Study shows link between union decline, rise of inequality

[JA]

Study shows diminished but ‘robust’ link between union decline, rise of inequality

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Dabeav]

I'd make an amendment combining a repealing/banning of the minimum wage with an enshrining the right of every person to collectively bargain. 

Let the market prevail and the people stand on equal bargaining grounds.

[courts]

would be surprising if that wasn't the case wouldn't it be?

[MasterJedi]

I'd make an amendment combining a repealing/banning of the minimum wage with an enshrining the right of every person to collectively bargain. 

Let the market prevail and the people stand on equal bargaining grounds.

So basically like the early 1900s!

[Torie]

One should be careful to avoid cause and effect here. Much of the decline of unions, is due to the decline of oligopolistic and monopolistic industries in a global economy. In highly competitive industries, it has always been the case that unions don't affect wages much if at all (I learned that in Business School way back in 1973, much to my surprise). So even if they had survived, the rise of inequality would have risen. It is more about the change of the economic structure, and the information and global economy, and the fall of the mass production economy, than anything to do with unions per se. Unions do make a difference in government jobs, and the highly regulated utility industry, which are well, legal monopolies.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Thanks Reagan!

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

Thanks Reagan!

[RussFeingoldWasRobbed]

Thanks Reagan!

[IndustrialJustice]

This has always been obvious, and it’s why Republicans target them with such ferocity. Nothing else guarantees workers a slice of the pie more than whatever their boss was already giving them.

[KingSweden]

would be surprising if that wasn't the case wouldn't it be?

[Jeffster]

How about you idiots thank our free trade agreements with countries like China, and our open borders for illegal labor. Most of the good paying manufacturing union jobs were shipped overseas in order to cut costs, or of the companies that stayed behind, they replaced their workers with illegal labor here at home. The meat packing industry used to be unionized, now it's mostly done by illegal labor. How about construction jobs and how illegal labor has taken over many jobs there too.

Seriously, for a moment, try and use your brain and answer this question: What good is a union if the company can simply move the plant overseas to take advantage of cheaper labor and lax regulations there and ship the goods back here thanks to free trade, or if the company can replace their workforce here with illegal labor?

I'm no fan of Reagan, he is one of my most hated Presidents, but all your "dur thanks Reagan dur dur!" is so superficial, and leaves out many of the reasons for the decline in unions. Clinton went against the wishes of union workers when he suddenly supported NAFTA after taking office. Obama and the Dems never once held a vote for card check when they had the numbers back in 2009. So please, get your heads out of your asses on this issue, and either admit you don't really give a crap about unions, or realize that neither party is a friend to organized labor. If Democrats would get on the right side of illegal immigration and trade then maybe they'd regain some credibility here.

[libertpaulian]

I'd make an amendment combining a repealing/banning of the minimum wage with an enshrining the right of every person to collectively bargain.  

Let the market prevail and the people stand on equal bargaining grounds.

So basically like the early 1900s!

Dabeav's plan is actually how labor law is practiced in the Nordic countries.  There's no technical minimum wage set, but unionization is strong enough that employees are paid above what we would consider minimum wage.

[Jeffster]

How about you idiots thank our free trade agreements with countries like China, and our open borders for illegal labor. Most of the good paying manufacturing union jobs were shipped overseas in order to cut costs, or of the companies that stayed behind, they replaced their workers with illegal labor here at home. The meat packing industry used to be unionized, now it's mostly done by illegal labor. How about construction jobs and how illegal labor has taken over many jobs there too.

Seriously, for a moment, try and use your brain and answer this question: What good is a union if the company can simply move the plant overseas to take advantage of cheaper labor and lax regulations there and ship the goods back here thanks to free trade, or if the company can replace their workforce here with illegal labor?

