Labor’s position on the megamerger of AT&T and T-Mobile is a useful example of how unions often don’t fall in line with progressive expectations.
Because the Communications Workers of American (CWA) has a national contract with AT&T, it is brushing aside arguments that combining these two telecommunications giants would dangerously concentrate economic power.
I’m with CWA on this one...
...even though the acquisition of T-Mobile by AT&T creates the largest cell phone carrier, reduces competition in the industry and could raise consumer costs.
Here’s the reason:
There are tens of thousands of CWA members at AT&T. The union has been aggressively targeting workers at T-Mobile, which has fiercely resisted unionization. If the merger goes through, CWA fully expects AT&T’s union neutrality policy to extend to former T-Mobile employees who will then almost certainly be brought into the fold.
This is the kind of pragmatic institutional decision that unions make all the time if given the opportunity.
CWA will use its political influence to try to persuade federal regulators that the merger does not violate anti-trust laws.
You don’t have to like everything CWA does (the union has been denounced, for example, for organizing in the Indian Gaming industry where it allegedly undercuts the jurisdiction and national strategy of Unite Here) to support this important union development in the cell phone industry.
That’s the American labor movement. And those who have joined with us thanks to Madison had better get used to our imperfect and sometimes paradoxical ways.
Another example:
The Los Angeles labor movement has a reciprocal relationship with many big developers whose projects are union-built and - when completed – offer newly hired employees the option to vote union without management opposition.
It’s a good deal for workers even if you’re not a fan of downtown L.A.’s new sports, entertainment and hospitality venues.