Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Labor’s Popularity Declines Amid Criticism Of Public-Sector Unions
With increasing attacks on public sector unions, it’s not surprising
that labor has become unpopular in the court of public opinion. A new Gallup survey reveals that approval ratings for labor unions continues to struggle one year after their popularity reached a historic low.
The
survey, released last Thursday, found that 52 percent of Americans have
favorable views of unions, the second-lowest ever recorded since Gallup
began documenting this trend 70 years ago. The ratings are a marginal
increase from last year when public opinion dropped below majority levels
for the first time to 48 percent, an all-time low. Even as union
membership continues to decline, Gallup says Americans have also become
weary about the labor movement’s growing influence.
Despite the low ratings, the Gallup survey showed relatively
better results than a similar survey released by the Pew Research Center
earlier this year, which found that only 41 percent of Americans
viewed unions favorably. But both surveys share the same trend:
positive public approval ratings have declined and disapproval has
continued to rise.
The findings come as unions, especially in the
public sector, are coming under fire for ostensibly straining state
budgets with bloated wages and pensions. Gallup also adds that Americans
may see organized labor as benefiting from President Barack Obama’s
favorable policies at a time when many workers are unemployed.
In
an historical context, labor’s popularity has a correlation between
union density and approval ratings. In 1953, 75 percent of the public
approved of labor unions, which was roughly the same time union
membership reached its peak following World War II. When the economy
was struggling in the late 1970’s and 1980’s, approval ratings dropped,
Gallup said. Last year, the United Autoworkers were front and center
during the auto-bailouts and could also have factored into the negative
public perception.
While the downturn may be one reason, media
and pundits have also ramped up criticism towards public sector unions.
Critics have pointed to the higher salaries and pensions for public
employees compared to those in the private sector as a source of
exacerbating states’ financial shortfalls. Over the last few months, a
slew of editorials and articles have come out slamming unionized public employees for having higher wages than the private sector.
However,
labor groups dispute this claim and studies have actually shown that
when all controls are held equal (education, age, work experience)
government employees actually earn four percent less than private sector workers, according to the Center for Economic and Policy Research.
A July report
by the Economic Policy Institute also found the same results when
examining public employees in New Jersey. The report said there was “no
significant difference” between private and public sector employees, but
added that some state and local workers earn less from lack of
overtime. Since higher educated New Jersey public workers typically do
not work beyond normal hours, local and state employees earn 5.88
percent less than their private sector counterparts.
Over the
years, unions have seen their membership decline and workplace strikes
are not as frequent anymore. But the Gallup survey found that many
respondents still have reservations about the future of labor. More than
40 percent of Americans say unions should have less influence.
What
seems to be missing is an inclusive message that unions have been
fighting to guarantee the rights of all workers, union or non-union, at a
time when employers are implementing wage and benefit concessions
across the country. But so far, the narrative has been that unions
hamper business’ growth with excessive wages and benefits in a difficult
economy.
But labor has had a difficult time getting this message
across. Instead, the perception exists that unions are insular and
self-serving entities that are only helping out their own rank and file.
With
46 percent of Americans saying that their power will decline in the
coming years, can unions steer themselves back into favor?
- Posted in

42 Comments so far
Show All"Gallup says Americans have also become weary about the labor movement’s growing influence"
WHAT "GROWING INFLUNECE", FOR CRYING OUT LOUD?
Could it be that "liberal media" spreading such myths ?
"the narrative has been that unions hamper business’ growth with excessive wages and benefits in a difficult economy."
And who is determining what an "excessive wage" is? Anyone who buy's this "narrative" is an idiot!"
Don't the critics of unions believe in "free markets"?
When an individual worker bargians (hat-in-hand) with a big corporate boss under conditions of "free markets", he carries virtually the same bargaining strength as a slave. It's: "take this wage or starve." And don't think that employers don't collude in clamping down wages, through their "trade associaitons" or other means) either. I saw it happen all the time among anti-union, illegal immigrant-hiring, scab contractors of the ABC.
