Are Private Sector Unions in the United States a Relic of the Past?

[BrentWil]

First, I make no moral claims in this argument. This is simply the direction I see the world going. This is an argument that looks at the past and the future and makes a prediction about how they will continue to effect private sector unions.

Unions in the private sector are a relic of a past age and will continue to lose power and slowly fade. This will happen for two reasons. The first reason is that in a globalized economy labor can move with great ease. In other words, if your company in New York is giving you a raw deal for your talents, the ability to find a better paying job anywhere in the country (or World) has never been better. Free movement of labor means that company towns are now clearly a relic of the past. It also means that the means to protect oneself from the abuses of a company in a company town will soon also be. With such a movable labor force, the ability to keep a local union together against a company is severely weakened.

Next, companies have the freedom to move jobs and production on a global scale. Local unions lose a lot of their leverage when a corporation can take advantage of the power of globalization. If the cost of labor is more then the cost of putting capital into moving, then a company will simply relocate. That is the fact.

In a world of economic interdependence, further globalization is nonstop-able. The world is now almost one economy and will quickly further become one. The economic pain of reversing the thread would be extreme. As such, private sector unions will continue to lose power until they totally collapse. There may be occasional upticks in membership, but the tread isn't going to stop.

Where am I wrong?

[old mark]

1. Given the policies of our "Democratic" president and administration, they are on their way out.

I would be surprised if there were not more than a few left in 10 years, mainly auto workers and other large industries, and a few service unions...Even the AFSCME regional unions that I worked for as a Steward were limited in what we could do by design - we could not strike at all, ever. We had to operate under a contract clause that gave mamagement the RIGHT to do whatever they felt necessary to keep order and continus functioning, including violating black letter contract. This was the State of PA civil service - Department of Public Welfare.

mark

[BrentWil]

2. Its alot bigger then him. The World has been and will continue to change. NT

[FBI_Un_Sub]

3. As long as the mineral industries

are deunionizing (and miners and oil workers are dying) and and OSHA and EPA and MMS are fiddling with one another ...

As long as the present Supreme Court is destroying hard earned factory floor rights .....

[Oregone]

4. No. These things are cyclic

The more the fade, the more fucked people will get and the more pain that will come. When it all reaches critical mass, the people will either organize peacefully or otherwise.

[BrentWil]

5. Wouldn't moving to a higher paying job be a lot easier then armed revolt? Are people really going

revolt when they can go to the ballot box every two years? You say it cyclical, but the world has changed. In 1890, someone could look for a job across the country nor could a company move with such ease.

[Oregone]

6. Is that a joke?

When unions are gone, there won't be enough higher paying jobs to satiate the population. Yet another check against capitalism, which operates by exploiting labor, will be gone.


" Are people really going revolt when they can go to the ballot box every two years"

Not sure. It is most certainly a mechanism seemed at controlling people's angst. Almost as much as iPads.


"You say it cyclical, but the world has changed"

Yes, capitalism has reared its ugly head and shown what happens when you emphasize capital over labor. One of the earliest response to this abuse was organized labor itself. Unless capitalism goes away and the workers no longer need to organized to protect themselves, their condition will encourage them to do so again. I guess I made my initial answer under the presumption that capitalism was here to stay.

[BrentWil]

7. SO workers aren't MOVING to better opportunities?

THere is no longer a hold on workers, as it was in the industrial age. THe information age has empowered the individual. THey can simply move and have been. It is a good thing for workers and a bad thing for Unions.

[Oregone]

9. Vocational mobility is not a new thing in America

But it is not paired with social mobility here. Thus far, it hasn't actually proven to be a good thing for workers whatsoever.

[mediaman007]

8. When unions are gone, there will be no resistance to the corporate

legislation. No one will speak for the workers or for the middle class.

Talk about unionized jobs or the freedom of no unions all you want. When the decisions are made in legislatures anywhere, no union means no voice.

[BrentWil]

10. Well that is a different issue. I see a political interest group that may be CALLED a union...

but as far as something that has real power to negotiate with business, I think that is on its way out. On legislative scale, certainly some interest group will continue to fight for working people.

[Oregone]

11. "as far as something that has real power to negotiate with business"

And this is something that you seem to be describing as positive. Correct me if Im wrong.

[BrentWil]

15. No. Declaring as a reality. There are both positive and negatives of this new reality.

[Oregone]

16. I see it as a net negative. Do you?

[BrentWil]

20. Economic liberalization around the world? A net positive. Tremendous ability

to uplift the poor in places like China and India. Downfall of Unions? It is a reality but it is still sad. They have been a stewart the progressive movement.

