Relevance of Organized Labor in the Past, Present and Future

I want organized labor to be relevant in the future of social justice movement but it just isn’t (at least not as currently organized). Organized labor exists to get higher pay, better work conditions and improved benefit packages for its members … and no one else.

At some point in our past the invention of the corporation paved the way for progress. It made possible the allocation of larger quantities of resources and the cooperation of people over longer periods of time.

The first corporations were cities and universities. Then business ventures that served public purposes such as the building of ports, canals, roads, rails and utilities such as water and electric were all incorporated. Finally, private business ventures incorporated and humans began to do big things that could not be done by sole proprietors and partnerships.

The bargaining power of a worker was small in the face of such large business interests and bargaining collectively gave workers a substantially better prospect for higher pay, better work conditions and improved benefit packages. At least it did so long as there was solidarity in the bargaining unit and support in the community.

One other important factor in the effectiveness of bargaining units was a high demand for labor coupled with a limited supply of laborers. Natural population growth and immigration have increased the supply of laborers. Technology has reduced the demand for labor.

It may be a myth but as some point in our history many believed that organized labor would lead to universally just and equitable division of the surplus to the working class. Some utopist thinkers expected the natural growth of the labor movement would lead to some form of democratization in the workplace such the nationalization of major industries and employee ownership of many smaller businesses.

But the hopes and the dreams of thinking people succumbed to the baser instincts of those who got caught up in their personal circumstances. Big business told unions, “OK, you but not them,” and the unions agreed.

Union leaders will tell you that higher pay, better work conditions and improved benefit packages for its members has led to higher pay, better work conditions and improved benefit packages for everyone else. This almost sounds like the trope promoted by big business that when businesses prosper the whole community prospers … trickle down economics.

I would argue that what has improved pay, work conditions and benefit packages for workers in general has been public policy. Government employees have historically enjoyed better pay, work conditions and benefit packages than non-government employees. As the government employed more people, the pressure on non-government employers to provide similar pay, work conditions and benefit packages increased.

The Fair Labor Standards Act and the expansion of government oversight in the workplace by agencies like the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the National Labor Relations Board played a larger role in improving pay and work condition than competition for labor in an organized labor market.

Organized labor has played a constructive role in all of this, but has failed to evolve from representing a few, to representing many, to representing all. This happened because organized laborers arrived at a comfortable place on the economic ladder. Its members stopped seeing themselves as the “working class” and started seeing themselves as the “hard working middle class”.

Organized labor formed an in-group and without any real intention to do so relegated unorganized labor to the out-group. The unorganized working class fell behind and began to resent the organized working middle class. If you say this didn’t happen, you have your head up your [fill in the blank]!

A Gallop poll indicates that public confidence in organized labor dropped from a high of 39% in 1970 to lows of 19% to 20% from 2007 to 2013. Recent polls indicate that it may be rising and is up to 24%.

Still, our confidence in labor unions is less than our confidence in banks at 28% only a bit better than big business at 19%. You have to be in Congress for the public to have less confidence … just 8%.

Contrast this with the public confidence in small business which is at 67%!

Politically, labor finds its natural alliance with Democrats and small business owners find their natural alliance with Republicans. It should be no surprise that the alliance of Republicans with small business benefits it more than the alliance of Democrats with labor. It should also be no surprise that many Democrats have quietly developed relationships with big business to offset the disadvantage of their alliance with labor.

According to the Census Bureau, only about 6.6% of private sector jobs are union jobs while 35.7% of the public sector is organized labor jobs. It is only natural that a large population of people who have low pay, bad work conditions and little or no work benefits will be envious and even resentful of the small population of people who enjoy better pay, work conditions and benefits.

The general public does not see economic opportunity for itself in public sector employment and employment at a union shop. Big business has let the general public down and provides some of the worst paying jobs anywhere with no hope for worker protection offered by labor unions or government. It looks and feels like the general public has been pooped on by all three of them.

I am a friend of the labor family and I believe strongly in the need for government. I am critical of labor and the government because I want both to improve and play a positive role in economic prosperity for all, especially the working class.

I saw a political sign a few weeks ago that read, “Big Government is the Problem; Small Government is the Solution.” I would like to amend that to read, “Unrepresentative Government is the Problem; Representative Government is the Solution.”

Here is one thing I think labor MUST DO to earn the trust of the people who feel abandoned both labor and the government as solutions to their economic impoverishment and or deprivation, “Fight for $15!”

The current “Fight for $15!” is nothing more than an effort to organize fast food workers into labor unions. That needs to stop!

The “Fight for $15!” must be a fight to make sure that everyone who works earns a living wage and $15 per hour is the least a full time employee can earn and enjoy an independent, self-supported and dignified life. Everyone should earn at least $15 per hour, not just those who have jobs in union shops.

The current tactics of organized labor are failing to earn even $15 per hour for many, if not most, of the organized labor family. Those who continue to earn better wages do so mainly by either working excessively long hours or by looking the other way while their employer picks up temporary worker at lower wages.

