What's so horrible about unions?

[dust1n]

Is there any correlation between right to work states and income inequality vs. Unions and income inequality?

No access to the studies, but:

"Clevelandfed economists Margret Jacobson and Filippo Occhino argue in Economic Commentary, September 2012, that the income gap between labor and capital would increase income inequality, because capital income is more unevenly distributed than labor income. They also report that from 1967 to 1980 “ the average real income of the bottom 20 percent of households grew by 1.34 percent, faster than the 1.09 percent growth rate of the top 20 percent and the 0.67 percent of the top 5 percent.” But after 1980 this pattern reversed itself; real income grew by 0.05 percent for the bottom 20 percent, 1.24 percent for the top 20 percent and 1.67 percent for the top 5 percent. Hence, income inequality has seriously worsened since late 1980s.

The question is what role do RTW laws play in the increase in income gap and inequality? Elise Gould and Heidi Shierhols, EPI paper, February 2011, have statistically isolated the effect of RTW on wages by controlling for workers’ related demographic factors, socioeconomic factors, and macroeconomic indicators. Their analysis reveals that RTW states have 3.2 percent lower wages, employer-sponsored 2.6 percent lower health insurance coverage and 4.8 percent lower pension coverage. These findings include both union and non-union workers, indicating that non-union and non-dues paying workers are free riders, as they benefit from unions in non-RTW states. In addition, the wage penalty in RTW states is across all educational groups and is even higher for women, blacks and hispanics.


It is no wonder that businesses, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and their conservative beneficiaries in politics heavily support RTW. This evidence on the effect of RTW on wages fits the overall evidence of declining share of labor income in the gross national income and household income, and increasing income inequality. In addition, more benefits’ burden is falling on workers, thus creating more hardship on a typical household in RTW states, which are already facing lower real wages than non-RTW states.


RTW laws put unionized businesses in non-RTW states at a disadvantage in the competitive market place, and therefore as more states adopt RTW laws, the future of unions becomes bleaker. But such laws also further dilute the power of labor to negotiate wages commensurate with their productivity. Barry Lyn and Phillip Longman convincingly argue in an online discussion paper, “Who Broke America’s Job Machine”, Washington Monthly, March 4, 2010, (www.washintonmonthly.com), that American businesses are becoming more monopolistic. Therefore, control over prices and employment due to monopoly power, and on labor cost due to state governments’ assistance in passing RTW laws, would tend to increase profits without the threat of sharing those profits with labor, even with increasing labor productivity."

‘Right to work’ laws are poor strategy for long-term growth

 

[MysticSang'ha]

No separate unions for dancers. Gotta be a subset of an actors union. But benefits do not cover what many dancers need, so the bulk of dancers out there do not belong to any unions.

I've been exploited by both theatres union and non-union. So have other dancers. I don't paint a rosy picture of them. Sorry.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Nothing at its core. Unions are bad for buisness owners as they give power to the workers when the owners would otherwise have 100% of the power and say in everything. Less explotation means higher percentage of gross profits go to wages. So from teh point of view of the owner of a company they are bad news. For the hundreds, thousands or more workers involved its incredibly good news.

The idea of high wages ruining the economy is also a myth. High wages actually leads to more prosperous economies where the gap between middle and upper class isn't as vast.

There are good and bad unions mind you. The old steel mill unions from the earlier part of the century had numerous murders of people who didn't go along with the union. However a union is one of the few things that seperates capitalism from neo-fudalism.

 

[oldbadger]

Demonizing unions is a way for corporations to gain the upper hand over them. It is true that many unions are corrupt and that even uncorrupted unions have made mistakes. But no one else is going to so effectively represent the interests of the middle class in this society. To abolish unions is to decimate the middle class.

Let me just ask you some questions.....

1. Are you saying that the United States of America does not have adequate legislation to provide safe, fair, honest and protective conditions which apply to both employees and employers across the whole country..... In 2013?

2. Are you saying that many unions in the U.S.A. are still corrupt at this time?

3. Also, are you saying that middle class employment in the U.S.A. depends for its very survival upon unions, without which there would be no legislation providing any fairness or protection whatsoever, in the U.S.A.?

Is this all true?

 

[Magic Man]

Let me just ask you some questions.....

1. Are you saying that the United States of America does not have adequate legislation to provide safe, fair, honest and protective conditions which apply to both employees and employers across the whole country..... In 2013?

Yes, that is true.

2. Are you saying that many unions in the U.S.A. are still corrupt at this time?

He didn't say "many", nor is it true. Some are obviously corrupt, but there's no reason to think it's many.

