There is no doubt that union-encouraged work stoppages hurt the long-term and short-term economic health of union members while also damaging the well-being of the U.S. economy. It may be good politics for rogue union leaders to engage in tough talk that garners headlines and support from politicians, yet the tough talk usually leads to actions that end up forcing a corporation to shed jobs—the very jobs the union leadership is supposed to protect.

There is a history of companies facing strikes, or even the threat of one, ending up causing the loss of union jobs, and one need look no further than the big three auto companies, John Deere and Boeing. These companies have fewer, not more, union jobs thanks to strikes and the threat of strikes called by rogue leadership.

A recent battle between the rogue union leadership at Boeing and the company has provided union leaders an opportunity to complain about wages while forcing a work stoppage that will not benefit union workers over the long or short term. Reuters reported on October 16, 2024, “Boeing factory workers held a large rally in Seattle on Tuesday to demand a better wage deal, mounting pressure on new CEO Kelly Ortberg to end a bitter strike that has plunged the planemaker further into financial crisis.” Boeing is a company that has cut about 17,000 jobs and has lost approximately $25 billion over the past six years, according to the American Action Forum. Asking for a beefed up pension and higher wages is not a good idea when a company is losing billions every year and shedding thousands of jobs.

This work stoppage seems to be driven by ego and the political aspirations of rogue union leaders. Another good example of a division strategy is the battle over Nippon Steel’s bid to take control of U.S. Steel. There is a disconnect in strategy that has pitted union members against the union leadership. Last month, the investors in U.S. Steel put out a release announcing a rally by employees of the company in support of the Nippon Steel transaction. The United Steelworkers union and many prominent politicians are dug in against the deal. It makes no sense that a $14.9 billion infusion of money in U.S. Steel will not secure the current and future jobs of steelworkers.

The result of union ‘victories’ usually gets the leadership headlines and political cheers, yet at a cost to their own membership. Take the case of the company John Deere. The Wall Street Journal argued in an op-ed on August 4, “Deere told Iowa officials last week that it will cut 100 jobs in the state, the latest in a series of recent job cuts. The farm equipment giant has announced plans to let go more than 1,800 employees this year. That includes a big share of its roughly 10,000 United Auto Workers (UAW) members.” The company does not see a profitable future because of high interest rates and low crop prices impact on demand for their product. The union leadership attacked Deere because they made a $7 billion profit last year, yet the UAW has contributed to job losses by forcing a “20% raise over five years, plus an $8,500 bonus and annual adjustments for cost of living.” Great for those with short-term jobs that don’t get laid off, but not so good for other members who are pushed out because of the economic reality that the company can’t keep a large workforce when overpaying some employees.

The list goes on and on. The Wall Street Journal reported that “Detroit’s Big Three automakers struck another record deal with the UAW to end a strike last year, and General Motors projects that current contracts will add $9.3 billion in costs over four years. United Parcel Service cut about 12,000 jobs in January, months after it raised part-time wages by 35% to head off a Teamsters strike.” Union leaders like Sean Fain (UAW), Sean O’Brien (IBT), Brian Bryant (IAM), and Harold Daggett do not have their workers’ interests in mind.

These unions are successful in driving jobs overseas because they are not representing the interests of their members. The power the union leaders have to cripple the economy with one threatened strike is frightening. If you are pro-worker, it makes sense that many workers are doing better under the Railway Labor Act (RLA) because there are provisions to avoid strikes than under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which has no such protections.

Work stoppages and threats from union leaders ultimately hurt union workers. Union leaders need to think long and hard before threatening strikes and sporadic work stoppages. These leaders end up hurting the U.S. economy with no checks and balances on their immense power over our economy.

• Peter Mihalick is former legislative director and counsel to former Reps. Barbara Comstock, Virginia Republican, and Rodney Blum, Iowa Republican.