Labor Day Report Card: A Mixed Bag for American Workers
Since 1886, when President Grover Cleveland declared the first Monday in September as Labor Day, most big cities held huge parades to celebrate the trade union movement and the struggle for workers' right. Is it a sign of the labor movement's success or failure that today few cities still hold Labor Day parades anymore?
On the one hand, by lifting many working people out of poverty and into the middle class, unions helped provide Americans with the economic security to take a three-day during this official holiday. On the other hand, American working families are typically so exhausted from over-work that its no wonder that they view Labor Day weekend as a chance to rest rather than protest.
On most measures of economic and social well-being, American workers rank below their counterparts in other affluent nations. For example, Americans work more hours each year than employees in Canada, Western Europe, Japan, or Australia. In 2004, the most recent data collected by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), employed Americans worked an average of 1,824 hours annually, compared with 1,816 in Australia, 1,789 hours in Japan, 1,751 hours in Canada, 1,669 in England, 1,585 n Sweden, 1,443 in Germany, 1,441 in France, and 1,363 in Norway.
Unlike every other affluent country, the U.S. has no statutory minimum vacation policy. As a result, American workers spend fewer weeks on vacation than workers elsewhere. Most countries mandate that workers get at least four weeks of paid vacation a year. France, Austria, Denmark and Sweden require five weeks. In reality, the typical European worker takes at least seven weeks of vacation each year compared with less than four weeks in the U.S. But many American workers only get to take off national holidays, like Christmas, July 4, and Labor Day.
Although the U.S. ranks third behind Norway and Japan in overall per capita income, American workers do not derive the benefits of prosperity compared with their counterparts elsewhere. Workers in other countries have used their political clout to take their productivity gains in the form of reduced hours -- shorter work weeks, longer vacations, and earlier retirements. But they also do better in terms of their paychecks. Workers in many countries -- including Germany, France, England, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland -- significantly outpace Americans in terms of pay and benefits. This is not only true for factory workers but also for service sectors workers, such a secretaries, janitors, hotel workers, and retail clerks.
As the current crop of presidential candidates keeps reminding us, the U.S. is the only country without a system of universal health insurance. It is also the only country without mandated paid maternity leave. We spend less on job training, child care, and affordable housing, and much more on prisons, than other well-off nations. The U.S. also has the widest gap between rich and poor and the highest poverty rate. And, as we saw recently with the deaths of Utah miners, our workplace safety laws are weak and poorly-enforced compared with those elsewhere.
What accounts for these disparities? The weakness of the American labor movement, compared to its counterparts in other affluent, democratic societies is a prime suspect. Unions collective bargaining agreements play a less important role in the U.S. than in other affluent nations. The U.S. (12 percent) ranks next-to-last, behind France (10 percent), in union membership among the workforce. In France, however, even workers who are not union members are covered by collective bargaining agreements. They cover 90 percent of all workers in France, compared with only 14 percent of U.S. workers.
Business leaders argue that American employees anti-union attitudes account for the decline in union membership, which peaked at 35 percent in the 1950s. In fact, a December 2006 poll found that 58 percent of non-managerial workers would join a union if they could. But they won't vote for a union, much less participate openly in an organizing drive, if they fear losing their jobs for doing so.
And there's the rub. Americans have far fewer rights at work than employees in other democratic societies. Current federal laws are an impediment to union organizing rather than a protector of workers' rights. The rules are stacked against workers, making it extremely difficult for even the most committed and talented organizers and workers to win union elections. Elections held under current National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) rules put workers and their unions at a disadvantage. Any employer with a clever attorney can stall union elections, giving management time to scare the living daylights out of potential recruits.
According to Professor Kate Bronfenbrenner of Cornell University, one-quarter of all employers illegally fire at least one employee during union organizing campaigns. In 2005, over 31,000 workers were illegally disciplined or fired for union activity, according to the NLRB. The lucky workers get reinstated years later after exhaustive court battles. Indeed, penalties for these violations are so minimal that most employers treat them as a minor cost of doing business. Employees who initially signed union cards are often long-gone or too afraid to vote by the time the NLRB conducts an election.
