How We Can Bail Ourselves Out

by: Drum Major Institute

Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 15:28


 This is cross-posted from DMI blog.

First things first. Congress and the incoming Obama Administration are hammering out an economic recovery package with major investments in infrastructure, education, energy efficiency, health programs and aid to the states and localities (see Paul Krugman’s excellent discussion of why such assistance is particularly vital during an economic downturn). While the to-be-decided details of the plan will be critical to its success, the broad outlines look like precisely what the ailing U.S. economy desperately needs: a plan that creates jobs quickly while addressing the nation’s long-term public investment priorities and helping those hardest hit by the recession. Phew!

I know what they say: don’t count your policy victories before they’re passed. But while we work for the right kind of stimulus, we also need to think about the wider context. As we look for a path back to the economic good times we’ve also got to face the fact that, for a lot of Americans, the good times of the 21st Century so far weren’t actually that good. At the peak of the last economic cycle, during a time of high productivity and soaring corporate profits, middle-class Americans still hadn’t recovered the ground lost in the last downturn. We earned less, borrowed more to make ends meet, and were even less likely to have employer-sponsored health care. Something is deeply wrong with that picture.

What this tells us is that working people don’t have enough power in the labor market to ensure that their incomes keep pace with the rising cost of living – even during the best of times. Historically, one powerful way to build that power has been through labor unions.

Today the Right is busily working to tar unions as the cause of our economic problems. The Senate Minority Leader blames Detroit’s woes on auto workers with the nerve to negotiate for good pay and benefits. But it’s a lack of good middle-class jobs – and the bargaining power to get them – that plagues the nation.

Unions enable their members to demand jobs that are capable of sustaining a middle-class standard of living, with dignified wages, leave policies, health care, and retirement plans. Workers represented by unions earn, on average, 30% more than nonunion workers. And 79% of union members have employer-provided health insurance, compared with 50% of nonunion workers. The rates are nearly identical for employer-sponsored retirement plans. The benefits of union membership are most pronounced for people of color and for women. In areas where unions represent a high proportion of workers a particular industry, they can even help to raise industry standards across-the-board: improving wages and job quality even for workers who aren’t members. Not surprisingly, as union membership has declined over the past decades, the middle-class squeeze has intensified.

Organizing a union is supposed to be a right in the United States, but legal protection for organizing has eroded over time. A bill called The Employee Free Choice Act would restore that right, streamlining the process for employees to decide on union representation. Predictably, corporations that would rather not pay higher wages or contribute to employee health care oppose the bill fiercely. But it's a fight worth having. In times like these we need not only a bailout, but the tools to bail ourselves out. Once a stimulus plan is in place, we need the Employee Free Choice Act.

Drum Major Institute :: How We Can Bail Ourselves Out

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
you guys take the bait every time (4.00 / 1)
The corporate oligarchy (represented by both the Right and people like Chuck Schumer) want you to argue about Unions. They want to make it about Union vs not union, because this way they escape the whole discussion about Global Wage Arbitrage. Not a single mention in here about moving jobs to 3rd world countries which have significantly lower wage levels and lower industrial regulation. None of following words are in your text: China, Mexico, India, South American, Foreign, Offshore, Overseas, Global. You make it so easy for them. They talk about Unions and you jump right into the debate. Sure union members make a little more, but the destruction in middle class personal wealth is more attributable to jobs moving over seas. As long as you help them make this a fraternal fight you will lose because you feed into their efforts to divide American workers. If you leave the Union aspect aside for a second then you will unite all workers, because then you'll sound like you are fighting for everyone, which you are, but it doesn't sound like it because most people are not in a union and will not be in a union any time soon. Please, I beg you, stop helping them win.

~* the * Will * to go on *~

Labor solidarity (4.00 / 2)
I think you're making a false dichotomy here.

You get one thing right -- this is about the corporate oligarchy, and it's about class.  But the destruction of middle class personal wealth is not primarily about jobs going offshore.  It's a contributing factor, but it's not even the largest factor.  The biggest factor is that US workers have become far more productive over the last 30 years, but that almost all of the benefit of that productivity has gone to the people that employ them.  That's almost entirely about the erosion of bargaining power of people who work relative to the people who employ them.  Money that should be paid as wages is instead becoming corporate profit, and managerial compensation.  The money your CEO and his top lieutenants are getting paid is money that is not going to compensate hourly people.

The reasons for this aren't principally economic; markets aren't doing this.  This is an issue of institutions and relative power.  Change the institutions, and markets will work as nicely with higher paid workers and lower paid CEOs.

Since bargaining power is the real issue, things that fix this issue will help, and things that do a lot to fix this issue are better than things that don't.  Unions will do a lot.  Helping people in other countries to get unions will help to do it.  And making sure we don't subsidize companies for taking jobs abroad will help.

Your analysis is wrong, and it leads you to the wrong answers.  


[ Parent ]
"is not primarily about jobs going offshore." (0.00 / 0)
You are wrong, and yes it is.  I'm in Detroit.  The UAW has done a pretty good job of hanging on to what they earned, but.... It gets harder and harder when the company has the alternative to simply offshore, dump unions, and save even more money then by staying and negotiating.

Besides costing jobs, offshoring totally destroys career ladders.  Nobody in the US can get the entry level positions to gain the skills necessary to advance up the career ladder.  Then business bitches that Americans don't have the skills for their jobs and demands even more H-1B visas as they displace their workforce.  

It is globalization, offshoring, and unfair trade that are syphoning off high wage American jobs.  It isn't primarily about unions.  If you level the playing field, unions can negotiate.  If you don't, unions will have no one to negotiate with.  Companies will simply refuse to play and take their bat and ball when they leave.  It isn't about unions, it is about workers.    

