On Labor Day, A Call To Restore U.S. Workers' Rights To Organize
By Peter Dreier and Jessica Goodheart
This Labor Day, the numbers don't tell a happy story about the American worker. According to Jared Bernstein of the Economic Policy Institute, this has been the weakest business cycle on record for working families. Between 2000 and 2007, the median income of working-age households fell by more than $2,000.
And yet, workers' productivity has increased. Indeed, the U.S. economy is even more productive than it was in the late 1990s. Why aren't American workers reaping the benefits? A good part of it has to do with rising inequality. The distribution of income in the U.S. is more unequal today than at any time since the 1920s. In fact, the U.S. has the highest level of inequality, and the most poverty, of any industrialized country. And it's not a coincidence that the U.S. has the fewest workers covered by a union contract among all major affluent nations.
The imbalance of power means that during an economic downturn, working people have very little to fall back on. During the good times, they haven't shared in the gain. Now they're expected to absorb the pain of rising food and fuel costs and diminished opportunity. Workers in all economic sectors and demographic groups have been hit hard. In particular, the most vulnerable workers over the last eight years have been African Americans, Latinos, and families headed by single mothers. They suffered the biggest setbacks over the past eight years.
But there is also good news -- and not just that the Democrats are talking about the problem. Unions are organizing--and winning. Last year was the first one in decades in which union density -- the percentage of workers who are union members -- actually increased. And cities like Los Angeles have become hotbeds of union activity. Hotel workers, food service workers, truck drivers, airline service workers are all fighting for union representation and a better standard of living.
Earlier this year, in Los Angeles, 4,000 security officers represented by the Service Employees International Union, most of them African Americans, won their first contract and a nearly 40 percent increase in compensation. In late 2007, the United Food and Commercial Workers union, which represents nearly 70,000 grocery workers in Southern California, signed a contract with the major chains that eliminated a two-tier wages system, and kept grocery jobs from becoming Wal-Mart jobs. By the end of this year, more than a thousand workers at four hotels near Los Angeles International Airport will have signed union agreements dramatically raising standards.
For years, Los Angeles was considered an anti-union bastion. But in the past two decades, new leaders dedicated to mobilizing rank-and-file workers, many of them immigrants, have revitalized the labor movement in Los Angeles. That's good for workers, but it's also good for the region's economy.
Workers in Los Angeles County who are union members earn, on average, 27% more than non-union workers in the same occupations. In the service sector, where many of the working poor are employed, the wage differential is 64%. A study by the L.A.-based Economic Roundtable, released earlier this year, found that union workers have a significant and positive impact on the economy. Those extra $7.2 billion in wages earned by union workers in LA County create an additional 64,800 jobs and $11 billion in economic output. Yes, unions create jobs. Unions are actually pro-business. That's a story we rarely hear.
Los Angeles is certainly no workers' paradise. A recent study by the Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy (LAANE) revealed that 30 percent full time workers in Los Angeles County earned less than $25,000 in 2007. One in five children in LA County lives in poverty. There is a vast and growing informal economy made up of workers who do not receive such basic safety net benefits as worker compensation, overtime, and Social Security.
Coalitions of unions, clergy, and community groups have been at the forefront of organizing to pass policies that raise standards for Los Angeles' low wage workers and preserve middle class jobs. The Los Angeles City Council has adopted living wage laws and project labor agreements (guaranteeing union jobs on government-subsidized development projects) that cover tens of thousands of workers.
LA offers a vision of what's possible. But the problem of low wage jobs cannot be solved at the local level on its own. America's workers need a shot in the arm from the federal government--and it's got to be more than the temporary fix of a stimulus check. After eight years of President Bush's neglect and mismanagement of the economy, it's a long list. But at the very top is the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act, which would reform the nation's outdated labor-managed laws that are woefully stacked against workers, and level the playing field between employees and employers.
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 National Labor Relations Board. By the time the NLRB acts, it is often too late and the penalties too small. The leaders have found other jobs or the workers have been scared and demoralized.
In other words, there is nothing free and fair about the current system for electing union representations. Employers can corral workers during their work time and if they step over the legal line--which they routinely do--there is little to no recourse. A whole specialty field of union-busting consultants has emerged.
