If union leaders are feeling a little paranoid about Bush’s reelection, maybe it’s because they really are being persecuted. Republicans have both ideological and strategic reasons for an offensive against labor. Attacking unions pleases both Bush’s corporate friends and the movement’s conservatives, and harasses the strongest grassroots political operation opposing the Republican right. “There’s been a strategy,” says former Democratic Rep.… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (63)Page 1 of 1 pagesI’ve been discussing this on another post.It’s amazing that re-partisans are allowed to do this to working people.The message of this party should be apparent.They care more about profits of corporations than they do workers.When I was teenager I marvelled at stories a friend told about the poverty and disparity of wealth in Brazil.Like the killer bees,it’s found its way here.
Curiously,the CEO’s trying to save money in the short run will only end up kneecapping themselves.After all,you can’t sell fitfty thousand dollar cars to minimum wage workers.
Still,I do watch with morbid fascination.Re-partisans are doing their best to insure a Hilary victory in 2008.Teddy Roosevelt regulatuion of business and then some.
Posted by wwoods on Mar 8, 2005 at 5:43 PM Dear Woods,
“They care more about profits of corporations than they do workers.”
No, they care more about strong economic growth because that is what will lead to real wage growth, as it did from 1995 on, despite continuing declining union membership (a long and blessed slide). I know it is hard for someone that thinks lower income people should just be handed money above what their skills are worth in the labor market to believe that any other policy could have the interests of workers in mind.
“After all,you can’t sell fitfty thousand dollar cars to minimum wage workers.”
Fortunately, minimum wage workers remain a remarkably small portion of the work force, and there’s no reason to believe that will change.
Sincerely,
J Craig
Posted by J Craig on Mar 8, 2005 at 9:54 PM Obviously J Craig is some sort of economic genius. Minimum wage earners are a small percentage of the work force. 7 and 8 dollar an hour workers are not. I bet they aren’t buying $50,000 cars either.
I am reminded of an old adage. Money is like manure. You got to spread it around for it to do any good.
Posted by Vinnie on Mar 9, 2005 at 1:19 AM First J. craig, Unless corporations can be forced to pass on the fruits of strong growth there is no necessary correlation between strong and real wagr growth at all. fact 1. Real wages in the US for the bottom 30% have stayed stagnant for the period 1979-1995 overall, grew slightly 1995-2000 and are again stagnant. The real value of the minimum wage has actually fallen by 40% since 1970. Since there has been real GDP growth since 1970 in the uS what is your explanantion for the failure of your beloved free market sstem to pass on the fruits of that growth ot minimum wage workers. Unless corporations are forced by whatever means to share the fruits of growth, they prefer to hand it over in increased stock options for CEOs. That is exactly waht has happened in the US over the last 20 years.
Fact 2. Reward as a function of skill is an interesting myth, much beloved by market mullahs like yourself. If that is the case, how come a low skilled numbskull whose daddy knows lots of rich people, can end up President of the uS, while a registered nurse earns less in a year than he would spend on a slap up dinner? Your position amounts to nothing more than ‘this is the best of all possible worlds’. If that is the case would you please provide your fellow citizens with an explanantion for the poor performance of the US on every well being indice concerning health, education, infant mortality rates, incarceration rates, wage rates and leave provisions compared to practically every other OECD country? The market as it is constructed in the US is nothing more than a racket for extracting the maximum possible from people, whilst carefully insisting that nothing can or shuold change. The last time a group of arrogant plutocrats insisted on that, the result was a general mobilisation and the reforms of the New Deal. It will not be long before a similar thing happens-only this time I suspect that the going will be a lot rougher for every-one than it was then. Wake up to yourself!
Posted by jane Doe on Mar 9, 2005 at 1:42 AM Amazingly, people like J. Craig always think it wrong for government to try to improve the lot of workers in this country, but have no problem lavishing rewards far, far, FAR “beyond what their skills are worth” when it comes to the rich and connected. Ken Lay, Bernie Ebers, John Rigas, et. al. seem not to have had the slightest idea how their companies were run, or what happened to all that money. Bush never did an honest days work in his entire life, and was a failure in all his business ventures, save for financial help from the Bin-Laden family and the house of Saud.
There is no wage growth. There also is no affordable health care, no stable manufacturing base, no job security, and now, no recourse in bankruptcy court for families struggling to pay their bills, but typically, plenty of loopholes written in to the new law to protect wealth. There is plenty of money for Iraq and Haliburton, but not for returning GI,s or the VA. We can afford tax cuts for the top, but can’t fund education. And if Bush get’s his way on SS privatization, and under the radar moves to re-define obligations of companies to pay pensions, we can go back to the good old days of the 50,s. the 1750,s
Posted by Kenneth D. Brown on Mar 9, 2005 at 7:45 AM “No, they care more about strong economic growth because that is what will lead to real wage growth, as it did from 1995 on, despite continuing declining union membership (a long and blessed slide).”
That mantra has been spewed for 30 years. Wage growth…flat for that entire period of so-called “deregulation”...job growth in the last 4+ years…TOTALLY flat.
Posted by Liberal AND Proud on Mar 9, 2005 at 1:08 PM And about the whole Ken Lay, Bernie Ebers thing.
The “conservative” form of law and order is…if a sixteen year old robs $200 from a 7-Eleven, they want to throw him in jail and throw away the key.
When some CEO embezzles $500 million from a pension fund, he gets 6 months…time served…and 6 job offers from guys that want him to embezzle $700 million for THEM.
Posted by Liberal AND Proud on Mar 9, 2005 at 1:12 PM Libertarians and laissez-faireists like J. Craig represent a vocal and growing group in America. Proselytes all, they dream of converting a majority to their Ayn Rand-inspired philosophy that elevates the individual above all the elements that make a society and culture.
I’m not mad at them even though I think they’re greedy and full of crap. Rather, it’s more important to educate people to understand that we’re not just in it for ourselves alone, that life is much more than the accumulation of material things, and that all people have a right to dignity and justice regardless of income, social status, or intellectual endowment. The biggest problem with “rugged individualists” like J. Craig is that he or she thinks being lucky through some accident of birth makes him or her better and more deserving than other people.
Posted by Jerry Spiegler on Mar 9, 2005 at 2:10 PM “The biggest problem with “rugged individualists” like J. Craig is that he or she thinks being lucky through some accident of birth makes him or her better and more deserving than other people.”
How the hell do you know anything about the circumstances of J. Craig’s life? You don’t. His economic view point is different from yours, therefore he’s some kind of egotistical, greedy monster. I give him credit for coming to this board with a contrarian outlook and speaking it logically and cool-headedly and then returning to post after the predictable round of ad hominim attacks. Niether one of you will change the other’s view, but J. Craig’s style is winning the day.
Posted by Allen Drews on Mar 9, 2005 at 2:58 PM Jane Doe,
You go!
J Craig,
Define"real wages"and “economic growth”.
I don’t believe in handing money to people above what their skills are in the labor market.Besides,re-partisans have cornered that racket with corporate welfare.However,I do believe workers should be paid according to the value of their services as it relates to the overall profits of a company.Big business refuses to do that.Instead,they pay what they can legally get away with,and,strangely,they are the ones who influence politicians to write laws
which benefit management over labor.Regarding the recent de-regulation over the past four years,which started with the relaxation of OSHA standards and continued to ominously regress,I would say big business and their re-partisan shills do not have the interest of workers in mind.I found it utterly disgusting that Bush would visit rescued mine workers when it was his relaxation of safety standards that caused the mine collapse.Even more so was the response of the mining companies who blithely"complied"with the new standards and risked their workers lives to turn an extra dollar.
As a teacher(high school,Eng.Lit)I see the effects of the failure of wages to keep up with the cost of living affecting the middle-class.Many of my colleagues have to moonlight not merely to have extra money but just to make ends meet,small ends at that.Of course,this is to be expected when the former Secretary of Education called teacher unions"terrorist organizations”.I find it ironic that the re-partians have decided to enact policies that would harm the wages and security of the middle-class.After all,the middle-class is the biggest supporter of the re-partisans if,of course,you don’t count the mentally handicapped.
Incidentally,I’m seriously curious,what sort of work do you do that would compel you to support the interests of labor over management?Are you a CEO,a corporate attorney,or what?
I ask this because if you’re unskilled labor,you’re getting dumped in a colossal way,if you’re skilled labor your wages are shrinking or your job may soon be capriciously outsourced,if you’re in small business the game is rigged to force you out with little recourse,and if your a professional you are most likely being worked inot an early grave.Of course that’s a solution the re-partisans haven’t proposed for the Social Security"crisis…yet.
Q:Why do re-partisans all wear jackets with vented backs?A:So big business can more easily stick their hands up a re-partisan’s back and work his mouth.
Posted by wwoods on Mar 9, 2005 at 3:32 PM If progress in technology, engineering and management froze for all time after 1968—when the federal minimum wage paid nearly $9/hour (CPI-U adjusted),—would the minimum wage have descended to $5.15 by 2005 anyway?
How you answer depends on whether you believe that today’s lower hourly rate is the result of an evaporation of American labor’s bargaining and political clout in the years in between or whether you think – as most Americans seem to – that higher tech times have somehow diminished the value of lower tech labor in the market place.
We know that engineering and management progress prior to 1968 did not lower the value of labor – or the minimum wage could not have doubled between 1939 and 1968. Gasoline engines and electric light and radio and suspension bridges all made whatever was left for human beings to do all that more valuable because that much more productive.
To cite just one classic example bargaining power dropping out even as productivity multiplied: the steam weavers who replaced manual weavers during the British industrial revolution were 7 times more productive – and presumably should have lived a better way of life. Instead, the collapse of their ability to bargain on equal terms with ownership under the new market set-up (as well as the inability of competing steam loom owners to pay more then their lowest paying rivals) reduced weavers families to living on oat cakes three times a day because they could not afford wheat bread.
What is it about the progress in productivity particular to the post 1968 era that has “naturally” reduced the value of labor?
Even the highest labor cost, minimum wage firms can afford to raise their prices 30% in the expectation that the economy’s lowest paid workers will be raised 90% at the same time. Increase costs of GDP output caused by a $10/hour minimum wage would be only about 2 1/2 percent – not counting pushing up other wages – so the dollars paid will be worth about the same.