Big business spends hundreds of millions of dollars a year to hire anti-union consultants who use elaborate strategies to keep unions out. Employers in the United States can require workers to attend meetings on work time where company managers and consultants give anti-union speeches, show anti-union films and distribute anti-union literature. Unions have no equivalent rights of access to employees. To reach them, organizers must visit their homes or hold secret meetings. This is hardly workplace democracy.
The next battle in the struggle for workers' rights is the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), the most important pro-worker legislation since the original National Labor Relations Act was passed in 1935. EFCA would level the playing field between management and workers, making it more likely that union organizing campaigns will be successful and reverse the labor movement's four-decade membership decline.
The EFCA would allow employees to form unions by simply signing a card stating that they desire union representation. If a majority of employees in a workplace sign a card, the company would be obligated to bargain with the union the employees choose. The law would also increase penalties for companies who violate worker rights and provide for mediation and arbitration for first contract disputes a key provision given that employers often drag out negotiations to wear down a new union.
If EFCA were enacted, the U.S. would match other democracies in the protection of worker rights. In Canada, for example, the "card check" process is in place, and union membership is more than twice that in the U.S.
Last March, the U.S. House of Representatives approved the EFCA by a 241-185 vote. In June, 51 Senators -- all but one of the 52 Democrats (Sen. Tim Johnson of South Dakota, was ill and did not vote) and one Republican (Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania) -- voted in favor of EFCA, but it wasn't enough to end the Republican filibuster. Even had it gotten out of Congress, President Bush pledged to veto it.
Those who support the EFCA stood up to heavy opposition by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which launched a costly barrage of radio ads across the country. Business leaders and their allies in Congress (and the religious right) understand that a resuscitated labor movement would be an effective counterweight to their political influence. That is why they are on the warpath against the EFCA.
The labor movement is likely to make support for the EFCA a litmus test for targeting its endorsement, money, and ground troops to candidates running for House and Senate in 2008, particularly those in swing districts and states, where Republican incumbents are vulnerable to defeat. All the Democratic candidates for president support the bill. So if a Democrat is elected to the White House in November 2008, and the Democrats maintain a majority in Congress, the battle will heat up even more. Business groups will try to persuade moderate Democrats to withdraw their support for the EFCA.
It's do-or-die time for the American labor movement. In the next decade or two, unions will either make a comeback or become marginal players in American society and politics. If labor stumbles towards irrelevance, our overall society will become nastier, more unequal and individualistic than it already is. It's not a happy prospect -- but one worth pondering on this Labor Day.
A shorter version of this commentary appears in Monday's Philadelphia Inquirer.
Comments for this post are now closed
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Perhaps the American Labor movement should work to politically reinforce the importance of LABORING, versus blindly IMPORTING.
The nation that was once largely self-sufficient, as the greatest industrialized nation in the world, has allowed itself to become a slave to "We Sell For Less, Always" mentality.
If the Labor community works hard to hammer this point ... that self-sufficiency is nothing less than a matter of national defense(!) ... the rising tide will lift all boats.
The American workers (white) got just what they wanted in Ronald Reagan (trickle-down economics, trees causing more pollution than automobiles, Chicago welfare queens), George H.W. Bush (no new taxes, Clarence Thomas), George W. Bush ( we found the weapons of mass destruction).
There was/is an underlying, subtle message from Reagan, Bush, and Bush to the people who voted forthem, and we all know what it was/is.
In spite of all evidence that these people had no real interest in the "working class", certain groups of people vote again and again against their best interest.
So, if they are not faring as well as the workers in other industeriaized countries, you reap what you sow.
I just got back from a three week vacation in Europe(Ireland and Amsterdam to be precise; and, yes, I had to take unpaid time to go there for my wedding). All I can say is, my overall impression is that, in general, people seem WAY more chilled out and relaxed than we are here. They just don't seem as stessed out as we are here. I know that's quite a generalization but that's the vibe I got. Could this be because they actually don't have to worry as much as we do about the fundamentals of life--education, health care, and quality time away from work? I know vacation isn't exactly a basic right, but it definitely helps in other areas of our lives--health, productivity, overall well-being.
