More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Dave Johnson

Dave Johnson

Posted: January 11, 2011 03:04 PM

Pension Envy

What's Your Reaction:

Since the 80s, many employers have stopped offering health care, pensions and other benefits to their employees. Many are also cutting pay and hours while increasing the workload. So more and more people are hurting. As more and more of us fall further and further behind, corporate/conservative propagandists use resentment to drive anti-union feelings. They tell people to oppose unions, saying, "Why should they have it so good?" The real question you should ask is, "Why should we have it so bad?"

The New Yorker's James Surowiecki, in "State of the Unions," examines why "public support for labor has fallen to historic lows."

More than seventy per cent of those surveyed in a 1937 Gallup poll said they favored unions.

Seventy-five years later, in the wake of another economic crisis, things couldn't be more different. ... In the recent midterm elections, voters in several states passed initiatives making it harder for unions to organize. Across the country, governors and mayors wrestling with budget shortfalls are blaming public-sector unions for the problems. And in polls public support for labor has fallen to historic lows.

. . . In 2009, for the first time ever, support for unions in the Gallup poll dipped below fifty per cent. A 2010 Pew Research poll offered even worse numbers, with just forty-one per cent of respondents saying they had a favorable view of unions, the lowest level of support in the history of that poll.

Surowiecki suspects that the gap between workers in and out of unions is the reason,

Union workers, on average, get paid more than their non-unionized counterparts--most estimates put the difference at around fifteen per cent--and that wage premium widens during recessions. Similarly, union workers often still have defined-benefit pensions, which sets them apart from all those Americans who watched their retirement accounts get ravaged by the financial crisis. That's given rise to what Olivia Mitchell, an economics professor at Wharton, calls "pension envy."

This resentment is most evident in the backlash against public-sector workers (who now make up a majority of union members).

The problem is that working people feel increasingly powerless, and this weakens support for the very institutions that would, in better circumstances, come to their assistance: government and unions. Normally you would think that when people see that workers who are in unions have it better, they would reach a simple and obvious conclusion: they should JOIN A UNION! DUH! But circumstances in our economy today lead people to the wrong conclusions.

Today they see people who try to organize unions fired. They see whistleblowers persecuted. They see fellow employees lose their jobs for calling in sick or taking time off to care for a family member. They see people lose jobs for just reaching "a certain age." Many are even afraid to take vacations using time they have earned. And they don't see any way to do anything about it. Unions are unable to organize and workers are told facilities will close or their jobs will be moved overseas. Government inadequately enforces its own laws, or blatantly favors the wealthy and powerful. People don't feel that elections make any difference. So workers don't see any help on the horizon.

Crabs In A Bucket

Meanwhile, many public employees still have unions, so as a result they in many cases have pensions, health care plans and dignity on the job. People look at that and the temptation toward "crab mentality" is strong. The corporate/conservative anti-union propagandists see an opportunity to set working people against each other and strike at support for unions:

Crab mentality, sometimes referred to as crabs in the bucket, describes a way of thinking best described by the phrase "if I can't have it, neither should you." The metaphor refers to a pot of crabs. Individually, the crabs could easily escape from the pot, but instead, they grab at each other in a useless "king of the hill" competition (or sabotage) which prevents any from escaping and ensures their collective demise. The analogy in human behavior is that of a group that will attempt to "pull down" (negate or diminish the importance of) any member who achieves success beyond the others, out of jealousy, conspiracy or competitive feelings.

This term is broadly associated with short-sighted, non-constructive thinking rather than a unified, long-term, constructive mentality. It is also often used colloquially in reference to individuals or communities attempting to "escape" a so-called "underprivileged life", but kept from doing so by others attempting to ride upon their coat-tails or those who simply resent their success.

The other day in Understanding The Attacks On Public Employees,

What do we see if we look around at the state of the economy? Stocks are soaring, corporate profits are way up, Wall Street gets trillions in bailouts and pays millions upon millions in bonuses. But regular people are having a hard time making ends meet and unemployment is still through the roof. Instead of programs to create jobs, stop foreclosures and rebuild our crumbling infrastructure the government passes more tax cuts for the rich. A few Wall Street and big-corporate types are getting very rich (richer) at the expense of the rest of us. If you are sitting pretty on Wall Street, you probably don't want people thinking about these contrasts too much.

"Look Over There!"

How do you get regular people to "look over there" with all of that going on? Simple: launch a big campaign to blame the librarians, firefighters and other public sector workers for the hard times. "Don't blame US," Wall Street says, "Look over there!" Blame the economy's victims for economic crimes. And, do you know what? This is a strategy that is proven to work every time.

So the corporate/conservatives pit people against each other, hoping to provoke the behavior of crabs in a bucket, instead of reaching the correct conclusion: stand together and join a union and fight for your rights and a share of the pie and you can have it better.

