Professor Budd notes on pages 22 and 23 of our text two interesting ideas (highlighted in blue): what he terms a “representation gap” and the concept of “exclusive representation” that is a somewhat unique feature of the Amercian labor relations system (although perhaps not quite as unique as you might gather from the text – while Budd is right that only one union may represent the same group of workers, multiple unions do sometimes represent different groups of employees in the same company – in any event “wall to wall” units represented by one union are the most common).
According to the study cited by Budd (leave aside, for the moment, whether this research accurately captures worker sentiment toward unions), nearly 40% of workers in America today would like to be represented by a union, but only about 15% are (less than 10% in the private sector). Budd argues this “gap” is an important feature of the private sector labor relations environment and he suggests that employer opposition to unions in the private sector (as opposed to the public sector) is largely to blame.
The other feature of the current labor relations environment discussed by Budd is our system of “exclusive representation” – i.e. only one union can represent a discrete group of workers identified by the NLRB as an “appropriate unit” for bargaining. In order to win this monopoly power a union must show that a majority (i.e. 50% plus one employee) wish to be represented by the union.
Can you think of any other possible explanations for the “representation gap” described by Budd? Do you believe it exists? Why or why not?
