Union Membership and Inequality

[Padawanbater2]

"People often ask me if there’s any connection between the decline of union membership and the rise of inequality. The answer: Absolutely.

In fact, as the below graph from the Economic Policy Institute makes clear, the relationship is direct. As union membership has fallen over the last few decades, the share of income going to the top 10 percent has steadily increased. (Union membership fell to 11.1 percent in 2014, where it remained in 2015, not shown in the figure below. The share of income going to the top 10 percent, meanwhile, hit 47.2 percent in 2014—only slightly lower than 47.8 percent in 2012, the highest it has been since 1917, the earliest year data are available). When union membership was at its peak in 1945 (33.4 percent of the workforce), the share of income going to the top 10 percent was only 32.6 percent.

Why? When workers are unionized, they have more bargaining power to get a larger share of the economic gains; when they’re less organized, they have less. To boost wages and rebuild the working middle class, have to strengthen workers’ rights to negotiate together for better wages and benefits.

What do you think?"

Robert Reich

 

[schuylaar]

"People often ask me if there’s any connection between the decline of union membership and the rise of inequality. The answer: Absolutely.

In fact, as the below graph from the Economic Policy Institute makes clear, the relationship is direct. As union membership has fallen over the last few decades, the share of income going to the top 10 percent has steadily increased. (Union membership fell to 11.1 percent in 2014, where it remained in 2015, not shown in the figure below. The share of income going to the top 10 percent, meanwhile, hit 47.2 percent in 2014—only slightly lower than 47.8 percent in 2012, the highest it has been since 1917, the earliest year data are available). When union membership was at its peak in 1945 (33.4 percent of the workforce), the share of income going to the top 10 percent was only 32.6 percent.

Why? When workers are unionized, they have more bargaining power to get a larger share of the economic gains; when they’re less organized, they have less. To boost wages and rebuild the working middle class, have to strengthen workers’ rights to negotiate together for better wages and benefits.

What do you think?"

Robert Reich

Nothing will happen until special interest is out of the picture. Nothing.

 

[ThickStemz]

Nothing will happen until special interest is out of the picture. Nothing.

There has always been, and will always be special interest. What is a union if not a special interest group?

Aye, they're not lobbying for the owners and top management, but they're a special interest group just the same.

Things are cyclical. Working conditions used to be rotten aweful. Unions emerged and most of their original demands for members are now encoded into law.

Legal protection for workers rights that were before only earned through a labor contract being assumed under the mantle of law and applied to all persons forced unions to demand more and more to justify their dues and make themselves worth supporting.

As unions gained more for their members the cycle began to flow backward by the law of unintended consequences.

The only way for unions to ever be able to regain ground would be to reverse that. A great many of those union jobs are now in foreign countries. Theyd have to bring those factories back to the states to have union members working in them.

Who is the candidate running that is making a big deal out of making tade more fair to the American worker and enticing companies to return to the USA?

Just one candidate wants to do those things. He may not support unions, but he supports creating the conditions that are necessary to union expansion.

 

[tangerinegreen555]

Unions made the middle class of this country. And the NLRB has been under attack for 50 yrs. by the Supreme Court stuffed by who?
Union 'special interests' do more for this country's tax base than the 1% who move their money off shore. When the middle class gets money, they actually pay taxes.

 

[UncleBuck]

There has always been, and will always be special interest. What is a union if not a special interest group?

Aye, they're not lobbying for the owners and top management, but they're a special interest group just the same.

Things are cyclical. Working conditions used to be rotten aweful. Unions emerged and most of their original demands for members are now encoded into law.

Legal protection for workers rights that were before only earned through a labor contract being assumed under the mantle of law and applied to all persons forced unions to demand more and more to justify their dues and make themselves worth supporting.

As unions gained more for their members the cycle began to flow backward by the law of unintended consequences.

The only way for unions to ever be able to regain ground would be to reverse that. A great many of those union jobs are now in foreign countries. Theyd have to bring those factories back to the states to have union members working in them.

Who is the candidate running that is making a big deal out of making tade more fair to the American worker and enticing companies to return to the USA?

Just one candidate wants to do those things. He may not support unions, but he supports creating the conditions that are necessary to union expansion.

trump didn't even pay the union workers he hired to build is shitty casinos, which then also went bankrupt.

what thoughts went through your mind when you were sucking dick for heroin?

 

[ThickStemz]

Unions made the middle class of this country. And the NLRB has been under attack for 50 yrs. by the Supreme Court stuffed by who?
Union 'special interests' do more for this country's tax base than the 1% who move their money off shore. When the middle class gets money, they actually pay taxes.

I didn't say it was good or bad. I just said it was, you are free to make whatever value judgment you want.

The steel workers union could support things that would not help the truck drivers union, for instance.

The unions are out to benefit themselves and their members. Nothing more. I'm not saying thats bad.

 

[ThickStemz]

By the way, I didn't say Trump was pro union.

What I said was if trump had his way and his plan came to fruition the unions would have workers to unionize.

It isnt that the unions went away, its that the places that employeed unions went away. Trump at least will try to bring those back.

 

[Corso312]

Trump is a really sleazy business man, he's anti union..The 'right to work states' have grown from the South like a bad fungus and spread..the wages reflect it.

 

[tangerinegreen555]

I didn't say it was good or bad. I just said it was, you are free to make whatever value judgment you want.

