Should Military Unionization Be Permitted?

This html article is produced from an uncorrected text file through optical character recognition. Prior to 1940 articles all text has been corrected, but from 1940 to the present most still remain uncorrected.  Artifacts of the scans are misspellings, out-of-context footnotes and sidebars, and other inconsistencies.  Adjacent to each text file is a PDF of the article, which accurately and fully conveys the content as it appeared in the issue.  The uncorrected text files have been included to enhance the searchability of our content, on our site and in search engines, for our membership, the research community and media organizations. We are working now to provide clean text files for the entire collection.

1’b

^e young soldier shown at left with General gander M. Haig during NATO maneuvers _l( ^f^ertnany last year is a member of the ^ *°nized Hutch “hair force.” The unkempt Ppearance and the lax practices engendered fo ^Unton~^won “reforms” in European armed th ^{CCS S}^^0,i^ S*^ve pause to those who advocate £ ^Unionization of U.S. military services.

₈ f^ending one’s country is more than just ^er job, and the rewards for such services

Q,Yg                                                          ^J

^ °t to be measured in the wage and fringe _Sf ^lef'^t demands that are the traditional ^c 'in-trade of unions.

ti^ ^t^^le private sector and in government service u_n*^las been a steady growth in the number of ^cUr ^rnerr>bers and the power of labor unions. Con­fer ^ent^’ ^many members of the armed forces have by ^^1Ve<J that their fringe benefits were being eroded aty ^e department of Defense, the administration, b(.j_n °ⁿgress. There have been precedents of unions ^formed in European armed forces,, and there Pe₀ . ^een ^^egal developments which seemed to some U_niQn^{e t0} open the door sufficiently wide for the

v_i]jan^e bloyd-La Follette Act of 1912 gave federal ci- Ut]j₀ "'others the right to petition Congress and join but _a^S_f ^Unions were not given the right to strike, th_e ^{a eW un}pJeasant incidents occurred, so in 1947 "'0r^°^Vernrnent specifically forbade strikes by federal th_{e f}^erS' ^In ^62, federal civilian workers were given 0eg_Ot^{Ight to secure} formal collective recognition and ^I'itj_0ri^ate eontracts. This gave unions official recog- fie_as ^{m c}be federal government. In 1967, pay in­hay f* ^for military personnel were coupled with the 4|jlj_t°^{r white} collar federal workers, and since 1974 Ve ^an<^ Civil Service have had the same effective

Th°^{f Pay}'

b. ^ ^cfosest association between unionism and the ' military came with implementation of Public

Law 90-486 in January 1969. Under this law, Na­tional Guard technicians, a special group of person­nel who occupy a position which is civilian in some respects and military in others, were to be considered civilian federal employees to the extent that they were able to join and be collectively represented by labor unions.

Among the unions now considering moving into the military are the American Federation of Govern­ment Employees (AFGE), the Association of Civilian Technicians (ACT), and the National Maritime Union (NMU). ACT has already begun active recruitment of National Guard and reserve personnel, but probably the greatest effort at unionization will come from AFGE, the largest union of federal employees. It has 300,000 members and represents in bargaining a total of 725,000 federal employees. AFGE began to show interest in unionizing the military in 1975, and on 11 June 197.6, its national executive council voted to urge the national convention to open mem­bership to the military. On 23 September 1976, the national convention so voted.

The current Department of Defense position is not that unions are illegal, but that the commanders are not authorized to recognize or bargain with such an organization.

Arguments Frequently Made in Favor of Unionization- What principally stimulated AFGE’s interest in unionizing active duty personnel was the govern­ment's decision to link federal civilian and military pay scales. The leaders of AFGE feel that the policy of pay comparability has created an economic bond which they consider sufficient to make unionization of the armed forces justifiable.

Minimizing the differences between military life and civilian life, AFGE s general counsel, Leo Pellerzi, has stated, It is a volunteer Army, and that means people are selecting a military career as a means of livelihood and not for patriotic reasons. Servicemen today aren t responding to an attack on the country. They want to be paid. He and other advocates of unionization point to West Germany, Denmark,

.eP¹

Sweden, Norway, Austria, and the Netherlands, where military unions exist and bargain to varying degrees with the government for wages and working conditions.

