Unions Should Fairly Represent Their Workers—In Politics, Too

If unions want to speak for their workers on political matters, they must first talk with them.

In case you missed it, watch this week’s episode of the American Compass Podcast: “Fighting for the Working Class with Rep. Riley Moore.”

---

Labor unions provide workers with a collective voice in the workplace, empowering them to negotiate better wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment. That core purpose is as important today as it ever was. But union leaders often stray from it, recasting their role as political activists first and workplace representatives second, to the detriment of both their organizing efforts and their ability to represent workers effectively. They endorse candidates for elected office, fund ideological advocacy campaigns, and take sides on polarizing issues where workers have no inherently shared interest, far removed from bread-and-butter economic concerns, oftentimes without consultation. By violating their duty to represent workers fairly, they are also violating the law.

Survey research from American Compass has shown that workers have a broad aversion to what they perceive as excessive involvement by organized labor in politics, alienating many workers who might otherwise be interested in joining a union. Potential union members prefer a union that focuses on workplace issues to one that also engages with national political matters by a margin of three to one. Among those who say they would not vote to join a union, the top reason is union political engagement. In other words, workers want representation in the workplace—not political activism outside of it.

Despite this, many union leaders regularly participate in the political domain, often without first consulting the workers they represent to discern their views. There is no vote, not even a conversation. That is not just frustrating to workers who might disagree with the union’s political decision-making. It undermines the core principles of unionism, such as accountability, responsiveness, and solidarity, and contravenes one of unions’ primary obligations: to represent workers fairly.

Under U.S. labor law, when workers vote to join a union, that union becomes the exclusive representative of all employees, whether they voted for the union or are members of it. That privilege of exclusivity provides the union significant power: it alone has the legal authority to negotiate wages and other terms and conditions of employment for workers in the bargaining unit. With that power comes a corresponding responsibility known as the duty of fair representation, which requires unions to represent all employees “fairly, impartially, and in good faith.”

The government enforces this duty in relation to unions’ core workplace functions—such as collective bargaining, grievance handling, and contract enforcement—but it has not applied the duty to their politicking. As I explain in a new paper, Organized Labor’s Democratic Deficit, it can and should. If unions wish to engage in politics, their duty of fair representation must extend to all their activities, including political ones.

Enforcing the duty of fair representation with regard to political activity would not prohibit unions from engaging in politics. Notwithstanding the general distaste among workers for politicking, legitimate reasons exist for unions to engage in the political domain. As with anything they do, the duty simply requires them to make a good-faith effort to consult the workers they represent before leveraging their power of exclusive representation to achieve political objectives.

Nor would enforcement preclude unions from applying their political judgment to the feedback they receive, even leading in some cases to choices that are not entirely popular. But workers would know this had occurred and could hold leaders accountable for explaining why. A small group of union leaders could not claim to speak for thousands of workers without ever consulting them. If a union wants to argue that its endorsement of a candidate or issue advocacy reflects “what workers want,” then workers should first be asked what they want. Unions spending time and resources without such consultation, and claiming to speak for people whose views might be the opposite, should be construed as acting unfairly and in bad faith—and suffer the legal consequences that result.

Would the duty applied in this way undermine unions by tying their hands or bogging them down in bureaucracy? Quite the opposite. Political accountability in this form could make unions more attractive to the millions of workers who might otherwise be interested in joining one, if not for the perception that unions are partisan political actors, providing rubber-stamp support for one party (the Democrats) and its policy positions over another. The requirement would also amplify the political engagement of labor leaders when they do choose to act, credibly establishing that they are speaking on behalf of a much larger group.

A union that listens to its members is more likely to be trusted, grow, and succeed. Today, that trust is often missing. Applying the duty of fair representation to political activity would help restore it. If unions want to speak for all workers, they must first talk with them.