BUT, When the workers bargian as a Union in a "free market", that bargain with the corporate bosses as equals.
SOLIDARITY!
Funny how this article focuses on the public perception of unions--without even addressing whether or not unions serve the interests of workers or the interests of executives.
For instance:
"Last year, the United Autoworkers were front and center during the auto-bailouts and could also have factored into the negative public perception."
That sentence makes no sense. Its placement in the paragraph is totally arbitrary. It might be a half-thought, I don't know. As information goes, it's laughable. It's a meaningless baubble.
The question being avoided is:
Does the UAW represent workers or executives?
You're not going to find the answer to that question in this article--and apparently not here or at Democracy Now either.
And that fact should be cause for concern, to put it mildly.
Some unions represent the workers who pay union dues, and other unions are no more than just another business looking out for those on the resepctive union's payroll without regard for the workers who pay dues.
"...other unions are no more than just another business looking out for those on the resepctive union's payroll without regard for the workers who pay dues."
Regarding the types of unions quoted above--you leave out what ties these unions have to the executives at the unionized companies.
And the consequence of those ties. see "The assault on US workers’ wages"
http://wsws.org/articles/2010/aug2010/pers-a19.shtml
It's not just a matter of payroll, but more importantly union leadership representing the unionized company's executives instead of union employees.
Somehow I think you already know that.
gregsdiary, it's worth repeating your comment elsewhere how European unions are being used to ram through the Euro-banks' austerity programs. That seems to show not just representation of management, but representation of financial interests generally, and is also something people need to watch out for.
A new Gallup survey reveals that approval ratings for labor unions continues to struggle one year after their popularity reached a historic low.
The middle/working class USA Death Wish. I actually think most of the people in this country won't mind being serfs.
"I actually think most of the people in this country won't mind being serfs."
Your tense in incorrect. You should say:
"I actually think most of the people in this country don't mind being serfs."
What you mean, "Most of the people in this country won't mind being serfs"? We ARE SERFS! If you still got a job you are kissing ass full time to try and keep it. You see what happens to people that get laid off. If the boss asks you to finish what you were doing at quitting time you say (with a smile---and maybe pull your forelock, "Oh yes, I'll finish up before I leave." There will be no overtime for that. It's just a little favor.
The people with the money tell us the news. Of course they hate unions and all those awful safety rules that slow down profit making. Look what happened on the BP drilling platform. If the corporations keep any work in this country they are squeezing the life out of the workers. They hate unions as much as they hate environmental protections.
The big money boys own the media and tell us lies 24/7 and the bastards OWN the government. The workers really need a labor party. Neither the Dems or the Repubs care for the working people.
Workers have to join unions and vote out the corrupt bastards in federal office now. One party is not worse than the other. Under both corporate parties the workers lose. Get smart before it is too late. Don't vote for anyone in office now!! With these prostitutes we will never get the corporations out of our government. We will never get fair vote counts or public finance of campaigns. And they talk about ethics committees---like there is anyone in Congress with any ethics! What a joke.
The 'Supreme' Court, what a bunch they are, tell us that corporations are persons and deserve the rights stated in our Constitution. It's just fine if they give a Senator or a Representative a bribe. A bunch of old guys in skirts tell us a profit making business arrangement is a person? And the 'ladies' agree?
We need a clean sweep of 'our' government to make it really ours. Our government would be of the people, by the people and for the people---no corporation may apply.
Don't vote D or R as if your life depends on it---and it does. Throw out the corrupt and that is the WHOLE BUNCH OF THEM! We gotta start over before it is all over for our Republic.
"Workers have to join unions and vote out the corrupt bastards in federal office now. One party is not worse than the other. Under both corporate parties the workers lose. Get smart before it is too late. Don't vote for anyone in office now!!