The Employee Free Choice Act -- which the House of Representatives passed last year and which Barack Obama has pledged to support -- would give workers a fair and direct path to form unions through a majority sign up. It would also help them secure a contract within a reasonable period of time, and toughen penalties against employers who violate workers' rights.
The statistics on poverty and income are, indeed, grim. But that doesn't mean we are paralyzed in addressing the problem. For working families, that means restoring the American Dream so that they can raise their families, buy a home, put food on the table, afford health insurance, take a vacation, send their kids to college, and retire with dignity and a decent pension. "Hope" and "change" are the mantras of this election cycle. By the time next Labor Day comes around, let's hope that America has changed its labor laws to that working people can have a strong voice in their workplaces, their communities, and their country.
Peter Dreier is Professor of Politics at Occidental College. Jessica Goodheart is research director at the Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy.
Loading comments…
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
Republicans keep talking about good jobs for workers but don't get past the "you can pick produce" line.
Even American businesses in Mexico are bringing in workers from El Saviador saying "Mexicans won't do this kind of work " . Where have we heard that before ?
Let's take a moment to celebrate Unions - the people who gave us not only the weekend, but also the Middle Class.
In addition to which - they also brought us upward mobility, a sense that opportunity was not a "zero sum game," and other aspects of life in the United States that we not only cherish, but have also come to believe are uniquely "American.
I have a question. Obama spoke in Milwaukee yesterday to a labor group. I did not hear the speech but this morning on NPR the excerpts did not include any references to Employee Free Choice. So my skepticism was instantly on high alert. I would think that if Obama supports this bill he would be encouraging people to contact their senators, and speaking on it extensively. I realize there is a lot of legislation that never makes it to the media but now I have this sense that there is no real intention to make this a law. Having one house pass it is handy for the "how did they vote" reports. Am I being too cynical when I suspect that this bill passing the house was just a token gesture?
Yes, you are being too cynical. The bill passed the House because its a simple majority needed there for passage.
It hasn't passed the Senate because the Democrats do not (yet) have the 60 votes needed to overcome Republican obstructionism and secure passage. Another reason to work hard to elect more Democrats.
There seem to be some unions that do very well-the police and teachers come to mind. Unfortunately, they only use their power to benefit themselves. When was the last time you heard policemen talk about justice? Where are the teachers unions that have let No Child Left Behind be shoved down our throats? Out negotiating for shorter school years and more sick days. Now they do the "retire, rehire" ostensibly to save money. What about education? What about justice? Ohio has an amendment coming up that would give workers a chance to earn sick days-it's being painted as the worst thing to ever hit business-but it's okay to give the city workers 15 sick days. The unions of autoworkers and steel gave concessions to help save their jobs-when do the public unions have to take some concessions. We need to build labor up in this country, back to where it was before Ronald Reagen got into office and commenced the war against unions.
Your comments are well thought out. The selfishness of the 'do well' unions is an excellent point. Before the days of Ronald Reagan unions were much stronger. However, I think PATCO hurt themselves [air controllers] and others that followed. They were well paid; they should not have went on strike. Companies are breaking all the private unions; only government basically is left and those people in their unions are in it just for themselves. Bring back the labor movement. We need good paying jobs.
In many sectors and for many businesses, unionizing the employees will simply make them less competitive and put many companies out of business resulting in a lot of lost jobs. Unionization in most industries also reduces productivity and investment resulting in less economic growth and few jobs. The economies of most Western European countries had stagnated for the better part of the last four decades because of unionism and regulation, and have only seen growth recently because of increased trade and a focus on deregulation. I don't think it would go for the United States to follow the path of Old-Europe.
jeez, pull your head out of the ronnie-ray
Your statement that "unionizing the employees will simply make them less competitive" is absolutely wrong. Why should workers compete among themselves for higher wages? That many businesses go out of business when a union is on the scene is also wrong. I've seen many a business go out of business because they are run poorly or they are forced by customer businesses to demand lowere wages and fewer benefits which, by virtue of offering a benefit such as health care or a pension, makes their product a bit more pricy. Wal-Mart is a classic example of a company forcing businesses out of business because of their own buying habits.
"Unionization in most industries also reduces productivity and investment resulting in less economic growth and few jobs." This statement is also wrong. In industries which have highly skilled employees it is better to have a unionized workforce than a non-union workforce simply because the monetary bottom line does not force out skilled workers who would prefer to be paid for their skills rather than to be exploited by unscrupulous employers.