I'm no fan of Reagan, he is one of my most hated Presidents, but all your "dur thanks Reagan dur dur!" is so superficial, and leaves out many of the reasons for the decline in unions. Clinton went against the wishes of union workers when he suddenly supported NAFTA after taking office. Obama and the Dems never once held a vote for card check when they had the numbers back in 2009. So please, get your heads out of your asses on this issue, and either admit you don't really give a crap about unions, or realize that neither party is a friend to organized labor. If Democrats would get on the right side of illegal immigration and trade then maybe they'd regain some credibility here.

Conservatism is a disease and mental disorder

I'm not a conservative, you moron. I support medicare for all, a higher minimum wage, more taxpayer subsidies for college (but focused more on STEM), A major investment in infrastucture. Most of my policy positions were right at home with the Democrats until the last decade or so, but now they want to be the party of free trade and open borders.

[Beet]

How about you idiots thank our free trade agreements with countries like China, and our open borders for illegal labor. Most of the good paying manufacturing union jobs were shipped overseas in order to cut costs, or of the companies that stayed behind, they replaced their workers with illegal labor here at home. The meat packing industry used to be unionized, now it's mostly done by illegal labor. How about construction jobs and how illegal labor has taken over many jobs there too.

Seriously, for a moment, try and use your brain and answer this question: What good is a union if the company can simply move the plant overseas to take advantage of cheaper labor and lax regulations there and ship the goods back here thanks to free trade, or if the company can replace their workforce here with illegal labor?

I'm no fan of Reagan, he is one of my most hated Presidents, but all your "dur thanks Reagan dur dur!" is so superficial, and leaves out many of the reasons for the decline in unions. Clinton went against the wishes of union workers when he suddenly supported NAFTA after taking office. Obama and the Dems never once held a vote for card check when they had the numbers back in 2009. So please, get your heads out of your asses on this issue, and either admit you don't really give a crap about unions, or realize that neither party is a friend to organized labor. If Democrats would get on the right side of illegal immigration and trade then maybe they'd regain some credibility here.

Conservatism is a disease and mental disorder

[Take your vitamins and say your prayers, Brother!]

How about you idiots thank our free trade agreements with countries like China, and our open borders for illegal labor. Most of the good paying manufacturing union jobs were shipped overseas in order to cut costs, or of the companies that stayed behind, they replaced their workers with illegal labor here at home. The meat packing industry used to be unionized, now it's mostly done by illegal labor. How about construction jobs and how illegal labor has taken over many jobs there too.

Seriously, for a moment, try and use your brain and answer this question: What good is a union if the company can simply move the plant overseas to take advantage of cheaper labor and lax regulations there and ship the goods back here thanks to free trade, or if the company can replace their workforce here with illegal labor?

I'm no fan of Reagan, he is one of my most hated Presidents, but all your "dur thanks Reagan dur dur!" is so superficial, and leaves out many of the reasons for the decline in unions. Clinton went against the wishes of union workers when he suddenly supported NAFTA after taking office. Obama and the Dems never once held a vote for card check when they had the numbers back in 2009. So please, get your heads out of your asses on this issue, and either admit you don't really give a crap about unions, or realize that neither party is a friend to organized labor. If Democrats would get on the right side of illegal immigration and trade then maybe they'd regain some credibility here.

I can't overemphasize the "suddenly" part on Clinton's shift on NAFTA.  He went through the whole 1992 campaign not taking an issue on this monstrosity, and then in 1993, he suddenly endorsed it, and claimed it as an accomplishment.  

Though it has taken me a long time to recognize this, the real rift between organized labor and the Democratic Party came in 1972, when AFL-CIO President George Meany led the AFL-CIO to remain neutral in that election, rather than endorse McGovern.  This was, in part, because McGovern's military spending cuts were going to result in lots of union jobs lost, amongst other things, and it was also because of the cultural conservatism of many union workers of the day and their cultural disconnect with the New Left, whose takeover of the DNC began with the 1972 Democratic National Covention.

