Unions and US Politics

[Michael]

Unions and US Politics

This is a bizarre topic. Information published has all the quality and opacity as White House propaganda in the lead up to the Iraq War. Apparently, it is taken for granted by leftwing progressives that unions are the backbone of the middle class. That's right up there with Saddam's buying 'yellow cake' from Niger.

Let me make one point perfectly clear for anyone who doesn't understand unions - or is ignorant of union statistics. Unions essentially protect uneducated and unskilled workers. If the US middle class is made up of a bunch of uneducated and unskilled workers, that might explain why it is shrinking so fast.

Middle class, properly understood, means that your parents are university educated. If your parents are university educated, then you are middle class. If your parents were not university educated, you are not middle class, even if you make $100,000 per year, own a house in the suburbs and drive an SUV. Indeed, uneducated and unskilled postal workers do that - as long as they have a union job.

Seems to me that the only thing that unions do is create an inflated sense of self-worth (and high wages) so that working class people can pretend they are middle class. Lets face it, unions only serve the interests of uneducated and unskilled workers. Is there any faction of the economy that one should be less concerned about? The future of the American economy is not going to be guarrenteed by a bunch of uneducated and unskilled workers making inflated paychecks.

There is a reason that unions are the last refuge of the government worker. Where else can you find large numbers of uneducated and unskilled employees? The death of unionism is due to the death of the uneducated and unskilled worker. This has nothing to do with the middle class.

[Michael]

“You cannot have a strong middle class without a strong labor union.”

Oh boy this is not looking good. I've long suspected that Obama's election was going to unleash the union-fanatics in the Democratic party. I guess no one should be surprised since they've been one of his core constituencies from day one.

Now I don't have a problem with unions directly. They serve various purposes in different industries and sectors. That's all well and fine. If you like or oppose unions, lets have a discussion about the merits of unionism in the marketplace. But that has nothing to do with the statement cited above.

It is the assumption that unions strengthen, help or foster the middle class that is so absurdly wrong that I'm amazed that so many people just keep repeating this nonsense. Unions, ultimately, protect the God-given right of unskilled, uneducated workers to receive 'middle-class-level' wages. That's what unions do in reality.

As such, a strong union movement creates a larger number of people claiming middle-class wage incomes. That's all well and fine. But those people aren't middle class, don't act like middle class and don't have middle class values. And they are 100% dependent upon their union protection for thier status. Without their union, they are just run-of-the-mill uneducated unskilled workers (which are always in high supply and low demand).

Now if the government considers it good public policy to protect or help the interests of uneducated and unskilled workers, that's all well and fine. But just don't bullshit me that this has anything to do with 'helping' the middle class. It doesn't.

Bottom line is you can support unionism for any reason you like - but if you say it is because unions help the middle class, then I call bullshit!

And this leads me to my principal argument - if the public policy benefit of unions is so strong, why do they always revert to lies to try to sell it - as Obama has?

If someone NEEDS lies to sell something, that's always a 'red flag' to me that the product is as bullshit as the lies being used to sell it. Unionism clearly falls into this category.

Indeed, any sector that has only "unskilled, uneducated government service workers" as their one and only growth industry speaks for itself.

[drgoodtrips]

That seems like an excellent summary of contemporary unions and their state. You mentioned some things that bother me about union labor in current American political context but that I couldn't put my finger on. The bit about guaranteeing middle class wages for unskilled workers seems spot on.

[Greendruid]

It is the assumption that unions strengthen, help or foster the middle class that is so absurdly wrong that I'm amazed that so many people just keep repeating this nonsense. Unions, ultimately, protect the God-given right of unskilled, uneducated workers to receive 'middle-class-level' wages. That's what unions do in reality.

I have to object to your last statement specifically. As a professor in Canada, I belong to a union. In fact, I can't think of a Canadian university that doesn't have unionised professors. This is about as different from the US situation as it could be. I can't think of many US univerisities/colleges that have unionised professors.

My objection is that you have to qualify the last statement specifically to be the case in the US. Canadian unions are ubiquitous and involve LOTS of middle class occupations. US unions seem not to be involved in this sector of the population. One of the things that US unions do that is also part of Canadian unions is they impart pay equity by their very nature. This is something the middle class in the US could learn a little more about. There is provincial legislature on this in Canada so the point is moot here.

[Michael]

I have to object to your last statement specifically. As a professor in Canada, I belong to a union. In fact, I can't think of a Canadian university that doesn't have unionised professors.
And university professors make up what tiny fraction of a percent of union members? Your citation of a small exception proves the rule.