Among the irritants which have encouraged union recruiters have been recent proposals by the Depart­ment of Defense or Congress to cut back on pay raises, change the retirement plans, reduce the scope of medical care for dependents, and eliminate the subsidies to commissaries. All these have been viewed by many servicemen as a breach of faith and as a violation of the promises which were made to them when they enlisted. Clyde Webber, late presi­dent of AFGE, once stated, “We hear from military people who are toward the end of their career or re­tired, and they are just red hot. They talk about the loss of commissary privileges . . . about possible changes in health services, about the government [not] carrying out the promises made to them when they were recruited. They want us to help them. . . . Servicemen need somebody to represent them, that s for sure. We think we could perform a useful service doing that.”

Thus, one more argument for unionization is that the union would act as a lobby for military people to preserve fringe benefits and promote beneficial legis­lation. The union would provide a focal point for consultation with military commanders, service sec­retaries, and the Secretary of Defense on what the union considers essentially nonmilitary matters, such as pay, pensions, fringe benefits, leave policies, fam­ily housing, and medical care.

Another argument put forth by AFGE is that a union would counterbalance the irrational use of mil­itary command authority, such as falsifying readiness reports to promote the career of an ambitious officer. Still another function advocates of unions would like to see them perform is that of providing legal repre­sentation at general courts-martial, record reviews, and other administrative proceedings. Some union advocates argue that in order to correct problems, a means of feedback is required. By examining a griev­ance with a trained union representative, military management might be able to get at the root of a problem while it is small and solve it before it be­comes large.

Advocates of a union believe that a union repre­senting military personnel can operate effectively on behalf of its members without harm to military discipline—if it accepts certain limitations on its role. Among the limitations proposed are those of not being able to strike and not interfering in strictly military affairs. One union statement says that a union representing military personnel can be a posi­tive help in achieving military discipline and mo^r» ^ and in attracting and retaining an Army of vo teers which is both competent and representative the American people.

Arguments Against Unionization: The first arguing against unionization of the armed forces is that t linking of federal white collar pay and military P^a does not constitute sufficient basis for unionizing Comparability of pay does not indicate comparably of professions. The comparability of pay was ^ signed to ensure that civilian white collar wor y would not get raises in cases where the military not get them. It was not designed to equate the t vastly different professional groups. The advocates unionizing the military, with their attitude that just another job,” fail to take into consideration ¹ unique character of military service and wou undermine the esprit de corps and patriotic mOti^v tion of military personnel.       _it

The union viewpoint, with its emphasis on ^e nomic man” overlooks the nature of the relations ¹ between the military person and his “employ*^ who in reality is the American public. The sP^eC^_e hardships, the duty to obey, the frequent moves, y duty to endure long extra hours of work, the duty endure danger, and the duty to be willing to g¹^ one’s life in combat are not required of anyone else our society to the degree that they are required oft military. It takes a special kind of person to aCC? _t this life, and the rewards have to be more than ) money. There can be no adequate remuneration the hardships and dangers of military life, nor hourly wage scales be applied.                                              j,_e

A second argument against unionization o military is that collective bargaining cannot pract> ^ bly be applied to the military. The separation ^ powers and the divisions of authority in the fe ^e system limit the areas for dealing between an such as the Department of Defense, and its ployees. Many of the basic conditions of employ¹¹¹ are set by law and are not negotiable.     ._jC

Collective bargaining is essentially a compr^OI1\^| and balancing of opposing pressures of two so^ ^ groups. It suggests an adversary relationship ^a° ._e parity of powers, which is not, and should not be case with the military and our society. Militaryj ders or conditions are not subject to negotiation * should not be.     . .fl

A third argument against unionizing the mi ¹ j_{ is that union philosophy is alien to and incomp^at , with the ideals of the military profession. This damental difference in philosophy is one reason j disagreement on this issue promises to be deep

