Archive for April 24th, 2010
One of the papers in the panel I participated in today followed media coverage of the recent effort to pass ‘card check’ for union organization. The presenter, Dr. Glenn Richardson, showed how despite the fact that there were numerous examples of abuse by management, including intimidation of those who favored unionizing, the discourse around the issue tended to be dominated by images of “union thugs” intimidating workers.
However, while there was a lot of evidence of employer intimidation, there was no evidence of union intimidation, even in card check certifications. Moreover, the right supported its favorite option, secret ballots, by wrapping it in the guise of fundamental American belief in the secret ballot as essential to democracy. The problem, of course, is that while employers do lobby employees, often with one on one meetings, threats to shut down if the company unionizes and other forms of intimidation, the union doesn’t get the names of the people who will be voting, and cannot effectively communicate with them. Therefore, its not truly a free election, it favors the employer. He noted numerous examples of this happening, even as the ‘union thug’ narrative (for which there was really no evidence) stuck in the media discourse.
Anyone who has lived in or studied European economies will notice two stark differences between Europe and the US. First, the US has a much larger gap between the wealthy and poor, with workers getting much less vacation time and fewer protections. They can also much more easily be fired (often for things like supporting unionization). Second, labor unions are extremely weak and irrelevant in the US compared to Europe. White collar unions are very rare in the US, but extremely popular in Europe.
The result has been a massive shift of wealth from workers to business owners and stock holders, including a loss in relative wealth by white collar workers. Without unions standing up for workers, they are increasingly unable to fight for better pay and working conditions. In fact, when things go bad, like GM needing a bailout, often the unions get blamed for bad decisions from executives. Given that so much damage was done by the collapse of the financial sector due to unregulated derivative trading, blaming unions seems obscene.
Why has America turned hostile to unions? I think it’s a mixture of both discourse dominance by those hostile to unions, and the ability of high debt and cheap imports to keep workers believing unions aren’t needed.
The discourse control is obvious. To disclose my clear bias, I am campus local President of AFUM, a union affiliated with the NEA (and Maine Education Association). That means I am part of a rather powerful white collar union. I do not agree with every position the NEA takes, but recognize that it works hard to protect educators. Moreover, our dues cannot go to fund NEA political action, to support that we have to make separate contributions.
Because there has been corruption in unions (as in every major organization) and at times union deals have seemed to render extremely high salaries in times of plenty, unions get painted as “thuggish” corrupt organizations whose demands can destroy industries. Unions are thus considered enemies of capitalism and markets, even though the idea of workers organizing to negotiate with employers is not anti-capitalist in any sense of the world. These images are created with anecdotes and images of unions being power hungry and greedy.
The reality is far from that. My union, for instance, just signed a two year contract with no salary increases for the first time ever. The University system basically showed its books, worked with the union, and convinced us that it was really impossible at this time to afford raises. Together, the system and the faculty want to show that we are working to keep education costs down and help solve the states’ financial difficulties. In the airline industry, auto industry and everywhere unions are, there is a long history of even taking very large cuts in salary to protect the long term business. Unions don’t do that if they don’t believe the cuts are truly necessary — but no one wants the jobs to be lost.
The people with the real power in the relationship are the employers. Often they convince low paid clerical workers that their interests are with management. White collar workers want to see themselves as above the grunt on the industry floor, so even though they’re really just doing glorified grunt work with a white collar, they view themselves as superior. Thus the pay differential between upper management and so called low management is immense. Without union protection, no one is fighting for better benefits, standing up for employees who have a grievance against management, and working to make sure that when profits are high, a fair share goes to the workers, not just the big shots.
The second point is that this discourse was sustained in part by a massive growth of cheap goods and people living in credit and appreciating home values. This was an illusion, but it helped reduce dissatisfaction people had with their pay. With unemployment low, most people had jobs and could be convinced that unionizing would be risky.
But the lack of unionization has contributed to the massive gap between rich and poor, one that makes the US almost seem to be more like a third world nation in the distribution of income than an advanced industrialized state. I did a good two hour “urban walk” in downtown Chicago this evening, noting the stark differences between the ornate buildings and numerous homeless and poor shuffling around asking for spare change. The real victims, though, are the working poor who toil with little pay, and often no insurance benefits or guaranteed vacation.
Some justify this by saying that’s what the market result is. The Europeans are lazy to have five weeks paid vacation. Bullshit. You can darn well bet that those who really make out well in our system can get five weeks vacation easily, and spend it traveling and enjoying a fine lifestyle. The market created this vast maldistribution of wealth only because it could be dominated by and manipulated by those with the wealth and control of both jobs and political messaging.
Stronger unions would be a market friendly way to address this. It wouldn’t be welfare or socialism, but a way to give workers a stronger voice, to have a chance to really investigate how much a company can afford to pay, and reduce the vast discrepancies between management and worker pay. It can forge a partnership between management and worker, whose destinies both benefit when a company does well. Stronger unions would help us get through this time of economic hardship while trying to prevent the worker from bearing too much of the cost.
It’s not going to happen. The discourse is fully entrenched in the “unions as corrupt thugs wanting to destroy business” narrative. Unions are easily demonized, and few politicians see a lot of advantage in praising them publicly. When unions want fair pay for workers, they are accused of class warfare. Few accuse the big CEOs who get fired and collect tens of millions on the way out of class warfare. But whose work really earned all that money? Unions could bring about a fairer negotiation to help capitalism work better, and also show how “free trade” with countries that use virtual slave labor may make it appear we get cheap stuff, but that this is just exploiting foreign workers and weakening the position of American workers.
To be sure, I do prefer the German and Scandinavian notion of unions as partners with business rather than the British and often traditional American idea of them as adversaries. The goal is to help make markets function justly, not to destroy them or hurt business. However, I suspect the anti-union rhetoric will not go away any time soon.