In the article Moving beyond the critical synthesis: does the law preclude a future for US unions? Richard Hurd argues that Christopher L. Tomlins' argument that the strength of labor unions would dissipate with time and revival efforts would fail is an accurate representation of what has happened over the years. Hurd presents hard and indisputable facts to prove that labor unions have lost the drive they used to have in the past quarter-century. Moreover, the author does not depend on his opinions to make arguments. Instead, he bases his arguments on documented evidence from other reputable authors such as Jean-Christian Vinel.
Hurd notes that he was skeptical “regarding the New Deal and its supposed left progressive tilt” (Hurd, 2013) . As such, he considers Tomlins’ work as a vindication and a confirmation of his less well framed arguments. Hurd notes that the formation of the National Labor Relations Act was the beginning of the fall of the labor unions. The Act not only curbed the workers' militancy but also weakened the labor movement's resolve to protect workers interests. However, unions tried the best they could to fight off external influence and to maintain their relevance. Hurd presents hard evidence to support this claim. He notes that the Communications Workers of America and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) initiated broad-based efforts to inspire activism and militancy within the unions. While the Communications Workers of America devoted most of its resources to increase member involvement in coalitions and workplace actions, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) designed a contract to increase militancy during contract negotiations (Hurd, 2013).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Hurd pokes holes in some of Tomlins’ arguments regarding the effectiveness of the labor unions. For instance, as argued by Becker, “Tomlins failed to appreciate internal complexities of the labor movement and its responses to the NLRA” (Hurd, 2013) . Moreover, although Becker agreed “that the New Deal ‘was hardly an unalloyed victory for unions” he chided Tomlins for dismissing the rights the labor unions got through the NLRA. Hurd demonstrates how union density continued to decline despite concerted efforts to build an activist culture (Hurd, 2013). Unionists had embraced the organizing model and believed that it would help in restoring the militancy of members. However, within a few years, the unionists realized that the organizing model was only useful during the renewal of the collective bargaining agreement. Union leaders found it difficult to mobilize its members. More so, most of the union officials reported burnout, and they lacked the enthusiasm to accomplish their tasks. Unlike the union leaders, union members were tired of the constant warfare and instead rooted for stability.
Hurd's claims on the impact of Wagner's Act on the strength of the labor unions are supported by Skocpol, Finegold and Goldfield in the article Explaining new deal labor policy . In this article, the authors note that the Wagner Act represented a turnaround from the industrial labor policies of the early New Deal (Skocpol, Finegold, & Goldfield, 1990). Not only did the Wagner Act deracialize the unions, but it also prevented political radicalization and a possible revolution. If the current state of the labor unions is anything to go by, then it seems that Tomlins ' original conclusions have stood the test of time. In this era of globalization, deregulation, privatization, global free trade, and financial market speculation have reshaped the labor market thus weakening labor unions and undermining collective action. Undoubtedly, Hurd presents thought-provoking evidence to support Tomlin's prediction.
Over the years, companies have been working under the scenes to circumvent labor unions and to weaken their impact. However, when push comes to shove, companies have been forced to bargain their way through employee strikes. Some of the effective collective bargaining strategies in use include ensuring that the bargaining process does not last for long and keeping bargaining simple by focusing on essential issues (Lehr, Akkerman, & Torenvlied, 2015). It is common for either side of the bargaining parties to drag or to slow down negotiations for their reasons. For instance, the employers may delay negotiations on salary increment with the hope that the workers resolve to strike will dissipate with time.
On the other hand, workers may delay the negotiations hoping for a better deal. However, as noted by Lehr, Akkerman, and Torenvlied, this method is counterproductive. Not only does it waste time and resources, but the more the bargaining process drags on, the more frustrations build up. As such, as soon as the bargaining process ends, another bargaining process can be initiated by either party. In the same breath, keeping bargaining simple and focused ensures that only high priority issues are dealt with. Instead of overloading the bargaining process with all manners of requirements and details, highlighting issues that have great value to the employees makes realm change easier.
Undoubtedly, Hurd's article paints a real picture of the development of labor unions over the years. While labor unions have played a commendable role in ensuring workers interests are taken care of, they have also been subjected to infighting and retrogressive laws that have reduced their effectiveness. I believe that politics and modernity have whittled down the significance of labor unions. As noted by Skocpol, Finegold and Goldfield, the Wagner Act's original purpose was to strengthen labor unions. However, the Act included provisions that favored employees over labor unions. For instance, the Act prevented the aggressiveness and militancy that was synonymous with the unions in the 18 th century.
In general, the article Moving beyond the critical synthesis: does the law preclude a future for US unions? proves that Christopher L. Tomlins was right when he predicted that the strength of labor unions would dissipate with time and revival efforts would fail terribly. Today's unions are toothless. Employees are also frustrated and demoralized by the length it takes for a labor union to make considerable changes in their lives. Additionally, companies have been using the law to frustrate labor unions. By dragging the bargaining process for long, companies have been able to control labor unions.
References
Hurd, R. W. (2013). Moving beyond the critical synthesis: does the law preclude a future for US Unions? Labor History, 54 (2), 193-200. doi:10.1080/0023656X.2013.773147
Lehr, A., Akkerman, A., & Torenvlied, R. (2015). The Influence of External Information on Collective Bargaining: Survey Evidence of Union and Firm Negotiators in the Netherlands. Industrial Relations, 70 (2), 327-352. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/24641882
Skocpol, T., Finegold, K., & Goldfield, M. (1990). Explaining New Deal Labor Policy. The American Political Science Review, 84 (4), 1297-1315. doi:10.2307/1963265