In a world were technology has made it possible to live on 30 or fewer hours per week, it is almost impossible to convince hard working middle class people that they should stop working 50 to 60 hours a week and work just 40 hours. Labor unions are doing nothing to make more jobs available to more people when each worker is doing two jobs and earning the income of two people.

Organized labor must stop competing with non-organized labor for wages and must insist on wages sufficient to support an every individual or family from just one 40 hour job. The “Fight for $15!” is one way to do that.

Organized labor must oppose the phony conversion of low wage jobs into salary positions as a vehicle for compelling employees to work more than 40 hours without overtime. None of these salary workers are union members but the labor family has to fight for social justice both inside and outside the union family if it hopes to have social justice for its own membership and the confidence of the public.

I recently read an article suggesting that organized labor could have a new life if only it was to look beyond a demographic of well-paid, white, male, baby-boomers and focus on a new demographic of women, blacks and young adults. I think this is incredibly short-sighted.

Expanding the in-group still leaves you with and in-group and an out-group. There is a union jingle that is so appropriate for this conversation, “All in and none out!”

Focusing on a demographic that is feeling more pain and discomfort in our current economy and excluding other demographics that are non-the-less in great discomfort is nothing more or less than petty exploitation of the greater misfortune that pits one unfortunate group against another group who misfortune is not so great.

Another part of the problem is this: If we address certain economic issues that effect everyone such as by providing government administered healthcare for all, robust government administered retirement programs that meets everyone’s needs or universal rules for employment that cap weekly work hours we also make the need for a labor union as currently organized less significant.

Organized labor must evolve and it has failed to do so. For example, when a corporation closes the doors on a factory, the workers need to demand that they be given the opportunity to reopen the doors and form a worker’s cooperative. This is an evolution that would involve the kind of radical organizing that our grandparents did to form what we now know as labor unions.

This isn’t to say that organized labor is failing everywhere. Skilled trades are organized in much the same way as temporary employment agencies that are owned by the temporary employees. They need to insist on an end to the distinction between temporary and permanent work that gives corporations an incentive to outsource employment to corporate temp agencies instead of skilled trade unions.

We also need to end the distinction between part-time and full-time work that pits full-time union members against part-time union members.

Union organized trade schools are slowly but surely loosing out to tax-funded community college programs that train workers without unionizing them. Organized labor needs to look to Europe and see how modern education systems work and get behind reforms that take us in the right direction for everyone without regard for the classical union v. big business conflicts.

Adapting to change and ending the in-group versus out-group division is a big part of the challenge organized labor must accept if it is to be as relevant in the future as it was in the past.

Democrats spend too much time talking about Republicans

I’ve been beating this drum for a while now and this morning it came up again.

Republicans in the Michigan legislature want to change how we allocate electoral votes. HB 4310 and SB 0489 would require that two of Michigan’s electoral votes be allocated based on the statewide popular vote and that one electoral vote be chosen in each of Michigan’s congressional districts.

This would result in a disproportionate number of electoral votes being awarded to Republicans because of the gerrymandering of congressional districts. For example, in the 2012 presidential election Mitt Romney, the Republican, with only 44.7% of the popular vote would have gotten a windfall 62.5% of Michigan’s electors.

But look what we are doing; we are talking about the Republicans.

We all know that the current system of “winner takes all” is unfair. Is there a better plan being offered by the Democrats?

Yes! But Democrats aren’t talking about it; instead they are talking about how unfair the Republic plan is.

The present unfair system of apportioning presidential delegates to the Electoral College benefits Democrats. Barack Obama, the Democrat, won with just 54.2% of the popular vote but he was awarded 100% of Michigan’s electors.

A few Democrats in the Michigan Senate are supporting SB 0088, a bill that would establish an National Popular Vote Interstate Compact to elect president. This bill has passed in ten states and was previously introduced into the 2013-2014 legislatures in both houses. But, there was not and is not a peep about it in the news.

And it isn’t just the media that is ignoring this good piece of legislation; the Democrats are giving no attention to it either. I have been very active in the Democratic Party for five years now and even though I have heard hundreds of Democrats bring up the bad Republican bills, I have never heard anyone mention the good Democratic bills.

Democrats are so busy trying to look like non-partisan centrists that they won’t tell you that they have proposed amending Michigan’s constitution (see HJR AA) to replace our highly partisan system of apportioning congressional and legislative districts with a much better non-partisan system.

In Congress, House Resolution 2173, the Redistricting Reform Act of 2015, would require States to conduct Congressional redistricting through independent commissions. Shouldn't we be talking about this instead of just complaining about Republican gerrymandering?

Democrats complain all day about how Republicans are suppressing voter registration. Then they forget to tell you about a Democratic bill that would allow a 16 year old applying for a driving license to preregister to vote (see HB 4799 and SB 0058) or a bill that would allow voters registered just ten days ahead of an election to vote (see HB 4816).

