Page 17 - Freedom in the world_Neat

By the mid-1970s, union membership had declined to 25 percent of the workforce. The
reasons were complex, and included the gradual shift of the American economy from one
based on industrial production to one based on services and knowledge. Even more
important were advances in technology that rendered some jobs--and in a few cases entire
occupations--obsolete. Trade was also a factor; whereas America had been the world's
export giant, it now began to import large quantities of goods from Japan and other
economies that paid their workers less than in the United States.2

In addition to these broad economic trends, unions were confronted with mounting
resistance from employers. To a substantial degree, unions suffered from the
transformation of the American economy from one based in internal markets to one based
on globalized competition. Unions have historically fared poorly under conditions of a
competitive economy, where labor costs figure prominently in a corporation's ability to
achieve profitability.

Management used a variety of tactics to forestall unionization, including the intimidation of
union activists. Often, corporations were willing to violate labor law if it would result in the
defeat of a unionization campaign. One specific problem was the stalling tactics
management resorted to when confronted with a representation vote that was likely to
favor the union. Another problem was the inability of union activists to obtain timely
justice for acts of reprisal by management; it took on average two years for a worker to
win reinstatement after a finding of illegal dismissal for union activity. Furthermore, when
found guilty by the courts or the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), companies were
compelled to do nothing more than provide back pay, a slap-on-the-wrist penalty that
failed to discourage management from summarily firing union supporters.

To rectify the situation, labor in the late 1970s pressed for the adoption of a bill that was
meant to correct what union leaders felt was an imbalance in labor-management relations.
The bill would have expanded the NLRB in order to expedite hearings on cases of alleged
violations, permitted two board members instead of the full board to adjudicate routine
cases, and established strict time limits for a recognition vote once a union had gathered
enough authorization cards from the workers. Although the bill won majority support in
both the House and Senate, a filibuster backed by Republicans and Southern Democrats
succeeded in killing the bill in the Senate by two votes.3

Labor's membership decline accelerated during the administration of Ronald Reagan in the
1980s. Much of the decline was due to "deindustrialization," whereby steel mills,
automobile factories, and other industrial facilities were shut down or significantly reduced
in size, devastating once-thriving communities and creating what came to be referred to as
the Rust Belt. To this relentless force of an evolving market economy was added a
generally unfriendly political environment. Whereas previous Republican administrations
had maintained cordial relations with organized labor, the Reagan administration adopted
policies that were often antithetical to labor's interests. Especially important were its
appointments to the NLRB. The Reagan administration's appointees tended to support
management's positions on labor-relations issues and were determined to move the board
in a pro-employer direction. Once these appointees were in place, the board began issuing
decisions that reversed earlier judgments supporting the rights of unions and unionized

Page 17 of 168