Now, isn't such a suggestion idiotic?
Do you even mean politicians loke Kucinich, Lee, and Grayson?
And replace the incumbent with who??? Right now, nearly all the people who are vieing to replace the incombents are certifiable fascists.
The existing congress is the problem, but blindly voting out every incombent (many run unopposed anyway) would not fix a thing - does everyone forget the 60's slogan: "the problem is the system"?
Not to mention how we have to fix our unions as well, not one of them has a speck of democracy, family legacys, ass kissers. none elected by the rank&file because were too busy, too stupid to know what we need. Certinally our Union bosses don't. They'll spend months on illegal immigrants reform, none on card check. Plenty of lobbying time making sure Obummer opoints shills to weaken labor laws and enforcement. Not lifting a finger against Corpo's using spy thechnology to spot every little infraction and to make workes miserable.
Yes our unions need alot of fixing too!
>^^<
Unions are the primary force promoting the welfare of the working class in the US. You attack unions, you're going after the middle class and attempting to transform them into members of the underclass.
I'm absolutely sick of the unrelenting media focus on the "overpaid, lazy, spoiled" union workers who are dragging the "poor, struggling corporations and institutions" down the tubes. "Making big business, the states and municipalities go broke."
What a crock! WHO believes this garbage? The US taxpayer just spent how many BILLIONS bailing out corporate crooks who have contributed exactly NOTHING to society at large.
I'd best take a break. I'm going to blow a gasket. Excuse me.
Don't mourn. Organize.
-Joe Hill
The decline in "popularity" of organized labor is a reflection of the failed strategies of the "leadership" of labor, such as AFL-CIO President Trumka. The 100 year old strategy of being only a "simple" trade union, without organizing a pro-labor political party to supplement the failure of trade unionism, is the major crisis facing organized labor.
1. The failed strategy of being a "business partner" to corporate capitalism has reduced union leaders to the status of corporate "enforcers" against the needs of their own organized workers. (The decline of the UMW United Mine Workers, UAW United Auto Workers, two examples.)
2. The unions refuse to go beyond simple trade unionism to create a new political party, dumping both pro-business Democratic and Republican Parties, to politically represent the economic needs of all working people, organized and unorganized. This is an essential first step to rebuilding the labor movement.
3. The unions refuse to recognize that Capitalism, 30 years in decline and now collapsed, doesn't really give a damn about the economic needs of working people or of society. Capitalist globalization has taken millions of jobs overseas. Labor has no effective political or economic strategies to create millions of public sector jobs to put working people back to work.
4. The unions and working people have no voice in any mass media to present their needs and perspectives. Corporate owned mass media indoctrinates 24/7 only with corporate capitalist needs for profit maximization.
5. The labor movement has done nothing to end the destruction of public education, public health, affordable housing, by developing strategies and electing pro-labor people to every level of government.
6. To restore funding to maintain the public social services, utilities, institutions being destroyed by corporate capitalism, will require massive increase in progressive taxation, end the wars for profit, cut the massive privatized military budget, to end the bailouts of Wall Street.
7. Major for-profit industries need to be nationalized to end the wars, to end global warming, to end the massive economic inequality and injustice generated under capitalism. The entire energy industry (oil, gas, coal, nuclear, etc.) to end the destruction of the planet, to end the motivation for wars for oil profits.
Read daily the World Socialist Web Site http://www.wsws.org
Way to go!
It's the perfect example of divide and rule. Public sector workers are paid out of taxes and fees paid by working class people, so private sector workers pay higher taxes so public sector workers can get higher wages and benefits. The solution under capitalism is to get union-scale wages for everybody, and make the rich and corporations pay their fair share (e.g., by removing the cap on the amount of wages subject to Social Security taxes). And of course stop paying for all the ruling class boondoggles like the wars.
What a god dammed lie that is. We haven't had a raise in over a decade!. We're currently 20% off based on the inflation index alone. Probabily worse based on cost of living in Ca one of the most expensive states to live in.