Which Democrats opposed McGovern?  George Meany, the AFL-CIO chief.  I. W. Abel, head of the Steelworkers union; he nominated Sen. Henry (Scoop) Jackson (D-WA) for President.  The major union leaders were for HHH, and many stuck with Jackson during the Anyone But McGovern days.  (Jackson wouldn't quit until the bitter end; according to Elliott Abrams, he saw McGovern's nomination as "an unmitigated disaster for the party".)  The McGovernites were Feminists, the anti-war movement, the fledgling gay movement, and most organized black blocs, (particularly the Jesse Jackson crowd,  (Jesse Jackson was furious when, after the convention, McGovern and Mayor Daley sat down and made as nice as they were able to make toward each other.  "McGovern may need Daley in Chicago, but he needs me nationally!" said a then-angry Rev. Jackson.  Of course, when McGovernites ran out the Daley delegation, they ran out a slew of labor delegates and replaced them with New Left and Identity Politics delegates.

Having thoroughly alienated the South (a region whose local and state officials were almost all Democrats in the 1970s), the Democrats tried to win them back with Jimmy Carter in 1976.  Carter had some union backing, and whatever reservations labor had, they hoped Carter would be a winner, but Carter wasn't a labor guy; he was a governor of a Right-To-Work state that couldn't get Congress to pass a Common Situs Picketing bill that the Congress passed under Ford (but was vetoed by Ford).  

If I have one regret as a young Democratic Committeeman in 1976, it was in not supporting Scoop Jackson for President.  Had Jackson been the nominee of the Democratic Party in 1976, he'd have strengthened the standing of labor; there would have been none of the corporate giveaways that Reagan was part of.  And there would have been no neoliberalism that took pocketbook issues off the table and replaced them with social issues and identity politics issues.  In many ways, I believe that Scoop Jackson was the greatest President America never had.  There is no Scoop Jackson in the Democratic Party now, and that is sad, indeed.

[Beet]

How about you idiots thank our free trade agreements with countries like China, and our open borders for illegal labor. Most of the good paying manufacturing union jobs were shipped overseas in order to cut costs, or of the companies that stayed behind, they replaced their workers with illegal labor here at home. The meat packing industry used to be unionized, now it's mostly done by illegal labor. How about construction jobs and how illegal labor has taken over many jobs there too.

Seriously, for a moment, try and use your brain and answer this question: What good is a union if the company can simply move the plant overseas to take advantage of cheaper labor and lax regulations there and ship the goods back here thanks to free trade, or if the company can replace their workforce here with illegal labor?

I'm no fan of Reagan, he is one of my most hated Presidents, but all your "dur thanks Reagan dur dur!" is so superficial, and leaves out many of the reasons for the decline in unions. Clinton went against the wishes of union workers when he suddenly supported NAFTA after taking office. Obama and the Dems never once held a vote for card check when they had the numbers back in 2009. So please, get your heads out of your asses on this issue, and either admit you don't really give a crap about unions, or realize that neither party is a friend to organized labor. If Democrats would get on the right side of illegal immigration and trade then maybe they'd regain some credibility here.

I can't overemphasize the "suddenly" part on Clinton's shift on NAFTA.  He went through the whole 1992 campaign not taking an issue on this monstrosity, and then in 1993, he suddenly endorsed it, and claimed it as an accomplishment.  

Though it has taken me a long time to recognize this, the real rift between organized labor and the Democratic Party came in 1972, when AFL-CIO President George Meany led the AFL-CIO to remain neutral in that election, rather than endorse McGovern.  This was, in part, because McGovern's military spending cuts were going to result in lots of union jobs lost, amongst other things, and it was also because of the cultural conservatism of many union workers of the day and their cultural disconnect with the New Left, whose takeover of the DNC began with the 1972 Democratic National Covention.

