Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Union Way Up
America, and its faltering economy, need unions to restore prosperity to the middle class.
Why is this recession so deep, and what can be done to reverse it?
Hint: Go back about 50 years, when America's middle class was expanding and the economy was soaring. Paychecks were big enough to allow us to buy all the goods and services we produced. It was a virtuous circle. Good pay meant more purchases, and more purchases meant more jobs.
At the center of this virtuous circle were unions. In 1955, more than a third of working Americans belonged to one. Unions gave them the bargaining leverage they needed to get the paychecks that kept the economy going. So many Americans were unionized that wage agreements spilled over to nonunionized workplaces as well. Employers knew they had to match union wages to compete for workers and to recruit the best ones.
Fast forward to a new century. Now, fewer than 8% of private-sector workers are unionized. Corporate opponents argue that Americans no longer want unions. But public opinion surveys, such as a comprehensive poll that Peter D. Hart Research Associates conducted in 2006, suggest that a majority of workers would like to have a union to bargain for better wages, benefits and working conditions. So there must be some other reason for this dramatic decline.
But put that question aside for a moment. One point is clear: Smaller numbers of unionized workers mean less bargaining power, and less bargaining power results in lower wages.
It's no wonder middle-class incomes were dropping even before the recession. As our economy grew between 2001 and the start of 2007, most Americans didn't share in the prosperity. By the time the recession began last year, according to an Economic Policy Institute study, the median income of households headed by those under age 65 was below what it was in 2000.
Typical families kept buying only by going into debt. This was possible as long as the housing bubble expanded. Home-equity loans and refinancing made up for declining paychecks. But that's over. American families no longer have the purchasing power to keep the economy going. Lower paychecks, or no paychecks at all, mean fewer purchases, and fewer purchases mean fewer jobs.
The way to get the economy back on track is to boost the purchasing power of the middle class. One major way to do this is to expand the percentage of working Americans in unions.
Tax rebates won't work because they don't permanently raise wages. Most families used the rebate last year to pay off debt -- not a bad thing, but it doesn't keep the virtuous circle running.
Bank bailouts won't work either. Businesses won't borrow to expand without consumers to buy their goods and services. And Americans themselves can't borrow when they're losing their jobs and their incomes are dropping.
Tax cuts for working families, as President Obama intends, can do more to help because they extend over time. But only higher wages and benefits for the middle class will have a lasting effect.
Unions matter in this equation. According to the Department of Labor, workers in unions earn 30% higher wages -- taking home $863 a week, compared with $663 for the typical nonunion worker -- and are 59% more likely to have employer-provided health insurance than their nonunion counterparts.
Examples abound. In 2007, nearly 12,000 janitors in Providence, R.I., New Hampshire and Boston, represented by the Service Employees International Union, won a contract that raised their wages to $16 an hour, guaranteed more work hours and provided family health insurance. In an industry typically staffed by part-time workers with a high turnover rate, a union contract provided janitors with full-time, sustainable jobs that they could count on to raise their families' -- and their communities' -- standard of living.
In August, 65,000 Verizon workers, represented by the Communications Workers of America, won wage increases totaling nearly 11% and converted temporary jobs to full-time status. Not only did the settlement preserve fully paid healthcare premiums for all active and retired unionized employees, but Verizon also agreed to provide $2 million a year to fund a collaborative campaign with its unions to achieve meaningful national healthcare reform.
Although America and its economy need unions, it's become nearly impossible for employees to form one. The Hart poll I cited tells us that 57 million workers would want to be in a union if they could have one. But those who try to form a union, according to researchers at MIT, have only about a 1 in 5 chance of successfully doing so.
The reason? Most of the time, employees who want to form a union are threatened and intimidated by their employers. And all too often, if they don't heed the warnings, they're fired, even though that's illegal. I saw this when I was secretary of Labor over a decade ago. We tried to penalize employers that broke the law, but the fines are minuscule. Too many employers consider them a cost of doing business.
