The Decline of Unions Is Your Problem Too

I was reading this in Time today and thought it brought up some very interesting and good points. I know a lot of people on here are very anti-union. I hope they read this and give some honest thoughts rather than the normal insults.

Last week came news that the share of America’s workforce that’s unionized hit a 97-year low. A mere 11.3% of workers now belong to a union, and a great chunk of those are in the shrinking public sector. In the private sector, unionization fell to an abysmal 6.6%, down from a peak of 35% during the 1950s.

Most Americans yawned at this news. On one level that’s understandable. After all, most Americans aren’t in a union. It’s a vicious cycle: as unions decline, fewer people see their fates as bound up with unions, which just accelerates the decline.

But on another level, America’s non-reaction is striking. We remain in the wake of the Great Recession. Inequality and wealth concentration are at levels not seen since just before the Great Depression. This would seem as ripe a time in modern memory for a revival of organized labor. Instead, a basic assumption now shapes most Americans’ mindset about labor: the belief that the death of unions isn’t my problem because I’m not in a union. That assumption is wrong in two critical ways.

First, the fact is that when unions are stronger the economy as a whole does better. Unions restore demand to an economy by raising wages for their members and putting more purchasing power to work, enabling more hiring. On the flip side, when labor is weak and capital unconstrained, corporations hoard, hiring slows, and inequality deepens. Thus we have today both record highs in corporate profits and record lows in wages.

Second, unions lift wages for non-union members too by creating a higher prevailing wage. Even if you aren’t a member your pay is influenced by the strength or weakness of organized labor. The presence of unions sets off a wage race to the top. Their absence sets off a race to the bottom.

Unfortunately, the relegation of organized labor to tiny minority status and the fact that the public sector is the last remaining stronghold for unions have led many Americans to see them as special interests seeking special privileges, often on the taxpayer’s dime. This thinking is as upside-down as our economy.

This country has gotten to today’s level of inequality because, ironically, those who work for a living think like atomized individuals while those who hire for a living organize collectively to rig policy in their favor. Today’s 97-year low is the result of decades of efforts to squeeze unions and disperse their power.

To be sure, unions bear part of the blame for their own decline. Some of the work rules they've achieved through bargaining made their companies and their own unions less adaptive to change. That’s why a few national labor leaders, from Service Employees International Union and elsewhere, have launched a “Labor 3.0″ project to reimagine unions. And it’s significant that innovative forms of worker organizing are now emerging, like Coworker.org or the National Domestic Workers Alliance, that bypass traditional union structures altogether.

Whatever form it takes, though, organized labor keeps an economy healthy. Some conservatives now argue for a higher federal minimum wage on the notion that when companies pay their employees enough to live, the employees will rely less on government assistance and participate more in economic life. Precisely the same case can be made for unions. Consider that workers at non-unionized Walmart constitute in many states the largest bloc of food stamp and Medicaid recipients.

If we want a better economy, then, we need a better story about how the economy works, in which a union worker is not a cost but a customer. The weakness of labor is everyone’s problem — and its revival everyone’s opportunity.



Read more: http://ideas.time.com/2013/01/29/vie...#ixzz2JQrO6aab

Actually, it's not my problem at all.

If Louise wrote this, instead of the usual cut and paste, did you do it with a straight face when you wanted the right on this site to post a response without any insults??? Look at nearly any thread started by someone like myself, COG, Kayla, Joe Blow, et. al. that is how the left starts almost every response. Before you expect something like that maybe you should consider that you are a practitioner of baseless insults and ad hominem attacks. How about an apology first?


Unions increase demand??? Ask the workers of Rainbow Bakery or Hostess about creating demand. Union wages that rise outside the normal drive up the cost of products decreasing demand and causing layoffs. Union wages and benefits negoiated in good times never have a device to decrease them in bad times. The owners have to take a loss but the unions carry on. Does this seem fair or just? Your cut and paste doesn't say that the public unions (government workers) have taken the biggest loss in the last few years but they are making a come back under Obama. So now a typical government worker is making much more than the typical private worker doing the same job. Of course even FDR thought there should not be government worker unions. You want to claim the TSA as a prime example of a government protected union?

Next time cut and paste from a Econ 101 book.

I was watching FOX news and they were talking about how Obama is now going to pursue illegal immigration. Wonder how the union workers will like competing against all those new workers? Of course the leadership (you know the guys making a quarter million dollars a year) will do okay because they hope inflate their rolls but the rank and file...nahhh, they're going to get hurt again. Obama uses the unions, the union leadership uses Obama, the illegals are going to use us, and the union members just get used. Kind of like the life story of a condom.

The decline of union power is a good thing; it isn't a problem for me or my community.

The path to raising the wages of the un-skilled is education. And in that arena the unions are killing the educational advancement of the working poor.

Question back to you BigLouie:

Why are unions so pro immigration; and more specifically soft on illegal immigration ?
Our massive illegal immigration drives down wages of the most unskilled and unemployable. They compete for jobs at the bottom of the ladder.

Last week came news that the share of America’s workforce that’s unionized hit a 97-year low. A mere 11.3% of workers now belong to a union, and a great chunk of those are in the shrinking public sector. In the private sector, unionization fell to an abysmal 6.6%, down from a peak of 35% during the 1950s. Originally Posted by BigLouie

Great news.

Hopefully it will improve our share of the international market place.

At any rate it is a trend in the right direction.