The steel workers union could support things that would not help the truck drivers union, for instance.

The unions are out to benefit themselves and their members. Nothing more. I'm not saying thats bad.

It's good. Look at MLB. Used to be 40 years ago, the owners got all the money...now, everybody splits the money...

what the fuck is so terrible about that? the players draw the fans, not the stuffed shirts in the luxury boxes.

the workers are the producers...CEO's don't produce anything other than excessive personal wealth that they move off shore...hell of an 'American Dream'...get rich and fuck the little guy and the country both.

 

[GardenGnome83]

By the way, I didn't say Trump was pro union.

What I said was if trump had his way and his plan came to fruition the unions would have workers to unionize.

It isnt that the unions went away, its that the places that employeed unions went away. Trump at least will try to bring those back.

Why do you think that?
Totally wrong.
The reason more shops don't unionize, is due to how the election process works.
If 51% of a company wants to go union, they can hold an election, vote yes or no on the union. It used to be held within 30 days, but now anti-union lobby groups got that pushed out to 1 year. That gives corporations the time to slam the union, and misinform their employees. This results in a 10% success rate.
Ever seen the Lowe's anti-union video? It is an example of a common practice.
Trump hates anything that takes money from the boss, so he's naturally anti-union. Look at him and hillary, they say anything to get votes.

 

[ThickStemz]

Why do you think that?
Totally wrong.
The reason more shops don't unionize, is due to how the election process works.
If 51% of a company wants to go union, they can hold an election, vote yes or no on the union. It used to be held within 30 days, but now anti-union lobby groups got that pushed out to 1 year. That gives corporations the time to slam the union, and misinform their employees. This results in a 10% success rate.
Ever seen the Lowe's anti-union video? It is an example of a common practice.
Trump hates anything that takes money from the boss, so he's naturally anti-union. Look at him and hillary, they say anything to get votes.

The company has time for propaganda and so does the union.

Its an important decision and shouldn't be made so quickly.

 

[GardenGnome83]

The company has time for propaganda and so does the union.

Its an important decision and shouldn't be made so quickly.

The union "propaganda", is better pay, good benefits and a pension. Not to mention job protection, and training...

 

[ThickStemz]

The union "propaganda", is better pay, good benefits and a pension. Not to mention job protection, and training...

I would believe that the union has a more objective and truthful message, company anti union messages are not known for being transparent and fully honest. I give the edge to the union in that regard.

But both of them will gloss over the negatives. And there are negatives to unionization. Nothing in this world is 100% gain to 0% loss.

 

[GardenGnome83]

I would believe that the union has a more objective and truthful message, company anti union messages are not known for being transparent and fully honest. I give the edge to the union in that regard.

But both of them will gloss over the negatives. And there are negatives to unionization. Nothing in this world is 100% gain to 0% loss.

People work for money, and unions give you more. I personally pay $33 a month to gain at least an extra $1,200 a month, with benefits and a great pension.
I've not found any real negatives with labor trade unions, when it comes to the bottom line.
Politically? Fucksticks.

 

[ThickStemz]

Trump is a really sleazy business man, he's anti union..The 'right to work states' have grown from the South like a bad fungus and spread..the wages reflect it.

I never said trump was pro union.

I said he will give the unions factories and other places to unionize.

Unions didnt get weak because of laws. They got weak because their jobs were exported.

 

[ThickStemz]

People work for money, and unions give you more. I personally pay $33 a month to gain at least an extra $1,200 a month, with benefits and a great pension.
I've not found any real negatives with labor trade unions, when it comes to the bottom line.
Politically? Fucksticks.

Tell that to your union brothers without a job to go to these days.

Do you think out steel industry could have been more able to respond to a changing market if it could have renegotiated the contract?

30 bucks an hour looks bad compared to 50, but it's a hell of a lot better than 12 down the street.

 

[Corso312]

Unions got weak by policy and politicians that sold out..union busters... Collective bargaining is good for everyone but the 1%.

 

[ThickStemz]

Are you better off with a $30/hr job or a $50/hr job where the company is looking for land next to a sea port in Asia?

 

[doublejj]

Are you better off with a $30/hr job or a $50/hr job where the company is looking for land next to a sea port in Asia?

Maybe if they didn't pay the CEO 500x's what an employee on the floor makes, they could stay in America

 

[Fogdog]

I grew up in a family supported by a union job. Dad was a diesel mechanic and couldn't stomach shop management for more than two years at any site. He was a good mechanic and never went without work. Unions gave him pensions and healthcare access that were portable, which allowed him the freedom to tell the boss to fuck off when he came on too heavy. Also collective bargaining and union seniority gave him options that non union workers don't. Interestingly, non union workers somehow disdain unions and their support for Reagan during the Air Traffic Controller strikes allowed him to break that union and begin the unraveling of unions over the past decades.

Maybe somebody can explain to me why people with shitty jobs detest people with better ones? I don't get it.

Unions were their own worst enemies when they gave access to organized crime in the trades. Also, their protectionist attitudes pretty much shut out younger workers from joining. Of several children in my family, none had a shot at a job in a good union shop. We all did well but not in unions. Go figure.

So, its a mixed bag to explain the decline of unions. Some is due to short sighted union policy but most is due to lack of public support and malicious legislation. It is a fact that unions provide working people much more freedom of movement and choice of work place. Also, collective bargaining produces higher wages. We need to grow unions and to dismantle laws that weaken them.