As I have already contended in a number of different forums, the monopolistic type of unionism now authorized and promoted by federal labor policy for more than three quarters of a century is
detrimental to the interests of Americans of all races and ethnicities.
The evidence actually suggests that Black Americans, the racial group Big Labor propagandists especially like to depict as the supposed
beneficiaries of monopolistic unions, suffer disproportionately severe damage.
The fact that a labor-law system empowering a single union to act as the “exclusive” bargaining agent for all of the front-line employees in a business, regardless of whether they wanted to join that union or not, would turn out to have a negative impact on the black community wouldn’t have surprised the vast majority of the black leaders who were around when this system was forged.
Herbert Hill, an industrial-relations professor and the labor director of the NAACP from 1951 to 1977, pointed out in his history of black workers and American laws and courts that the pro-union
monopoly and pro-forced unionism National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (NLRA) was adopted despite the “intense opposition of the NAACP, the National Urban League, and other Negro interest groups.”
Section 9 of the NLRA, which Hill regarded as the law’s “most important feature,” was taken from Section 7(a) of the National Recovery Act (NRA), rubber-stamped in the early days of the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Administration in 1933. Hill explained that Section 7(a) established labor unions as exclusive collective bargaining agents through a process of governmental certification by the National Labor Relations Board. Because most of the unions affiliated with the American Federation of Labor [or AFL, a precursor to today’s AFL-CIO] either excluded Negro workers from membership . . . , thus preventing their employment in union-controlled jobs, or engaged in other discriminatory practices, spokesmen for the black community vigorously opposed Section 7a.
W.E.B. Du Bois, cofounder of the NAACP in 1909, editor of the NAACP’s journal, and intellectual father of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, forthrightly laid out the basis of his opposition to any legislation or law granting special privileges to AFL union officials in a late 1933 commentary:
Herbert Hill, Black Labor and the American Legal System, University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisc., 1977, vol. 1, pp. 101-2. Page 2 of 7, The A.F. of L. has from the beginning of its organization stood up and lied brazenly about its attitude toward Negro labor. They have affirmed and still affirm that they wish to organize Negro labor when this is a flat and proven falsehood.
They do not wish to organize Negroes. They keep Negroes out of every single organization where they can. They allow any organization under the Federation to exclude Negroes and make no protest. . . . Whenever any trade union within the A.F. of L. does receive Negro laborers, it does so against the policy of the A.F. of L. leaders, and it is encouraged to discriminate against the Negroes
even if they are in the ranks of union labor. Du Bois was a socialist who harbored little sympathy toward businessmen, especially the owners and managers of large businesses.
Therefore, it is especially noteworthy that he recognized that employers, regardless of their motivation, typically did far more than union officials to promote the economic advancement of black workers.