You may want to take a look at "Old Europe"e becoming a bigger trading bloc than the United States - and all that while not trying to rob their workers and providing benefits that protect their health and retirement. Go figure!
Why have nearly all the auto parts companies filed for bankruptcy? Why were the major auto companies losing money even when the economy was still booming in 2006 and 2007 and auto sales were good? Why have so many airlines fared poorly from 2005 thru 2007 despite many being largely hedged against higher fuel costs and seeing record air travel? Do you really think unionizing sectors like apparel will in any way help keep those jobs in the US? No way. It will only result in the deaths knell for what's left of the industry. Regarding investment why were electrical and heavy machinery companies investing so heavily in other countries earlier this decade and not in their US union strongholds? Could it be that labor costs were way too high here? Same can be said for aircraft parts. About Old Europe, their economies have been growing but a large amount of that investment is western european companies building new plants in low labor cost areas of Eastern and Southern Europe. They are also growing because of a massive increase in trade with China over the past five years. And unemployment even in the strongest W European country, Germany, continues to be nearly 8% - much higher than in the US which just went from 4.8% earlier this year up to 5.7%.
There's a mindset in America, which, if it's not reviewed and challenged, will make ineffective any positive change in favor of the worker. This mindset is part of our national collective unconcious, it is an accepted and cherished myth. I'm referring to the absoluteness of capital and the market and its sacred laissez-faire. Capital doesnt give a hoot, neither does the market, about those who create wealth - the workers - versus those who manage it. As long as this remains so, and as long as we have brazen people in the White House such as Mr. Bush, whose avowed purpose on taking office was to cater to 1% of America - the very wealthy - our disproportions will only grow worse. A journalist friend of mine told me a decade ago that our country, within 50 years, would be just another Bolivia.
I laughed him off. Now I'm afraid that, if our whole system isn't revised and corrected, he might have been right on the money.
Peter; After 42 years with the Operating Engineers union I am retired with 40% of my earnings counted Where is the rest of it? Doing some good for another member or two. I get $935. I should get about $3,500 per month.
Disbanding Unions is the reason for jobs being shipped to foreign countries and weak politicians supporting these actions. We need strong leaders in the White House and Congress to support the working man and woman. Unions do this everyday.
Republicans have it on their agenda to rid America of Unions, so beware working class of America! It will only get worse. Reagan started it with the Air Traffic Controllers and it has progressively gone downhill since. Republicans thrive financially by big business contributions, and have little regard for the people who have to work for a living. Save America and vote the Democratic ticket.
I'm a Union worker and supporter!
It's not "disbanding" unions that has caused jobs to be moved overseas. It's because many union companies, or operations within union compnaies, have been losing money because their labor costs (including the benefits) are too high. You simply can't run a business if you don't make any money. General Motors and Ford are going through this now. They are unionized and they lose a lot of money. How long will they stay in business is the big question. You use the example of Reagan firing the Air Traffic Controllers but you could also cite Democratic President Harry Truman's taking over the railroad during the union strike and using the military as replacement workers or threatening to draft all the striking coal workers into the Korean War.!
As John L. Lewis stated "Let the army dig coal with their bayonets!" Does it make any difference to yoiu whatsoever that the unions provided a strong middle class that was backbone of this country? Sounds like it's something that never entered your head. With weak labor unions you lose more than jobs but you haven't seemed to notice that either.
Maybe if management took a pay-cut when their decisions caused the company to lose money, "labor costs" would go down. But executives don't take pay cuts, do they? No, they give themselves raises and massive bonuses regardless of actual performance.
General Motors and Ford are losing money now because NO ONE IS BUYING THEIR CARS. Why? Because the executives at the company thought that investing in gas-guzzling SUVs and pick-up trucks was a better idea than investing in hybrid technology. But I bet every single executive responsible for making those investment decisions still gets a paycheck at least 10 times the size of the lowest paid employee at Ford, and probably got some sweet bonuses as well.
Don't blame poor executive decisions on unions. It makes you look, well, dumb.
"In fact, the U.S. has the highest level of inequality, and the most poverty, of any industrialized country." There are many causes for this. America's cultural anti-Union bias is one. So is the horrible education system, or lack thereof, for those that do not wish to attend College after High-School.