The downfalls are still very real, but there are means to handle them for the benefit of all.

[Oregone]

21. You believe when there is no "real power to negotiate with business", workers around the world win?

:rofl:

Oh good Gawd man. I need to clean coffee up off my screen now.

[Dawson Leery]

22. If every worker went on strike at once,

the economy would come to an abrupt halt. So when workers are united, they do have power.
The OP must be Tommy Friedman.

[BrentWil]

23. No, I think the ability of workers to find other jobs anywhere and move gives each worker more

power.

[Oregone]

24. Well thats a beautiful basket of a theory to throw all your eggs in

But please investigate the rates of vocational mobility in America and their complete non-correlation to intergenerational mobility (America is tied for last with the United Kingdom at the moment in the entire "American Dream" category).

Its silly to suggest moving from one shitty job to another will help workers. And yes...shitty jobs will be the only option, as unchallenged private industry will exploit workers without regard.

[BrentWil]

31. THe evidence does not back up your assertion... labor mobility increases per capita GDP

It has repeated benefits workers.

Title: Does immigration boost per capita income?
Author(s): Felbermayr GJ, Hiller S, Sala D
Source: ECONOMICS LETTERS Volume: 107 Issue: 2 Pages: 177-179 Published: MAY 2010

Holding in due consideration the sheer population size effect and using geography-based instruments, we find robust evidence for immigration to be positively and causally related to per capita income.

Title: How does labor mobility affect income convergence?
Author(s): Rappaport J
Source: JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC DYNAMICS & CONTROL Volume: 29 Issue: 3 Pages: 567-581 Published: MAR 2005

In the context of a human-capital-based growth model, we show the essential role of labor mobility in equalizing income levels for countries that start off from different initial income positions. Human capital externalities cum labor mobility are the driving forces behind the income level equalization process. In a non-cooperative equilibrium, labor mobility will be limited and income level equality will not be achieved. Coordination will allow free mobility of labor within an economic union, leading to income convergence. Coordination of educational policies will also help internalize the inter-regional human capital externalities to ensure efficient growth for members of the union

[Oregone]

33. I'm not talking about immigration.

I'm talking about vocational mobility. The ability to leave one job and go into another, which seems to be what you are referring to more so previously. If standard of living became equalized with open borders, then immigration becomes pretty much moot (its no different than picking up and working in another state or town). If that is the ultimate end goal of globalization, then we should not be talking about the effects of mobility between heterogeneous regions ("different initial income positions").

Therefore, I am referring to a more homogeneous regions...that being, an established country where people already have high levels of vocation mobility: the United States. It just so happens that in this country, the levels of intergenerational mobility are very, very low.

The point is that the ability to simply change jobs in a (slightly) homogeneous does not always correlate to higher intergenerational mobility for the workers.

[BrentWil]

35. That is what immigration is, on a larger scale...

Do you have have data to show this absent correlation?

[Oregone]

38. No, immigration is moot post equalization in a homogenous region, no matter how large

Im operating in your hypothetical here afterall.


"Do you have have data to show this absent correlation?"

Ill dig it up somewhere around here. I found it in a study looking at international intergenerational mobility, which was comparing the UK to the US (being that their rates are very similar and very low). Vocational mobility in the UK is very low, according to that study, in contrast to the US. It was therefore not considered by that author as a significant factor affecting intergenerational mobility. Most international studies Ive seen tie educational attainment as a leading indicator of intergenerational mobility (something the rich have the most access to).

Ill see if I can dig that up.

Note: In meantime, just look up job mobility rates in Europe, which are often half that of the US. Regardless, their intergenerational mobility is higher (except UKs). So I don't think these two stats are positively correlated at all. The ability to leave a job and look for a new one isn't necessarily great for workers. And without unions, this is the only recourse workers essentially have.

[Dr.Phool]

26. You obviously have no clue what you're talking about.

Uplift poor places like China? No all that does is speed up our descent into slavery.

And where do you get the means to support yourself while looking for a new job? And the training? And why would you want to leave a good job, for an entry level job some place else?

[Oregone]

28. "Uplift poor places like China"

Another angle that is somewhat curious...

What if you equalized the standard of living globally by lifting up 3rd world countries? Does anyone understand the amount of industrialization and production that would take? Do people understand the amount of resources it would take? The amount of environmental destruction?

