Benjamin Sachs is the Kestnbaum Professor of Labor and Industry at Harvard Law School and a leading expert in the field of labor law and labor relations. He is also faculty director of the Center for Labor and a Just Economy. Professor Sachs teaches courses in labor law, employment law, and law and social change, and his writing focuses on union organizing and unions in American politics. Prior to joining the Harvard faculty in 2008, Professor Sachs was the Joseph Goldstein Fellow at Yale Law School. From 2002-2006, he served as Assistant General Counsel of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) in Washington, D.C. Professor Sachs graduated from Yale Law School in 1998, and served as a judicial law clerk to the Honorable Stephen Reinhardt of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. His writing has appeared in the Harvard Law Review, the Yale Law Journal, the Columbia Law Review, the New York Times and elsewhere. Professor Sachs received the Yale Law School teaching award in 2007 and in 2013 received the Sacks-Freund Award for Teaching Excellence at Harvard Law School. He can be reached at [email protected].
Robert VerBruggen has some productive thoughts in response to my post on “Conservatives, Alt-Labor, and Coercion.” He asks us to put ourselves in the place of an employee who begins work at a firm when the firm is nonunion, and to imagine that the workforce then elects to unionize. In those circumstances, he argues, “[y]our only options are to quit your job – which, again, you took on terms that were and remain acceptable to both you and your employer – or accept the terms of a contract that neither you nor your employer would have signed absent government union policies. I don’t see how this isn’t coercive, both to your employer and to you.”
But now compare this situation: you start working in a nonunion setting at a wage of $15 per hour, and then the employer lowers the wage to $12 per hour. Are you “coerced” into accepting the new wage because it was imposed after you started working and because your only options are to quit or accept the new term? No. We don’t consider this coercion because there are acceptable choices available to you. You have the option to reject the $14 per hour wage and seek work elsewhere and thus a decision to stay and earn $12 per hour is a voluntary decision.
So, again, VerBruggen’s argument that unionism is coercive depends on the fact that the government is involved in facilitating unionization. It’s true, of course, that federal labor law alters the choices that employees have to make. Labor law means that some employees – who would have preferred to remain nonunion – will have to choose between a union and nonunion workplace. But that’s not coercion, at least on the conventional understanding of it. Coercion implies a lack of alternatives or a lack of acceptable alternatives, not simply altered choice sets. And even with federal facilitation of unionization, 93% of the jobs in the private sector remain open to those employees who don’t want collective bargaining. That is certainly an acceptable alternative to remaining in a firm that unionizes – even granting government intervention to facilitate the unionization process.
As I wrote in the earlier post, labor law might be seen as coercing employers, because employers have no choice but to accept a collective bargaining relationship if their employees vote for one. But employees always maintain the freedom to leave one job and choose another if they don’t like unionization. It’s this freedom that, in our legal culture, makes the employee’s choice to stay at a firm after it unionizes a voluntary one.
Daily News & Commentary
Start your day with our roundup of the latest labor developments. See all
November 24
Labor leaders criticize tariffs; White House cancels jobs report; and student organizers launch chaperone program for noncitizens.
November 23
Workers at the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority vote to authorize a strike; Washington State legislators consider a bill empowering public employees to bargain over workplace AI implementation; and University of California workers engage in a two-day strike.
November 21
The “Big Three” record labels make a deal with an AI music streaming startup; 30 stores join the now week-old Starbucks Workers United strike; and the Mine Safety and Health Administration draws scrutiny over a recent worker death.
November 20
Law professors file brief in Slaughter; New York appeals court hears arguments about blog post firing; Senate committee delays consideration of NLRB nominee.
November 19
A federal judge blocks the Trump administration’s efforts to cancel the collective bargaining rights of workers at the U.S. Agency for Global Media; Representative Jared Golden secures 218 signatures for a bill that would repeal a Trump administration executive order stripping federal workers of their collective bargaining rights; and Dallas residents sue the City of Dallas in hopes of declaring hundreds of ordinances that ban bias against LGBTQ+ individuals void.
November 18
A federal judge pressed DOJ lawyers to define “illegal” DEI programs; Peco Foods prevails in ERISA challenge over 401(k) forfeitures; D.C. court restores collective bargaining rights for Voice of America workers; Rep. Jared Golden secures House vote on restoring federal workers' union rights.