Biden the dolt backs 40% pay raise for union UAW workers.

[Twilight Hue]

You didn't read his post properly. He did not say "Republicans". He said "Republican representative". That would mean a Senator, or a Member of the House, or a governor. Someone with some political weight behind his opinion.

I'm assuming such a person would be a Republican him or herself.

 

[Stevicus]

Here is some information on union membership in the United States: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/union2.pdf

The union membership rate—the percent of wage and salary workers who were members of unions— was 10.1 percent in 2022, down from 10.3 percent in 2021, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. The number of wage and salary workers belonging to unions, at 14.3 million in 2022, increased by 273,000, or 1.9 percent, from 2021. However, the total number of wage and salary workers grew by 5.3 million (mostly among nonunion workers), or 3.9 percent. This disproportionately large increase in the number of total wage and salary employment compared with the increase in the number of union members led to a decrease in the union membership rate. The 2022 unionization rate (10.1 percent) is the lowest on record. In 1983, the first year where comparable union data are available, the union membership rate was 20.1 percent and there were 17.7 million union workers.

Highlights from the 2022 data:
• The union membership rate of public-sector workers (33.1 percent) continued to be more than five times higher than the rate of private-sector workers (6.0 percent). (See table 3.)

• The highest unionization rates were among workers in protective service occupations (34.6 percent) and in education, training, and library occupations (33.7 percent). (See table 3.)

• Men continued to have a higher union membership rate (10.5 percent) than women (9.6 percent). The gap between union membership rates for men and women has narrowed considerably since 1983 (the earliest year for which comparable data are available), when rates for men and women were 24.7 percent and 14.6 percent, respectively. (See table 1.)

• Black workers remained more likely to be union members than White, Asian, or Hispanic workers. (See table 1.)

• Nonunion workers had median weekly earnings that were 85 percent of earnings for workers who were union members ($1,029 versus $1,216). (The comparisons of earnings in this news release are on a broad level and do not control for many factors that can be important in explaining earnings differences.) (See table 2.) -2-

• Among states, Hawaii and New York had the highest union membership rates (21.9 percent and 20.7 percent, respectively), while South Caroli

So, roughly 10% of the U.S. workforce is unionized, and it appears that public sector employees have a unionization rate which is more than five times higher than that of private sector employees.

I also found another article on the topic (ironically from the White House website) which also had some interesting data: The State of Our Unions | CEA | The White House.

Organized labor appears to be having a moment. After decades of erosion in the private sector, U.S. workers are organizing at a pace not seen in many years. In December 2021, a Starbucks in western New York became the first to unionize, sparking a wave of union elections in stores across the country (see Figure 1). First-ever unions have also formed at an Amazon warehouse in Staten Island, an Apple store in Maryland, and an REI store in New York City. This recent wave of worker organizing is partially concentrated among younger and more educated workers and in industries–including the service sector, but also media, tech, and think tanks–that have resisted organizing activities in the past.

Causes and consequences of decline in unionization

The current level of energy and momentum is a shift after a long period of decline in unionization in the United States. Union membership peaked in the 1950s at about one-third of the private sector workforce, but is just over 6 percent today. Globalization, technological change, and employer concentration are commonly cited as key factors, eroding union power and increasing employers’ bargaining position relative to workers.

However, many economists have pointed out that these factors do not fully explain why unionization in non-tradable sectors has fallen at a similar rate, or why unionization is lower in the United States than other Western countries. Other potential causes for declining worker power include institutional changes within the United States–particularly the breakdown of pattern bargaining in the 1980s, the expansion of right-to-work states, outsourcing and industry concentration of low-wage workers, greater employer opposition to organizing efforts, and decreased enforcement of labor laws.

The consequences of union decline for workers include lower wages, and a declining labor share of income. The wage premium for unionized workers is well-documented, and union density may also improve wages for nonunionized workers in the same sector. Union density has also been shown to reduce income inequality, with Figure 2 showing how U.S. inequality rose as union density fell. In short, as unionization has fallen, middle-class worker incomes have stagnated relative to output growth.

The point made about pattern bargaining linked to this article: A Pattern of Retreat: The Decline of Pattern Bargaining

The age-old goal of unions has been to “take wages out of competition,” as an economist put it more than a hundred years ago.

By standardizing wages and benefits in an industry, unions prevent competition among workers that becomes a race to the bottom. Equally important, common wages lay a floor for future advances as we all march together.

For decades, this goal was accomplished by pattern bargaining: the union set a wage and benefit “pattern” at a company and then imposed it, through strikes if necessary, on others in the same industry (or through multi-employer master agreements).

Standards in strong patterns often spilled over to related industries, pulling up many other groups of workers.