Suffice it to say, it only took me a half hour at JFK to get back into go go go New York mode.
One of our problems is that the "American" work force isn't entirely made up of "Americans". To make our work force even better we need to deport all ILLEGAL immigrants, heavily fine those who hire ILLEGALS, and return to the original intent of the 14th amendment which would do away with anchor babies. This would greatly improve the "American" work force.
And where are all those PATCO union members now? Yeah, keep your illegal strike going, Reagan can't fire you. Beware of what you wish for.
Unions are a commie plot. Union officials are corrupt and only look after themselves. Unions are bad for workers. Unions drive inflation. I know this is true cos the guvmint told me so.
indypete
LOL!! Good post. I think most people who become rich become psychotic. How? They need more and more and more. A million is not enough - they need two, twenty, then a billion. Of course to these people, Unions are a threat because instead of three yachts, they might have to settle for two, and instead of 4 starter castles, they might have to "get by" with three.
Perhaps that's why Jesus said it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven.
Thank you, CDs are available in the lobby, don't forget to tip your waitress!
P.s.: I would put an end to outsourcing by using eminent domain or similar laws as to all intellectual property. We can turn the national defense laws against the corporations.
It is clearly in our national interest to claim and control all intellectual property created in this country, and to prevent corporations from giving that property, or making it available, to people in other countries. If they do, it would be a form of economic treason.
In fact, we could condition all patents and copyrights on the concept becoming owned by the public within so many years. The drug company invents a drug, they have exclusive right to manufacture within the U.S. only, and to sell anywhere for a certain number of years. In exchange for that exclusivity, they agree they will never disclose the patented information to any other country, and at the end of the exclusivity, the information belongs to the public.
As long as they keep their trade secrets and patents inside the U.S., including all manufacturing and design, the "owner" keeps the profits. If they try to take it outside the country, we grab it as national property (like drug-law confiscation) and throw the corporate management into prison.
Bill Gates loves importing workers from India and Pakistan so he can become even richer by paying them less? Too bad. End that policy also. No importing workers without a clear and convincing showing that there are zero workers qualified for the job.
And these personal charities by people like Gates and the Clintons - they "donate" their own money to their own charity and therefore do not pay taxes on their earnings - those must also be eliminated. What nonsense to leave such control in the hands of so few. If they're really charitable, they can contribute the funds to real charities. But no more allowing people to set up their own charities and control their money, while avoiding taxes.
Fight now with Nation wode strikes or fight with guns to regain our rights and freedom.
If we wait for one or two decades it will be too late for every one. Now is the time to act. Do not expect any help from the Gov. There must be pain and suffering from large scale Nationwide strikes or there will be pain, suffering and blood shed When we have to fight to regain our freedom.
I agree that we need to re-think our approach to labor issues. Many of the unions did become corrupt, or at least their leadership did. But why should they be different from most institutions in this country which have become corrupt over time. Unions, corporations, both political parties, many politicians. The media. Even the churches.
What we need to do is to create our own legislation - we can call it the Workers Rights Law - and get a President like Edwards, and force the Congressional Dems to support it. We lack leadership because of the corruption, and few Democrats ever talk about workers having any rights.
But this is our country. We can make any laws we want. We can (and should) appoint 12 strongly liberal Supreme Court Justices to over-ride the 9 old wo/men sitting there today. In other words, take it back.
The new law should include an end to At Will employment. Any employee should be presumed entitled to continued employment absent necessary industry-wide layoffs or affirmative and intentional misconduct. Seniority. Mandatory pension with monthly funding, and the funds taken out of corporate control as soon as the check is written. An end to firing people over 50 and replacing them with people under 30. And of course more vacation and sick leave.
This is our country. All the politicians want us to think it isn't. They pretend that the country belongs to the corporations, but that's not true. The politicians belong to the corporations became they routinely accept bribes and they are corrupt.
We need to take our country back, and we can do it. All that is required is a little leadership. I think John Edwards is the person to start the ball rolling by getting people inspired. Then it's up to us.
I take it then, that an employee will not be able to quit his job, either? If you can't be fired or layed-off, then you cannot quit. Is that right?