Re: the current Democratic minimum wage position: can anyone imagine G.W. vetoing the same $7.25/hour minimum wage (after 3 more years of inflation) that Ike signed into law for 1956?
Posted by Denis Drew on Mar 9, 2005 at 7:12 PM I don’t blame anybody for the trickle-up economics situation presented below – except maybe American labor for its eternal failure to catch on to the need to bargain hard, as well as work hard.
*******
McDonalds charged 30% more in the late 60s—and paid 70% more (BLS calculator)! Since the lowest paid worker in the land in 1968 earned $8.75/hour (not $5.15/hour) charging a mere $6.50 for today’s $5.00 feast did not much discourage Ronald’s fattening fans (moi?)Raising the federal minimum 70% today should bump Mac’s prices no more than 23% – behind 37 years of efficiency jumps.
Pumping the federal minimum wage back to its 1968 level should add something like 2% to the cost of GDP output (simple, back of the envelope calculation) – presumably leading to a proportionate inflation bump. Pushing other wages up in turn could indirectly set off another 2% inflation for one year (ball park guess).
With double (!) 1968’s per-capita income for backup, today’s McDonalds should face no difficulty re-living late sixties economics. Factor in higher efficiency, and a $10/hour minimum wage should be payable with a $1.50 price hike on $5.00 happy meal.
*******
We can surely identify a long running, trickle-up economics condition in our labor market (25% of today’s workers earn less than L.B.J.’s minimum wage). Turning this around in the short run should be today’s Democratic Party’s number-one priority – beginning with an adult-portion raise in the minimum wage—going on to mandate collective bargaining for all work (which we imposed on Germany 60 years ago).
Posted by Denis Drew on Mar 9, 2005 at 7:17 PM I am taking a poll. What do you think about having a seperate minimum wage for children or young adults? Should we have a two tiered system of minimum wages? Or should we just pay the “standard” minimum wage to high school and college students?
Another question - but mostly to ponder. Why isn’t minimum wage indexed for inflation or growth, as is social security?
Thanks in advance to those who reply (nicely, hopefully).
Posted by curious on Mar 9, 2005 at 8:54 PM Dear Vinnie,
“Minimum wage earners are a small percentage of the work force. 7 and 8 dollar an hour workers are not. I bet they aren’t buying $50,000 cars either.”
Neither are people making $50,000 per year. Probably not even people that make $80,000 per year. What I’m getting at is: what’s your point? Woods point, apparently, was that pay should be legislated higher, so we’ll have more consumption, so we’ll have a better economy. But a legislated increase in income (as opposed to an earned increase in income) is just robbing Peter to pay Paul. It doesn’t necessarily do anything to help the economy. But it does hurt the economy (see price floors below). Work has a value. Trying to legislate the value of that work higher doesn’t work.
“I am reminded of an old adage. Money is like manure. You got to spread it around for it to do any good.”
The question is, how should it be spread around? Legislation that supports artificially higher wages (minimum wage laws, union-supporting laws) is not a good way. Money is transferred to a worker with no corresponding increase in value provided by the worker. It’s a transfer, nothing more. That in and of itself might not do excessive damage, but that is not all there is to it. In addition, such legislation is effectively a price floor, in which supply exceeds demand. Price floors increase supply (in the case of wages, the supply of people seeking the jobs) and decrease demand (demand for labor, in other words, less jobs). Imagine, for example, that because of union-supporting legislation, a union had the strength to set a minimum daily pay of $600 for a job. Naturally, there would be an excessive supply of workers for that job, and a shortage of such jobs; those jobs that would have been profitable for the employer at say, $200 per day, would no longer be profitable for the employer (and we know that a job needs to be profitable for the employer, otherwise, why hire?), so they would disappear. It’s an economic certainty: price floors cause a shortage of buyers.
Want to see the $600 per day (or something in that neighborhood) problem in action? Look to Hollywood and the Screen Actors Guild. It’s the union economic problem multiplied exponentially, and it is horrible for the entertainment industry as a whole.
Price floors are the opposite of price ceilings (like rent control), in which, because of the ceiling, demand exceeds supply. Neither is good for the economy. It’s another economic certainty: price ceilings cause a shortage of sellers.
Sincerely,
J Craig
Posted by J Craig on Mar 9, 2005 at 9:17 PM THis can come as no surprise:
The “new” republican party is nothing more and nothing less than a delivery system for corporate fascism.
Around here, these days we just call it “Pee-Cog” (PCOG: Predatatory Capitalist Occupational Government).
Hope you liked America while it lasted!
Posted by Montana on Mar 9, 2005 at 10:00 PM Craig,
What makes you think that unionizing or hiking the minimum wage would result in “handing lower income people….money above what their skills are worth in the labor market? Without the ability to withhold their labor to see if they can get a better deal (yes, the minimum wage just sets a wage demand; nobody is forced hire anybody) how are they to find out what their labor is worth in the free market?
Labor is business too and labor has to bargain as hard as it works too – an idea which has not taken hold in the American labor market – yet—probably thanks to our pioneer, “self-reliant individual” history and culture. A cultural deficit which the Bush, debacle of the common man administration may finally set right.
I use the minimum wage to make my point about – extremely—one sided bargaining in America because it is so – extremely—obvious that minimum wage workers could get much – much—more than they do if the bargaining power were equalized. As a matter of fact they did already: the minimum wage was $9/hour (http://minneapolisfed.org/Research/data/us/calc/ ) 37 years AND A DOUBLING OF AVERAGE INCOME ago while the federal minimum wage has unconscionably been allowed to fall to the 1939 take home level, $4+/hour!!!!!
Libertarians typically ask: Why not make the minimum wage $100/hour? Why doesn’t the Teamsters Union demand $100/hour – because they know that is more than they can get. But minimum wage workers already got $9/hour – 100% jump in productivity ago!
As far as your answer about to Vinnie unions claiming unions may set too high a price for their labor and cost themselves jobs – hey!; isn’t this a FREE market. If unions want to put themselves out of business why would a good libertarian like yourself suddenly turn “liberal, social engineer” and decide what is for their good. Ditto for minimum wage workers who want to risk a raise in pay – the law is just bargaining for them.
I personally see mandating – not just allowing – unions as the only practical way to rebalance the free labor market – FAIRLY – without shoveling sand against the tide for generations. You know – FAIRLY – as in protecting the little fish from getting eaten by the big fish like they do in the EQUITES market – you know, Wall Street. I see mandating collective bargaining as much more natural and much less an intrusion on natural market function than the minimum wage – how about you?
Posted by Denis Drew on Mar 9, 2005 at 10:21 PM Dear Jane Doe,
“Unless corporations can be forced to pass on the fruits of strong growth there is no necessary correlation between strong and real wagr growth at all.”Agreed, if what you mean by “necessary correlation” is they MUST correlate or be PERFECTLY correlated. But there certainly is a relatively strong correlation. Do you know when the three worst real wage growth troughs occurred from 1965 until present? 1974-1975, 1980-1981, and 1990-1991. Those were the three worst recessions (of four total) from 1965 to present. (Believe it or not, 2001 was a relatively mild recession).
“The real value of the minimum wage has actually fallen by 40% since 1970. Since there has been real GDP growth since 1970 in the uS what is your explanantion for the failure of your beloved free market sstem to pass on the fruits of that growth ot minimum wage workers.”
The real value of the minimum wage has fallen for one reason and one reason only: politicians (fortunately) have chosen not to increase the minimum wage as much as inflation. It’s decline has nothing whatsoever to do with economic growth.
“Unless corporations are forced by whatever means to share the fruits of growth, they prefer to hand it over in increased stock options for CEOs.”
You think they like to give money to CEOs? No, they like to pay what they need to get what they want,whether we’re talking about the CEO or the mailroom. If that means part of a CEO’s compensation package is incentives to increase the value of the stock, so be it. But they pay as little as they can to achieve their goals, as any business should.
“Reward as a function of skill is an interesting myth, much beloved by market mullahs like yourself. If that is the case, how come a low skilled numbskull whose daddy knows lots of rich people, can end up President of the uS, while a registered nurse earns less in a year than he would spend on a slap up dinner?”
You’re confusing a politically elected position (president) to a job in the labor market (nurse). Why don’t you compare a doctor to a nurse and perhaps you’ll see the light. (I’m not counting on it.)
“Your position amounts to nothing more than ‘this is the best of all possible worlds’. If that is the case would you please provide your fellow citizens with an explanantion for the poor performance of the US on every well being indice concerning health, education, infant mortality rates, incarceration rates, wage rates and leave provisions compared to practically every other OECD country?”
Excessive welfare state policy. If we get some more capitalist Republicans with some spine, maybe we can undo some of the damage over the next decade or so.
“The last time a group of arrogant plutocrats insisted on that, the result was a general mobilisation and the reforms of the New Deal.”
Keep your fingers crossed! It hurts to watch those with ideas you disagree in power, doesn’t it? I had to live with it until 1980, and then still had to live with it until 1994, then things really turned my way in 2002 and 2004. Yahoo!
Sincerely,
J Craig
Posted by J Craig on Mar 9, 2005 at 11:54 PM All I can say is it makes me sick to see how ignorant the average blue collar working stiff is about the bloody history of the Labor Union Movement and how much those men and women paid to unionize industries which were thoroughly corrupt and bloated with adverserial management practices. Those practices included using local, State, and National Police and National Guardsmen to quell strikes and beat heads back in the early part of the 20th century, and up to the present day. Why aren’t the public schools teaching the truth about the struggles organized labor had in the formative years of Unions to establish fair and equitable working conditions and decent pay and wages for the people who made the products and delivered the services that made those corporations and business profitable??? Public School systems owe a duty to teach the truth, not gloss over the facts. Who in the heck writes the baloney I have seen in some of those textbooks. They don’t even teach the true story about Viet Nam and the travesty that represents. No wonder people are so ignorant. I think the Publishing Houses are corrupted by the forces that keep the mass of people ignorant about the I.W.W., how the AFL and CIO were established and all of the good they did to help real people make decetn money when the rich only threw them crumbs and established company stores and housing so the workers could never get out of debt. It was no better than indentured servitude. Come on America get out from in front of those TV’s and research this stuff for yourself. You can’t depend on the teachers to teach you any longer!
