Members-Only Unions

Moshe Marvit and Leigh Anne Schriever have an outstanding essay on members-only unionism. In other words, in a corporate and political regime that seeks to destroy unions, something that will likely be significantly advanced by the Supreme Court Republicans in Friedrichs next year, it’s quite possible the near future of many labor organizations will be as voluntary organizations without collective bargaining rights. In fact, that’s pretty common now, especially in right to work a person to death states. The union I played an early role in organizing at the University of Tennessee is a members-only organization. In order to do this, you need committed union activists who are going to do a lot of work in their free time to build a democratic union that seeks collective action in order to push for worker rights. That has to be done without any hope of ever getting a contract or any kind of employer recognition. Marvit and Schriever discuss three case studies of members-only unions, with their potential and their problems. And the problems are real enough–it’s constant work for little concrete gain. Yet these unions also energize and empower workers and actually do win real gains from time to time. In the public sector, they can make alliances with friendly state legislators, conduct protest actions at state capitals and public events, and be a worker-centered gadfly against employer policies. This isn’t a glorious future, but it is a real future. Workers will never give up fighting for better lives and if the current anti-union trends continue, more and more will need a different kind of organization than they have today. Marvit’s and Schriever’s conclusion:

As a result of anti-union laws and extreme employer and governmental opposition, organizing a union and collectively bargaining with an employer are virtually impossible tasks for many workers in many regions of the country. The members-only model that has existed in this country for over a century, and continues to exist in many of these labor deserts, may provide a way forward.

Though few members-only unions have been able to get collective bargaining agreements (CBA) on behalf of their members, they do provide appreciable benefits in the workplace. They provide a structure for worker solidarity and collective action; a means of accessing some of the protections of the NLRA; an inroad for labor in inhospitable territory; a framework for workers to advocate and organize local political change; and a means of disseminating information. Additionally, though members-only unions often appear as a hybrid between more traditional exclusive-bargaining unions and worker centers, they are unions. Their goals—even if not often reached—are to organize and negotiate on behalf of their memberships. For these reasons alone, major unions should employ the model as both a path to majority and as a beachhead in hostile parts of the country.

Furthermore, a simple change in the law, or legal interpretation of the NLRA could significantly change these unions ability to get CBAs. Though many legal scholars have debated the question of whether employers must bargain with members-only unions, neither the NLRB, nor the courts, nor Congress has fully considered the issue. If the law were changed or interpreted to require bargaining, members-only unions would have a clearer path to contracts and majority.