3. Also, are you saying that middle class employment in the U.S.A. depends for its very survival upon unions, without which there would be no legislation providing any fairness or protection whatsoever, in the U.S.A.?

Is this all true?

Unions are indeed a very large part of a strong middle class, although not necessarily essential. There is legislation that helps workers, but it's definitely not enough that unions aren't also needed.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Unions, like any organizaton, can, and do, become corrupt or ineffectual. Of course, it certainly benefits those who profit from an unorganized and powerless workforce to promulgate stories of such unions, which they have done quite effectively.

 

[Falvlun]

Unions are basically the one sure thing workers have standing in the way of being completely exploited. Our government's limp-wristed approach to keeping corporations in check leaves much to be desired.

However, some of the things they come up with do leave me scratching my head, such as "nobody but a union pipefitter can fix a pipe on a union job, even if any other union worker there with a wrench could do it."

 

[oldbadger]

Yes, that is true.
He didn't say "many", nor is it true. Some are obviously corrupt, but there's no reason to think it's many.

Hi...... You got that wrong. Yes he did. Let me show you.....

Demonizing unions is a way for corporations to gain the upper hand over them. It is true that many unions are corrupt and that even uncorrupted unions have made mistakes. But no one else is going to so effectively represent the interests of the middle class in this society. To abolish unions is to decimate the middle class.

 

[Falvlun]

No access to the studies, but:

"Clevelandfed economists Margret Jacobson and Filippo Occhino argue in Economic Commentary, September 2012, that the income gap between labor and capital would increase income inequality, because capital income is more unevenly distributed than labor income. They also report that from 1967 to 1980 “ the average real income of the bottom 20 percent of households grew by 1.34 percent, faster than the 1.09 percent growth rate of the top 20 percent and the 0.67 percent of the top 5 percent.” But after 1980 this pattern reversed itself; real income grew by 0.05 percent for the bottom 20 percent, 1.24 percent for the top 20 percent and 1.67 percent for the top 5 percent. Hence, income inequality has seriously worsened since late 1980s.

The question is what role do RTW laws play in the increase in income gap and inequality? Elise Gould and Heidi Shierhols, EPI paper, February 2011, have statistically isolated the effect of RTW on wages by controlling for workers’ related demographic factors, socioeconomic factors, and macroeconomic indicators. Their analysis reveals that RTW states have 3.2 percent lower wages, employer-sponsored 2.6 percent lower health insurance coverage and 4.8 percent lower pension coverage. These findings include both union and non-union workers, indicating that non-union and non-dues paying workers are free riders, as they benefit from unions in non-RTW states. In addition, the wage penalty in RTW states is across all educational groups and is even higher for women, blacks and hispanics.


It is no wonder that businesses, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and their conservative beneficiaries in politics heavily support RTW. This evidence on the effect of RTW on wages fits the overall evidence of declining share of labor income in the gross national income and household income, and increasing income inequality. In addition, more benefits’ burden is falling on workers, thus creating more hardship on a typical household in RTW states, which are already facing lower real wages than non-RTW states.


RTW laws put unionized businesses in non-RTW states at a disadvantage in the competitive market place, and therefore as more states adopt RTW laws, the future of unions becomes bleaker. But such laws also further dilute the power of labor to negotiate wages commensurate with their productivity. Barry Lyn and Phillip Longman convincingly argue in an online discussion paper, “Who Broke America’s Job Machine”, Washington Monthly, March 4, 2010, (www.washintonmonthly.com), that American businesses are becoming more monopolistic. Therefore, control over prices and employment due to monopoly power, and on labor cost due to state governments’ assistance in passing RTW laws, would tend to increase profits without the threat of sharing those profits with labor, even with increasing labor productivity."

‘Right to work’ laws are poor strategy for long-term growth

Now, the argument against-- or at least, to mitigate-- these findings is that businesses are able to hire more people in RTW states. So, while workers in non-RTW states might have higher wages and better benefits, there's also less jobs to go around. Did this study address this objection by any chance?

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

They don't seem like horrible entities (good benefits and salaries for their workers), so why are they often demonized?

On paper, nothing. But in reality, greed drives some unions to be just as unfair and oppressive as the corporations they assembled to fight in the first place.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

They can make your eyes water a bit when chopping them, but besides that onions taste and smell great and add great flavor to most dishes.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Not responded to me but I felt obliged to respond anyway.

Let me just ask you some questions.....