Posted by Doc Mercer on Mar 9, 2005 at 11:55 PM Dear Kenneth D Brown,
“Craig always think it wrong for government to try to improve the lot of workers in this country,”
No, but I think artificially increasing wages or enacting legislation (such as union-supporting legislation) such that artificial wage inflation is facilitated is bad policy, even for those it purports to help.
“but have no problem lavishing rewards far, far, FAR “beyond what their skills are worth” when it comes to the rich and connected. Ken Lay, Bernie Ebers, John Rigas, et. al. seem not to have had the slightest idea how their companies were run, or what happened to all that money.”
Investors, not the government, allowed these companies to be badly managed. I have no problem only to the extent that I didn’t invest in those companies. But those investors pissed away their own capital. By the way, who are you to determine what their skills are worth? Isn’t that up to the owners of the capital to decide if they want to spend their capital and earnings on a particular individual?
Sorry, but I don’t have any more time to address your litany of other complaints.
Sincerely,
J Craig
Posted by J Craig on Mar 10, 2005 at 12:02 AM Dear Jerry Spiegler,
“The biggest problem with “rugged individualists” like J. Craig is that he or she thinks being lucky through some accident of birth makes him or her better and more deserving than other people.”
You’re wrong about what I think. I don’t think I’m better or more deserving. I genuinely think my policies help those you purport to help better than your policies do.
Sincerely,
J Craig
Posted by J Craig on Mar 10, 2005 at 12:07 AM Dear Denis Drew,
“Without the ability to withhold their labor to see if they can get a better deal (yes, the minimum wage just sets a wage demand; nobody is forced hire anybody) how are they to find out what their labor is worth in the free market?”
Who doesn’t have the ability to withhold their labor?
“As far as your answer about to Vinnie unions claiming unions may set too high a price for their labor and cost themselves jobs – hey!; isn’t this a FREE market. If unions want to put themselves out of business why would a good libertarian like yourself suddenly turn “liberal, social engineer” and decide what is for their good. Ditto for minimum wage workers who want to risk a raise in pay – the law is just bargaining for them.”
I don’t care about what is good for unions. I are about what is good for people. Unions are good for the few at greater offsetting expense. Same goes for the minimum wage. I have a say in the law, and I don’t want the law to “bargain for them” to the benefit of those that get the jobs above market and at the expense of those that are willing to work below market and at the expense of the economy in general.
“I see mandating collective bargaining as much more natural and much less an intrusion on natural market function than the minimum wage – how about you?”
Truly natural collective bargaining (meaning not legislatively supported) would be fine with me. Meaning, for example, if a group at a company decided they were going to demand some change in conditions or benefits or they would walk. But there should be no legislation supporting such groups. In other words, take your chances just like any individual (or even group) in non-union type scenarios that would choose to do such a thing: management could accept their demands if they thought it was worth it, or management could not accept and tell them to get back to work. Then the employees would either get back to work or leave. Period end of story. “I want a rais or I’m leaving.” So get what you want or leave. If management won’t pay it, you’re not worth it, so take what you’re worth or find somebody else who will give you more.
That’s how 85% of us live.
Sincerely,
J Craig
Posted by J Craig on Mar 10, 2005 at 12:27 AM Dear Denis Drew,
I just reread my comments to Vinnie as they pertain to this comment of yours…
“As far as your answer about to Vinnie unions claiming unions may set too high a price for their labor and cost themselves jobs – hey!; isn’t this a FREE market. If unions want to put themselves out of business why would a good libertarian like yourself suddenly turn “liberal, social engineer” and decide what is for their good.”
...and I have some more thoughts. When uniions like SAG use their power to increase wages to about $600 per day, they don’t cost themselves anything. Because of union-friendly legislation, they are able to set the pay so high that they cost jobs to those that would work for less if they could. But it doesn’t hurt the union; the union has a lock on Hollywood. This very high price floor leads to a substantial shortage of buyers (employers) and surplus of sellers (workers). If the floor were lower, or better yet gone, there would be substantially more product coming out of Hollywood as the cost structure plummeted. That is: more output from Hollywood, and more jobs. SAG is a dramatic example of how bad unions are for people and the economy.
Sincerely,
J Craig
Posted by J Craig on Mar 10, 2005 at 2:16 AM Dear Woods,
“Define “real wages"and “economic growth”.”
Real wages: the increase or decrease in wages adjusted for inflation or deflation.
Economic growth: increases in GDP.
“I don’t believe in handing money to people above what their skills are in the labor market.”
Then you shouldn’t support union-friendly legislation because that is exactly what it achieves.
“Besides,re-partisans have cornered that racket with corporate welfare.”
Agreed. Corporate welfare is a horrible problem.
“However,I do believe workers should be paid according to the value of their services as it relates to the overall profits of a company.”
If they want to share in the profits, then they should share in the ownership, and that takes capital.
“Big business refuses to do that.Instead,they pay what they can legally get away with, and, strangely, they are the ones who influence politicians to write laws which benefit management over labor.”
You mean they try to rescind laws that offer advantages to labor. You’re familiar with “labor law” right? Legislation that helps labor in tehir “struggle” against management? Why don’t you give me an example of “management law”?t
“I found it utterly disgusting that Bush would visit rescued mine workers when it was his relaxation of safety standards that caused the mine collapse.”
Really? Tell me more.
“As a teacher(high school,Eng.Lit)I see the effects of the failure of wages to keep up with the cost of living affecting the middle-class.”
But wages have kept up with the cost of living in terms of inflation. Sicne 1965, real wages have increased 0.2% per year. Now you may not think that is big enough, but that doesn’t change the fact that it did in fact keep up with the cost of living. I think peoples’ pay perhaps hasn’t kept up with what they think the middle class should have, which certainly has grown. Now the middle class has to own a home (preferably at least 2,000 square feet), two cars, 3 tvs, 2 vcrs, 2 dvd players, etc etc etc. That 0.2% per year probably has not been enough to keep up with EXPECTATIONS.
“Of course,this is to be expected when the former Secretary of Education called teacher unions"terrorist organizations”.”
They’re not terrorist organizations, but they are among the worst kinds of unions of all: public sector unions. At least private sector unions are constrained by the reality that they might put their companies out of business. No such luck for the public when a public employees union has a chokehold on the public entity.
By the way, you mentioned colleagues getting second jobs. If your job is only 3/4 of the year, is it so much trouble to do some extra work?
“I find it ironic that the re-partians have decided to enact policies that would harm the wages and security of the middle-class.”
In your view. In their view, and in my view, the policies would help both their wages and their security.
By the way, you say “re-partisans” as if Democrats aren’t partisan. Please.
“Incidentally,I’m seriously curious,what sort of work do you do that would compel you to support the interests of labor over management?”
As I’ve said repeatedly, I don’t support labor over management. It just seems that way to a mind such as yours.
“Are you a CEO,a corporate attorney,or what?”
I work with numbers.
“if you’re skilled labor your wages are shrinking”
There is no such long term trend. Month to month, the figures change back and forth depending on monthly fluctuations, but the continuing long term trend is a very slight increase.
“if you’re in small business the game is rigged to force you out with little recourse”
Plenty of small businesses are doing quite well. Do you have statistics to support this horrible small business environment you imagine? Why don’t you talk to small business owners; they’ll probably tell you that their biggest headaches come from the government.
“if your a professional you are most likely being worked inot an early grave.”
Good god. If things are as bad as you imagine, who can all these fools be that keep voting Republican. I guess they just don’t know what is good for them, huh? And you do, huh?
“Q:Why do re-partisans all wear jackets with vented backs? A:So big business can more easily stick their hands up a re-partisan’s back and work his mouth.”
You’re very petty. I don’t know where you live, but I hope you’re not teaching my kids. No matter, there no doubt are plenty of teachers just like you out there.
Sincerely,
J Craig
Posted by J Craig on Mar 10, 2005 at 2:46 AM I absolutely disagree with J Craig about true collective bargaining. Capital will always have an inherent power advantage over labor.
I would also respectfully disagree that the rising tide has lifted all boats. While it may be true that wages have floated upwards over the past 30 years the real problem is that there is an incresingly concentrated income gap between the upper 5% of the economy and everyone else. There is something drastically wrong when the prices of everything keep going up and real wages are declining. The center for budget and policy priorities points out that the American Family made an average of 1500$ per year more during the clinton Administartion than under either Bush 1 or Bush 2.
Labor and Democratic party policies are much better public policy over the long run for everyone. If you read Metro vs. Retro you will find that the “Blue” states have an overall better standard of living than the “Red” states. This is true on a wide variety of Human Measures such as infant mortality, access to health care and learning readiness. If you do any research at all you will find that every dollar spent on early childhood saves 6-7 dollars in future welfare and correctional spending. Art Rolnick of the Minneapolis Federal Reserve Board calculated that the overall value of human investment to SOCIETY is 12% with an internal rate of return to the individual of 4%. In other words the net return to society is 16% per year. He is hardly a free spending liberal. He also did a study of the Minnesota Economy from 1920-1960. He found that Minnesota was a below average economic state during those years. As soon as public investment increased there was a marked increase in economic performance. Mn. Has doominated the upper Midwest economically for the past 30 years. These analyses/studies are readily available from the Minneapolis Federal Reserve Board.
I think that these few examples alone strongly debunk the libertarian argument for no labor unions and “every man for himself.”
The taliban republican coolaid is that all taxes are bad and the private sector when unrestrained will take care of us all. This is pure unadulterated hokum. Don’t drink the coolaid. Ask yourself what is better for everyone in the long run. I already know. A strong labor movement. Good schools and public policies that lay the groundwork for human capital.
Posted by P Westre on Mar 10, 2005 at 5:28 AM J Craig,
“Real Wages:the increase or decrease of wages adjusted for inflation or deflation.”You understand the definition,but seem to ignore the numbers.
“Since 1965 ,real wages have increased 0.2% per year”
That has not kept up with the cost of living.Check your numbers again against the rate of inflation and the price of goods.
“I work with numbers”
Well,that’s a little vague.As a teenager,I worked at pizza place.There,I worked with numbers.As a Gunner’s Mate,during my service in the U.S.Navy,I also worked with numbers.Bit of a difference between the two jobs,wouldn’t you say?How about being a bit more specific?