Unions protect uneducated, unskilled - and/or government employees.

Unions have been fantastically successful in unionizing GOVERNMENT employees. Indeed, the government sector accounts for 99% of all union growth over the last 25 years.

And that in itself is telling. I didn't know that Goverment were the most abusive employers with a history of screwing employees, violating heath or safety standards. Indeed, the Government also has a history of overpaying wages.

Yet government service is ONLY sector where unions have been growing successfully in the last 25 years? Gosh, I wonder why that is. Do you think it is because the Government encourages unionism? Or because the public sector is an ideal union-target since there is no private market discipline to get in the way of endless union demands?

This is about as different from the US situation as it could be. I can't think of many US univerisities/colleges that have unionised professors.
No difference at all. Public school teachers are certainly educated and skilled and they are always unionized - this has everything to do with 'who signs the check' (Government).

My objection is that you have to qualify the last statement specifically to be the case in the US. Canadian unions are ubiquitous and involve LOTS of middle class occupations. US unions seem not to be involved in this sector of the population. One of the things that US unions do that is also part of Canadian unions is they impart pay equity by their very nature. This is something the middle class in the US could learn a little more about. There is provincial legislature on this in Canada so the point is moot here.
Your argument here is akin to using Lambourginis and Ferraris as typical examples of the car marketplace.

Please cite some examples of an educated and/or skilled trade that is unionized and not Government service please. Warning, I'll just reply with the micro-percentage of union members they make up, and then post the numbers on unions that protect uneducated/unskilled workers (and their relative percentages!).

[Greendruid]

Unions, ultimately, protect the God-given right of unskilled, uneducated workers to receive 'middle-class-level' wages. That's what unions do in reality.

As such, a strong union movement creates a larger number of people claiming middle-class wage incomes. That's all well and fine. But those people aren't middle class, don't act like middle class and don't have middle class values. And they are 100% dependent upon their union protection for thier status. Without their union, they are just run-of-the-mill uneducated unskilled workers (which are always in high supply and low demand).

Before I address your response, you need to clarify what you're talking about with middle-class and wages. You say that the unskilled, uneducated (non-middle class) workers are receiving middle-class-level wages. But then cite that they're not middle class because that's not their origins/culture/values. If wages don't make them middle class then you can't use wages to make the distinction between them and middle class citizens. This seems to be an affliction of the middle class rather than one of the working class.

I need some clarification from you about your understanding of occupations and whether they're skilled or not. I'm not trying to create a set-up here, I just want honest answers about what you would view as skilled vs. unskilled. I'm trying to get a sense of this distinction as we understand it in our time and place. Also, I'd like to know your thoughts on the link between skill level and class. Is unskilled labour necessarily linked to working class? Is skilled labour necessarily linked to middle class? Here are some occupations and I just want a quick "S" or "U" beside each to indicate skilled and unskilled:

mason
printer
assembly line worker
chemist
day care centre operator
taxi driver
dentist
farmer
fisher
miner
art appraiser
crane operator
machinist
millwright
counsellor
psychiatrist
army sergeant
civil engineer
oil rigger
sail maker
seamstress
store clerk
butcher

Anyone can answer this, in fact I'd like several people to answer if they're interested.

[Michael]

"chemist, dentist, art appraiser, counsellor, psychiatrist and civil engineer" are all professions and/or middle class by definition as they all require a university education.

"printer, assembly line worker, taxi driver, farmer, fisher, miner, crane operator, machinist, millwright, army sergeant, oil rigger, seamstress, store clerk & butcher" are all working class trades that are entirely dependent upon "on-the-job" training - no education required. There is a mixture here of skilled and unskilled labor in your list.

"mason, day care centre operator & sail maker" are just too odd to address.

Btw, the definition of middle class (and working class) is based on education. Skilled/unskilled is a rather arbitrary distinction of little relevance to the issue. It is all about social-class here (and social class is notoriously "sticky").

[drgoodtrips]

In the US, they're even extra expensive to get rid of:

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/02/02/ap5996767.html

Although, I guess this beats the "job banks" where UAW members get paid $50,000 per year to read magazines at some warehouse. At least here, there is an end to getting paid not to work.

[dilettante]

Btw, the definition of middle class (and working class) is based on education. Skilled/unskilled is a rather arbitrary distinction of little relevance to the issue. It is all about social-class here (and social class is notoriously "sticky").

This may be a valid definition, but it's one very few Americans would bother making. The average US citizen thinks very little about class, per se'. There is some rhetoric about "the rich" and some about "the poor," but in either case these categories represent extreme conditions of opulence and destitution. Everyone in between those extremes is (self-)labeled "middle class", if any class-based label is applied to them at all.