The concept of "at will" employment was developed by the courts to undercut years of case law which held that long-term employees have acquired a certain vested right to continued employment, and they cannot be fired absent a showing of good cause. The concept of "at will" employment was created by conservative judges who publicly attack "activist" judges while they sneakily change the law, ignore precedent, and eliminate all the rights of workers, citizens, and taxpayers, to favor their upper-class corporate friends.
So no, Beachbum, in case your question was serious, changing the concept of "at will" employment has nothing to do with an employee's right to change jobs. But if the current administration continues packing our courts, I expect future rulings will say that all workers are simply slaves with no rights whatsoever.
Let me set the record straight on labor in the United States.
When the settlers came to the US seeking a better life from being surfs in Europe, their lives were EXTREMELY hard. There was a show on PBS that put today's people in an environment that the settlers faced, and it was eye opening. It took the entire day of everybody's work to get through the day, with chopping wood, finding food, tilling soil and minding the crops, cooking, cleaning, planning for the winters, etc. No one had any spare time.
The masters saw that they could not do this all themselves, have time for leisure (to become learned) and make money.
So they devised a system of slavery, indentured included, where others would do their work, the work of keeping house and the work of making them rich, for NO PAY.
If there were no workers, then there would be NO RICH PEOPLE! People would have to do their OWN DAMN WORK to survive.
Yet these DAMN rich people have convinced poor people that they are doing poor people a favor by giving them a JOB!
I guess that one way to look at it. Another way is the workers are doing rich people a favor by doing THEIR WORK and MAKING THEM RICH!
Does anyone find it odd that on Labor Day the President chose to leave the country?
I owe my life to the American labor movement. The came to the aid of my family when they were facing a Nazi death sentence. Their actions had a profound impact not only in a personal sense but literally changed one of the largest cities in the world and an entire nation.
Today, labor's situation rivals that of 1900 when my grandfather was a teenager.
See the complete story at:
http://the
The American Worker has been replaced by Third World workers in China, India, and any other country that allows corporations to pay people dirt wages in sweat shop conditions with no benefits.
At the same time, illegal workers continue to flood into the US to fill the "service jobs" that cannot be outsourced for below minimum wage and no benefits - to the delight and increased gain of small and medium business owners, as power of the worker is further undermined.
As long as outsourcing blue and white collar jobs and the hiring of illegal workers continues as the primary way to conduct business in America and the world, the only ones celebrating will continue to be Corporate CEO's, investors, lobbyists, and politicians.
What's the point?
While labor unions have been reduced in their numbers by the despicable actions of corporations and their political hacks, the fact of the matter is that labor can look no further than the mirror to find the cause of its demise.
I've been a union member and I have negotiated for management.
But, all of these actions only reflect upon the gains of a contract or agreement that affect a limited number of people.
The problem with labor, in my opinion, is their myopic and self-limiting view of the way the world works.
They spent decades trashing environmental rules as if these were actually going to take away benefits from their workers.
Only when NAFTA showed that both labor AND environmental quality could be exported in one fell swoop did labor begin to act as if the environment really matters.
Same with all the other major socio-economic issues.
Once labor had their great take-home pay, they didn't care if the government went broke, joining with the corporations to support all of the Republican-led tax reforms that throttled our ability to act in our collective interest as a people. Look in the mirror.
Labor has become too parochial in its outlook and its actions. No leadership.
I continue to support them for every right that they can garner from their corporate overseers.
But I feel that labor has lost its moral compass, and they have become irrelevant as leaders of true political reforms in this country, and the world.
I celebrate with them today, in solidarity.
Sure Labor ain't perfect. However, since Reagan threw down the gauntlet and castrated the labor movement, Americans, like you have lost sight of the absolute need for labor to resist capital. With no one to fight back, unrestrained corporations have destroyed the lives of millions of Americans, failed to deal with the healthcare cartell, and watched CEO's and big capital suck the life out of ordinary folks.
Why don't we just have a war, kill all Americans without college degrees and export Labor Day to Mexico, India and/or China?
Loading comments…
Posted September 3, 2007 | 03:01 AM (EST)