Why Companies Can’t Simply Close or Hire Immigrants to Avoid Union Strikes

In recent discussions and debates, many have argued that blue collar union workers in America should be fired or have their companies close and move to avoid strikes over wages. This article explores the realities and complexities behind these arguments, highlighting the impact on both workers and employers, as well as providing insights into current labor laws and conditions.

Understanding the Complexities

Employers do have the option to close and move their operations, but it comes with significant financial and legal implications. When companies offshore jobs, they often do so to take advantage of cheaper labor markets. This shift is not a simple decision, as it involves relocating infrastructure, retraining staff, and incurring substantial costs.

Moreover, hiring immigrants has become a common strategy for many companies, especially small and medium enterprises (SMEs). Immigrants often accept lower wages, longer hours, and substandard working conditions, driven by desperation. They may lack legal protections and the means to stand up against unfair labor practices, making them an attractive option for employers. However, this practice can perpetuate a cycle of exploitation and inequality.

Union Concessions and Labor Relations

It's important to recognize that union workers have often made concessions in the past, reducing wages and benefits to help their companies. This strategy allowed companies to weather financial storms and remain competitive. Now, as these companies achieve profit, the unions are demanding fair compensation. Senior management perceives this as a fair request, given the value they have provided to the company.

The core question is: what is fair? Companies argue that they are legally entitled to close or relocate if doing so benefits their bottom line. However, this view does not fully account for the loss and disruption to workers' lives. The average line worker at a company like GM makes less than $50,000 per year, compared to a CEO who makes over $29,000,000 annually. This disparity is untenable and reflects a fundamental imbalance in the labor market.

Government Involvement and Worker Rights

When companies face financial trouble, they often rely on government bailouts. In such cases, workers have no recourse and no financial support. This situation highlights the importance of fair labor practices and regulations. Companies should be encouraged to negotiate in good faith with workers rather than threatening to close and relocate, which would require substantial investment in new infrastructure and workforce.

From a practical standpoint, closing a company and hiring new workers would be extremely costly. The process involves building new facilities, retraining personnel, and ensuring compliance with labor laws. These expenses, when compared to the cost of paying existing workers’ demands, would be far outweighed by the latter option. The argument for paying workers what they deserve is compelling, given the significant financial burden associated with relocation.

Conclusion

The debate over union strikes and the actions of employers is complex and multifaceted. While it is understandable for companies to seek financial stability, the rights and well-being of workers must be considered. Closing or relocating operations to avoid union demands would be costly and disruptive, and perpetuates a system of inequality. Companies should take a more collaborative approach, negotiating fair compensation and working conditions to maintain long-term stability and ethical standards.