But after a 30-year employer onslaught, national patterns have been largely devastated or have become top-down conduits for concessions.

Pattern bargaining, as the term is usually used, refers to systems of national bargaining with companies in industries producing for a national or international market.

The practice took shape in the years after World War II. In the great strike wave of 1946 the big industrial unions of the CIO all demanded a raise of 18.5 cents an hour.

For nearly three decades pattern bargaining allowed union workers to win big wage increases and a growing array of benefits. Workers in auto, steel, rubber, coal, airlines, packinghouses, trucking, oil, telecommunications—all won brand-new benefit packages, including pensions and medical insurance. For nearly two decades the wages of workers in auto, steel, rubber, and coal were within a few cents of each other.

The real wages of manufacturing workers rose by more than 30 percent from 1950 through 1969. Wages stayed ahead of inflation in most years until the 1970s.

What happened? Patterns were squeezed by international competition, the shift of manufacturing to the South, deregulation, and the spread of non-union rivals. But the breakdown also rests squarely on the shoulders of the largest industrial unions, which allowed patterns to be broken beginning in the recession of the early 1980s.

Although most activists point to the Reagan era and the infamous firing of the PATCO air traffic controllers as the start of labor’s decline, the turning point for pattern bargaining was the Chrysler bailout of 1979 and the United Auto Workers’ response: accepting $203 million in givebacks. The era of concessions was on.

Interesting that this article also blames the largest industrial unions as well, in addition to the other factors.

Membership fell, the number of strikes dropped by almost half, new organizing stalled, and the wage gains of the past were considerably trimmed if not outright reversed. None of these indicators have returned to their pre-1979 levels.

The UAW’s pattern with the Big Three first started unraveling at Chrysler in 1979 and 1980. This was followed by concessions at Ford and GM, increasingly around working conditions as lean production was introduced. The “spillover” effect weakened substantially, dragging down wages in parts manufacturing.

The impact of deregulation was felt in the airlines, one of the country’s most highly unionized industries, where pattern bargaining collapsed in the 1980s, and in trucking. The Teamsters’ mighty National Master Freight Agreement (NMFA) covered more than 400,000 workers at its height, falling to just 50,000 today.

The Packinghouse workers, by then in the UFCW, allowed pattern-breaking deals among the major packers for the first time in 1982. The Steelworkers’ centralized bargaining with the Big 12 steel makers was abandoned by the employers in 1986. And so on.

The collapse of pattern bargaining contributed significantly to the stagnation of wages for all workers—today the average wage, adjusting for inflation, is lower than it was in 1973.

It seems that much of the decline and collapse started under Reagan and his cohorts.

But I would also wonder about the unions themselves. I recall back around 1980, when my brother tried to get a construction job in California. He was told by a company that they would hire him, but that he had to join the union, which he tried to do. However, the guy at the union hall told him off, saying "You young punks are trying to take jobs away from people who need them!" It seems there was more of a protective, "boys club" attitude and not a "membership is open to all" approach.

Likewise, I recall instances where an employee at a hotel I worked and another at a call center I was familiar with were both fired for attempting to organize labor unions. I have to wonder: Why are there employees left out in the cold to try to organize from scratch, when a little bit of help from national unions could have worked wonders? Why does it feel as if we have to start the labor movement all over again like it was 100 years ago? What have these national unions been doing for the past 30-40 years other than sitting there like Patience on a monument?

 

[We Never Know]

But hasn't Trump also made a point of expressing support for the very same union?

"Biden was the first modern president to visit a picket line, a sign of how far he's willing to go to cultivate union support as he runs for reelection"

Biden urges striking auto workers to 'stick with it' in picket line visit unparalleled in history

President Joe Biden has joined picketing United Auto Workers in Michigan on the 12th day of their strike against major carmakers.

apnews.com

 

[exchemist]

"Biden was the first modern president to visit a picket line, a sign of how far he's willing to go to cultivate union support as he runs for reelection"

Biden urges striking auto workers to 'stick with it' in picket line visit unparalleled in history

President Joe Biden has joined picketing United Auto Workers in Michigan on the 12th day of their strike against major carmakers.

apnews.com

OK, fair enough, as he's the siting president I can see this has perhaps more significance than if a mere candidate does it.

Generally it is considered unwise for government to take a position in industrial disputes, not least because once the precedent has been set it may be called on to get involved in others, which is not really the job of government - unless there is manifest unfairness.

 

[fantome profane]

Generally it is considered unwise for government to take a position in industrial disputes,

Who considers it unwise? Do you consider it unwise? If so, unwise in what way?

 

[exchemist]

Who considers it unwise? Do you consider it unwise? If so, unwise in what way?

My previous post explains that.