1. Are you saying that the United States of America does not have adequate legislation to provide safe, fair, honest and protective conditions which apply to both employees and employers across the whole country..... In 2013?

Yes. Without a second thought

2. Are you saying that many unions in the U.S.A. are still corrupt at this time?

Unions like any organization can fall to corruption. Does not mean the majority of which are not a positive force in the work area.

3. Also, are you saying that middle class employment in the U.S.A. depends for its very survival upon unions, without which there would be no legislation providing any fairness or protection whatsoever, in the U.S.A.?

Is this all true?

Unions have shown over and over and over again they do much better than the government in getting better wages, benefits and good working conditions. Even today Union workers on average have much better benefits and pay for those in the same positions in non-union workforces.

 

[oldbadger]

Not responded to me but I felt obliged to respond anyway.
Yes. Without a second thought

Unions like any organization can fall to corruption. Does not mean the majority of which are not a positive force in the work area.

Unions have shown over and over and over again they do much better than the government in getting better wages, benefits and good working conditions. Even today Union workers on average have much better benefits and pay for those in the same positions in non-union workforces.

Thanks for the info......

 

[Falvlun]

On paper, nothing. But in reality, greed drives some unions to be just as unfair and oppressive as the corporations they assembled to fight in the first place.

I've long noted that we take it as a matter of course that businesses or the rich should be greedy, in fact, it is their mandate to create as much profit as possible for themselves.

But when normal people, workers, display greediness, when we attempt to raise our profits, it is considered a mortal sin.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I've long noted that we take it as a matter of course that businesses or the rich should be greedy, in fact, it is their mandate to create as much profit as possible for themselves.

But when normal people, workers, display greediness, when we attempt to raise our profits, it is considered a mortal sin.

Don't you know anything? Poor people aren't supposed to have money. I mean what would they even do with it?

 

[ShallowAbyss]

Unions are pretty critical to the organization of the workers against the bosses. Why is this organization good? Because the workers and bosses have conflicting interests. The worker wants to work in a safe working environment, make a good wage, and get some days off. The bosses, however, wants to extract the most profit possible. This means, given the chance, they would not adhere to any regulations whatsoever in order to get the most profit they can. It would be like the beginning days of the Industrial Revolution.

What this means is that there needs to be a force against the bosses, in order to pursue the interests of the worker since the bosses, obviously, have the most power in the capitalist system, and have goals that contradict the worker's goals. So unions provide a balance of power between the workers and the bosses. Sure, the bosses still have more power, lots more of it, but at least the unions give the worker some power so they don't have to work twelve hour days, workers don't have to work in factories under brutal conditions, and have a decent wage for their work.

It is true that certain unions are very corrupt, but without them I think we'd be stuck in the same working conditions we had in the 1800's.

 

[Sunstone]

Unions are pretty critical to the organization of the workers against the bosses. Why is this organization good? Because the workers and bosses have conflicting interests. The worker wants to work in a safe working environment, make a good wage, and get some days off. The bosses, however, wants to extract the most profit possible. This means, given the chance, they would not adhere to any regulations whatsoever in order to get the most profit they can. It would be like the beginning days of the Industrial Revolution.

What this means is that there needs to be a force against the bosses, in order to pursue the interests of the worker since the bosses, obviously, have the most power in the capitalist system, and have goals that contradict the worker's goals. So unions provide a balance of power between the workers and the bosses. Sure, the bosses still have more power, lots more of it, but at least the unions give the worker some power so they don't have to work twelve hour days, workers don't have to work in factories under brutal conditions, and have a decent wage for their work.

It is true that certain unions are very corrupt, but without them I think we'd be stuck in the same working conditions we had in the 1800's.

Great post!

 

[Sunstone]

I've long noted that we take it as a matter of course that businesses or the rich should be greedy, in fact, it is their mandate to create as much profit as possible for themselves.

But when normal people, workers, display greediness, when we attempt to raise our profits, it is considered a mortal sin.

That's because when normal people get pay raises, they tend to spend that money, boosting the economy for everyone. But when the uber rich get more money, they tend to off shore it to protect it from taxes, doing nothing to boost the economy and benefit the people that helped make them rich. Obviously, the second approach is the more moral.

 

[LemonGrenade]

They don't seem like horrible entities (good benefits and salaries for their workers), so why are they often demonized?

They are a casualty of class warfare.

 

[Secret Chief]

National archives: Margaret Thatcher wanted to crush power of trade unions | UK news | The Guardian

The uber***** Thatcher obviously wanted to kill the unions.

The reader comments are worth browsing too.