By Stuart Gordon
The right to unionize and the right to take action to prevent unionizing are actually very similar. They both have the purpose of increasing one group’s power over the other. However, it goes even deeper than that. The justification of both groups comes out to about the same. Consequently, if one is legal, the other should be as well.
All people have certain inalienable rights. These rights include the ones given by the First Amendment: freedom of speech, assembly, religion, etc. However, something to note here is that the rights described by the First Amendment mainly refer to what the government cannot restrict. They don’t necessarily apply to every situation. Nobody can say whatever they want to another person and expect no consequences. A person can’t justify insulting his girlfriend, then say that she can’t end the relationship because of that, based on freedom of speech. Similarly, a person can’t say whatever he or she likes at work and then claim freedom of speech when he or she is about to be fired. Legally allowed actions can be responded to with legally allowed consequences.
When a business is acting within the law, it has the right to be run in whichever way is in its best interest. This is what a business is doing when it is trying to prevent its employees from unionizing. And though the employees have the right to try unionizing, the business has the right to try to prevent it.
Take, for example, Walmart, which has put a lot of effort into preventing its employees from unionizing. Many smaller companies have to treat their employees fairly or those employees will quit. Walmart has the luxury of having so many employees that losing one, two, 10, or many more will go unnoticed when the bottom line is totaled. There is no doubt that Walmart holds power over its employees. However, that still doesn’t mean that Walmart can do whatever it wants.
There are labor laws to protect employees from abuse, as well as set minimum wages and maximum working hours. These spell out the minimum standards that all employers must meet. However, there are other options as well. For example: Don’t work for Walmart. My opinion may change if the company becomes so big that it’s the world’s only remaining business. But until that time, people will always have the option of not working for Walmart. People can learn as much as they want about a job before they accept it. And after they accept a job, people can always quit. But no one is forced to work for Walmart. Sure, the company may be able to exert a great deal of control over its employees, but it can never exert more control over an individual than that individual is willing to allow.
Traditional employment is a social contract. An employee says, “I will do this,” and a company says, “I will provide this.” Whenever one side becomes unhappy with the other, that side can fire the other one. Yes, employees can fire their bosses. It’s usually called quitting. The employee says the company is no longer able to receive the services he or she can provide.
Laws that would force a company to allow its employees to unionize would not be right. As long as a company is acting within the law, it should be allowed to treat its employees however it wants. Similarly, as long as an employee is acting within the law, he or she can treat the company however he or she wants. And if either party should decide to terminate the relationship, that is – and should always be – their right.