,^a!L^d t0 resolve. The two sides of the question have / ^erent assumptions about what military life should ^e and how much it can be like civilian life. Admiral ⁰ ert B. Carney, Chief of Naval Operations in the '1950s, once said at the Naval War College, ‘litary philosophies, bred and crystallized in the ^Uc,t>le of war against the elements and other adver­_t ^r|^es’ ^may not convincingly register on mentalities ^a,ned and experienced in totally different circum­stances.”

a °^w rheir example and permit unionization of our ^ed forces. The Dutch armed forces have recently as ^{tCn 3 re}P^utat*^on fer slovenliness and unreliability ^ ^a result of the activities of their military unions, in ^IC^ ^{are heav}‘ly infiltrated by left-wingers. Salut- ^das been abolished, long hair is permitted, uni- ^{afe s}^°PPy’ reduction in rank has been fy- ^lsbed, and extra duty must now be compensated Hj-j . l^eave time. The sergeant who heads one Dutch

‘The only time I ever uniform is when we stage a

demo

to wear nstration.”

, ^de fundamental difference between the philoso- ,^y P^rof^ess*^onal^s> such as the military, and the ^ ¹ osophy of unions, is that much union philosophy ^as emphasized conflict, bargaining, and strikes to _t|_i^rest resources from others, while the philosophy of ^e professional is to be of service and contribute re m order to be worth more. The difference bo­th ^{eetl tW}° ^aPP^r°aches may be seen by comparing tone of a union newspaper or magazine with the jj spaper or magazine of a professional group.

mon writing is class-conscious and combative, a .i Professional writing favors self-development ^nd service.

is ^ ^^0urtb argument against unionizing the military ^ ^tdat, if the experience of European armed forces ^s shown us anything, it is that we do not want to

jjbfary union has stated, ^0ther to wp^r my

^Sweden is a highly unionized country, with 90% o_r ^ts blue collar and 70% of its white collar workers _g)«^anized. In 1971, Sweden had an opportunity to Cj^P⁵⁶ the kind of problems a unionized military confront a society with in a situation of wide- ^^ead labor strife. The crisis began in January 1971 ^a fe^w thousand public service employees ^van ^ °^{ff theif} ’°^bs‘ ^{By March}’ 50,000 civil ser- ^{Were on} strike or locked out. As the unionized $_ta ^,tafy began to balk at being used in some in- th_r^{flCes to} break the strike, the government Off,^{eatened t0 lock out} 3,000 ^{of the} 5,000 military c ‘^{Cers on} 4 March. This would have sent 30,000 tn_a^SCr*P^ts home, and it did result in cancellation of t_er^neuvers fer 20,000 reservists. The Defense Minis- ^reassured the nation that key radar stations would

continue to be manned, and a Stockholm newspaper carried a cartoon of the Defense Minister saying, “It is forbidden to engage in war against Sweden during the lockout.” This dangerous and absurd situation was resolved before being played to its extreme con­clusion, but it illustrates what could happen.

Unions were authorized in the West German armed forces in 1958. Until 1966, only 2,500 out of 450,000 eligible men were members, but in 1966 unions were allowed to recruit in the barracks, which increased the membership. The whole idea behind unionizing the German military was to dilute the strength of the military. The fear of revived militarism appears to have been stronger than the desire for an effective military force. Unionism in West Germany is compatible with the concept of the soldier as a “civilian in uniform.”

West Germany also has an ombudsman to protect the civilians in uniform. He acts as eyes and ears for Parliament and reports periodically on the state of the armed forces. Recently he has found little evi­dence of a revival of militarism, but much evidence of a need for greater discipline.

A fifth argument against unionization of the mili­tary is that viable alternatives exist to ensure repre­sentation for servicemen and redress of legitimate grievances. The first thing any serviceman should do in order to solve any personal problem beyond his own ability is to use the chain of command. Any military person has the right to see his commanding officer and speak with him about any problem which

The thing about it is that you cannot control individual elements of an organization whether it happens to be the U.S. Army ... or the AFGE. People take into their own hands what they think they have to."

Clyde Webber

i o*¹

affects him. In most cases, the commanding officer can either help him solve the problem or refer him to someone who can.