“I don’t know where you live,but I hope you’re not teaching my kids”
Well,that train is never late.I do,however,separate my politics from my teaching.Nonetheless,right-wingers always throw out that remark.If there is any sort of brainwashing,it is,unfortunately, coming from the right.Not only in the censorship of books,but also in the sciences.Creation Science,give me a break.Does that mean if my religion says the Earth is flat,I can ban the teaching of satellites?
“If your job is only 3/4 of the year,is it so much trouble to do some extra work?”
First of all,who are you to tell me what to do in my off time?Oh,I forgot,you’re a right-winger,they know everything,or at least lack the humility to admit they don’t. Second,I don’t work nine months out of the year,I work eleven.I also have to teach summer school.We’re not paid for our time out of school,unless we divide our measly pay into a twelve month schedule.That work schedule maintains the basics.No house,two cars,three tv’s.blah,blah,blah.Try one car,and a two bedroom apartment.The extra bedroom,I know,is a luxury,but I need a study/office.I know one does not teach to get rich,unfortunately re-partisans continually rig the system agianst us.To answer the next question,no real job wil hire you over the summer and few people can teachperform all of its ancillary functions.By the way there are no unions in my state,feudalistic economic policies have shut them out.A teacher who even suggests a union would be fired quicker than if they seduced one of their student’s.
No Child left Behind?That only applies to Bush’s drunken daughters at the police station.
Bush’s policies have left plenty of children behind.Don’t even comment.This is one area where you can only ignorantly pontificate until you set foot into the classroom and stay there for a year.
“You’re very petty.”
And the far right isn’t?They’ve made an entire industry of peddling petty propaganda to the politically,economically,sociologically,and philosophically retarded.Speaking of petty,I may have misspelled"falderal”.I did not,however, misspell"their”—tehir?Also “people” is plural,it’s possessive case is"people’s” Was that a sad attempt to use little boy words?Two can play that game.
It’s apparent that you don’t support labor over management.Still,your slick"libertarian"arguments are only grease for fascism.Which,by the way does not have to come dressed in black shirts,brown shirts or jack boots.It can also come come clad in grey flannel suits and wing-tips.
The word"myrmidon"is used to describe a subordinate who unquestioningly,or unscrupulously,executes orders.For this reason, Myrmidiae is the latin word used to describe ants.It also seems fitting to describe right-wingers.Little creatures who obey without question and,like an ant,cannot see the big picture,only little objects.
Posted by wwoods on Mar 10, 2005 at 3:46 PM Dear P Westre,
“I would also respectfully disagree that the rising tide has lifted all boats. While it may be true that wages have floated upwards over the past 30 years the real problem is that there is an incresingly concentrated income gap between the upper 5% of the economy and everyone else.”
You seem to be under the impression that you know that, had the system been different the last 10 or 20 years, this gap would be smaller AND the pie would be just as big. With no Ronald Reagan, we very well could still be in the same kind of economic mindset that served us so poorly in the 70’s. I suggest that perhaps the gap would be smaller, but so would the pie. If we’re going to have a growing developed economy, I think a gap is part of it. I don’t care how rich the rich get as long as the rest also keep doing better.
“There is something drastically wrong when the prices of everything keep going up and real wages are declining.”
Sure, but that it not what is happening over the longer term. In other words look at periods of a year or more because month to month they can fluctuate wildly. For example, from one month to the next, nominal wages could remain flat, but the price of oil could spike such that real wages would register a slight decline. Then the next month, wages could again remain flat, but the price of oil might decline such that the real wages would register an increase. Longer term trends are what matters. The longer term trends show real wage growth.
“The center for budget and policy priorities points out that the American Family made an average of 1500$ per year more during the clinton Administartion than under either Bush 1 or Bush 2.”
Of course. But take out the recessions and there’s probably no difference. Clinton was blessed with inheriting an already growing economy (the recession was already over by the 11/92 election) and handing his recession off to Bush II (the recession started in 3/01, only two months after Bush took office; Bush hadn’t even had a chance to implement a single policy; to the extent that we attribute recession’s to presidents - which is certainly way too much - 1991 was Bush I’s, but 2001 was Clinton’s).
“If you read Metro vs. Retro you will find that the “Blue” states have an overall better standard of living than the “Red” states.”
Gee, I wonder if there is a right of center publication out there that has used statistics to make an argument opposite of this left of center group?
“I think that these few examples alone strongly debunk the libertarian argument for no labor unions and “every man for himself.””
You think those examples of investment in public programs say anything whatsoever about unions? Congratulations. You’ve made a decent argument for public spending, but those comments say absolutely nothing about unions.
And you’re off the mark if you think I’m a libertarian. I’m all for spending government money on children and education. We’d have a lot more of it to spend if we didn’t waste so much elsewhere in government.
“The taliban republican coolaid is that all taxes are bad and the private sector when unrestrained will take care of us all.”
(The “coolaid” term is really in vogue around here, isn’t it?)
Not all taxes. Excessive taxation and spending.
“Good schools and public policies that lay the groundwork for human capital.”
Agreed, but unions are not an integral part of this formula. They are an impediment.
Sincerely,
J Craig
Posted by J Craig on Mar 10, 2005 at 4:43 PM Dear J. Craig,
You actually cite a bad union – one – I can cite many:
The Checker Cab auto workers who put the maker of those big Checker cabs I use to drive out of business – the company told them one more strike and were are gone, the union did and the company was gone.
Crazy railroad featherbedding practices – when unions were king.
Deep mob ties undermined my Teamsters union – at least in the past.
Guess what?: when people have power they abuse it. Guess what else?: when people do not have power they are abused even more. Our political system is based on checks and balances: on the assumption that everybody will pursue their own interests.
I guess we can write an amendment to Adam Smith’s “invisible hand”: as long as everybody has equal bargaining power the pursuit of personal gain will help everybody evenly.
Ditto for your notion about some workers getting more at the expense of other workers getting less. Ever hear of the free market? As long as all workers have equal bargaining power – with each other and with management – that should be nothing a free marketer would worry about.
When management has all the power in the bargaining set-up, then management pursuing its own interests will only result in impoverishing the vulnerable worker.
Denis Drew
Chicago
denis.drew@netzero.com
Posted by Denis Drew on Mar 10, 2005 at 5:18 PM Dear Woods,
“You understand the definition,but seem to ignore the numbers. ‘Since 1965 ,real wages have increased 0.2% per year’ That has not kept up with the cost of living. Check your numbers again against the rate of inflation and the price of goods.”
(Don’t take this first word so personally) Dummy, those numbers INCORPORATE inflation. (Didn’t I already say that? “Real Wages: the increase or decrease of wages adjusted for inflation or deflation.”) There are nominal wage increases (meaning simply in dollar terms), which almost always go up, so we don’t look at that because it doesn’t take into account any loss in purchasing power of the dollar (i.e., inflation) and presents an unrealistically rosy scenario for wages. To get to real wages, you adjust nominal wages down by the rate of inflation. Got it? Real wages have increased 0.2% per year since 1965. By definition, if real wages increase, they outpace the increase in the cost of living.“How about being a bit more specific?”
Okay. I’m not an english teacher.
“I do,however,separate my politics from my teaching.”
I find it nearly impossible to believe that your politics NEVER show in the classroom. If I were a teacher, mine would show at some point or another.
“Nonetheless,right-wingers always throw out that remark.”
Why not? I read that teachers union members were more than 20% of the delegation at the Democratic National Convention. Not union members. TEACHERS union members. Public employees unions. Can’t get much further left than that. And the farther from center, I think the more likely to talk about politics.
“If there is any sort of brainwashing…”
There isn’t any brainwashing.
“Not only in the censorship of books”
Censorship? Government controlling content outside the realm of its legitimate control? Please, give examples.
“Creation Science, give me a break.”
Not an issue I care about.
“First of all,who are you to tell me what to do in my off time?”
I didn’t tell you what to do in your off time. I asked a question.
“unless we divide our measly pay”
If you’re not happy with your pay, you should pursue one of the other work options available to you that pays more. (“No! I want to do the job I want at the pay I want!”)
“I know one does not teach to get rich, unfortunately re-partisans continually rig the system agianst us.”
Republicans rig the system against teachers? How exactly? You really should be able to offer specifics to support a particularly strong comment like that.
Where do you stand on social security? Do you pay into social security?
“By the way there are no unions in my state,feudalistic economic policies have shut them out.”
You are not in a union? Really? What state does not have public teachers unions? Or do you work for a private school? If so, a voucher system would probably lead to an increase in your pay.
“Bush’s policies have left plenty of children behind.Don’t even comment.This is one area where you can only ignorantly pontificate until you set foot into the classroom and stay there for a year.”
How exactly? Again, a very strong charge. Please provide some support for it.
“Speaking of petty,I may have misspelled"falderal”.I did not,however, misspell"their”—tehir?”
Big difference. “Tehir” was a typo. “Falderal” was a misspelling. And a funny one, cause you did it when you were trying to use a big-boy word.
“It’s apparent that you don’t support labor over management.”
Correct. I do not support labor over management, which is not to say I support management over labor. I’m neutral. The law should also be neutral.
“Still, your slick “libertarian” arguments are only grease for fascism.”
Greater freedom is grease for fascism? I’m not a libertarian (I have libertarian leanings, but many of my positions would make a libertarian cringe), but you need to understand something: you can’t get further from fascism than pure libertarianism.
“For this reason, Myrmidiae is the latin word used to describe ants.It also seems fitting to describe right-wingers.Little creatures who obey without question and,like an ant,cannot see the big picture,only little objects.”Don’t be so ridiculous. Are you always prone to such hyperbole? You just disagree with them. There are as many thinkers on the right as there are on the left. Both sides are also chock full of dummies.
Sincerely,
J Craig
Posted by J Craig on Mar 10, 2005 at 5:24 PM Dear Denis Drew,
“I guess we can write an amendment to Adam Smith’s “invisible hand”: as long as everybody has equal bargaining power the pursuit of personal gain will help everybody evenly. Ditto for your notion about some workers getting more at the expense of other workers getting less. Ever hear of the free market? As long as all workers have equal bargaining power – with each other and with management – that should be nothing a free marketer would worry about. When management has all the power in the bargaining set-up, then management pursuing its own interests will only result in impoverishing the vulnerable worker.”
It all rests on the assertion that, absent some sort of legislative intervention (such as union-supporting legislation or minimum wage legislation), management has all the power in the bargaining set-up .