Which Democrats opposed McGovern?  George Meany, the AFL-CIO chief.  I. W. Abel, head of the Steelworkers union; he nominated Sen. Henry (Scoop) Jackson (D-WA) for President.  The major union leaders were for HHH, and many stuck with Jackson during the Anyone But McGovern days.  (Jackson wouldn't quit until the bitter end; according to Elliott Abrams, he saw McGovern's nomination as "an unmitigated disaster for the party".)  The McGovernites were Feminists, the anti-war movement, the fledgling gay movement, and most organized black blocs, (particularly the Jesse Jackson crowd,  (Jesse Jackson was furious when, after the convention, McGovern and Mayor Daley sat down and made as nice as they were able to make toward each other.  "McGovern may need Daley in Chicago, but he needs me nationally!" said a then-angry Rev. Jackson.  Of course, when McGovernites ran out the Daley delegation, they ran out a slew of labor delegates and replaced them with New Left and Identity Politics delegates.

Having thoroughly alienated the South (a region whose local and state officials were almost all Democrats in the 1970s), the Democrats tried to win them back with Jimmy Carter in 1976.  Carter had some union backing, and whatever reservations labor had, they hoped Carter would be a winner, but Carter wasn't a labor guy; he was a governor of a Right-To-Work state that couldn't get Congress to pass a Common Situs Picketing bill that the Congress passed under Ford (but was vetoed by Ford).  

If I have one regret as a young Democratic Committeeman in 1976, it was in not supporting Scoop Jackson for President.  Had Jackson been the nominee of the Democratic Party in 1976, he'd have strengthened the standing of labor; there would have been none of the corporate giveaways that Reagan was part of.  And there would have been no neoliberalism that took pocketbook issues off the table and replaced them with social issues and identity politics issues.  In many ways, I believe that Scoop Jackson was the greatest President America never had.  There is no Scoop Jackson in the Democratic Party now, and that is sad, indeed.

No, it's the switch to primaries that destroyed labor, not personalities. As long as things were decided in smoke-filled rooms, a lot of that smoke is coming from the union rep's cigar. But when it's a primary election, all the union can contribute is money. Suddenly he's on the same playing field as a bunch of corporations.

[Take your vitamins and say your prayers, Brother!]

How about you idiots thank our free trade agreements with countries like China, and our open borders for illegal labor. Most of the good paying manufacturing union jobs were shipped overseas in order to cut costs, or of the companies that stayed behind, they replaced their workers with illegal labor here at home. The meat packing industry used to be unionized, now it's mostly done by illegal labor. How about construction jobs and how illegal labor has taken over many jobs there too.

Seriously, for a moment, try and use your brain and answer this question: What good is a union if the company can simply move the plant overseas to take advantage of cheaper labor and lax regulations there and ship the goods back here thanks to free trade, or if the company can replace their workforce here with illegal labor?

I'm no fan of Reagan, he is one of my most hated Presidents, but all your "dur thanks Reagan dur dur!" is so superficial, and leaves out many of the reasons for the decline in unions. Clinton went against the wishes of union workers when he suddenly supported NAFTA after taking office. Obama and the Dems never once held a vote for card check when they had the numbers back in 2009. So please, get your heads out of your asses on this issue, and either admit you don't really give a crap about unions, or realize that neither party is a friend to organized labor. If Democrats would get on the right side of illegal immigration and trade then maybe they'd regain some credibility here.

I can't overemphasize the "suddenly" part on Clinton's shift on NAFTA.  He went through the whole 1992 campaign not taking an issue on this monstrosity, and then in 1993, he suddenly endorsed it, and claimed it as an accomplishment.  

Though it has taken me a long time to recognize this, the real rift between organized labor and the Democratic Party came in 1972, when AFL-CIO President George Meany led the AFL-CIO to remain neutral in that election, rather than endorse McGovern.  This was, in part, because McGovern's military spending cuts were going to result in lots of union jobs lost, amongst other things, and it was also because of the cultural conservatism of many union workers of the day and their cultural disconnect with the New Left, whose takeover of the DNC began with the 1972 Democratic National Covention.