Obama's use of "middle class" may have been incorrect (to the extent that there can be any correct application of a purely constructed division), but I suspect it was understood by his primary audience.

[Michael]

This may be a valid definition, but it's one very few Americans would bother making. The average US citizen thinks very little about class, per se'. There is some rhetoric about "the rich" and some about "the poor," but in either case these categories represent extreme conditions of opulence and destitution. Everyone in between those extremes is (self-)labeled "middle class", if any class-based label is applied to them at all.

Obama's use of "middle class" may have been incorrect (to the extent that there can be any correct application of a purely constructed division), but I suspect it was understood by his primary audience.
Indeed, that's my point here. And "middle class" has been defined as the children of university educated parents for a couple centuries now.

In the USA, they like to pretend that factory workers and printers are middle class - that's because the Americans like to assign the label of 'middle class' to income level alone.

As such everyone above the bottom 15% and below the top 2% are considered 'middle class'. This is absurd and makes the term entirely useless.

And I suspect there is a whole lot of weird political and policy assumptions based on this. Given that there are lots of academic studies on "middle class" behavior, if you take those studies and extrapolate them onto this massively hyper-inflated US 'middle class' then you get odd results that doesn't track with the predicted result. Indeed, one could argue (and one ought to) that this is what is behind the MASSIVE and long-running US government subsidies to private homeownership in the USA.

And we all know where that led to...

[Michael]

Just to prove that mendacious ideologues are not a monopoly on the rightwing...

Harold Meyerson argues in favor of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA):

The bill is essential to any sustainable economic recovery, as unions offer the nation its best chance to attain broadly shared prosperity. (After all, the only period in American history in which productivity gains were widely shared was also the only period of high unionization -- the three decades after World War II, which saw the creation of history's first middle-class majority.)

I get tired of reading this same argument, over and over. It is a zombie-idea that just won't die. Much like the Republican favorite 'tax cuts pay for themselves'. Both are pure propaganda (or lies if you prefer that term).

Please note that I'm not commenting here on the merits of the proposed EFCA legislation. If one supports that policy, please feel free to argue for it on its own merits. I'm objecting here to mendacious and bullshit arguments being used to sell the policy.

1. Taking an uneducated factory worker making $10 per hour and tripling their pay to $30 per hour does NOT magically turn that factory worker into a member of the middle class. That requires an actual education and union authoritarianism is no substitute for education.

2. High wages for uneducated & unskilled factory workers (and/or uneducated & unskilled service workers) just tends to encourage young people to drop out of school to take these high paying jobs. The jobs of course are usually unsustainable at these rates of pay, so ten years down the road, we end up with an even higher percentage of uneducated & unskilled workers in the population. The problem here is the vast numbers of uneducated & unskilled workers - finding ways to artificially pay them more money (fake middle class) is a fool's game that just tends to create housing bubbles. The only rational solution is to address the education and skills shortage.

3. The period that is described as the 'heyday' of the unions in the USA (quoted above) precisely describes the period when US manufacturing started its massive decline. In the 1950s, US had a strong international reputation for quality manufacturing. By the 1970s (the highwater mark for unionism in USA), US manufacturing had become a joke to most of the world's economies and enabled the Japanese invasion of US markets.

4. Unionism has been falling everywhere. The only sector where unionism has been rising is in the public sector - and specifically with unskilled and uneducated government workers (ie. Post Office, etc.). This is true even in jurisdictions such as Canada that don't have heavy handed anti-union laws on the books. Indeed, Canada has some of the most union-friendly laws in the world, but Canada has a similar falling union rate as the USA (and unions retreating to the safety of government employment). In other words, US rightwing politics alone cannot account for the sorry state of unionism in the USA. There are actual market forces at play here and they don't favor unionism (ie. any company that is built on paying high wages to low educated people is suffering in the marketplace - regardless of union status).

5. The massive increase in US unionism (and the consequent wage-inflation of the working class) during the 1950-1970s period arguably just created the block of voters who helped to put Reagan into power with landslide support. This track record doesn't look like something that the Democratic party ought to be supporting (since uneducated & unskilled people still vote like uneducated & unskilled people - except they now have high wages & leisure to pay for political activism). Uneducated and unskilled working class people have traditionally (in all western nations) favored and supported 'rightwing' populist parties.

On this basis, I can't see how a 'pro-unionism' policy can be interpreted as good for the USA. It certainly hasn't been in the past.