I know, I know all the business are moving out, why stay in Ca if you can move to mainland china, and get workers for pennies on the dollar, maybe don't build your own at all. Ther are thousands of contract factories like FoxCon that will fabricate anything you want, at any price you want.
Simply ship it home for only a 2% teriff why deal with rif-raff Americans at all when you cna stay home behind the walls and watch your bank account grow on the internet.
>^^<
The one about the growing influence of unions is promoted by MSM as it relentlessly attacks organized labor. Take the LA Times, for example, a historically anti-labor rag, which, right now is targeting teacher's unions for not buying into what's called the Value Added system for evaluating individual teachers. Briefly, a teacher is graded by how well each of his/her pupils improves (or worsens) on national math & English tests. If a particular teacher's students' scores go up (in the aggregate, compared to the year before under a different teacher), that teacher's considered good, if the scores go down, he or she is a bad teacher. The LA Times is calling for schools to adopt this formula for evaluating teachers - not as the whole ball of wax but the most important measure of a teacher's performance. And what's in the way of the LA United School District's going along with the LA Times? You guessed it, the teacher's union Unless one resists the tenor of these articles, reading them can lead one to think, "What's wrong with that union." Which, of course, is the Times intent. Oh yes the articles gives passing notice to the fact that not all educators agree that Value Added captures the essence of what teaching is about, but not once does the Times quote any of these dissenters. Recently he LA Times also has put the the California Nurses Association on its hit list, not an easy target being that nurses are among America's most popular professions and quite adept at fighting back.. What's the media's goal in all this? Is there any doubt? It's to bottom out all wages and salaries, along with scuttling Social Security, Medicare, Workers' Compensation and all pensions except for 401K plans (ie no fixed pensions)
Double post deleted .sorry
peace
Does anyone know what percentage of the U.S. private workforce is still unionised , 3 or 4%?I thought Unions were busy trying to survive by making concessions to owners.People probably don't remember what it was like to work in a Union job.
That said ,think tanks ,surveys and polls are a poor barometer of public sentiment at best.It is too easy for someone with an agenda ,to tilt a survey question with leading or leaning language.We have had 40+ years of union busting governments and anti union divisive corporate propaganda ,outsourcing too.The workforce has been terrorised very effectively cowed into working for less than a living wages in multiple jobs without benefits.There may be a little Union envy on the part of non-union or out of work people.
peace
"Last year, the United Autoworkers were front and center during the auto-bailouts and could also have factored into the negative public perception."
--Akito Yoshikane
This is a truly devious little sentence in an exceptionally deceptive paragraph. It can be read to imply at least two things. In the context of this article it seems to imply that the negative public perception of the UAW is due to its role--as portrayed by the msm--in rejectiong last year's concessions contract and therefore continuing to overpay its members and drive away our manufacturing base.
In another context however, that negative public perception could be the result of the UAWs total capitulation to Auto executives at the expense of union workers.
It's your choice--buffet style!
And what determines which inference you take depends on where you happen to get your information on todays's unions like the UAW.
Suppose you're a reader of CounterPunch or the World Socialist Website. Regarding last years concessions contract you would have read at CounterPunch that:
"This was a bad contract, and the membership knew it. Among other things, it included a 6-year wage freeze for new hires, radical changes in work rules, and, incredibly, a provision that prohibits the union from going on strike until the year 2016. Stripping a union of its right to strike is like asking a person to walk naked through a blast furnace. You are totally vulnerable and defenseless—exactly the way a corporation prefers its workers. But instead of dutifully reporting why the rank-and-file was voting this thing down, the media vilified them for being greedy and short-sighted, for not looking at the Big Picture (of course, by “Big Picture” they meant “management’s version”). Had the media been paying attention they would have seen this train wreck coming from a mile away."