One issue with unions is that they have no incentive for being a better employee. Each worker is paid the same without regard to their ability. As a result, many skilled workers choose to not join a union because they can make a better deal elsewhere. The end result of those that remain is the attitude of not doing any better than the next guy because the employer will come to expect it. this is a primary reason that many people want their states to become right to work states.

Companies are in the business of making money. The facts are that if a company could make money without any employees, they would do it. Knowing that they cannot, in almost all cases, conduct business without any employees they tend to look for the best ones they can find in order to meet their goal of making money. Being forced to hire and keep employees that do not contribute to the process of making the company money often is enough to kill the company. The UAW is a prime example of unions that nearly killed the companies.Another is the USPS.

The decline of unions exists because workers that are good know they can make a better deal without having a portion of their paycheck siphoned off by the union.

Being forced to hire and keep employees that do not contribute to the process of making the company money often is enough to kill the company......Another is the USPS. Originally Posted by The2Dogs

This is TOTALLY NOT CORRECT. The problem with the USPS is not the unions but Congress. Some years ago someone in Congress came up with the bright idea of forcing the USPS to fund their pension program to unheard of levels. Levels that were far and above anything any other company had to do either public or private. The result of this was that labor cost was now 80% of revenue! You may ask why Congress did this. The answer is very simple. At the same time they passed a rule saying that the USPS contributions to their pension fund would be counted as INCOME in the federal budget although they could not actually use it to pay an obligations. This stunt allowed to BOTH parties to say that they had worked to balance the budget. Stunts like this caused Enron to go out of business but hey this is the government.

If the USPS funded their pension program at a level equal to other companies of their size they would be fine.

Great news.
At any rate it is a trend in the right direction. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Really? Consider that workers at non-unionized Walmart constitute in many states the largest bloc of food stamp and Medicaid recipients.

Explain why it is a good thing when companies are able to pay such a low wage that their employees end up on food stamps although working full time. Why is that a good thing?

I do not think the decline of unions is a real problem in a universal sense.

I think that the decline of unions is just a natural part of human evolution.

For example, it used to be that just about everyone was raised on a farm, but little by little that has changed and the total number of farms has faded as have unions.

. . . Over the years, unions like the GOP have lost their way, forgot their purpose and gradually became part of the problem instead of the solution to society and the economy in general.

This is TOTALLY NOT CORRECT. The problem with the USPS is not the unions but Congress. Some years ago someone in Congress came up with the bright idea of forcing the USPS to fund their pension program to unheard of levels. Levels that were far and above anything any other company had to do either public or private. The result of this was that labor cost was now 80% of revenue! You may ask why Congress did this. The answer is very simple. At the same time they passed a rule saying that the USPS contributions to their pension fund would be counted as INCOME in the federal budget although they could not actually use it to pay an obligations. This stunt allowed to BOTH parties to say that they had worked to balance the budget. Stunts like this caused Enron to go out of business but hey this is the government.

If the USPS funded their pension program at a level equal to other companies of their size they would be fine. Originally Posted by BigLouie

I dissagree Louie, in 1972, my first year of college, I was fortunate to get a part time job at the post office through school. Made great money, for back then. For every 20 hours of work we got 1 hr vacation, and 1 hr sick pay. The regulars, thats what we called the union guys and ladies hated us. You know why? Because we did more work in 1 hour than they did in an entire shift, and because they were union lazy ass fucks they could not be fired. They could have back then easily gotten by with half the staff, if they worked like we did. We had a 1 year contract to work there, on our last day, all our supervisors, took us out for pizza after work, two of them had tears in their eyes and said we were the best workers they ever had. And we did our share of fucking around, but still got way more than our share of the work done. Alot of union workers are lazy ass worthless fucks.

Seedman go look it up. This topic has been widely written and reported on.

This is TOTALLY NOT CORRECT. The problem with the USPS is not the unions but Congress. Some years ago someone in Congress came up with the bright idea of forcing the USPS to fund their pension program to unheard of levels. Levels that were far and above anything any other company had to do either public or private.

If the USPS funded their pension program at a level equal to other companies of their size they would be fine. Originally Posted by BigLouie

Actually, they forced them to fund their pensions like they were 491(k)s - with realistic amounts of money.

Previously, like many unionized companies, the defined benefits of public retirees were NOT funded with realistic contributions. The end result was that the state governments were forced to bail them out with taxpayer money.

California is going through that shit right now - trying to meet ridiculous pension obligations.

I am a product of the East Side of Houston Tx. Through the years, I saw the Unions cause the downfall of Armco Steel, Tenn Tex Alloy and Chemical, American Plant Food, US Steel in Baytown, Todd Shipyards, Greens Bayou Engineering, the Brown and Root Marine Yard, Hooker Chemical, and AO Smith Pipe Mill. All went down because their customers could buy their product cheaper over seas or at a non union facility..

Granted, Tenn Tex, American Plant Food, and Armco went down due to the EPA as well, but that is another story.

The Port, (steveadores), Rail Road, and the Refineries are about the only major Union employers left.

There is a prevailing attitude in most of the Companies I deal with that they pay top wages and top benefits so they can have top employs.

Granted, Houston is a different work enviroment than many other cities, there is lots of work, and a lot of good paying jobs that do not require any sort of mediator skimming money off the top and donating it to political candidates that most workers do not agree with.

I suppose Louise would prefer that he (he sounds like a mailman) not pay any money for his healthcare like so many other public unions which is who we have a real problem with. Throwing the post office up there is a deflection Louise. Most of this angst has been over public unions.