Last week a bunch of top-flight economists signed on in support of the Employee Free Choice Act, and of course Greg Mankiw is there to rebut them. But Mankiw does a disappointing job. He starts off with an economic perspective and cites a sixteen year-old quote from Larry Summers to do so -- but we've been over that before. Then he spouts conservative talking points on the secret ballot (which wouldn't be eliminated) and union organizers hypothetically strong-arming people, which is not something there is much evidence of (or incentive to do). Mankiw is smarter than that -- he ought to know that management does plenty of strong-arming by firing and intimidating pro-union workers. "As a matter of procedural fairness, I cannot understand why one would oppose a secret ballot," he says, revealing that he has no idea what he's talking about. As a matter of procedural fairness, the current method of creating a union under the National Labor Relations Act is ridiculously stacked in favor of businesses, who indeed usually know how their employees will vote. Giving workers more control over the process and increasing penalties on malfeasance is a step towards greater fairness. There are definitely flaws in both sides' arguments surrounding union organization, but there's no question who has greater advantage in the NRLA election process (management) or what workers actually want (easier access to unions). Matt has gotten at this before, but Mankiw is really being outclassed by other conservative economists who offer much stronger challenges to liberal ideas. Our Harvard don mentions the matter of unions and cartels as if economists' take on labor is a settled matter, but clearly you can be a smart economist and think that the countervailing power of the labor movement is a critical part of the modern capitalist system. Maybe Mankiw could speak to that and leave the spin to conservative political operatives, unless that's how he conceives himself now.
-- Tim Fernholz