Which Democrats opposed McGovern?  George Meany, the AFL-CIO chief.  I. W. Abel, head of the Steelworkers union; he nominated Sen. Henry (Scoop) Jackson (D-WA) for President.  The major union leaders were for HHH, and many stuck with Jackson during the Anyone But McGovern days.  (Jackson wouldn't quit until the bitter end; according to Elliott Abrams, he saw McGovern's nomination as "an unmitigated disaster for the party".)  The McGovernites were Feminists, the anti-war movement, the fledgling gay movement, and most organized black blocs, (particularly the Jesse Jackson crowd,  (Jesse Jackson was furious when, after the convention, McGovern and Mayor Daley sat down and made as nice as they were able to make toward each other.  "McGovern may need Daley in Chicago, but he needs me nationally!" said a then-angry Rev. Jackson.  Of course, when McGovernites ran out the Daley delegation, they ran out a slew of labor delegates and replaced them with New Left and Identity Politics delegates.

Having thoroughly alienated the South (a region whose local and state officials were almost all Democrats in the 1970s), the Democrats tried to win them back with Jimmy Carter in 1976.  Carter had some union backing, and whatever reservations labor had, they hoped Carter would be a winner, but Carter wasn't a labor guy; he was a governor of a Right-To-Work state that couldn't get Congress to pass a Common Situs Picketing bill that the Congress passed under Ford (but was vetoed by Ford).  

If I have one regret as a young Democratic Committeeman in 1976, it was in not supporting Scoop Jackson for President.  Had Jackson been the nominee of the Democratic Party in 1976, he'd have strengthened the standing of labor; there would have been none of the corporate giveaways that Reagan was part of.  And there would have been no neoliberalism that took pocketbook issues off the table and replaced them with social issues and identity politics issues.  In many ways, I believe that Scoop Jackson was the greatest President America never had.  There is no Scoop Jackson in the Democratic Party now, and that is sad, indeed.

No, it's the switch to primaries that destroyed labor, not personalities. As long as things were decided in smoke-filled rooms, a lot of that smoke is coming from the union rep's cigar. But when it's a primary election, all the union can contribute is money. Suddenly he's on the same playing field as a bunch of corporations.

I'll agree with this, at least in part.

I don't really believe that the primary system has improved the quality of candidate that gets nominated by either party

[Badger]

Well, duh.

[Hammy]

We needed a study to know this?

[darklordoftech]

Thanks Reagan!

[CookieDamage]

I'd make an amendment combining a repealing/banning of the minimum wage with an enshrining the right of every person to collectively bargain. 

Let the market prevail and the people stand on equal bargaining grounds.

#LibertarianThoughts

[หมูเด้ง]

Who knew?

[Dabeav]

I'd make an amendment combining a repealing/banning of the minimum wage with an enshrining the right of every person to collectively bargain.  

Let the market prevail and the people stand on equal bargaining grounds.

So basically like the early 1900s!

Dabeav's plan is actually how labor law is practiced in the Nordic countries.  There's no technical minimum wage set, but unionization is strong enough that employees are paid above what we would consider minimum wage.

Yes, I'm usually for things that work better than we have now.

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/080515/5-developed-countries-without-minimum-wages.asp

[#gravelgang #lessiglad]

One should be careful to avoid cause and effect here. Much of the decline of unions, is due to the decline of oligopolistic and monopolistic industries in a global economy. In highly competitive industries, it has always been the case that unions don't affect wages much if at all (I learned that in Business School way back in 1973, much to my surprise). So even if they had survived, the rise of inequality would have risen. It is more about the change of the economic structure, and the information and global economy, and the fall of the mass production economy, than anything to do with unions per se. Unions do make a difference in government jobs, and the highly regulated utility industry, which are well, legal monopolies.

I do want to tack on to this a little bit - not only did the acceleration of corporate merger and acquisition activity contribute to the decline of the average wage relative to inflation, but so too did technology's march of progress. Which is particularly relevant to changes in manufacturing and materials extraction where the changes have been particularly striking.

This study did say that it controlled for individual changes in people's earning potential, but it failed to control for either corporate consolidation or changes in technology.

[pbrower2a]

Note also the profusion of low-paying jobs in retail and food service, in which workers usually have short careers and little chance of internal advancement. Such work is practically impossible to unionize. Meatcutters in grocery stores are an exception.