What exactly do you mean “they have all the power.” You should support it. I don’t know that it is supportable.
Sincerely,
J Craig
Posted by J Craig on Mar 10, 2005 at 5:31 PM Dear J. Craig,
What Reagan cured that the Democrats may not have cured (Volker was appointed by Carter) was double-digit inflation. Economic growth slowed to about half pace around 1973 and did not pick up to full speed again until 1995 – neither to the blame or credit of politicians: labor productivity waxes and wanes with maturing—emphasis on “maturing”—technologies.
For instance, at first, personal computers were just a more expensive way to write a letter. You can finagle public finances all you want: no new technology or advance in management techniques, no growth. Credit for growth to Henry Ford and Bill Gates.
From 1973 to 1995 average income grew—if slowly—35%. Even so, from 1973 to 1995 hourly pay up to the 50 percentile level actually dropped about 50 cents an hour. From 1995 to 2000 a super tight labor market (better bargaining power)—resulting from both resumed productivity and the dot.com boom—allowed pay to keep about 80% pace with productivity. Since 2000 we are back to about 33% pace. That’s if you believe the Census Bureau’s “private brand” of inflation which is about 20% more optimistic.
Imagine if you predicted to Americans of 1968 that 37 years hence 25% of Americans would be earning less than the minimum wage of 1968 (if you believe the BLS’s “standard brand” inflation) and Americans would be working as much as 50% more hours than Europeans.
The 1968 people would have imagined there would have to be a small nuclear war or a great depression. But if you said: no, personal income would actually double—on the average—they could have come to only one conclusion: that American workers had allowed themselves to be reduced in bargaining terms to the equivalent of freed serfs—able to roam from firm to firm but with no way to force their employer to pay much more than a minimal wage.
Which is sort of the labor market as you describe would be to your liking.
Denis Drew
Chicago
denis.drew@netzero.com
Posted by Denis Drew on Mar 10, 2005 at 5:52 PM ... jumping into this discussion a little late ...
J Craig:
I’m just wondering, what would be your feelings on jsut doing away with the whole NLRA? I mean, the system as is - Taft-Hartley, the new reporting requirements, etc.. - really serves to make it harder for unions (just free associations of workers) to operate. Union use of the NLRB election process (vs. card-check) has been steadily declining - for good reason.
If we went back to a pre-Wagner Act world, would you be upset about unions engaging in secondary boycotts and hot cargo agreements? If government didn’t intervene in the process on either side, if it stopped trying to “promote industrial peace”, would you be ok with that result?
I’m really interested - I think that this would end any government policies that “benefit” unions (although most unionists would disagree that the benefits are for the workers), but would, considering some of the sophisticated organizing strategies now in use, actually make it easier to organize. How about it - a free labor market?
Posted by James on Mar 10, 2005 at 5:54 PM Dear J. Craig,
What Reagan cured that the Democrats may not have cured (Volker was appointed by Carter) was double-digit inflation. Economic growth slowed to about half pace around 1973 and did not pick up to full speed again until 1995 – neither to the blame or credit of politicians: labor productivity waxes and wanes with maturing – emphasis on “maturing” – technologies.
For instance, at first, personal computers were just a more expensive way to write a letter. You can finagle public finances all you want: no new technology or advance in management techniques, no growth. Credit for growth to Henry Ford and Bill Gates.
From 1973 to 1995 average income grew – if slowly –35%. Even so, from 1973 to 1995 hourly pay up to the 50 percentile level actually dropped about 50 cents an hour. From 1995 to 2000 a super tight labor market (better bargaining power)—resulting from both resumed productivity and the dot.com boom—allowed pay to keep about 80% pace with productivity. Since 2000 we are back to about 33% pace. That’s if you believe the Census Bureau’s “private brand” of inflation which is about 20% more optimistic.
Imagine if you predicted to Americans of 1968 that 37 years hence 25% of Americans would be earning less than the minimum wage of 1968 (if you believe the BLS’s “standard brand” inflation) and Americans would be working as much as 50% more hours than Europeans.
The 1968 people would have imagined there would have to be a small nuclear war or a great depression. But if you said: no, personal income would actually double – on the average – they could have come to only one conclusion: that American workers had allowed themselves to be reduced in bargaining terms to the equivalent of freed serfs – able to roam from firm to firm but with no way to force their employer to pay much more than a minimal wage.
Which is sort of the labor market as you describe would be to your liking.
Denis Drew
Chicago
denis.drew@netzero.com
Posted by Denis Drew on Mar 10, 2005 at 6:36 PM Dear James,
“How about it - a free labor market?”
Really? A free labor market? In addition to the changes you mention, a free labor market would require rescinding any laws that prohibit an employer from firing any worker at any time for any reason.
Of course, laws that are not designed specifically to affect the labor-management relationship but nonetheless do (such as assault, murder etc) would still be in effect and should be followed and enforced. For example, if laborers don’t like that management is firing them, they must keep their behavior legal, as in no violence.
Free labor market? If it includes the change I mention, sure. Legal neutrality.
Sincerely,
J Craig
Posted by J Craig on Mar 10, 2005 at 6:36 PM J Craig,
North Carolina has no teachers’ unions.Bush’s No Child Left Behind has created very high expectations for teachers,yet leaves little funding to meet those expectations.Yes,we do need money.not only for the high-tech items,but also for the basics.My county currently practices paper rationing as we lack funding,thanks to cut in Bush’ education budget.
“Republicans rig the system against teachers?How exactly?”
By getting into politics.Supporting wage freezes,and too many other things to list.By the way,government censorship is not merely federal,it can even occur at the county or municipal level.I don’t bring my politics into the classroom.Teachers have been fired for that,particularly when they disagree with right-wing policies.I’ve watched it happen.
Unless you are a teacher or are married to one,you have no idea of what goes on .Do you teach?Are you married to one?If not,you are ignorant to teaching. You didn’t tell me what to do with my off time.
Still,your comments indicate you don’t know what a teacher’s schedule is like.That’s one way I know you don’t teach.My myrmidon remark was hyperbolic,but accurate.Just pay attention to the reactionary media.Also,I believe in fighting fire with fire,especially in political discourse.Reason and civility is ineffective with bullies like right-wingers
I know what falderal means.That’s why I used it.Yet you feel that a misspelling indicates some sort of ignorance.I was simply unsure of the spelling and lacking a dictionary.
Fascism is an aggressive policy.Neutrality toward an aggressor always helps them.
Why won’t you tell us what you do for a living?I’m
beginning to sense that you either don’t really work,or are engaged in some sort of labor that,if identified,would lead people to give your arguments little credence.Now,selectively pick these statements apart,refute without evidence,ask for clarifications of the obvious,and lay the burden of proof on the other person…yet again.Better yet read a book on forensics or critical thinking.
Frankly,I think you’re simply arguing to be an irritant.
Posted by wwoods on Mar 10, 2005 at 7:25 PM Dear J Craig:
First, the vast majority of employees in the United States are at-will. The laws that you want to overturn for a “free labor market” - are these anti-discrimination laws, etc? We’ve already hypothetically overturned anything stopping discrimination based on union membership.
Obviously, laws regarding violence would still be in effect - unbiased government enforcement of such laws would be the major difference betwen this system in the current day vs. the pre-NLRA era. I would hope that the much higher level of transparency and information awareness today would prevent the innumerable instances of the National Guard being used to put down non-violent labor insurrection that occured before the NLRA.
So, no violence on either side, no legal action when a union member is fired, but no complaining or legal recourse when there’s a secondary boycott, work to rule, or back to belly picketing as a result? Sign me up.
Posted by James on Mar 10, 2005 at 7:56 PM A large, under-educated public with no belief in a better tomorrow sets up a very dangerous enviroment in this county. The people in power may someday get more than they bargained for.
The remarks that labor should bargain harder always amaze me it is as it the Union is something apart from a worker movement. If you believe that the “UNION” a collection of people working on behalf of workers are failing the working class than displace the unions. But whatever you do you better get on board and support a worker friendly movement in this country. Workers were clearly much better off when unions had more politica clout and unions had more political clout becomes members supported the movement not the leaders. Many of the social benefits that all workers enhoy including social security are somewhat a result of the power of the “movemeent” I hope our children figure it out.
Posted by Mike on Mar 10, 2005 at 9:05 PM “Reason and civility is ineffective with bullies like right-wingers.”
Is this meant to say that “right wingers” are bullies by their very nature? Is it any better than saying something objectionable like “attemping to reason with left wingers is futile, since they are all brainwashed morons”?
It is unfortunate that some people believe that they can behave poorly and then blame it on others. I have more faith in people and their abilities to communcicate in a reasoned way. I am also delighted that my children are not being taught by such a bigot as wwoods appears to be.
Posted by huh? on Mar 10, 2005 at 9:19 PM Dear J. Craig,
What Reagan cured that the Democrats may not have cured (Volker was appointed by Carter) was double-digit inflation. Economic growth slowed to about half pace around 1973 and did not pick up to full speed again until 1995 – neither to the blame or credit of politicians: labor productivity waxes and wanes with maturing – emphasis on “maturing” – technologies.
For instance, at first, personal computers were just a more expensive way to write a letter. You can finagle public finances all you want: no new technology or advance in management techniques, no growth. Credit for growth to Henry Ford and Bill Gates.
From 1973 to 1995 average income grew – if slowly –35%. Even so, from 1973 to 1995 hourly pay up to the 50 percentile level actually dropped about 50 cents an hour. From 1995 to 2000 a super tight labor market (better bargaining power – same people doing the same jobs; get it?)—resulting from both resumed productivity and the dot.com boom—allowed pay to keep about 80% pace with productivity. Since 2000 we are back to about 33% pace. That’s if you believe the Census Bureau’s “private brand” of inflation which is about 20% more optimistic.
Imagine if you predicted to Americans of 1968 that 37 years hence 25% of Americans would be earning less than the minimum wage of 1968 (if you believe the BLS’s “standard brand” inflation) and Americans would be working as much as 50% more hours than Europeans.
The 1968 people would have imagined there would have to be a small nuclear war or a great depression. But if you said: no, personal income would actually double – on the average – they could have come to only one conclusion: that American workers had allowed themselves to be reduced in bargaining terms to the equivalent of freed serfs – able to roam from firm to firm but with no way to force their employer to pay much more than a minimal wage.
