The national trade-union […] is not merely a response to monopoly. It hastens the growth of larger industrial units. By its insistence upon similar or uniform standards, it increases the relative costs for the smaller plants and adds to their difficulties of survival in the face of competition from the larger corporations.
An almost classic example of these tendencies is offered by the behavior of the American Federation of Musicians in the motion-picture industry. The small producers in Los Angeles were compelled to accept the contract signed by the large ones. The union insisted that each producer engage a twenty-piece orchestra on a permanent two-year basis. If the producer did not need a permanent orcestra, he was required to hire a fifty-piece orchestra at a minimum of $25 an hour for each musician for no less than three hours any time he used a band. A company that had previously been able to meet its need for music for $240 now had a minimum expenditure of $3,750. The small companies, under duress, acquiesced in hiring a twenty-man orchestra for 52 weeks, at an annual cost of $16,900 per man. The band was under contract to play 520 hours during the year. The small companies, however, did not require a twenty-piece band, nor could they use 520 hours of music a year, but they were forced to pay for both, and for two weeks’ vacation at full pay, in addition to the 52 weeks contracted for.1
In other words, small companies, which used to get along with eight men, now had twelve additional musicians forced upon them. “Every contract in the industry compels the employer to hire the number of 20 (musicians) for the number of hours determined, not by the employer, but by the representative of the union.”2 The contract of the major studios is forced upon the smaller ones because “they won’t work for us” otherwise.
A similar story can be told for the radio industry. […]
The American Federation of Musicians required the “Metropolitan stations where orchestras were available to expend 5 1/2 per cent of their net income for staff orchestras,” in spite of the fact that one of the local broadcasting companies using orchestras was losing money.3 It required broadcasting companies to hire musicians even if they did not need theme, and there are reports that some stations paid a stand-by orchestra for two years without their playing a single note. The Chicago musicians’ local forced a minimum of eight stand-by musicians on radio stations, and mechanical devices had to be handled by members of the union. Similar practices were developed in other fields requiring musicians. The Shuburt Lafayette Theatre was forced to hire six musicians, whom it did not want or need, at $525 a week, and upon refusal found that the stage hands would not work, and later that it could get no bookings unless it complied.
The Chicago local of the American Federation of Musicians tried to force the Chicago Opera House to take 29 musicians for an ice show when the regular orchestra of the house consisted of 8, and to pay for 10 performances for 9 shows at $25 a musician for each performance. The show was canceled.
When the Metropolitan Opera played in Chicago, a stand-by conductor at $370 and 7 men at $189 a week were forced upon the theater. This same opera house had to hire a stand-by orchestra of as many musicians as a touring ballet company carried, 18 in number.4
[…]
Such practices by a trade-union require complete authority over the labor in the industry. That power the American Federation of Musicians claims for itself. Jmes C. Petrillo, the president of the union, believs that “Monopoly, so far as labor is concerned, is justifiably, because only in that way can the union become strong and increase wages of the workman and better his condition.”5
[…]
The union can exercise these controls because all musicians working for a living with their instruments are members of the organization. And all musicians are members of the union because no one could earn a living by playing unless he was a member. This means, in effect, that a contract with the union is a license to operate.
Footnotes:1 - Hearings before the Special Subcommittee of the Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives, 80th Congress, 1st Session Pursuant to H. Res. 111. Hearings held June, July, and August 1947, p. 76, “Testimony of Isaac E. Chadwick, President, Independent Motion Picture Producers Association, Los Angeles, Calif.” (Return to place in text)
2 - Ibid., p. 76. (Return to place in text)
3 - Ibid., p. 538, “Testimony of Lewis Allen Weiss, Executive, Mutual Broadcating System and Don Lee Broadcasting System, Los Angeles, California.” (Return to place in text)
4 - Ibid., p. 288, “Testimony of James C. Thompson, Operator of Chicago Opera House and Civic Theater, Chicago, Ill.” (Return to place in text)
5 - Hearings, VI, p. 349, “Testimony of James C. Petrillo, President, American Federation of Musicians.” (Return to place in text)
Obviously, it is not the existence of the labor union itself that made life hell for the smaller producers and other users of musicians. It is the way it acts. The complicated, twisted, evil rules illustrates the classic problem of neutral standards and standards that serve to harm certain interests. These are always tricky to sort out, but in this case the labor union has the right to demand uniform pay for work, and in particular that if you are just going to use musicians occasionally you have to understand that said musicians still have to eat the rest of the time too, and that they are keeping in practice and all that as well. It is ridiculous, however, to expect small places to employ musicians full time and in particular to employ some arbitrary number instead of the number needed. The moral way to solve this problem is for the union to say, well, we need to keep our workers (and that should be all people who want to be musicians, not those that the union chooses to accept) provided for and you take advantage of this fact. So the union imposes a tax on everyone who uses musician labor enough to support musicians who don't currently have enough work. The more musicians who are employed, who work regularly at any kind of work, and the less this tax will be. The union then goes about trying to make sure that every musician is employed, without coercing anybody out of business.
Abuse of ‘standards’ is rampant everywhere, and often hard to spot. Jobs that require too much time to have a family without someone else being a primary caregiver, without the option of doing the same work but less of it; jobs that require continual labor force participation when such a necessity is really extremely rare; and jobs that structure time when this is not needed all discriminate against people who want a sane life and women who have children in particular.
Looking at the sources, they seem like they might be a tad anti-union. But this seems to be a very powerful union that misused its power. Incidentally, do movie studios or radio stations or anyone employ musicians anymore?&nbps; What did this union gain for musicians, aside from the money obtained for its members, which it could have done without causing undue hardship for independent employers?
All unions have to analyze the economic situation and refrain from ever imposing any unfair costs on smaller employers. Everything can be taken into accont. Is it more pleasant to work at some small place where you can chat with the customers than at a Burger King assembly-line style check-out? Then labor costs should be less there.
Workers need power to get what they deserve, but this power must be used justly, towards that end and for all workers, and not just for members of a particular union.
Unions should get for fair pay for their members and all workers, not obtain “complete authority over the labor in the industry.” It’s not fair, but a union should consist of its members and nothing more, and if a virtual labor monopoly is obtained it must be used responsibly.
Also, when membership is a licence to operate, a union crosses the line into being a professional organization like doctors or lawyers, which always seem to try to control membership. Unions should have to take all workers.
All workers, union or not, need to get equal pay for equal work; if a union has increased these wages non-union workers owe the union dues or some portion of dues, but they should not need membership to get a job.