And what about Senate Bill 1970, the Raising Enrollment with a Government Initiated System for Timely Electoral Registration (REGISTER) Act of 2015, introduced by Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont? This bill would require states to automatically register people to vote, if they are qualified, or update their voter registration when they apply for or update their state identification card or driving license.

Democrats run from the good progressive bills that they periodically offer and instead focus on the bad conservative bills offered by the Republicans. 

Maybe someone could explain this to me so that I can understand it? 

Enough to Make a Woodchuck Quint

The census bureau and many other institutions routinely divide the American population demographics into statistical quintiles or fifths. Here is an example of how the demographics relate to age and wealth distribution, both divided into quintiles:

It is plain to see that there is no virtue in being in the first or second quintile of wealth distribution at any age or being in the third quintile and below the age of 55. Even at the third quintile age 55 and over or the fourth quintile below the age of 45, people are well enough off to be what we might call “job creators”.

Amazingly, the youngest people in the fifth quintile, those under age 35, are better off financially that most people in the first, second and even third quintiles.

It is easy to imagine that a small percentage of the population have low income because they lack skills or education and the like, but to imagine that more than half of the human demographic have a low net worth for such reasons is absurd.

It is also beyond absurd to imagine that the fifth quintile demographic has such a high net worth because of their superior skills or education.

Young people in any of the bottom four quintiles are in trouble. Middle aged people in the bottom three quintiles are in trouble. Wealth is concentrated in people who are age 55 and older, especially in the fourth and fifth quintiles.

Another way of looking at this is that those people whose skills or education do the least for others because they are retired or nearing retirement have the most wealth. This defeats the notion that skills and education are primary determinants in wealth distribution.

The extreme difference in net worth between the first and fifth quintiles is institutionalized class division in modern society and is little different than the caste systems of less advanced societies.

Those whose parents were in the best financial situation are also those in the best situation to acquire skills and education. In my opinion, there exists an association fallacy in relation to skills or education and wealth distribution, post hoc ergo proptor hoc.

The poorest segment of society is the victim of a cruel joke. They invest themselves in the acquisition of skills or education with the expectation that they will move out of their quintile into the one above it. The institutions that lend to them and educate them have no motivation to persuade them otherwise.

Here we transition from a discussion of household wealth to a discussion of household income.

A person born in the first income quintile with a college degree has roughly the same opportunity for future income as a person born in the top quintile without a college degree. For anyone in the bottom four income quintiles, the lack of a college degree will increase you prospect of remaining in or dropping below your birth quintile.

Watch live streaming video from frbsf at livestream.com

In the bottom four income quintiles, your prospects of landing in any of the five quintiles after obtaining a college degree are roughly the same. So the question remains, does a college degree move you up the income ladder or just give you an equal chance of landing in any of the five quintiles?

What matters after that is how much it costs. Did you borrow or was it paid for by your wealthy parents? It does a person little good to land a job with fourth quintile income if they begin their career deep in debt with fist quintile net wealth.

This woodchuck quints at the thought of sending young people off to borrow money and gamble on an education as the thing that will move them up the income and net wealth ladder. And it is a BIG gamble! The distance between the bottom quintile and the top quintile is immense.

The only thing that makes fighting for a chance at being in the second or third quintile worthwhile is the fear of ending up in the first quintile if you fail to get a college degree. Woodchucks everywhere tremble at the thought. 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Distribution of HouseholdWealth in the U.S.:2000 to 2010.

Source: Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Economic Mobility in the United States (video).

What Happened to the Lower Class?

Every politician and pundit knows that there is a class war and the middle class is loosing to the something called the top one percent.

What happened to the lower class and the upper class, do they no longer exist?

We want to believe that most people are middle class so we imagine that a graph of class division looks like a well-balanced bell curve with only a few in the lower and upper classes. The vast majority of us are somewhere in the middle.

Nothing could be further from the truth!

A more honest graph of class division is a skewed curve with the majority of the people in the lower class. The middle class is not statistically in the middle and it does not conform to any of the central measures such as the mean (average), median (middle) or mode (most frequent).

The middle class is more correctly an intermediate class that is between the lower and upper classes.

Everybody wants to be in the middle and nobody wants to be part of the outgroup, so we have relabeled the lower and upper classes as the lower middle class and upper middle class respectively. The outgroup now only consists of the very poor and the very wealthy and they are no longer regarded as classes.

This social agreement to reduce those who are in the outgroup to only those who are very poor and very wealthy makes any conversation about class division almost impossible. The lower class people do not want to be lumped in with the very poor who they regard as their inferiors. The upper class people fancy themselves to be hard-working people and do not want to imagine that their high income lifestyle is largely at the expense of low income people.

Nobody wants to be in the lower or upper class so nobody has to admit they are or even admit that these classes of people exist.

Whether we admit it or not, class division is a thing and until we admit it we can't talk about it.