And at WSWS that:
"Last week’s defeat of Ford concessions contract—by a margin of 22,136 to 7,816—was a massive repudiation of the United Auto Workers by the rank-and-file, and a sign of the growing hostility and opposition of workers to this pro-company organization." (by the way, you can see a whole bunch of WSWS articels on this topic by typing UAW in their search box)
But suppose you're a reader of CD or Democracy Now. In that case you would have read at Democracy Now:
"Now, it is true that there are really extraordinary pressures downward on labor costs. The UAW recognized those political realities and made major concessions in a recent contract to preserve the jobs at GM. I don’t think they had much of an alternative in that."
or also at DN the article titled:
Newly Elected UAW President Bob King on Reversing the Erosion of Workers’ Rights, Benefits and the Role of Social and Environmental Justice in Union Organizing
with the description:
One of the most critical issues facing the Detroit region is the future of the auto industry. As the home of General Motors, Ford and Chrysler, Detroit was once the manufacturing capital of the world,…
(compare this article to one of the wsws articles on Bob King--wow! Also, notice how the description seems to put the Detroit region and manufacturing ahead of workers?)
Or you could read here at CD how:
"On the activist front, a new effort called ONE NATION hopes to organize a coalition to fight for jobs. The UAW is joining up with Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Push to stage a march for jobs and economic reconstruction in Detroit on August 28, the anniversary of the big l963 March on Washington."
So is the negative perception of unions such as the UAW described in this article due to their not representing their members or is it due to their members rejecting the union?
It all comes down to what you read and what matters more--the union or union workers.
Reading the comments here, the answer to that question seems pretty clear.
By the way, those excerpts from each site are pretty representative of each site in that--from what I found in 09 and 10--DN and CD did not have articles favorable to UAW workers rejecting the union and CP and WSWS(many!) did.
Speak out if your search proves otherwise.
Also--a typo--that last part should read:
So is the negative perception of unions such as the UAW described in this article due to the union representing their members or is it due to their members rejecting the union?
excellent analysis, gregsdiary.
Well, just like Obama, the resentment of the unions comes from both directions. Many unions (really, most, outside of the tiny UE, maybe the AFGE, maybe the UMWA, are are both sold-out and undemocratic)
But the flack comes mostly from the reactionaries, who oppose the very concept of a union - they would hate a well-run democratic union even more.
"But the flack comes mostly from the reactionaries..."
That's the premise this article is putting out there.
Notice how this article makes absolutely no mention of union worker discontent with union leadership. As if that's not even a factor when it comes to how people perceive unions! As if what matters are the unions and not the union workers.
What this article is concerned with is perception--regardless of the reality and its toll on workers. There's no better summation of the liberal/progressive mindset than that.
The same kind of mindset was applied by progressives/liberals to Obama and the rest of the Democrats. And then when things go to shit because of it--they blame everything but their ridiculous liberal/progressive mindset.
BTW,
For another similar illustration of this liberal/progressive mindset that values perception over reality check out Obama's remarks (link below) about how he's saving SS from Republican attack. (GritTV just had a video here at CD making the same point--I mean lie)
For progressives/liberals such as him, it doesn't matter that they know the real threat to SS is from Democratic leadership. Like it doesn't matter that union leadership is the real threat to unions. It's the perception that matters. In fact, for progressives/liberals, it's all that matters.
The Neoliberal Attack on Social Security
By ALAN NASSER
http://counterpunch.com/nasser08182010.html
The UAW busted their ass for Obamanation, and got RAPED!. they lost Pay, Medical, Work/Safety rules, Retirment Medical, Pensions. A good example why never to trust, without knowing the person your putting your trust in.
SEIU spent millions, borrrowed millions more, and were no better off. Oh Yea, Andy Stern got a nice cabinet level job. Huzzah :(
>^^<
Go Labor! Time for a Labor Party, reach out to everybody, not just union members, reach out to all groups screwed by this system and looking for justice, reach out to environmental groups looking to save the planet, reach out to seniors whose past labor gave us what we have, reach out in solidarity and such a force cannot be denied. Take a page from Dolores Huerta's playbook .....
