Part of the success of unions is not just that the workers in an individual union are in solidarity but that the labour movement as a whole is. So, to take a current example, the WGA benefits greatly from the fact that SAG won’t let it’s members cross the WGA picket lines.

Similarly, unions encourage their members and supporters to support all unions, whether by honouring strikes in general or by not patronizing businesses that use non-union workers in sectors where there is a union alternative.

Whether you’re swayed by their arguments probably depends a lot on whether you value unions in the first place.

7

Seems anti-capitalist to keep a business from actually being able to do business just because they chose a cheaper labor force.

8

They’re not keeping anyone from doing anything. They are presenting their case and hoping that the general public will support their cause. It’s the definition of capitalist.

9

I think picketing directly outside a store constitutes much more than merely “presenting their case.” It creates a barrier of intimidation that few will cross, regardless of their feelings on the matter.

10

I’ve crossed plenty, I never felt intimidated. It’s the price we pay for living in a (mostly) free society.

11

Giving people the opportunity to refuse to patronize a business by informing them of the business’s less savory practices seems like a perfect use of capitalism to me. Businesses know that the consequence of going outside the union is going to involve some inconvenient protest. The business accepted that, so obviously the owner thinks it’s worth the inconvenience. If the picketers are threatening people or creating a physical barrier, I’d have a problem, but I can’t hold them responsible for my neurotic guilt.

12

A union-hater who is so easily intimidated just isn’t hating hard enough.

13

Assuming we’re still talking about the OP, what less savory practice? Not hiring the ‘right’ group?

I gotta say though, the bit that really gets me is saying that they ‘know the consequence of going outside the union’. That disgusts me more than you can imagine. Why on earth should there be consequences?

14

Moving thread from IMHO to Great Debates.

15

Well, because that’s what collective bargaining is all about. The existence of a union creates consequences where there wouldn’t otherwise have been any. I agree with you that going outside the union isn’t in and of itself “unsavory,” but unless you want to ban unions altogether, you have to accept that this is what the union exists for…to put pressure on businesses to agree to their terms.

16

Since we’re now in GD, this isn’t as relevent but I would be quite happy without unions. I changed jobs recently because they voted in a union.

I thought that unions existed to try and ensure that workers were treated fairly, at least in theory. If the only reason they are pressuring a particular business is because they chose to go with someone else, then I feel that they are in the wrong.

17

Because people look out for their own self-interest in a free society. The store owners have a forum (the store) to state their case; the picket line is the way labor has a forum to state their case.

Picket lines are not coercion. They can be abused, but assuming the picketers don’t break any laws then why would you have a problem with them? It’s free speech, and it’s a tool used by labor in our society for well over a century. It’s the way individual members of labor force pool their resources to compete on a more even footing with business. And educating the public is one of the ways to do that.

I’ve never been a union member, and with my career I doubt I ever will be one. I rarely honor picket lines, though I haven’t had to cross many of them. But I completely support their right to picket according to the laws.

18

I probably wouldn’t join a union, either, and as I said, I agree with you that not hiring unionized workers is not “wrong” (in my opinion). However, I can’t see how my personal decision not to associate with a union should apply to everyone else. People have the right to unionize, and they have a right to express their disagreement with a business for whatever reason. Their reason may be, in your opinion, without merit, but that’s for you to figure out.

19

Well, in theory, that is the purpose of unions–individual workiers have little bargaining power vis-a-vis big companies, so unions collectivize worker bargaining to balance the scales. So if a company is hiring non-union workers, then there are (in the union’s mind) too few mechanisms in place to make sure that the workers get treated fairly. Ergo, the union has a principled reason to object to non-union hires. It need not merely be a case of “You hired those guys instead of us” (although in practice I’m sure that is often a chief reason for the union’s objections–after all, they’re only human). So I think maybe you’ve got a hold of the wrong end of the stick on this one.

20

I mean, really you can only answer the question you pose in your OP by first establishing the moral status of unions. If you think that non-unionized workers are unfairly exploited by companies, and the only way for workers in certain industries to get a fair shake is by unionizing, then you have a moral reason to support unions and their efforts. That would include not crossing picket lines. If, on the other hand, you think unions exist only to shake down corporations, make unfair demands on employers, and in general serve as immoral parasites on the economy, then you have a moral reason to fight the unions and patronize non-union businesses. That includes crossing union picket lines.