Right to Unionize

One of the most consistent themes in CST, emphasized literally from the beginning, has been a ringing affirmation of the right of workers to organize themselves into unions. 

In 1973, private sector unionization was 25%.  In 1980, it was 20%.   This past year, it dropped down to a new low of 7.8%.  And successful organization drives are extremely rare, virtually ensuring that the number will continue to drop.

I suppose someone here will argue that perhaps unions are simply not as attractive to workers as they once were, or that the economy has changed since the mid-20th century in ways that have had the natural effect of reducing union membership.  But, while these arguments may explain the general direction of the trend, it's hard to attribute the almost negligible level of unionization in the private workplace in this country to purely structural causes when one considers the situation in, say, Canada, where the rate of unionization in the private sector is significantly higher in a more or less identical economy. 

Many commentators point to the unfavorable laws in this country requiring secret ballot votes in order to certify a union.  The effect of requiring union elections has been to expose workers to protracted (and often coercive) employer campaigns against unionization.   Republican policy makers have applauded the decline of unions and have demonstrated a relentless hostility towards unionization efforts.  Needless to say, the fact that they have controlled the White House for all but 8 of the past 24 years means that their views have had some impact on labor policy.

All of this is to ask whether the argument can be made that this country and this administration (in actual practice if not in word) denies workers their fundamental right to organize.  That is, it seems reasonable to me to understand CST as requiring more than mere lip service to the right to organize.  It is not enough simply to affirm the right and to avoid direct state coercion of union organizers.  As the CST documents make clear, the state has an affirmative duty to protect workers from even private coercion.  At least in terms of the results of U.S. labor policy, I think it is apparent that we are falling short, and I think the blame rests largely (though not exclusively) with the party in power.

UPDATE:  To be clear, in laying responsibility with the party in power, I am not making a claim that Republican policy caused the decline in union membership.  My only causal assumption here is to assume that labor policy has something to do with the decline.  I attribute responsibility to the Republicans only because they are the party in power (and therefore in a position to do something about the issue) and because they are, as an ideological matter, expressly hostile to unions.