 

[fantome profane]

My previous post explains that.

Ok, I though you might want to expand on it. I gather that when you said it is "generally considered unwise" what you meant was you generally consider it unwise, but that is fine.

But as a response, a poll just came out that indicates 54% of Americans support the strike, and only 18% oppose.

Survey: UAW Strike Support Endures Among U.S. Public

The marginal increase in support for the union strike comes as public opposition to its key demands also grows larger.

pro.morningconsult.com

I think it was very wise for Biden to be there. It is in my opinion the right thing to do ethically, it is also the right thing to do politically. And if this encourages more political leaders to behave in the same way in the future, that is only for the good.



I though it was interesting when Nikki Haley "accused" Biden of being the most pro-union President. I think her comments will soon end up in an ad for Biden.

 

[exchemist]

Ok, I though you might want to expand on it. I gather that when you said it is "generally considered unwise" what you meant was you generally consider it unwise, but that is fine.

But as a response, a poll just came out that indicates 54% of Americans support the strike, and only 18% oppose.

Survey: UAW Strike Support Endures Among U.S. Public

The marginal increase in support for the union strike comes as public opposition to its key demands also grows larger.

pro.morningconsult.com

I think it was very wise for Biden to be there. It is in my opinion the right thing to do ethically, it is also the right thing to do politically. And if this encourages more political leaders to behave in the same way in the future, that is only for the good.



I though it was interesting when Nikki Haley "accused" Biden of being the most pro-union President. I think her comments will soon end up in an ad for Biden.

I don’t know the ins and outs of this case, but UK governments had bad experience in the 1970s getting enmeshed in resolving industrial disputes. They ended up propping up unsustainable companies, because of the unpopular politics of redundancies etc. I suspect it may be important to signal this is a strictly one-off case, but as I say, I don’t know the specifics.

 

[fantome profane]

I don’t know the ins and outs of this case, but UK governments had bad experience in the 1970s getting enmeshed in resolving industrial disputes. They ended up propping up unsustainable companies, because of the unpopular politics of redundancies etc. I suspect it may be important to signal this is a strictly one-off case, but as I say, I don’t know the specifics.

Oh that is a completely different issue. We are not talking about using legislation to interfere with the process. If that were the topic I would agree it would be unwise.

But that is not what we are talking about, not at all. We are talking about giving support for the working class.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Is what Biden said a bad thing or something?

It is to the 1% and those who carry water for them. It's a bad thing for the 1% because it eats into their profits, and it's a bad thing according to Republican voters because they've been told so and so support the people who view them as capital like a farm animal or a tractor - items to exploit for profit while spending as little as possible to keep them working.

he obviously egged on and went for the union workers to be as greedy as the ceo is

Workers are entitled be at least as greedy as their employers and shareholders in the businesses they work for.

and of course screw all other blue collar workers in the nation.

That's for the Republicans to do and for people like you to help them do it. Biden is the working man's ally.

He's supporting exclusively union people.

Today, yes. He's supporting strikers because they're the ones striking. He supports other workers other ways, as when he preserved countless jobs and small businesses with his pandemic support and college graduates with loan relief. His anti-inflation interventions help people making the least the most.

The Republicans really should send you a check. You do this for them for nothing, just like the religious proselytizers, who also advertise for others to make money for others and for free. That's what indoctrination does and why they do it.

 

[exchemist]

Oh that is a completely different issue. We are not talking about using legislation to interfere with the process. If that were the topic I would agree it would be unwise.

But that is not what we are talking about, not at all. We are talking about giving support for the working class.

The fear might be that giving support in mere words is where it starts and then, by degrees, one gets sucked into more active measures of support.

But I do understand the USA is a special case in that, compared to other western democracies, the playing field is tilted so far towards big business and against employees' rights.

 

[fantome profane]

The fear might be that giving support in mere words is where it starts and then, by degrees, one gets sucked into more active measures of support.

But I do understand the USA is a special case in that, compared to other western democracies, the playing field is tilted so far towards big business and against employees' rights.

I don't know about all other western nations, but as a Canadian I would be happy to see Trudeau do the same thing here.

 

[Yerda]

I'm sure the pay cut still far exceeded what non union workers make.

Good point. Organise.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Good point. Organise.

If it was only that simple.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If it was only that simple.

True. A lot of corporations tend to take a pretty cut-throat approach to any attempts to organise. I'm pretty sure there are laws against firing people for threatening to unionise in a lot of States, but I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't a lot of other, subtler ways the bigger businesses prevent worker organisation.

Companies Will Do Just About Anything to Stop Workers Unionizing

Steaks branded "VOTE NO" and discounts on marijuana—how employers are allegedly trying to convince workers to reject unions.

time.com