Every serviceman should vote. This gives him the same chance that all other citizens have of electing their representatives in Congress. He has a greater stake in this matter than a person in the private sec­tor, because the man the serviceman helps elect will play a key role in deciding military salary and bene­fits. Another thing a serviceman can do if he has a grievance which he feels is not being handled by the chain of command is to write his Congressman. This gets results, and usually quickly.

There are also chaplains available. They are trained not only to give consoling words to a troubled man, but to counsel him in practical matters such as finan­cial management. Free legal advice is available at those military installations which have legal referral offices. Any man who desires to hire a lawyer to rep­resent him in a legal or administrative proceeding has that right if circumstances permit.

Many commands have a suggestion box, which gives a man the opportunity to submit in writing his grievance or question if he does not want to face the commanding officer personally. Most commands have human relations councils made up of personnel from various pay grades who are able to make rec­ommendations to the commanding officer concerning matters of morale and welfare of the crew. Most commands have senior enlisted men designated as points of contact for those who feel they have prob­lems. The Navy’s Master Chief Petty Officer of the Command program gives the enlisted person with a problem a chance to talk with a mature person who can usually give him some help and who has direct access to the commanding officer.

Another powerful force working for the ser­viceman is the large number of military associations which represent their members on a number of is­sues. These associations provide an alternative line of communication for members to express their views and needs to the services. They provide support to the services in communicating policy and hardware needs to the American public. They provide support in Congress for Department of Defense-sponsored legislation, they provide support through local units for military community relations programs, they provide support for service recruiting programs, and they help enhance the military image. These organi­zations operate within the system, support the chain of command, and have a proven record of achieve­ment. Among these organizations are the Navy League, the Fleet Reserve Association, the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Retired

Officers Association, the Association of U. S. Army, and many others.           j

All these organizations have actively particip^at^

in promoting the further professionalization of ^{c e}

military forces and the increase in benefits for tni tary personnel. The Fleet Reserve Association, °^r example, played a leading role in obtaining the vilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniform^ Services (CHAMPUS) and the new Survivor Bene¹ Plan. Its dues of $12 per year compare favorab ) with the approximately $72 per year which A charges.

The organizations and programs listed above ^c assist a person with a problem, and they serve as excellent check on the irrational use of niil^lta^. command authority, something the advocates unions in the military seem to be concerned ab°^u^ What is not so clear, as the following paragraP will discuss, is whether or not our society is as w equipped to deal with the irrational exercise of um^orl power and authority.

The sixth argument against unionization of ¹ armed forces is that it would eventually lead 1 strikes. Advocates of unionization generally conce ^ that certain restrictions would have to be p^^c£ upon a military union, including no right to stri > no right to interfere with military justice, and striction against activities during emergencies crisis situations. They claim that the union ^w°^u, restrict itself to collective bargaining for pay, wot ing hours, and fringe benefits. This is nothing ¹¹¹ ^ than a foot-in-the-door approach. The history of labor movement shows that once the union is esta ^ fished, anything can happen. Who is going to P^re vent a union boss from proclaiming a strike? D the strike is proclaimed, the serviceman will be ^c by conflicting loyalties. Peer pressure will ^ciU^_e many to honor the strike, and violence would probable. Who would be able to break up a strike an armed military union?                                                              ^

How can a union promise to gain any benefits collective bargaining unless it can strike? Since ^ strike is the ultimate union sanction in collect bargaining, it would be dishonest for the union promise its members great benefits on the one ha^ and promise the American people that it doesn t sire the ability to strike on the other. We must the fact that if we get a military union, we S strikes, if only to save face for some union boss ^ has put his prestige on the fine. What is a ^str‘^^e., i_e is a test of strength. What could be more tern than a test of strength between an armed mil^|ta_? union and the constituted authorities of our nati°ⁿ

