Commentary

History and Background

The readings in the text provide a chronological account of some of the most important events, organizations, leaders, and laws that shaped the history of collective bargaining in the United States. The information in the readings provides a kind of roadmap of the evolution of labor-management relations in this country.

Once you have read this material, try to step back and look at the “big picture” (i.e., the manner in which the players and processes described have changed over time). Go back to the end of the 1700s and the beginning of the 1800s and think about the nature of the relationship between employees and employers. How has that relationship changed over time? What role has the government played in the relationship and how has that role changed over time? Why did unions arise and how have they evolved in the last 200 years? Being familiar with these issues will help you understand the contemporary labor-management relationship.

Ultimately, the study of the past is helpful in understanding the present because it reveals certain themes and patterns that occur time and time again. This is why the famous quote by Mexican historian Santayana rings so true: “Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it.”

In labor history, one of the themes we see repeatedly is that the balance of power in the labor-management relationship is cyclical in nature and varies depending on the state of the economy and the public policy in place at the time. In other words, if we look back over the last 200 years, we see that, at some points, unions seemed to have greater bargaining power than employers, and at other points in time, employers had the upper hand. In either case, certain economic and political factors had a big impact on the bargaining power of the parties.

In terms of the economy, employers appear to have the advantage vis a vis unions during recessions when the unemployment rate is growing. High unemployment  provides a ready pool of excess labor that employers can turn to for replacement workers if their employees go out on strike. Unions readily recognize this fact and understand that their members are reluctant to withhold their labor when there is a high likelihood they will be replaced by unemployed workers. Employers are also aware that their employees are far less likely to risk a strike when unemployment is high. And without the ability to back up threats of a strike with action, unions have little leverage to force the employer to improve wages, benefits, and working conditions.

On the other hand, if there is very low unemployment, almost everyone has jobs, and few workers are readily available to serve as strikebreakers. In this situation, unions and their members know that they are unlikely to be replaced if they go out on strike. If they can convince the employer that they are, indeed, willing to walk out, the threat itself will probably give the union some advantage in bargaining.