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  


[ Parent ]
It's not just autoworkers who get outsourced (4.00 / 1)
I've been outsourced out of jobs.  Twice.  And I write software for a living.  And yeah, I've been surrounded by some very talented people who got jobs via the H-1B program.

Manufacturing, and the automotive industry in particular, have suffered from jobs moving off shore.  But the numbers don't lie.  Productivity gains in many (if not most) industries have been huge over the last 30 years.  Hourly wages, though, virtually have not budged.  Those productivity gains are real increases on the returns on labor that somebody is benefiting from.  And you look at corporate profits, and you look at compensation for top management, and they are both hugely up.

Generally speaking, the pie is growing for most industries.  But people who work for a living do more hours, and spouses that stayed at home a generation ago now work full time and more.  So the slice of working people has gone down very sharply over the last generation.

Autoworkers may have been strongly affected by outsources.  But that is not the case for most industries.

What's changed, and changed greatly, is the balance of power between labor and management.  You see that in reduced participation in unions, you see it in changes in labor law, and you see it in the regulatory capture of the NLRB and other federal agencies that affect working conditions.

Outsourcing is a problem.  But it is at worse a contributing factor for most industries.  Dumping on the 'ferriners' is an easy out.  But for most American workers, it will not do a whit of good.


[ Parent ]
dumping on ferriners is junk... (4.00 / 1)
I'm not talking about autos in particular, so I don't know why you are.  I am talking about a lack of unions vs a lack of jobs (power) as the primary cause of unemployment and the decline in wages and the middle class.  Look at the trade deficit!   If we don't "make" anything, we don't have jobs for millions of Americans, unless they want to work part-time at McDonalds for minimum wage with no benefits or pensions.  

ferriners is as strawman as unions...  It is about giving away our jobs to increase profits for the corporations so they can pay their CEOs and shareholders even more money while destroying the country.  

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  


[ Parent ]
"somebody" is happy (0.00 / 0)
"Those productivity gains are real increases on the returns on labor that somebody is benefiting from."

Since the 2000s, the share of national income going to profits reached a 40 year high.  


[ Parent ]
A power grab for the money (4.00 / 1)
The economy ran very well and offered plenty of incentive for innovation when CEOs made far less, and companies too less in profits.

The labor-theory-of-value may not work as a microeconomic theory (it doesn't, really), but it's an example of Marx at least knowing to ask the right question.

There's no real economic justification for paying workers so little, and owners so much.  The justifications are mostly politics -- we've let rich people buy our political system, run our government, and warp our laws.  It's time we put a stop to that.


[ Parent ]
As far as "helping people in other countries to get unions," (0.00 / 0)
SEIU rejected the notion of expanding to a global effort, probably because it was not politically expedient here. I think you're right, but I don't know of any union organization here that would find it politically viable to focus on significant efforts abroad.  

[ Parent ]
Of course, we worried about communism then (0.00 / 0)
While supporting the rights of people who work for a living is just democratic socialism.  A good thing, and it's time we stopped treating it as if it was something radical. It isn't.

The international trading system is currently set up to help rich people on both ends of a trading relationship get a leg up on the rest of the people at both ends.  Trade in and of itself is usually a good thing.  But the key detail is that while there are benefits to trade, you or I only care about those benefits if some of them accrue to folks like us.

Trade deals like NAFTA and CAFTA weren't about "free trade" at all: they were about extending corporate property rights and political rights across international borders, to prevent any particular country's government from policing certain obnoxious practices.  Fixing the problem will require cutting corporate power down to size, not only in trade deals, but in our laws here in the the US.


[ Parent ]
You can say it again and again. (0.00 / 0)
But it's a lack of good middle-class jobs - and the bargaining power to get them - that plagues the nation.

What I want to know is who in the hell decided to give away all of our manufacturing jobs?   I think it was Reagan and Thatcher's rip-off of the middle class dream, and Bill Clinton was the jerk that passed it.

I can remember the fed coming into MI 20 years ago and saying "manufacturing is dead".  They said, it will be computers and the service industry that will replace it.  We asked them if they wanted fries with that.  Fools.    

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  


"Middle-class Americans still hadn't recovered... (4.00 / 3)
.. the ground lost in the last downturn."

What are you talking about? Real wages have been flat for thirty years -- and, not surprisingly, that starts with the Conservative ascendancy.  There's no ground to recover!

Consultants, even left consultants, who don't  bother to figure out what people have really experienced give me a pain.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  


I don`t see a big difference in your positions (4.00 / 1)
Collective barganing EXCLUSIVLY created the middle class. The decline of unions not only resulted in middle class decline, but also in reduced worker influence on policy. Equitable tax structure, adequate regulation, fair trade, minimal safety standards, better representation in the press, etc. are legislative subjects that are more easily attaned by strong worker activisum in the political arena. Which itself has only been attaned through union political action. As unions go so goes the middle class. Remember, unions always were, and remain the peoples answer to corporate tyranny. ----------------- Unions, the folks who brought you the weekend!

Government by organized money is no better than government by organized mob..... FDR

it's all about leverage (0.00 / 0)
"it's a lack of good middle-class jobs - and the bargaining power to get them - that plagues the nation."

This sentence goes to the crux of the matter.

For the last half-century politically--and for the last 25 or 30 years economically--there's been no countervailing force to the power of the political and economic elites.

Instead they've had their way with war, the "free" market, healthcare etc. for way too long.

Bringing back unions and a government that's actually trying to help would bring back a healthier balance of power.

 


Donate to Open Left








Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search