The Post's Alec MacGillis looks at the competing narratives of the Employee Free Choice Act. It's a useful article for understanding the debate around the legislation, though I think the piece underserves the subtlety around what labor supporters are arguing unions do for the economy. It's not just a question of improving growth and productivity -- though there is evidence that suggests unionized workers are more productive -- it's about how productivity gains are distributed. I don't think many pro-labor economists would argue that union density was the single factor that led to economic growth in the 1950s and 1960s; certainly America's postwar economic dominance and various technology improvements were a major part of increasing productivity.
The question that's important is how those productivity gains were shared; at the time, unions helped ensure the growth of the middle class by making sure that working people had fairer wages and benefits, as well as more power in the workplace. Similarly, passing EFCA today wouldn't guarantee some kind of huge surge in productivity. But it would result in increasing wages for both union and non-union employees -- a fairly uncontroversial economic claim -- that would increase purchasing power for many consumers, bolstering growth. When EFCA opponents argue that this bill wouldn't improve the economy, for instance when Richard Epstein says stuff like,"If you want to look at the factors that account for the ups or down of the economy, labor policy -- which has been totally constant -- would be 83rd on the list," not only is he fudging the facts by saying labor policy has been "constant," he's also talking past what labor is arguing.
On the other hand, arguments that increased unionization would cause unemployment don't hold much water. Similarly, the idea that unions shrunk primarily because workers don't like them doesn't fit with contemporary polling data suggesting the opposite trend, or the progression of business-tilted workplace organizing regulations in the latter half of the 20th century.
-- Tim Fernholz