Hopeing soon we can, trying to kill the old ideas, SEIU under Andy Stern was against everybody. Now with him gone I'm hopeing to see a return to AFl-CIO and a return of labor once again assisting each other. I know we've lost the habit.
>^^<
I caught on to SEIU under Stern years ago when it was "organizing" in my neck of the woods, sucking up to management in the name of inflating its membership numbers, even at the potential expense of another union ....
Wanna see these anti-unionists dream world? Look no further than Walmart, their own wet dream.
"bloated wages and pensions"??
Unions, in the absence of political leadership, guarantee civilized wages. They're only "bloated" when compared to the criminally anorexic slave-wages of non-union, plantation-capitalist workplaces.
Shhh...you're giving away the plantation-capitalist plan to pit the workers against each other using envy.
52% is a very high approval rating, as far as worst ever approval ratings are concerned. When have you ever seen such a high low?
Never underestimate the stupidity of the American people.
I'll drink to that!
This is a divide and conquer issue and it is working just fine. Instead of people supporting public sector jobs and making the benefits the norm….”CHEAP LABOR” Republicans are spouting that “these” people are being paid too much and they need to be brought down.
Now tell me again, why I should NOT be supporting “these” people.
There ALREADY IS a political party formed by and dedicated to the needs of working people, namely:
http://www.thelaborparty.org/index.html
Tony Mazzocchi got it up and running with a good chance, but after cancer got him nobody like him stepped up to take his place. Mark Dudzic, his nominal replacement as National Organiser, seems more a theoretician than a tub-thumper.
If someone just has the time and skill to keep the website current, I should think that'd make a real difference for starters. Any takers? I'd do it myself if I weren't already chin deep in other work.
Ask any Long Islander who doesn't work for the MTA how they feel about UTA and the Long Island Rail Road. It's been all over Newsday this summer -- although it is not news. Dislike of public unions is very high here and it's very understandable. It's quite incredible and would take more time than I have to write about it, but there's a ton of articles online. You can start with Long Island Newsday, though -- overtime scame, disability scams, etc. Huge amounts of money.
Child-labor laws?
Minimum wage laws?
Worker safety laws?
40-hour work week?
Weekends?
Vacations?
Benefits?
How soon they forgot.
Never underestimate the stupidity of the U.S. public.
"Never underestimate the stupidity of the U.S. public."
The above quote illustrates the kind of mindset that is key to being a progressive, liberal or some part of the rest of the fake left.
And this article is tailored to reinforce that kind of thinking.
Some of the hardest working people I know are unionized public sector employees who also catch the most crap from the public. Try being a bus driver for a day, dealing with surly passengers, loud teenagers, and really bad drivers. Those guys are underpaid if anything. How about a teacher with 35-40 kids, half of who have zero respect for you and love nothing more than to flick s**t at you all day everyday. And 10-4 on the posters who mentioned all the gains that workers were able to make due to a work force that was 1/3 union back in the day. I'm sure they think that the 40 hr. work week, paid vacations, etc. came about due to the benevelonce of the bosses and the politicians. While I am not in a union myself (though given the option I would be and gladly) I have a strong appreciation for what unions were able to accomplish for the working class in the U.S. and elsewhere.
"Instead, the perception exists that unions are insular and self-serving entities that are only helping out their own rank and file."
I've been in two unions and they couldn't even do that.
Many unions today aren't the "Back of the yard" unions of yore, Many are nothing but parasites taking money from hard working individuals. I worked at a company where the union dues would have paid for our own staff of labor lawyers. They took or money, gave us a bunch of drunks to represent us and laughed all the way to the bank.
But of course the decline in the reputation of unions is all someone else's fault.