On Unions

[Surlethe]

Here is a little essay I wrote. What are your thoughts?

I’ve recently been reading Krugman’s Conscience of a Liberal. He makes a pretty compelling case that institutional Democratic dominance between World War II and the 1970s was partially a result of the high rate of unionization – over 30% of American workers belonged to unions in the 1950s, whereas just about 12% now do – for several reasons. The chief reasons Krugman cites are that the economic interests of union workers generally align with the policies of the Democratic Party, and that unions provide ready-made organizational networks for politicking. Therefore, unions were powerful social networks inclined to turn their organizational apparati to supporting Democratic candidates. I’d also add a reason of my own. Unions permitted Democratic politicians to tap into human tribal instincts: they provided a convenient “us-versus-them” mentality for politicians to exploit; in this case, ‘us’ is the line workers and ‘them’ is management. Essentially, they were a ready-made channel for populist rage.

It’s interesting to compare the function unions played in the national political scene between World War II and Nixon with the role the religious right plays now. Both employed some thirty percent of the population (unions, of the workforce); both served as social networking centers and were readily used for political organizing; both, simply by functioning as tightly-knit social networks, tapped into tribal instincts. Both also appeal to overlapping demographics: churchgoing lower-class blue- and white collar workers.

So what future do unions have in the United States? From a purely political-theoretical standpoint, none (at least from my perspective): the role of worker protection belongs to the government, while unions (relatively) increase unemployment, decrease productivity, and are in part responsible for the rusting of the iron belt. Ultimately, they’re the labor equivalent of OPEC: workers banding together to raise the price of labor. They cost society a deadweight loss.

But from a pragmatic point of view, do unions have a future with the Democratic Party? After all, unions are as perfectly suited for Democratic organizing as mega-churches are for Republicans, and the elevation of blue-collar income and creation of a separate corporate structure inclined toward Democrats can only help with fundraising. Democrats have seemed to lack a consistent institutional organizational structure – Obama’s success seems singular, as his organization was created for the campaign, rather than taking advantage of existing channels as, say, Kennedy might have used unions.

Would it be practical for Democrats to exploit populist anger in the wake of rich irresponsibility and support a reunionization effort, and at least work to drive the “social issues” wedge back against the Republicans? After all, two can play at that game: social issues effectively alienated lower-class blue-collar workers from the Democratic Party by making abortion and gay marriage seem more pressing than compensation and executive pay; if the Democrats can make economic issues more pressing, via unionization, than social issues, they can semi-permanently win back a chunk of that demographic from the Republicans.

Would this be feasible as a long-term strategy? Probably, not least because it takes advantage of the increasing social liberalization of the electorate. However, it ignores the very real damage over-powerful unions wreak; much as Republicans, beholden to business, are unwilling to pass legislation that would damage those interests, Democrats beholden to unions would be unwilling to reign in unions. Moreover, unionization is a natural reaction to dangerous working conditions at manual labor jobs; it is not so clear that such an impetus exists at service jobs, which now make up a significant fraction of the United States. Finally, could those who recognize that unions’ jobs are essentially redundant honestly support them? Perhaps, out of pragmatism, but there has got to be a better way.

I’d instead propose that, instead of placing a lot of eggs in the union basket, the Democratic Party coalition expand and cement the welfare state with universal health care, expanded worker protection, and a higher minimum wage. Support existing unions, out of political necessity, and stoke unionization at such businesses as Wal-Mart, but do not become so beholden to unions that Democratic legislatures cannot slap down damaging union propositions, such as the absurd pension plans that helped sink GM. Instead of becoming a face of organized labor, as in the 1950s, ‘60s, and ‘70s, the Democratic Party should become the face of the welfare state, while at the same time promoting local and state party apparat in order to combat the existing Republican structural advantage brought by the religious right. Once the welfare state is in place, health care becomes a political issue; as long as the Democratic Party remains the guardian of state-sponsored health care, it will remain the status quo party in power.

[Questor]

Sounds good to me, I suspect unionization would go down even more if we had UHC and a better social safety net. I know of unions now that are very close to the edge in terms of viability, at least from a stand point of actual participation.