Which is sort of the labor market as you describe would be to your liking.
Denis Drew
Chicago
denis.drew@netzero.com
Posted by Denis Drew on Mar 10, 2005 at 9:53 PM Dear Denis Drew,
“Economic growth slowed to about half pace around 1973 and did not pick up to full speed again until 1995…”
Really?
(Growth in 1973 was 5.7%. I’ll assume you meant 1974, when a recession began. Don’t worry; doing this actually helps your case - but not enough.)
Growth averaged 4.2% from 1960 through 1973 (fyi it averaged about 5.5% from the 1934 to 1959) and 3.0% from 1974 through 1994. Obviously that’s not half, but even that number saddles 1974-1994 with the 1974-1975 recession. Give that recession to the other segment, and suddenly 1960-1975 averages 3.1% and 1976-1994 averages 3.2%.
On to 1995: growth averaged only 3.8% from 1995 (when you say it “hit full speed” again) to 2000, a period that has the advantage of no recession (the full expansion averaged 3.3%). If you want a comparison for that 3.8%, compare it to the expansion of 1983-1990, when growth averaged 4.0%.
As economic growth goes, there was a gradual general decline from the end of the 50’s to the early 70’s, but nothing changed back in 1995. The second half of the 90’s expansion that you refer to was no different than the mid-80’s expansion (actually, it was a little weaker).
” – neither to the blame or credit of politicians: labor productivity waxes and wanes with maturing – emphasis on “maturing” – technologies.”So…what? Policy has no effect on the economic growth? What coincided with the only real change that we observed about growth, which was from the late 50’s to the early 70’s? The Great Society expansion of the welfare state?
“Which is sort of the labor market as you describe would be to your liking.”
No, this is:
“From 1995 to 2000 a super tight labor market (better bargaining power)”
The stronger the economy, the more jobs, the more scarce labor becomes, the more natural bargaining power labor has.
Your productivity slowdown and resumption theory fails to take into account that the expansion of the 80’s was stronger than the expansion of the 90’s.
Sincerely,
J Craig
Posted by J Craig on Mar 10, 2005 at 9:57 PM Dear Woods,
“thanks to cut in Bush’ education budget.”
The education budget has grown pretty dramatically under Bush. Haven’t you heard the complaints from the right? In 1994, Republicans were talking about eliminating the Department of Education, but instead Bush increases the budget substantially in partnership with Ted Kennedy. And Kennedy thanks him by complaining that it isn’t funded all the way up to its authorized limit (which is common in bills; the authorized limit is a spending ceiling), completely ignoring the fact that spending rose dramatically. Haven’t we all learned yet? No level of spending will stop Ted Kennedy from crying that it isn’t enough.
“Unless you are a teacher or are married to one,you have no idea of what goes on .Do you teach?Are you married to one?If not,you are ignorant to teaching… your comments indicate you don’t know what a teacher’s schedule is like. That’s one way I know you don’t teach.”
I know several teachers who take the whole summer off. I know what a teacher’s schedule is like: like most of the rest of us, it’s very hectic during the parts of the year that they’re working. But unlike the rest of us, they have the option to limit the part of the year that they’re working to only 3/4.
“Reason and civility is ineffective with bullies like right-wingers”
You probably think I’m one of those bully right wingers even though if you look back through my comments you’ll find very few examples of incivility. Really, you’re imagining it, probably because my ideas are so offensive to you. Take a look and let’s see what you come up with. Then I’ll likewise scrutinize your posts and we’ll see who is less civil.
“Yet you feel that a misspelling indicates some sort of ignorance.”No, I thought it was funny that you misspelled in your most obvious attempt to use a big-boy word.
“Fascism is an aggressive.”
What does that have to do with libertarianism? You equated libertarianism with fascism. Libertarianism is about as far as you can get from fascism. You should explain yourself.
“Why won’t you tell us what you do for a living?I’m beginning to sense that you either don’t really work,or are engaged in some sort of labor that,if identified,would lead people to give your arguments little credence.”
My arguments are obviously credible.
Sincerely,
J Craig
Posted by J Craig on Mar 10, 2005 at 10:51 PM Dear James,
“First, the vast majority of employees in the United States are at-will.”
You don’t really think that in such situations employers already truly have the ability to fire an employee at any time for any reason without repercussion, as an employer would be able to in a true “free labor market”? Truly free labor market? No venue for recourse whatsoever. Leave the premises, I’ll pay you through this minute and not a minute more. Go. If you want a true free labor market, that is how it would have to work.
“The laws that you want to overturn for a “free labor market” - are these anti-discrimination laws, etc?”
I’m not in favor of overturning such laws, but if we are talking about this hypothetical true free labor market, overturning such laws would have to be part of it.
“I would hope that the much higher level of transparency and information awareness today would prevent the innumerable instances of the National Guard being used to put down non-violent labor insurrection that occured before the NLRA.”
Give me an example of non-violent insurrection that an employer will have to tolerate yet not be able to fire them immediately and send them off the premises. And of course anti-loitering laws would stop you from hanging around on the sidewalks, and they can’t take it into the streets. I suppose they could take it to town square. Do what the employer says, or get out. That is how it would be if it were a truly free labor market. And get off the property, and don’t loiter. In a truly free labor market, all laws specifically geared toward the employment issues would vanish.
“So, no violence on either side, no legal action when a union member is fired, but no complaining or legal recourse when there’s a secondary boycott, work to rule, or back to belly picketing as a result? Sign me up.”
Me too. We’d see how many people would be willing to give up their jobs so they can organize a secondary boycott they probably will only be able to participate in as a consumer. And a secondary boycott would mean there are other unionized companies having ongoing labor disputes. Don’t count on it. Talk about forming a union and you’re fired. Look at all the people now that would be willing to step into almost any union job that becomes available. Who will risk their job? You think a truly free labor market will give unions an edge. I think it would be their death knell, even as it is good for employees and the economy, though certainly a little less secure-feeling for employees. Certainly, employers will be quite a bit less hesitant to hire if it’s remarkably easy and cost free to fire or lay off.
Work to rule? You’re fired. Probably not much work to rule going on.
What is back to belly picketing? Whatever it is, in this brave new world, do you think it likely would occur?
Sincerely,
J Craig
Posted by J Craig on Mar 10, 2005 at 11:22 PM Dear J Craig:
(1) Right now, in 2005, almost any employee who starts talking about joining a union gets fired, and the NLRB is not a realistic recourse. If you want the figures, I can dig them up.
(2) I’m obviously approaching this exercise in conjecture from a different angle than you, but the way I picture it is that doing away with the NLRA would remove the barriers to certain union activity while increasing labor militancy. Joe gets fired for talking union? Ok, we sit-down strike, work to rule, secondary strike, or have “real”, impassable pickets (not informational pickets). We get other unions to not unload our cargo, accept our deliveries, deliver to our plant, etc… We use all the tools that are currently illegal under Taft-Hartley, NLRA, etc… We cease using an already useless NLRB election procedure.
No notice of strikes, no government endorsement of permanent replacements, striking civil servants.
We combine the pre-NLRA tools with the incredible power of the modern strategic corporate campaign. I think it would work.
But, hey, it’s never going to happen.
Posted by James on Mar 10, 2005 at 11:39 PM Dear James,
“Right now, in 2005, almost any employee who starts talking about joining a union gets fired, and the NLRB is not a realistic recourse.”
Really. Do you know a more anti-union company than Walmart? Because they tolerate union talk all the time. There was just a vote in some town in Colorado on unionizing part of a Walmart. (It failed.) Free labor market? Count on this: zero talk of unions at Walmart. Literally zero. And other companies that deal with unions? Say goodbye to any competitiveness in the market place. Can’t you see what the world you are talking about would be like? Think Walmart but harder line.
“Ok, we sit-down strike, work to rule, secondary strike, or have “real”, impassable pickets (not informational pickets).”
1. sit-down strike: fired
2. work to rule: fired
3. secondary strike: good luck getting the company to participate
or: won’t deliver the goods? fired
4. impassible pickets would be illegal in a truly free labor market. You don’t work there (you’ve been fired) and it is illegal for you to stop another person from going where he wants (like into the business to do the job you just got fired from)“We get other unions to not unload our cargo, accept our deliveries, deliver to our plant, etc… We use all the tools that are currently illegal under Taft-Hartley, NLRA, etc… We cease using an already useless NLRB election procedure.”
Correct. If those unions even exist. If the company where those unions won’t unload for some reason decides not to immediately fire these employees that aren’t doing their jobs.
You imagine companies will sit idly by and watch unions run the show. I doubt it.
“no government endorsement of permanent replacements”
What does that mean? What will the government have to endorse? The employer (including any public employers) would be able to freely choose to deal with the union, or the employer would also be able to fire them all for whatever reason and bring in replacements as soon as possible.
“striking civil servants.”
Goodbye to your jobs, civil servants. The guy waiting outside with an application can have your job.
It wouldn’t be as vicious as you think. This isn’t the early 1900’s. Labor is much more scarce than then. Capital is much more abundant.
But like you say, it will never happen.
Sincerely,
J Craig
Posted by J Craig on Mar 11, 2005 at 12:00 AM As a Union Member for more than 35 years, and having held several positions in the union structure, it is clear that the officials of International Unions have virtually become agents for the Corporations in an effort to enhance their own monetary gain over their responsibilities to represent the dues paying members. I consider myself to be a liberal Democrat. It is time that elected Democrats listen to the rank and file and not the money that International Unions give them. Thank you.
As a Union Member for almost 35 years it is with deep regret that I have witnessed the downward spiral of the union membership and union democracy. The lack of trust the membership feels toward the Internationals is not only appalling but also understandable. As the Internationals support political candidates that endorse free trade agreements, that move high paying jobs out of the country for union and non-union workers alike, it would make a reasonable person to assume that their actions are expedient. In other words, create a climate of low paying jobs where it would be easier to organize more workers to increase revenues to subsidize their exorbitant salaries. Since most elections for President of International Unions are by delegates, the chance for change is non-existent. It is the opinion of this writer that election laws must be changed to allow for a popular vote. Since this would not be done willingly, I advise any Union member to write to their Federal Senator and Congressperson requesting changes in the labor laws to address this issue. A letter to Director Elaine Chao would also suffice. Thank you. Ryan Compton
Posted by Ryan Compton on Mar 11, 2005 at 12:12 AM J Craig:
I’ll just say this - I’m a professional who works in the labor movement. My comment about firings for union organizing activity is verifiable. It’s bad at Walmart, it’s bad everywhere. I can dig up the statistics if you want.
