The Union Security Issue

Abstract

ONE of the earliest demands of American trade unionists was for a closed or union shop. Even before the establishment of collective bargaining procedures the Philadelphia cordwainers attempted to force their employers to employ no one but members of their association. These demands appeared outrageous to employers and to most of the judges before whom unionists were brought on conspiracy charges. In 1842, however, Chief Justice Shaw, of Massachusetts, held that strengthening of union organization was a legitimate objective and that a strike to enforce a closed shop was not unlawful.' While this view has never been adopted in all of the state jurisdictions, the union shop has continued to be an aspiration of most American trade unions. An examination of the 7,000 trade agreements on file with the Bureau of Labor Statistics in 1939 shows that more than half of them contain some type of union shop clause. By 1941 it was estimated that approximately 4,000,000 workers were covered by union shop contracts. The arguments currently presented to the National War Labor Board bear a strong family resemblance to those presented in Commonwealth v. Hunt. Employers argue that the union shop is an intolerable abrogation of individual liberty and that in a democratic country every man should be free to decide for himself whether or not he wishes to belong to a union. The unions reply that all workers who enjoy representation by a union and who share in the advantages which the union is able to gain should contribute to its support. They contend that compulsory union membership is no more a violation of individual liberty than compulsory citizenship. Beneath these moralistic arguments lies the indisputable fact that union shop agreements contribute to a union's strength and prestige, and are an indication that it has achieved permanent status in an industry. Employer opposition to the union shop stems largely from apprehension conce ning the consequences of a strengthened and permanent union. Many employers suspect that a secret objective of modern unionism is actual participation in the entrepreneurial function and that the union shop is merely one step toward the achievement of this longrange goal. This view was expressed recently by an employer member of the National War Labor Board: Automatically such a policy leads to union shop, closed shop, control of hiring, and finally, the transfer to others of the rights and obligations of management. 2 When both sides feel that the issue is practically one of survival, compromise becomes very difficult. Particularly in time of national crisis an issue fraught with such high emotional content is dangerous in the extreme.