In terms of the actual work being done, you could hardly find two occupations more dissimilar than filling prescriptions in a hospital or drug store and stevedoring the huge shipping containers that move through the country’s ports 24 hours a day.

But, ever since last spring, pharmacy workers and longshoremen on the East Coast of the U.S. have shared at least one common trait — their association with organized labor organizations whose objectives and hardball tactics too often have more to do with empowering union leaders than benefiting the rank and file.

Case in point, workers at ports from Maine to Texas staged a three-day strike the first week of October over wages and the threat posed by automation before finally settling for a 62 percent pay raise over six years.

Their union, the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA), had originally sought a 77 percent hike, while the United States Maritime Alliance (USMA), representing the ports, came to the table already offering a 50 percent hike.

The strike, impacting 36 ports on the country’s East Coast, came on the heels of supply chain breakdowns two years ago caused by a combination of the COVID pandemic and leftist politicians pandering to their Big Labor base, and this year’s walkout was clearly timed to put pressure not only on port officials but also on consumers.

Given that the quick resolution, on the surface, looks like a big win for port workers. But at what cost? Estimates suggest that the port workers strikes cost the American economy between $4.5B – $7.5B a week. Most of that squeeze is felt by the transportation and warehousing industries – two of the most heavily unionized industries in the country. It is believed that tens of thousands of these workers would have been furloughed had the strike continued. Seems more like one union punting the cost to other unions than anything… but sure, it was all about the rank and file.

It doesn’t have to be this way. Recent history suggests a more measured approach, characterized by lengthy bargaining sessions during which negotiators on both sides of the table have time to digest the complicated issues and build constructive relationships with one another, is no less productive while leaving far less residue of hard feelings and collateral damage.

For example:

• The 2019 impasse between General Motors and the United Auto Workers (UAW) involved no fewer than 40 bargaining sessions, resulting in a final agreement that included a 3 percent wage increase in the first and fourth years, along with a $2,000 signing bonus for active members. GM committed to investing in U.S. facilities to maintain and create jobs, addressing key job security concerns, while the deal also improved healthcare benefits for workers, maintaining the current insurance plan while controlling costs.
•  In 2021, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAMAW) and Boeing engaged in more than 25 bargaining sessions that ultimately averted a strike while yielding wage increases of approximately 1.5 percent per year for the life of the agreement as well as improvements to retirement benefits and enhancements to pension plans.
• United Parcel Service (UPS) and the Teamsters union in 2018 also avoided a strike by sitting down no fewer than 40 times to hammer out a deal calling for wage increases of approximately $2.75 per hour over the life of the contract for full-time employees along with improvements to working conditions, such as enhanced safety measures and provisions for better job security.

Like the Longshoremen, the recent example of Big Labor working to organize pharmacists and pharmacy techs highlights a troubling trend in modern union negotiations: Rather than negotiating in good faith to arrive at a solution both sides can live with, unions come to the bargaining table with unrealistic demands they know an employer cannot meet.

And when it can’t, union officials respond by characterizing the denial/counteroffer as evidence of “corporate greed” in their sales pitch to convince workers they need a union to protect them.

The result is more dues-paying members for the union but too often little or no benefit to the workers. 

Since last spring, American pharmacy workers have been the target of opportunity for union organizers who envision using the same sort of leverage the dock workers did, only more so. If you think a strike becomes personal when it reduces the amount and selection of retail goods available on store shelves, imagine not being able to purchase your insulin or pain meds because your pharmacist is out on the sidewalk in front of Walgreens carrying a picket sign.

But in an example of how effective businesses operate, CVS recently worked with their employees through numerous meetings to ratify a new agreement that saw an increase in wages, increased health care bonuses for employees and health care benefit protections.  

As individuals, the country’s longshoremen are conscientious workers with a personal stake in keeping retail shelves stocked with products. Likewise, those who work in pharmacies and drug stores no doubt care deeply about their patients and customers.

The question is whether that objective is better served by working cooperatively with their employers or being forced to go through a middleman.

Jeff Rhodes is the Vice President of News for the Freedom Foundation, a nonprofit organization that works to promote individual liberty, free enterprise, and limited, accountable government.