Big Labor’s Comeback
Yunz all know how I feel about the two organizations that crippled my area of Ohio … The unions and the democrat party …Are BOTH about to make a comeback?
(WSJ)
Forget for a moment the media fascination with disgruntled Hillary Clinton delegates or Michelle Obama’s makeover. One of the most underreported stories at this week’s Democratic National Convention is that Big Labor is making a big comeback.
Not long ago, the labor movement was in a state of steady, seemingly unstoppable decline. A global economy and the information age made unions less relevant to more workers. The fall of industrial trades cut into existing union ranks, while service workers saw less need to join. Union membership as a share of the American workforce has been falling since the early 1980s, and today stands at 12.1%. In the more dynamic private sector, only 7.5% of workers carry the union label.
The paradox is that even as union numbers have declined, union political clout has increased, especially within the Democratic Party. That’s in evidence in Denver, where no less than 25% of the 4,200 delegates are active or retired union members or belong to households with union members. More significant for the rest of America, labor has won the intellectual battle for control of the Democratic Party and is reasserting its agenda in a way not seen since the 1970s.
A decade ago, leading Democrats were willing, if not eager, to disagree with union priorities. Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Bob Kerrey pushed Social Security reform, and John Breaux took on Medicare. Even Al Gore, in his pre-Oracle phase, took on the task of “reinventing government,” including the FAA and air-traffic controllers union. Bill Clinton promoted trade expansion, breaking with the AFL-CIO to do so. Still other Democrats pushed charter schools and more education accountability.
Those reform days are over. In Denver, there’s no more talk of busting these “public trusts.” The only reform idea for education is a tepid call for teacher testing. Free trade is in disrepute, with Barack Obama bowing to union wishes to rewrite Nafta, even unilaterally if Mexico and Canada don’t bend. The party platform includes a passing reference to reviving the Doha Round of global trade talks, but nothing about the trade promotion authority that would be needed to pass more trade deals.
More tellingly, rewriting federal law to promote union organizing is now near the top of the Democratic agenda. The main vehicle is “card check” legislation, which would eliminate the requirement for secret ballots in union elections. Unable to organize workers when employees can vote in privacy, unions want to expose those votes to peer pressure, and inevitably to public intimidation. This would arguably be the biggest change to federal labor law since the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947. The Democratic House passed card check last year, and Mr. Obama has pledged his support. With a few more Senators, it might pass.
Card check is merely the start. Next on the agenda is a campaign to repeal “right to work” laws in the 22 U.S. states that have them. Right to work laws allow employees to decide for themselves whether to join or financially support a union. Former Michigan Congressman David Bonior told a union event in Denver on Monday that limiting right to work laws is essential both to lifting union membership and promoting more Democratic political victories. He pointed out that John Kerry didn’t win a single right to work state in 2004, while Al Gore won only one — Iowa — and only by a few thousand votes in 2000.
This point is crucial to understanding labor’s new Democratic clout. States with more union households tend to be more Democratic. And groups like the Service Employees International Union and the AFL-CIO will pour hundreds of millions of dollars, and endless man hours, into getting Democrats elected this year. Those resources have simply overwhelmed the 1990s New Democrat movement that tried to tug the party toward freer trade and public-sector reform.
The question for Americans more broadly is whether a return to widespread unionization is really the way to raise middle-class incomes. The case for card check is that, amid global competition, the balance of organizing power has shifted to business. Giving unions more power will redress this imbalance and let workers grab a higher share of corporate profits.
But this claim is highly suspect, given the record in autos, steel and the rest of unionized American manufacturing. The only sector of the U.S. auto industry that is prospering is the part not organized by the United Auto Workers. Likewise, Europe, with its high jobless rates and slow growth, argues against unionization as a way to lift middle-class incomes. To the extent a country like Germany has modestly reversed some of this, it has been the result of recent labor-law reforms and labor concessions.
As for the U.S., the states with right to work laws have performed better economically for workers of all types. The Mackinac Center for Public Policy has shown that right to work states over the past 30 years have lower unemployment, higher rates of job creation, and faster growth in GDP and per-capita personal income than states with compulsory union membership. Colorado is hoping to get in on this success, with a high-profile ballot initiative this fall that would make it a right to work state.
We have long believed that if workers want to form a union, they have every right to do so. And businesses that get a union often deserve what they get. What Americans need to know this November is that the Democratic Party wants to make it that much more difficult for them not to join a union.
(h/t Babalu)
Be respectful of others and their opinions. Inflammatory remarks and inane leftist drivel will be deleted. It ain’t about free speech, remember you’re in a private domain. My website, my prerogative.
If you can't handle using your real email address, don't bother posting a comment.
