3/28/08: The value in forming a more perfect union

Recently, Michael Fryar, a lawyer formerly employed by the Connecticut Bar Association in New Britain, was fired, allegedly for beginning talks on unionizing the association.

Kevin Murphy, a representative of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 4, speaking on Fryar's behalf, claimed the firing was "clearly a case of anti-unionism."

My first response to this was -- no reference to Vice President Cheney intended -- "So?"

I can't remember the last time I heard about or from a union in central Connecticut, let alone about something any particular union had done for its workers. It seemed Fryar's reasons for wanting to form a union -- to have regularly scheduled performance evaluations -- was one only a lawyer would make.

Of course, the idea that an employee has been fired for trying to start a union is, itself, evidence a union is needed, since the purpose of unions is to prevent arbitrary and unilateral action by management -- action such as firing someone for talking about a union.

But once the union was formed, what is the likelihood it would do any actual good?

What do unions actually do, anyway?

My generation of 20somethings has a solid case for ignorance. Most of the picketing I've seen or heard of has been done by citizens protesting war, cruelty to animals or other ethical concerns -- such as the language used by an off-camera, off-work ESPN commentator -- rather than union workers on strike.

Until the Writer's Guild of America strike that put many of our favorite TV shows on hiatus sans heartwarming Christmas episodes, I had gone the better part of three decades not thinking about unions.

Even then, I grumbled along with millions of other Americans at not being able to watch my shows, rather than sympathizing with the demands of the writer, who seemed greedy of dishonest.

I'm not alone in my disdain for unions. According to a poll conducted by the Connecticut Business Industry Association, which represents more than 10,000 Connecticut businesses, 31 percent of respondents felt union leaders were "not trustworthy." An additional 20 percent were "not familiar" enough with the issue to respond. In fact, union leaders were considered more untrustworthy than political leaders, trial attorneys, the business community and employers. Connecticut seems to agree that unions are not the way to go.

But this is not good news. While the current presidential administration shifts funding from formerly federal social welfare programs to "faith-based initiatives" and encourages tax breaks for the wealthy, low-income Americans find themselves becoming poorer and balancing precariously above an increasingly frayed safety net.

If the government will not stand up for the rights of the working poor, many of whom are in manufacturing or retail jobs, someone else must; this is why unions exist.

Unlike entertainment industry strikes, which are high-profile, most union negotiations don't concern the rest of us directly; we can go on with our lives not knowing whether a local welder's union has dental insurance or whether postal workers get more or fewer paid vacation days than we do.

But the standard set for industry, especially the reinforcement of statutory rights -- laws set by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, workers compensation or unemployment or disability benefits, for example -- keep us safe, whether we know it or not. They keep us safe from unfair treatment or hazards on the job, as workers and they guarantee that as consumers, what we buy will not make us complicit to injustice.

That's worth paying attention to.