Belligerent unions are a sign of economic health

THE DISSONANCE could hardly have been more apparent. America’s most recent employment figures captured a jobs market in fine fettle: firms added 128,000 new workers in October, while unemployment held near historically low levels and wages rose at a respectable clip. The data would probably have looked better, however, had they not been depressed by a costly labour dispute, only recently ended, at General Motors (GM). Workers around America are showing their restlessness; members of the Chicago Teachers’ Union returned to work on November 1st, after striking to demand higher pay and more investment per student. The unrest may seem odd given the robust state of the labour market. In fact it is neither a bad omen nor entirely unwelcome.

In their book on organised labour, “What Do Unions Do?”, Richard Freeman and James Medoff argue that unions play two principal economic roles. They provide workers with a voice; through a union frustrated workers, who might otherwise simply quit, can communicate their dissatisfaction to the firm. Communication can raise efficiency by boosting morale, and by helping firms to retain workers and identify and fix problems. But unions also function as monopoly providers of labour. By controlling labour supply they are able to extract rents—and thus raise members’ compensation—reducing economic efficiency.