Back to belly picketing is an illegal activity, creating a physical wall to stop entry, as opposed to informational picketing aimed at convincing consumers/scabs not to enter a facility.
Thanks for the entertaining discussion.
Posted by James on Mar 11, 2005 at 12:15 AM A strong labor movement leads to better run organizations. This is true in both the public and private sectors. The bottom line is that we need a strong labor movement to act as a counterbalance to corporate excesses. I have yet to see a real economic benefit to workers from globalization and the Republican Corporatocracy. Real wages are essentially stagnant, educational investment shrinking, health insurance coverage declining and taxes increasing. The rich are getting richer and the middle class is shrinking and/or downwardly mobile. A strong democracy is dependent on a well educated and prosperous middle class. Excessive economic disparity historically leads to civil unrest and loss of freedom. Frankly, the Enron’s of the world will destroy the American economy if left unchecked. Its time for a strong labor movement to be rebuilt from the ashes. The first place to start is employee free choice, card check recognition and laws guaranteeing that discharge may only happen for just cause.
Posted by P Westre on Mar 11, 2005 at 1:58 AM Responding to Ryan Compton’s post, I have to say that his point about rank-and-file workers being unserved by union leadership resonated with me, not only from personal experience but from many loved ones and acquaintances with similar stories. I confess that I’m still working out my take on unionization and its overall benefits/detriments, but personal experience is how most of us learn anyway. In a former union I was in, you could hardly tell whether the union was in an adversarial relationship with management or in bed with them. It was almost de rigeur that former union leaders would soon become managers. Those of us who were members spent most of our time squabbling about choices that the negotiation process put before us, mainly whether to accept benefits reductions or to agree to the loss of fellow members’ jobs. There were real gains we experienced due to the instances of well-executed collective bargaining (Did these benefit the organization or hurt it? Benefit the economy-at-large or harm it? Debatable), but you can see how disillusionment would set in after a period of years. My point is, I would be curious to find out how many workers had been underserved or actually done badly by unions and would therefore not be willing to lend their support today, feeling instead that they needed to go it alone. Are they mistaken? Perhaps, but again, experience is the teacher people remember best.
As I mentioned in a post to the Midwest Union Rollback article, it should not be hard to demonstrate whether unionization has or has not benefitted the workers in a given industry, while at the same time not cutting the legs off the companies that employ those workers. Similarly, it should also be easy to show the effects when their companies do not have to worry about united action by the workers. There again, since anyone can selectively cite statistics to suit their own purpose, the experiences of working families will what shapes their attitudes. That’s how they’ll decide whether to give their efforts to strengthening the union movement or not, whether they pressure their legislators to foster their ability to unionize if they see fit or not.
As for the close scrutiny of labor-supporting organizations by government (as per Moberg’s article), the only way that could be fair is if other organizations that involve themselves in politics get similar scrutiny, on the basis of good-faith enforcement of law as opposed to partisan finnagling (wouldn’t that be nice to see, I wonder if I ever will). Lopsided decisions to pointedly audit unions, policies that place hurdles in the way of their ordinary functions, all that can’t be justified when groups who back the administration get such a light touch from the taxman or whatever regulatory agency.
It would be interesting to see what would play out if Wal-Mart, the Arlington Group, News Corp., or the RNC, were so devotedly audited.
Posted by Kuya on Mar 11, 2005 at 2:44 AM As a French friend of mine said after November 04, ‘It is America’s choice, so . . “Enjoy!”
Me, for my part, we are a people in need of Pain.
Posted by jgiannone on Mar 11, 2005 at 5:01 AM So the NLRB is prohibiting, by administrative fiat, an employer’s voluntary agreement to certify a union by card check. It is prohibiting, as well, any voluntary contractual accommodation of minority unionism outside the NLRB certification process.
Rather odd behavior, to say the least, for an administration that claims to believe in “free markets” and “freedom of contract.”
Come to think of it, my state’s so-called “right-to-work” law, which prohibits an employer from contractually agreeing to a union shop, and legally mandates that the union represent scabs, doesn’t seem very consistent with free market principles, either.
Not to put too fine a point on it, anyone who claims to favor free markets, while supporting government intervention in the market to regulate labor contracts on the employer’s behalf, is a lying, hypocritical whore.
Posted by Kevin Carson on Mar 11, 2005 at 7:56 PM J Craig,
Your own statement about our education budget makes my point.Our budget isn’t fully funded.Yet,the expectations for performance are
still in place.You can’t simply make do,although that what is tacitly expected.Define substantial and,moreover tell me where that extra money goes?
Furthermore,not every state,or even every district operates on the same schedule.
I haven’t called you a right-wing bully or a fascist,or think that of you.Nor do I equate libertarianism with fascism.Nonetheless,I believe your ideas on labor and its value are terribly wrong.
There are those who take the position of neutrality in dealing with fascistic policies or ideas.To do so,to comply is to give license. By the way ,license,in this use,is a big boy word in action.Just so you know.You still haven’t answered my question about your occupation.You continue to dance around it.That really makes me wonder about you.Those who play games of secrecy usually do so to cover an actual,or perceived,weakness.Your argument’s thesis is credible in a textbook sense.It is not practical.If so practiced,how would many CEO"s who earn millions each year justify their salaries?Could they?The argument is the type proposed by the powerful to subjugate and recited by those who dream,often delusionally,that they will be powerful also,despite the remoteness of fruition.It is the type of argument a fascist would use,whether you realize it or not.By agreeing with ideas or theories they endorse,though you are outside their party,you abet their efforts.
I reading your posts and examining them over the past few days,it has occurred to me that you are quite naive or deluded.That’s not an insult,it’s an observation.Perhaps you’ll come around before you’re left seriously disillusioned by the policies you endorse and the people trying to implement them.
Posted by wwoods on Mar 11, 2005 at 9:15 PM Bah… I haven’t the patience to read all that has been posted so far. But I do have these to say:
(General claims made so far, the exact wording isn’t right):
1. “1980’s growth was bigger than the 1990’s growth”
And the three decades from the mid 40’s to the mid 70’s were better than the 1980’s. (The period, which of course, was the historical high point for the American labour movement and the welfare state.) The 90’s (as well as any of the post-New Deal decades) has stronger job growth than the 80’s. The 80’s oversaw ballooning deficits, declining investment, and an unprecedented amount of business failures.
The idea that conservative economic policies contributes to strong growth has to account for the stronger growth experienced by OECD nations for the past few decades and the fact that, for example, today’s self-proclaimed socialist Venezuela’s economy is set to grow at a pace of 12%. We get the same thing up here in BC. The Liberal party (which is for us the conservative party) gets credit for “turning the economy around” after the NDP left it “in shambles”, simply ignoring the inconvenient fact that the early 90’s NDP growth pales the current one. The people that blame the NDP for the late 90’s for any economic troubles other than their numerous money-related scandals (of which they should be held responsible for) simply do not understand the fact that capitalist economics are based on the business cycle.
2. “1990’s growth occured because of weakening unions.”
Union membership for you guys has been on the decline since the 60’s. Anything that happened to your economy during that period could be attributed to “declining union membership”, both good (by conservatives) and bad (by liberals). What I do know about the 90’s growth was that Clinton’s large upper tax increase was roundly denounced by conservatives and libertarians as the “largest tax hike in history” (untrue, but by modern standards it was quite large) and as a fatal stroke to the ailing economy, only to be followed by years of growth.
3. “Excessive welfare policy is responsible for America’s lagging behind the OECD nations in (insert statistic here).”
Despite the fact that OECD nations have more generous welfare states than the US?
It is easy to get away with blaming crime on welfare recipients because glimpsing at the fact sheets do bear out that welfare recipients tend to commit the most crime. (Most in terms of volume, not cost. White collar crime costs taxpayers more than street crime.) But this has to do with both welfare eligibility and crime being related to a third, unmentioned factor, which is the existence of poverty. For example, the slums of many third world cities have crime that would shame Washington DC (the city, that is). In fact, calling it “crime” is almost a misnomer, as these places are completely devoid of law and order (the police do not bother to enforce laws in slums, which is understandable in a legal sense, as slum tenants are rarely legal property holders, but not understandable in an ethical sense), which compounds the point that I’m making. Poverty, not welfare, causes crime. Welfare states have less crime than non-welfare states.
Granted, the Right does have something resembling a point when noticing the alleged growth of the crime rate alongside the growth of the welfare state. But this has more to do with urban myth-making (an idyllic, white Christian past that had no crime, no deviance, and where everyone pulled themselves up from their bootstraps) than any basis in fact. Conservatives point to small towns in the past with no crime as evidence for their claims; as if that has anything to do with economic policy. Up here in Canada, we have small towns that are like this, except of course with our social democratic twist. This is a sociological and anthropological, not an economic, phenomenon. Libertarians point to medieval Iceland, which is invalid for too many reasons for me to waste my time on (for one thing, you can’t get much more “statist” than medieval society).
4. “Price floors/ceilings are bad”
In theory, yes, but this assumes that a productive component of the economy has to bite the dust, which is an assumption of conservative economics. For example, every federal minimum wage increase for the past few decades was met by neither inflation nor unemployment. Most were followed up by a stronger economy (take 1996). Inelasticity is not even taken into account.
5. “Public sector unions are bad”
On this one, I agree. Public sector unions, by their nature, tend to be monopolistic. On the one hand, public sector strikes should be, shall we say, discouraged by the government (though I hold out from outright criminalization in case of emergencies) in return for tougher legislation on salary floors and the like.
Posted by Ted on Mar 12, 2005 at 3:20 AM I find an the example of disinfomation and distraction in this string disheartening. JCraig’s specious economic fact picking does great neocon service.
Classic fundamental economics- concentrating capital supresses economic growth. Dealing a death blow to the labor movement is the point of the Neocon move to audit the labor movement into uttter ineffectiveness. Neocon hatred for labor is the other side coin of the hatred of any tax on capital. Unions and social secutiy are un american in the neocon credo and destroying both will be the end of a middle class society.