Now, I'm not one to sit here an say global disparity is a moral good because the alternative is the death of the earth. I'm rather just pointing out what that alternative really is. Once you realize that, you find yourself between an idealogical rock and a hard place. The globe literally could not take upward equalization. The only feasible direction, with all things considered and limited resources, is a race to the bottom. The globe is already at a tipping point, and the industrialization of China just illustrates how the advancement of a single country (a large one) adds more straw to the camel's back.

[BrentWil]

30. Interesting take, but simple question

As per the UN...

China’s rapid economic development in the past two decades has generated the most rapid decline in absolute poverty ever witnessed.
Both national and international indicators show that China has already achieved the goal of halving the number of people in extreme poverty by 2015 set by the UN as one of eight Millennium Development Goals.

So who did these poor people hurt? Who is starving now because they are not starving?

[Oregone]

34. "So who did these poor people hurt?"

The lifting of people up requires consumption, and more so to sustain it (which produces pollution). This requires resources which are mostly finite, including energy at the moment. Perhaps if China didn't have this economic revolution, BP would of never sought to drill that well in the Gulf of Mexico to fulfill demand (the Butterfly effect would of created a drastically different reality). Lifting the standard of living globally will produces casualties if the average global standard of living is beyond the earth's ability to sustain.


I actually just started a topic on this...feel free to contribute:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8537783

[BrentWil]

36. So you prefer poverty and suffering for mankind... to sum up your position...

Human imagination and creation have overcame the problem of scarcity in the past and will continue to in the future. The fact remains, that less people starve, people eat more, and standard of living for the human race has went up.

Moreover, as the population becomes more educated, reproduction rights decrease. Human population growth will take a U-turn, if you can attain the right amount of prosperity.

As far as CO2 and greenhouse, I agree it is a problem. The most sensible means to fix it is a carbon tax that would increase the price at all levels of production and give the private sector a reason to develop an alternative.

[Oregone]

39. To mass death? Yes. Perhaps. Depends on the day and how much I hate humans

Sometimes I hate them enough to prefer mass death though.

"As far as CO2 and greenhouse"

Its not only that. Its polluted waters. Its heavy metals, that we need for electronics and technology required for this high standard of living. To have this massive level of production to do this and sustain this would require a grand scouring of the earth. This scouring and production may be less challenging than living in the polluted land it leaves in its wake.

It isn't that I like the global disparity. Its that I believe raising everyone to the American standard is impossible and imcompatible with a healthy earth. It will kill earth.

Equalization on a grand scale with require a watering down of the standard of living of the first worlds (which could cause economic and political instability, leading to war). I think the Utopia you propose is simply a dream and you don't understand the entire picture.

[BrentWil]

42. I think we are marching towards my future, not yours.. you are going to stop the third world from

getting on the globalization bandwagon. They see the way to increase the standard of living of their people and the ONLY means you are going to stop them is invasion by force and subjecting to world to some sort of economic order.

I find that unlikely. I would suggest that we limit the damage by regulation and wait for the population to start going down. It will happen, as it is already happening in many places. That being said, man has used science to solve many problems before. He can use his mind to solve this problem also.

[Oregone]

44. And as Im pointing out, your future isn't what it seems

If you are going to have 6 to 7 billion people consuming as much as 800 million or so currently consume, you are going to have a fucked up waste of a globe and a lack of resources that cause global panic and war.

Your pretty liberal talking point is simply not possible. I offer no better alternative. Its a bleak world we face

Perhaps some enlightened agrarian existence that utilizes solar power but bans growth could be sustainable world-wide (but thats just a different standard, and much worse for many). Humans are not perfect enough to even propose such, and a no-growth politicians doesn't have a shot in hell anywhere (besides, perhaps, my town here on Vancouver Island)

[Dr.Phool]

25. You would be wrong.

Sometimes a union is the only thing protecting a worker and working conditions from a corrupt and greedy employer.

I have been threatened by many a boss for refusing to work with unsafe equipment (namely a locomotive), or refusing to move a long, heavy train before the brake system was charged.

I also couldn't be ordered to do another employees job.

We had work rules, and seniority rules, and a contract that was mutually understood and agreed upon. Even though they tried to pull a fast one.

If you've never worked in a union environment, the only thing you would see is the political arm.