[Eframepilot]

The Democrats are trying to aid unions with the Employee Free Choice Act, which would make it easier for workers to unionize in a variety of ways. Their alliance with unions is going to continue for a long time.

[aerius]

I don't know nearly enough about unions in the US to comment on it, but I can speak on the unions in Canada since I'm in one, the largest one at that.

As a political tool only the CAW & Teachers' Union seems to work, and in recent years the CAW isn't doing too well. In the past a large portion of their membership could be counted on to vote New Democrat in every election since the NDP was known for strongly favouring the unions (it still does, but Bob Rae fucked their chances of ever being elected again). The Teachers' Union can usually be counted on to vote against the Conservatives since that party loves to cut education spending and take away the perks the teachers have. They seem to be doing rather well, and can be counted on to strike every 5 years, give or take a couple years either way.

Most other unions such as CUPE (the one I'm in) don't care about politics, and the union leaders can't make us care even if they wanted to, we don't have any kind of unified plan other than belly-aching and striking over stupid crap, like a pay raise which worked out to something like 0.2%. Looking for stupid petty reasons to screw up contract negotiations & strike to demand pay raises & more benefits which we don't need or deserve is about the only thing my union cares about, our leaders have that down to an art, that and jacking up our union dues. Short of some politician saying "we're going to bust your fucking union", I don't think anything's going to get us politically involved.

[Pablo Sanchez]

So what future do unions have in the United States? From a purely political-theoretical standpoint, none (at least from my perspective): the role of worker protection belongs to the government, while unions (relatively) increase unemployment, decrease productivity, and are in part responsible for the rusting of the iron belt. Ultimately, they’re the labor equivalent of OPEC: workers banding together to raise the price of labor. They cost society a deadweight loss.

The thing about your perspective is that it ignores the role that unions play in agitating for better conditions for workers, the spillover effect of their influence on the entire labor economy, and the critical role that they played in organizing the lower economic orders.

On the first point, unions are still at the forefront of labor agitation in spite of the fact that they've diminished in size and influence, which is precisely why pro-business PACs and organizations have come out so powerfully against the EFCA. The biggest danger for management now is that if the EFCA passes, it may become possible for the unions to explosively expand into labor pools like retail, service, and food service where they as yet have little influence, and employees consequently have little power relative to management.

On the second, unions help set labor standards for industries. Automotive workers in non-union shops in the American Southeast don't have the same level of benefits as UAW members in the Rust Belt, but they are paid according to a rough industry standard that is influenced by the deals that the UAW makes. If something wild like Wal-Mart workers organizing into a union occurred, then the deals that that large union negotiated with Wal-Mart would affect wages and benefits throughout the retail sector.

On the third, management and the wealthy are fewer in number and more aware of their specific interests than the working classes in general, and their disproportionate economic influence has through most of history allowed them to dominate politics and government. Working class movements, which were spearheaded by trade unions and organized the masses of people so that they finally spoke loud enough to be heard, were essentially responsible for the post-WWII expansion of the middle class and the social programs that citizens of European social democracies now enjoy. In Europe unions still remain fairly strong, and they're also backed by strong social democratic parties in pretty much every country. In the United States there is no explicitly "working class" party because both Democrats and Republicans have their own partisans (Republicans controlling those lower-class people who vote on social values and Democrats controlling those who vote on economic issues) and both parties functionally practice pro-business liberalism (though the Republicans are tending more and more to reject tenets of liberalism). Labor Unions organize workers and help keep them focused on their economic interests, so that they vote Democratic.

I think unions still have a role to play, even if they are overweening in some areas.

I’d instead propose that, instead of placing a lot of eggs in the union basket, the Democratic Party coalition expand and cement the welfare state with universal health care, expanded worker protection, and a higher minimum wage. Support existing unions, out of political necessity, and stoke unionization at such businesses as Wal-Mart, but do not become so beholden to unions that Democratic legislatures cannot slap down damaging union propositions, such as the absurd pension plans that helped sink GM. Instead of becoming a face of organized labor, as in the 1950s, ‘60s, and ‘70s, the Democratic Party should become the face of the welfare state, while at the same time promoting local and state party apparat in order to combat the existing Republican structural advantage brought by the religious right. Once the welfare state is in place, health care becomes a political issue; as long as the Democratic Party remains the guardian of state-sponsored health care, it will remain the status quo party in power.