Obama and the Teamsters Union:
August 30th, 2008 at 5:54 pmhttp://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/20/teamsters-set-to-back-obama/
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/05/05/obama-teamsters-deal-to-end-federal-oversight/
(I’m sure it’s just a coincidence)
I wrote a paper in college about why unions should be limited in the U.S. I’m in a right to work State where we attract major companies because we:
A. have lower corporate tax rates
B. are a right to work state
I don’t understand why union members don’t realize the damage their respective unions are doing. For example, the UAW strikes against GM earlier this year, GM caves in to their demands, then to pay for it, GM lays off 25,000 workers. The Dems then BLAME BUSH!
August 30th, 2008 at 5:56 pmI used to work at Norshipco in Norfolk, Va, way back in 1989-91, which was/is a shipyard that was unionized. The union was the Boilermaker’s Union. During a conversation I had with one of the local union leaders, he freely admitted to being a Communist. It seemed clear to me at the time that he wasn’t alone.
One of the episodes I remember involved the ongoing dispute between the union and the owner of the shipyard over their lack of a contract. Many times, I would hear the word go out to “slow down the work”; which meant that the union was attempting to punish the shipyard by forcing contracts to be finished late and make them look bad to the government. Of course, all it meant was that we were punishing the taxpayers, not the shipyard; but the union didn’t care about that.
The whole structure of the shipyard was totally communist because of the unions. Everyone worked according to the same payscale, no matter how long you worked there. A journeyman (at least 5 years exp) would make 10.50/hour; the next level would make about 11.50 or 12/hour; and the third level would make about 13.50/hour. So unless you got into management, the most you could ever make (even after 30 years) was 13.50/hour, adjusted upward by new contracts, which was very little. Back in those days, 10.50/hour was fairly decent money, but still…
I will take good old American Free Enterprise over the Communist way any day. Forget the unions.
August 30th, 2008 at 5:56 pmI’ve been in a union once in my lifetime and that was at TWA. They(the IAM) were so corrupt and lied so easily and obviously that I was always amazed to see my coworkers go right along with the party line time after time. I may find myself at odds with Littlefox on this one but I think that the IAM’s suit on behalf of the Flight Attendants was the last straw that drove us into the arms of AA and ended TWA forever. It was so logicly flawed that it should have been thrown out but as usual the other guys had better lawyers than TWA and the company lost.
August 30th, 2008 at 6:29 pmSo…long story…..um….longer… I’m no fan of unions. They are important for protecting the rights of employees on one level,(Government regulation has taken over that role for the most part) but they then begin to try to justify their existance(and dues collection) by creating issues and demands over which to get the “rank and file” riled up. When, at a meeting, I heard “if TWA is going to go down, we’re gonna be the ones to take it down!” I knew the end was nigh.
YAHTZEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
August 30th, 2008 at 6:33 pmSo how do we fight them?
August 30th, 2008 at 6:39 pmA Dhimmi Congress and White House and ‘right to work’ states are a thing of the past and union membership through EFCA* will be mandated. A significant portion of the proceeds from the commensurate rise in union dues will continue to find their way into the DNC creating an insurmountable $$$ advantage and voila… no more RNC and ‘evil conservatism’.
* - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_Free_Choice_Act
August 30th, 2008 at 6:44 pmI grew up in Anderson, Indiana– 2 GM Divisions now GONE…litarally empty lots.
August 30th, 2008 at 6:55 pmEvery time I hear the word Union I think of the USSR.
August 30th, 2008 at 7:12 pmI was in a union for 9 years and I never agreed with the union leadership, but I found the majority of my fellow employees were not as politically radical. Still, I lost all respect for the union cause when the longshoremen decided to skip work on May Day to protest the Iraq war. Screw them. The only guys who really need a union are cops because of the liability and potential to be fired unfairly, and in case of criminal prosecution.
August 31st, 2008 at 12:03 ami joined a union once because the union recruiter told me “it makes for a safer work environment”
August 31st, 2008 at 7:17 amCorporations have been limited from gaining monopoly status. The assertion is that a corporate monopoly uses whatever power it has to maintain it’s status. It also delivers poorer service and value because of the lack of competition. This is true of any human endeavor. Yet labor unions are given a government exception to this economic truth. The steel business in the US was destroyed by corrupt union practices. US Steel used to be one of the biggest companies in the world. It’s extinct. The US auto makers are suffering from Unionism. many other US industries are as well. These unions are parasites that will eventually kill off their hosts. Not very smart.
August 31st, 2008 at 7:45 amI am a union now. Have to be.
You have to be very careful about what you say about unions, while in a union.
August 31st, 2008 at 9:42 amLets just say most union people dont like upper management of unions. But its the upper management that does all of the negotiating. The little guy has no say.
Actually where the union is gaining is in government. The bigger the government, the bigger unions get.
Did you see where the American unions want to join with the British unions and create a giant union.