[Oregone]

27. The basic theory is you could quit your job and work with an unsafe locomotive elsewhere

And that will magically bestow gooey goodness upon all the people of the world

[Militant_Populist]

12. Germany Has Them

Germany still has an industrial base -- to my knowledge -- they also have a unionization rate of 25% percent. It will take 'manufacturing' things other than hamburgers and having our biggest export being materials to be recycled elsewhere to bring back unionization. I've always thought perhaps luxury goods could be manufactured in this country; my eyeglasses seem to still be made in Europe, Germany and Japan of course make cars (as do we), watches are still made in Switzerland. With some vision I'd think there are quality products that could be made in this country, if an interest was taken in producing those kind of jobs... Our capitalist class has essentially sold Americans down the river; though, so I'm not sure or not if it's realistic at all for something like this to take shape.

p.s. I'm just an armchair economist, but our current economic path seems unsustainable. We are extended credit to buy products made in China and elsewhere. If/when we do have a collapse, perhaps policy making elites will reassess the current dogma, and realize that production for export elsewhere, is integral to a sound capitalist economy.

[blindpig]

13. No, they are the future

if there's gonna be one.

[Oregone]

14. Id like to see them as unnecessary in the future

Id like to see private industry being employee-owned. They would therefore be redundant.


More than likely, by the time man becomes smart enough for that, cockroaches will be feasting on the carcass of the last human to walk the earth

[blindpig]

19. Gotta get there first

then we work towards our consensus society.

[BrentWil]

37. So if I open a barber shop, buy the shop and put my money into it...

The second barber I hire gets 50 percent of my business?

[Oregone]

40. Not as long as you work there as an employee, no

My model would be like this...as an owner, you have a 20 to 30 year schedule to profit from your investment, during which time the company buys back portions of your shares to give to the employee (which you are one of).

So after 15 years, for example, if you both worked there and were paid the same (and therefore received the same ownership), you would own 50% + 25% of the barber shop. Your other employee would therefore be entitled to 25% of next years profits (only after the profits were first used to buy 1/30th of those initial shares off you). After 15 years, you still get 75% of the profits (along with your salary).

If you work there for 30 years, you would eventually own just 50%, because you have already received 30 years of profit off you initial investment. Then, you can retire and receive another 30 years of profit from the company buying your remaining ownership back.

Its quite a simple model really. Corporations use profits to buy back ownership all the time to boost share value of preferred shareholders. In this model, they do it to redistribute ownership to reward labor (as well as capital).

[BrentWil]

41. WOrks for me...

But people are free to do that on their own. It is an interesting model and I think it could be a competitive model of ownership.

[Oregone]

43. I don't think it should be anyone's choice

The owners of capital would never choose it, and therefore, nothing would change. They currently receive infinite ROI on investments, which they forever pass down to their children. People are born with the right to profit off another man's labor based on investments made 200 years ago, with different labor laws and a slew of exploitation.

The gap is widening and disparity is growing, which is a main function of the capitalistic system.

Forgive me if I believe infinite, inheritable ROI is unreasonable and should be banned. I don't think that mandating buyback & redistribution would crash the economy or cause any discomfort. It would merely require the rich to actively make new sound investments to continue to keep getting richer. They cannot simply ride their slave owning great grand daddies gravy train.

Rewarding investment is fine and good, but to do it forever at the cost of ignoring labor is absurd. This is a sound middle-ground.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Spike89]

29. A couple blind spots in your scenario

There is no true labor mobility in a globalized world. Name one country that has a truly open labor emigration policy and doesn't include significant language/cultural/logistical barriers to free labor migration. I couldn't just waltz into Canada as an American citizen and get a job and I certainly can't think of a country closer in culture and geography. That is all somewhat beside the point anyway. Labor (in the classes you're describing based on your assertations that factories are "mobile") is NOT free economically or socially to move in the nomatic fashion you describe.

A bigger flaw in your scenario is that you've bought into the idea that geography no longer matters. For a huge portion of the labor force, that is simply not true. Explain how coal mine owners are going to relocate the coal mines to...well anywhere. Will the timber barons move the forests, or the mills that handle the timber? Farm labor will never move away from the farm. Aside from resource-based industries, there are a huge number (and growing) of labor positions that require highly educated workers. These jobs need to stay near the source of workers and by the time 3rd world countries have built the infrastructure to train their workers to compete they aren't truly 3rd world any more and their people won't work for pennies a day.

The reality is that the days of huge labor employment at factories churning out commodity items is coming to a close. Automated factories will eventually make large-scale sweatshop factories unattractive economically. The U.S. is is still the largest manufacturing economy in the world--we just don't make cheap crap any more.

[BrentWil]

32. I don't disagree... I presented my argument in absolute terms. It is very true that there

will be cultural barriers to immigration for the foreseeable future and certain companies can't move.