There seems to be little doubt that after a nn

[fecame established in the U. S. military forces, even ^{1C sw}°re to accept certain limitations on its power,

ere would be some issues where military manage- ^nt would refuse to go along with changes de- and^ed ^ ^t^^{le un}‘^on- There would be polarization possibly open hostility between the union and ^nagement. Once stimulated, the expectations of ,_aJ^stea personnel could quickly exceed limits set by w, ^ar,d lead to frustration and confrontation. Clyde th ^^{er ac}^^m'^ttecl this >^{n an} interview. He said, “. . . _Uaj ^rhing about it is that you cannot control individ- _t ^el^errtents of an organization whether it happens int ^{6 t}^*^{e       Arm}y • ■ ■ ^or the AFGE. People take

0 their own hands what they think they have to.” inf ^^at ^^aPP^ens *^s that the onion introduces a set of _2at.^rmal organizations to the existing formal organi- int'°ⁿ ^^^ese informal groups are built around union IX) ^{feStS and} activities, and they are sometimes as an               ^{aS t}^^e ^^orma^ union structure. In the case of

s^. ^Unauthorized strike, for example, union leader- tnr^ i°ⁱⁿ with management in demanding a re-

c

n to work, but the demand is not always success-

^ead_e

L                                                                       J

oecause of informal group pressures. Informal

be

rs may have the group emotionally worked up

t»ni

so in control of the situation that formal

'°ⁿ orders to return to work are ignored. l₁j^°^rne people say that our society will simply pro­ins

ately, the fact that strikes of federal employees are

^agai

tun;

1 strikes of military personnel by passing a law

nst them. Would that it were so simple. Unfor-

J^ted by law has virtually no meaning. The his

JfV r\C •

• ’ °t unions in the United States has demonstrated t th

th_e^{thei st}rike.

fhat

in _tL . • .                  ----------------------------------------- *.......... ~j ......................

a ^eir interest, regardless of any law prohibiting

they will not hesitate to strike if they think it is

U.

th- ' onions are much more strike-prone than itj ^Se 'ⁿ Europe. In 1969, for example, 211.1 work- (jjj- ^daV^s were lost per 1,000 inhabitants in the th_{e r}^e<a States as a result of labor disputes. In Austria Sore was only 16.1 working days; in Sweden it

"e fi ^vas

ire ^.8; in Denmark it was 12.3 days. There is a toward greater militancy in public service gj_v ns> ^ancl the recent convention of AFGE voted to ^feder!|^S national officials the power to call a strike of ^<J^ra* employees whenever these officials feel such a

^St6k_e i

ls warranted. They did this in spite of the fact

that such a strike would be against the law. These are the same people who claim that there would be no danger of a strike by a military union.

The postal strike of 1970 gives strong reason to doubt the federal government’s ability or will to en­force a no-strike provision against a military union. In March 1970, more than 200,000 postal workers walked off their jobs in the first nationwide strike of U.S. federal employees. Though federal law makes strikes by federal employees a felony, punishable by fine and imprisonment, and by loss of job and reem­ployment rights, no punitive action was taken against the strikers. Immediate emergency negotia­tions were undertaken with the union. The result was the largest pay raise ever given to postal work­ers. This example of the federal government’s weak­ness when faced with a strike by postal workers casts serious doubt on the proposition that the same gov­ernment would, or even could, assert itself more firmly in the face of a strike by armed military forces.

E. Wright Bakke, an expert in labor relations, has written, The use of the strike by public servants is not going to be legitimized, but the strike or some other form of reduction or withdrawal of services having the same impact is going to be used exten­sively nevertheless.” He writes further, “The record of successes by public employees who have resorted to strikes encourages confidence that, notwithstand­ing its illegality, it is a method that gets results.”

A seventh argument against unions in the military is that they would degrade military effectiveness. One way they would do this is by retarding leader­ship training. The military view is that every man is potentially a leader and is constantly in training for positions of higher authority. The unions have a dif­ferent philosophy. They insist on drawing a sharp line between workers and management, leaving little room for the working supervisor. According to union philosophy, workers should not supervise, and supervisors should not work.

One of the most serious effects of unionization on the effectiveness of our armed forces would be the devastating effect it would have on discipline. Throughout the centuries of human conflict, one fact has remained unquestioned and paramount: the dis-