I agree, but I would also point out that finally achieving a functional welfare state would in itself make the effect of unions on industry less taxing.

[bobalot]

Unions can be a pain in the arse, but they have their purposes.

The regulator in the industry I work in is a paper tiger, it literally has no field staff. The private operators like it that way. The union is the only group keeping them in check.

[Phantasee]

Ahhh, Unions. It's really fun when you start getting businessmen into unions, like the Independent Gravel Hauler's Association here in Edmonton. Formed a couple years back because the companies we contracted with were making metric fuck tons of money, but they wouldn't let us raise our rates even a little to cover increasing fuel costs. Of course, after a month and a half of shiny gravel trucks parked row upon row in every empty field in every part of town, with only little jobs going on here and there, we got our rates raised.

And promptly started undercutting each other within weeks.

One issue I have with your essay, Surly: Calling it a 'welfare state' implies all sorts of things, and it will lead to a lot of knee-jerk reactions among Americans. I was wondering if we could brainstorm up some new things to call it, for PR purposes more than anything. Honest, hard-working, ruggedly individualistic Americans don't take welfare, or so I hear, and a welfare state is a socialist state.

[Samuel]

One issue I have with your essay, Surly: Calling it a 'welfare state' implies all sorts of things, and it will lead to a lot of knee-jerk reactions among Americans. I was wondering if we could brainstorm up some new things to call it, for PR purposes more than anything. Honest, hard-working, ruggedly individualistic Americans don't take welfare, or so I hear, and a welfare state is a socialist state.

Entrapenurial springboard?

[Phantasee]

That has a much better ring to it than 'social safety net'. One is for helping those rugged individuals, the other is for cushioning the fall for losers.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Ok, as a union Rep here in californication, and a rarity, I work in the service industry, we fight frequently for rights. When I go out to eat, or shop, I make sure to tip the non-union employees at other shops, while I survive paycheck to paycheck, at least I don't have to worry about medical expenses, or bosses who will terminate you for getting really sick. Now along with government funded private contract positions paying out kick back wages, I know I'm lucky for a working class man, and I try to be altruistic. problem is the union can't get me to vote politically the way they want, and a number of union members here in this hick area are also part of the republican's hyper religious groupies.

now if government made rules, and enforced them, and made sure that people didn't need unions in order to survive, well then things would be better. unfortunatly they are not.

[Simon_Jester]

Ahhh, Unions. It's really fun when you start getting businessmen into unions, like the Independent Gravel Hauler's Association here in Edmonton. Formed a couple years back because the companies we contracted with were making metric fuck tons of money, but they wouldn't let us raise our rates even a little to cover increasing fuel costs. Of course, after a month and a half of shiny gravel trucks parked row upon row in every empty field in every part of town, with only little jobs going on here and there, we got our rates raised.

And promptly started undercutting each other within weeks.

Point of order:

Is that a union, or a guild? There are very real differences between the two, even though both will often serve similar purposes.

[Prannon]

Point of order:

Is that a union, or a guild? There are very real differences between the two, even though both will often serve similar purposes.

Sorry, not related to the topic at all, but on the matter of Parliamentary procedure, you're thinking of "Point of Information." That's when you have a question for the speaker. Point of Order is when someone breaks the rules.

[Phantasee]

It was an Association, but the purpose was to unionize the trucking companies in the gravel industry so we could get fair rates. A guild seems more of a permanent thing, something that lasts, while the "union" was a very temporary thing that existed solely for the duration of the strike (well, it still exists, and I saw a dude with a t-shirt the other day, but nobody actually gives a fuck anymore).

Come to think of it, we sort of have a 'guild' for trucking, the AMTA (Alberta Motor Transportation Association). We don't pay dues, AFAIK, but we do have to take safety courses periodically, and we go through that organization to do them. They also lobby on behalf of the trucking industry to the provincial government.