Unions used to be a very important part of the economy.  Increasingly, they no 
longer are.

Ed


The Lansing-Beijing connection
By Harold Meyerson, 

Dec 12, 2012 01:35 AM EST

The Washington Post Published: December 11
China has a problem: rising inequality. The gap between profits and wages is 
soaring. Although elements of the government have sought to boost workers' 
incomes, they have been thwarted by major companies and banks "that don't want 
to give more profit to the country and let the government distribute it," Qi 
Jingmei, a research fellow for a government think tank, told the Wall Street 
Journal.

Of course, if China permitted the establishment of unions, wages would rise. 
But for fundamentally political reasons - independent unions would undermine 
the Communist Party's authority - unions are out of the question.

Meanwhile, the United States also has a problem of a rising gap between profits 
and wages. The stagnation of wages has become an accepted fact across the 
political spectrum; conservative columnists such as Michael Gerson and David 
Brooks have acknowledged that workers' incomes seem to be stuck.
What conservatives haven't acknowledged, and what even most liberal 
commentators fail to appreciate, is how central the collapse of collective 
bargaining is to American workers' inability to win themselves a raise. Yes, 
globalizing and mechanizing jobs has cut into the livelihoods of millions of 
U.S. workers, but that is far from the whole story. Roughly 100?million of the 
nation's 143?million employed workers have jobs that can't be shipped abroad, 
that aren't in competition with steel workers in Sao Paolo or iPod assemblers 
in Shenzhen. Sales clerks, waiters, librarians and carpenters all utilize 
technology in their jobs, but not to the point that they've become dispensable. 

Yet while they can't be dispensed with, neither can they bargain for a raise. 
Today fewer than 7?percent of private-sector workers are union members. That 
figure may shrink a little more with new "right to work" laws in Michigan - the 
propagandistic term for statutes that allow workers to benefit from union 
contracts without having to pay union dues.

Defenders of right-to-work laws argue that they improve a state's economy by 
creating more jobs. But an exhaustive study by economist Lonnie K. Stevans of 
Hofstra University found that states that have enacted such laws reported no 
increase in business start-ups or rates of employment. Wages and personal 
income are lower in those states than in those without such laws, Stevans 
concluded, though proprietors' incomes are higher. In short, right-to-work laws 
simply redistribute income from workers to owners.

Why, then, are such laws being enacted? The gap between U.S. capital income and 
labor income hasn't been this great since before the New Deal; why widen it 
still more? The answer, in Lansing no less than in Beijing, is political. The 
Republicans who took control of the Michigan statehouse in 2010 understand that 
Democrats' foot soldiers come disproportionately from labor. GOP efforts to 
reduce labor's clout help Republicans politically far more than they help any 
Michigan-based businesses or local governments. (The legislation, which Gov. 
Rick Snyder (R) signed into law Tuesday evening, establishes right-to-work 
requirements for the public sector, too.)

Those who doubt that the intent of Michigan's laws is more political than 
economic should consider the two kinds of unions exempted from its reach: 
police and firefighter unions. Their contracts are among the costliest that 
local governments confront: Police and firefighters generally (and rightly) 
retire earlier than do other public employees, with relatively generous pension 
benefits. But in Michigan, police and firefighter unions often endorse 
Republicans. Shrinking their treasuries and political power by subjecting them 
to right-to-work strictures would only damage Republicans' electoral prospects 
(and may well play poorly to voters). 

With Snyder's signature, Michigan becomes the second state in the once-heavily 
unionized, industrial Midwest to adopt such a statute; hitherto, such laws had 
largely been confined to states in the South, the Plains and the Mountain West. 
The United Auto Workers (UAW) was once the colossus of Michigan politics, but 
the union's membership has shrunk to 381,000 - roughly one-quarter of its size 
35 years ago - a casualty of globalization and the legal and cultural obstacles 
the UAW has encountered to organizing new members. 

Michigan Republicans have seen a chance to weaken the UAW and labor's power at 
election time. Doing so further diminishes the number of workers who can 
bargain for a raise. It's nice that conservatives are finally acknowledging 
that workers' incomes are stagnating. But workers don't get raises if they 
can't bargain collectively, and all the hand-wringing about our rising rates of 
inequality will be so much empty rhetoric unless we insist - in Lansing and 
Beijing - on workers' right to form powerful unions. 
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework

Reply via email to