Posted by Joel LeFevre on Mar 13, 2005 at 2:34 PM Dear huh?,
I said right-wingers are bullies based on observation.I’m sorry if you feel that prejudicial or bigoted.
By nature a bully is one who harms those who can’t defend themselves.Economically,this is what right-wing policies have done for the past twenty-five years.Domestically,the right-wing has picked fights with anyone differs in belief or value from them.Are you gay and don’t want to be fired because of it?Right-wing respoonse:you’re a pervert;you deserve to have a decent person’s job.Are you an immigrant who wishes to live here and pursue a career without shaved head morons beating you nearly to death as you return from your Physics 475 class?Right-wing response:you’re a parasite,go back where you came from.Are you needing food because the town factory shut down and you spent your savings while looking for a new job?Right-wing response:You’re lazy.Laziness is a moral failure.If you’re immoral,you deserve nothing.
Over the past fifteen years,thanks to talk radio and sound-bite political debate shows,right-wing politicians and pundits have reduced debate to sophistry and cant.Their response to this:“Yeah?Says you!“Tied in is a competition of oneupmanship,who can be the most obnoxious and make the headline.
Having watched their tactics over the years,it’s apparent that they can’t be debated with.They believe what they believe.Outside information is propaganda and disagreement is treason.Thanks to networks like Fox News,the trend continues toward deterioration.
The more I read Swift the more I see of his works coming to fruition,and the more I shudder.
Posted by wwoods on Mar 14, 2005 at 3:50 PM Dear J Craig, Analyze your way out of this: :-)
The most typical “inequality” bar chart illustrates that—after 1973 the income of the bottom four quintiles of American families grew between 12% to 35% while the top quintile expanded nearly 65% (not counting income above $1,000,000 a family: the “top code”!)—bad enough to make a collapse of bargaining power on the part of American labor the most likely explanation; but not conclusive.
Upon deeper inquiry: most to all of what economic progress the bottom four quintiles have managed since 1973 depended on more families members working more hours – even while overall income doubled!—leaving the complete evaporation of bargaining power the only plausible culprit.
Ditto if poverty actually doubled – while average income doubled!
Official stats are a 14.2% poverty rate in 1967; slightly down to 12.5% by 2003. But the poverty rate is computed by no longer realistic formula – that happened to fit the fifties—three times an emergency diet (only dried beans, no cans please). Might as well make it 10 times medical expenses – sounds right for 1955 – the latter could yield a poverty line for a family of four $100,000 a year, by now.
By 1967 (14.2% poverty) the formula was still a close fit. By 2005 (12.5% poverty?) double does not make the cut.
On table 2-3, of “Raise the Floor” the books authors added up what the same 1955 poverty expenses would cost today. The official poverty level for a family of four (before taxes) is $18,000 a year. The private book says $33,000 (converted to 2005 dollars) w/o medical coverage!
Interestingly the latest “State of Working America” has a “twice poverty rate” chart showing over 30% of Americans living under double the official poverty line (Figure 5D). So it is sensible to suppose the true poverty rate has more like doubled – as average income doubled! – again, a telling sign that American labor has descended the equivalent of freed serfs: able to jump from job to job; but with no effective mechanism to hold out for a better deal.
**********************************
The total collapse of labor bargaining power in America at the hands of company union busting should be seen as as harmful as any monopoly conspiracy to restrain trade – even if the competition to be broken is the opposite side of the bargaining table in the labor market.If the Democrats want to get on the good side of red state voters they can push legislation which will seriously penalize – perhaps even with felony punishments – any conspiracy to restrain labor organization beyond persuasive actions.
The First Amendment only protects against government oppression; but the fact that freedom of assembly ranks with freedom of speech in the Constitution emphasizes that it is a core human right – which is equally true in the economic sphere.
A constitutional amendment empowering Congress to protect the right to organize might not be necessary – the same can be accomplished legislatively – but it might make a good symbolic issue symbolically to emphasize the sacredness of that right. Punitive union busting should be considered a crime against the natural rights of man.
When is the majority in the country going to assert their interests through the power of the law?
Denis Drew
Chicago
denis.drew@netzero.com
Posted by Denis Drew on Mar 14, 2005 at 6:19 PM J Craig,
If “market forces” are to dictate wages, who is going to interpret those forces?
John
Posted by John Pray on Mar 16, 2005 at 3:16 PM J. Craig:
I read all of your posted comments because you gave a generally cogent statement of your views and framework. While my views are 180 degrees from yours (I work for a union—enough said), I think we do need to have dialogue across ideological and politcal lines. At times, you got a little pissy, but then so did commentators who shared my viewpoint.
There’s a lot of frustration and anger on my side (how the hell can W be elected given his record????). I imagine some with your perspective felt similarly during the Clinton years, or before 1980.
Thanks for participating in this discussion. Your side is on top now. Help us see things from your perspective. Try to resist responding to insults (as I hope my folks will do), so we can continue the dialogue.
While it’s hard (and I fail maybe 50% of the time), I’m convinced that most folks are acting from a good-faith view of what’s best for our country and world. I think you’re almost 100% off base in your specific positions (well, maybe 99%), but I am willing to accept that you hold them in good faith, as evidenced by your generally positive participation on the list serve. Thanks for letting me see things from your perspective so I can stop demonizing those with whom I disagree.
Jim in Portland.
Posted by Jim O'Connor on Mar 18, 2005 at 12:55 AM I have tried to interest pro-labor folks in legally mandated collective bargaining since I stumbled across the practice of some European nations, notably Germany. But ocean-isolated Americans wont so much as acknowledge the topic – too good to be truly doable?
Proposing to outlaw – even criminalize – the use of economic muscle to intimidate labor’s exercise of its all important right to organize (recognized by Papal Encyclical no less) – can be like pointing out that if we do not have to salute the flag, maybe we should not have to rise when a judge enters a courtroom. Once either possibility is introduced to consciousness it is impossible to return to the same-old, same-old complacency.
Once union busting is illuminated as a violation of a human beings most precious social rights (the right to assembly is protected from government by the First Amendment), the issue has the potential to arouse everyone – from line workers to limo liberals to a usually uninterested in unions public – to a permanently “riled up” state.
If we cannot attract support for positive legislation to mandate collective bargaining – then, pushing negative legislation to ban punitive resistance to unionizing (except for unthreatening persuasion) could do the job just as well.
If banning busting does not seem accomplishable simply by punishing a list of anti-labor association offenses then more proactive legislation could be introduced. For instance, elections might be mandated at all workplaces. Management would need to understand that, the more its resistance to retiring pernicious practices, the more comprehensive anti-labor laws could become.
Ideally, along the way, a serious social stigma would become attached to intimidating labor.
**************************************
In 1968, McDonalds charged 25% more for a Big Mac – even though average income was 50% less then (all figures adjusted for inflation). How could it Ronald swing it? Easy; the federal minimum wage just happened to pay 75% more ($9/hour) – meaning even America’s lowest paid workers could afford a store-bought sandwich.Today’s CEOs, pro ballplayers and celebrity news anchors earn 20 times what their 1970s forbearers did – while middle class bankruptcies doubled over a decade.
It is decades past due for Congress – or state legislatures—to institutionalize the inalienable economic right of American workers to peacefully combine their free market bargaining efforts without facing a whiff – not a whiff—of intimidation.
Denis Drew
Chicago
denis.drew@netzero.com
Posted by Denis Drew on Mar 18, 2005 at 1:02 AM When the gov. spends more than they take in, something will have to give. The rich get richer, the middle class is getting smaller, and the poor
are getting larger in population.The U.S. owe 22 countries, [that we have borrowed from]The most money borrowed from is japan, china,south korea. We owe trillions of dollars these countries, how will it be payed when the bill comes due.
bushes ss# plan will cost 2-3 trillion dollars. He can’t tell you how to pay for it.
We are paying 1.6 billion dollars a week in iraq.
Bush is not attaching any of this to the deficit. Channey says being in debt is no problem. These people will be out of office when all this catches up with the tax payer.
America has never seen this much debt in the history of our country.How many generations is it going to take to pay this back.
Posted by brian on Mar 19, 2005 at 12:28 AM I’m not saying that what government officials are doing in this case is right, but I seem to recall that the Clinton administration was using the IRS to do much the same to conservative groups that openly opposed Clinton’s views and policies. Where was the indignation back then?
Posted by Paul H! on Mar 20, 2005 at 7:19 PM Dear PaulH!,
Where was indignation back then?Everywhere!The Re-party made indignation,of the self-righteous variety,into an industry.Ironically,when they do the same things or much,much,worse,it’s ignored,even though they’re supposed to be"better” than their opposition in every way.This administration will probably be known as the “So what,9/11!“administration.Huge deficits?So what,9/11!
Corporate corruption?So what,9/11!Invade the wrong country?So what 9/11!
And on and on and on…
When they are booted out of office in 2009,the Re-party will start right back up with their litany of unjustifiable criticisms and ignore justify their ineptitude.The claim will be that despite the trampling on our democracy and their utter disregard for the rule of law,they brought democracy to Iraq(and help install someone who will play ball with Halliburton-meaning let Halliburton do what it wants).The end will,in their eyes,justify the means.Some end.Some means.
Horrid.
Posted by wwoods on Mar 21, 2005 at 3:36 PM With all the attacks on the middle class and poor in economic’s and social justice, is it a wonder why the military is having trouble recruiting. There was a time when I would lay my life on the line to protect this nation and what she stood for, but that nation slowly is turning into a buisness and not a society. I do not blame people for not defending a buisness with their life, and personally I will not as well. Patiently waiting to see how 2006 elections go, while researching and pondering if/what nation might offer better options for my children.
Posted by Jeff on Apr 9, 2005 at 8:32 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by David Moberg
- Out of Control
Too big to regulate, the banks need to be broken up. - Labor’s New Leader
The AFL-CIO stakes its future on Richard Trumka. - The Retail Devolution
Two new books explore corporate evil. - Who’s Got the Power?
Progressives find themselves outmaneuvered on healthcare reform. - Not Your Parents’ Labor Movement
Why the Republic sit-in failed to inspire other worker actions. - Solidarity Reunited?
Unions rally around shrunken UNITE HERE as it takes on its former ally.
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1979 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
427 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2005 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