Increased Union influence is one of several things that would help improve the lives of the average American worker. The question is, who has an interest in such improved conditions for those that actually produce many of the good and services that make this economy run?
The fact is that a large percentage of these workers have been voting against their own economic self interests; voting on the basis of social hot-button issues sound bytes. It is unclear how this can be changed.
Poverty is virtuall non-existent in the US. Someone in "poverty" in the US has a place to live, heat, running water, electricity, plenty of food to eat, often air-conditioning, a car, a computer, a large color TV and often cable, cell-phone (usually multiple phones), plenty of clothes, etc. In countries like Italy, Spain, and Greece, for example, folks in the lower middle class often don't have these things. A hundred years ago in this country, rich folks didn't have even have it so good.
Thank you Peter Dreier and Jessica Goodheart and happy Labor Day.
"Those extra $7.2 billion in wages earned by union workers in LA County create an additional 64,800 jobs and $11 billion in economic output. Yes, unions create jobs. Unions are actually pro-business. That's a story we rarely hear".
Thank you especially for the above. Americans used know that wages are a good thing. They have been brain washed over the last thirty years to believe that an impoverished work force is good for business.
Solidarity.
Unions are a 'necessary evil', unfortunately. Especially the concept of 'trickle down economics' not having lived up to its hype, whose claim was that wealth flows from the top down. Reality has now conclusively proven otherwise; plenty of media organizations putting out the usual articles on how the economy isn't helping them, yadda yadda yadda. Which makes sense, the amount of business closings isn't pretty.
http://en.
If the labor movement doesn't quickly get its buddy Hillary to do all she can to cut off Palin at the knees, the labor movement will be finished for good. Palin is Sandra Bullock, Julia Roberts, and Margaret Thatcher all rolled into one. If she's not stopped immediately, she will quickly become the most popular woman in America with average white women, including your union members. And soon we'll be talking about all those Palin Democrats as hynotized by her as their guys were by Reagan. And then Palin will crush Hillary in '12, and it will all be over for progressive politics in this country, once and for all.
I wouldn't be surprised if Palin self-destructs. I don't think she is going to be that popular with many women, especially when one considers her hard-right abortion view. The novelty of a moose hunting woman VP candidate will wear off soon enough in the light of dialog and testing on the national stage, I believe. I would agree with you, however, in that nothing should be taken for granted and an effective campaign to highlight the disaster of a McCain/Palin ticket must be waged for the benefit of our well-being and the freedom to choose union representation if workers so desire.
It's now only Sept. 2 and there's talk of bouncing her off the ticket. Sic transit gloria!
I hope unions can regain their strength and influence. They have been slow in adapting and finding new strategies in a decimated and changing workforce. In the curious nature of events that causes power to become corrupt, unions had lost their public support through failure to adapt to changing business circumstances and an image of poor productivity. The pendulum of corruption has swung sharply toward the benefit of de-regulated business and toward political policies allowing wealth to become more concentrated, with the deleterious effects upon wage earners outlined in Mr. Drier's interesting piece.
A strong, organized voice is necessary to counteract this current trend and, thus, it is high time unions began gaining influence through organizing new sectors of the economy. Otherwise, there will not be the effective political pressure that might advocate adequate real income, secured retirements and pensions, more restricted trade policies when job exporting is the goal, and other matters highly important to the low to middle income wage earner.
As with our political parties, one wishes business and labor could arrive at a mutually reasonable happy medium, but this does not seem to be the natural state of relationships political or business/employee in too many cases, that begs for a stronger union voice at this time.
The trouble with unions is corporations. Unions always have trouble organizing when employees live with fear of losing their jobs if aligning with a union. That fear is worse among those who are a paycheck away from losing everything they have.
Well said! I would add that the "poor productivity" excuse is offered my management as the "excuse" for everything. Threaten to organize; and business just moves overseas. Business wants us to consume but not produce. It is all so very contradictory. You have a new fan.
California private sector workers right to organize and other labor laws. Sorry California Democrats, if you choose Dianne Feinstein as you next candidate for Governor in 2010, you will shoot yourselves in the foot regarding California workers rights.
There are better choices out there, so stop being sheep being led to shearing..
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