STOP THE LIES!

This video directs people to a STOP THE LIES website where you can sign up to add your voice, download a fact sheet and find other resources.

This post originally appeared at Campaign for America's Future (CAF) at their Blog for OurFuture. I am a Fellow with CAF.

Sign up here for the CAF daily summary.

 

Follow Dave Johnson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/dcjohnson

Since the 80s, many employers have stopped offering health care, pensions and other benefits to their employees. Many are also cutting pay and hours while increasing the workload. So more and more p...
Since the 80s, many employers have stopped offering health care, pensions and other benefits to their employees. Many are also cutting pay and hours while increasing the workload. So more and more p...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 7
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
blogisti
Approved Knowledge Only
11:21 AM on 01/14/2011
It's a race to bottom...and the winner is...the elite class, who every day in every way are siphoning money from the lower classes(all of them). It is this class, the owner class, that has manipulated the media(their media) and the Legislators(their legislators) into brainwashing Americans to believe that unions are the problem.
When the 99% have hit bottom(it won't be long at this rate) they will wake up to an overwhelming disconnect between their reality and the propaganda they swallow every day. The question is what will they do about it? What will they legally be able to do about it? In a country that arrests people mostly on the Left, the Tea Party followers not so much, for being dissenters it could get ugly. The Right doesn't seem to mind being victimized by the elite.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
ProfessorDuh
10:33 AM on 01/14/2011
It's like trying to save yourself by sinking the other guy's lifeboat.
01:15 PM on 02/07/2011
Hey, there you are Prof.

Just wanted to say I've thoroughly enjoyed your comments the last few years, and giggled out loud at more than one. And you have the best icon on the whole site.

In my mind's eye you look like a cross between Sean Connery in Indiana Jones and Robert Redford, with maybe a pinch of Scott Glenn, Greg Kinnear, and Ed Harris.

In case the HuffPo post AOL merger changes are not to my liking and I exit the site...I now pronounce you ProfessorDuh officially... "Gumbo-worthy!"

Yep, I'd risk wasting a bowl of my best duck / andoille/ squirrel gumbo on you, Doc.

Keep the faith, and don't forget you have at least one fan south of I-10!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Eggsackley
Organic gardener & growers marketer.
12:18 AM on 01/12/2011
I have been toying around with the idea of a progressive populist party, if we can't get the Democratic party to stand up and fight for us.. It would necessarily have to have a worker's rights agenda. A long time ago I practiced employment law in Greenville, South Carolina, a southern city that was home to many of the major anti-union labor law firms that have been very active in the labor busting movement. We had the good fortune to have a vigorous young man, Charles Taylor, who organized a Worker's Rights Project that did a great deal of lobbying and educating. It was a non-union but was leading an effort to protect and promote workers. Several attorneys who represented worker's in wrongful discharge cases were loosely affiliated with it and took cases to expand the common law public policy exceptions to the basic employment at will doctrine. I have lost touch with the organization and don't know if it is still active, but think it would be a good model for worker involvement in a political party. The ideal is not to exclude union workers, foremen and managers, but to provide an umbrella for all workers. The last thing we need is for big money to successfully divide the working classes into competing groups. Divided we fall.
04:03 PM on 01/11/2011
It's much harder to pay exorbitant CEO salaries and bonuses, if companies are using funds that could fund pensions to pay those CEO's.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Saje3d
03:41 PM on 01/11/2011
My wife and I were negotiating a job with the neighbor's son mowing our lawn. We were going to offer him 40 bucks for what amounted to 2 hours work. Fair wages, I would think. His father tells us "Well, I make about 80 bucks an hour, including benefits." Hell... I don't make eighty bucks a day. In fact, we were offering his son TWICE my gross hourly wage to do the job.

My employer could use a union... in fact, they deserve one. But I understand a bit of the resentment when someone stands in front of me telling me that MY tax money provides him wages far in excess of my own, and arguing that this somehow entitles his son to more than twice my wages to mow my lawn.

The unions screwed up by joining the establishment, by taking a seat at the table with management, and then by not throwing a general strike in response to Reagan's attack on the air traffic controllers. This happened just as I was entering the workforce, more or less, and I believe I foresaw what was to come. When solidarity was necessary, and right, it wasn't instituted, and we're all paying the price.
11:34 AM on 01/14/2011
Good point about the unions joining the establishment. Union busting started with Reagan firing all the air traffic controllers and has been going on ever since. There is a direct assault by the top to dismantle the working class whether through automation of job offshoring. Divide and conquer. The public employees unions do have the advantage of monopoly. It's also amazing on how many people can be convinced to vote to approve of their own self destruction, just look at how many voted Republican in the last election.