This isn't right. The most important feature of the Employee Free Choice Act, which will be considered by the just-seated 111th Congress, toughens penalties against companies that violate their workers' rights. The sooner it's enacted, the better -- for U.S. workers and for the U.S. economy.
The American middle class isn't looking for a bailout or a handout. Most people just want a chance to share in the success of the companies they help to prosper. Making it easier for all Americans to form unions would give the middle class the bargaining power it needs for better wages and benefits. And a strong and prosperous middle class is necessary if our economy is to succeed.
- Posted in



27 Comments so far
Show AllMr. Reich: Thank you for contributing this article,and I applaud you for your long career of working toward bettering our society.
Good article. In my one close but unsuccessful organizing attempt, the two tiered workforce was a big impediment. The full time (longer term) employees were not as excited about the union because they had relative higher security, benefits, and wages. The part-timers had less of a stake since they didn't really see themselves sticking around. The result that was that only about 55% verbally supported the union, which was not enough to proceed with a campaign.
I think we need more unions, but there also has to be some organizing force for workers/professionals/unemployed whose work places are not unionized.
There is and it's called a union. No reason that workers/professionals/unemployed can't belong to a union.
-----------------------------------------
Remember the butchery in Gaza by the IDF.
"There is and it's called a union. No reason that workers/professionals/unemployed can't belong to a union."
Absolutyely no reason. There are teachers unions and my wife belongs to the State employees union..............why not for anyone?
I've heard about teachers' unions but for the most part with all the twisted laws, both labor and teacher unions are pretty much outlawed. Last year, a couple of teachers got arrested for trying to form a non-monied union of their own. They did get their contracts back though once they got out after 4 months. What do you think of the idea of a teachers' union and would it really help improve education? I've heard pros and cons on them but just curious.
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota
I was saying workers/unemployed whose workplaces are not organized. It could be a union or association of unions, but I don't see these seeking membership from people who don't work in places with a union contract.
Fifty years ago we also had a 91% tax bracket. Anyone else see a connection there? (Or is it a dis-connection?)
Forty years ago corporations paid 29% of US income tax. Today they pay 6% and within a decade they will pay 0%.
All the unions in the world won't help until tax policy that favors the working class over the corporations is restored.
The truth about the middle class and housing is that even at the height of prosperity, most Americans were one pay check away from foreclosure. Unions were great, but even they were still insufficient having emasculated themselves by banning socialists from their leadership.
Though Robert Reich is usually one of my favorite economists, his advocasy of unions is misplaced until those union's again protect the American worker and help raise wages as they used to. They cannot do this while concluding with business against the American worker.
As to the difficulty of forming unions, its not that hard...and if this is a prelude to public ballots rather than secret ballots that protect the worker from being threatened and intimidated by their employers or the union, forget it.
My grandfather used to be a union worker back in the early 20th century. The unions back then were not the same as the unions today. Back in my grandfather's days, money was a low priority while dignity, quality, and respect were what labor unions back then focused on. If my grandfather were alive to see today's unions, he'd probably call them bad corporations disguised as phoney unions given all the money and corruption. Joining a union would be great if only it weren't so damn expensive.
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota
"If my grandfather were alive to see today's unions, he'd probably call them bad corporations disguised as phoney unions given all the money and corruption."
He undoubtadly would. He wouldn't believe they would replace American workers with foreign workers and be proud of it, actually admit it.
Mr More,
You apprently don't know the process of union recognition. it is a 2-stage process required a card check, then a long (sometimes years) wait for an election. During that wait, the company hire union busting lawyers, thratens and intimidates workers, often fires the organizers on a usually trumped up issue. The NLRB, which is has largely filled with anti-union people over the years, is little help.
Iv'e seen it happen myself - even at my supposedly "liberal" food co-op. Both the union organizers and concerned consumers pushed for recognition with a card check with an independent obderver counting the cards. The board said no there would be an NLRB election. This bought them the time to hire a union-busting consultant.
I also witnesses it at a Transcraft semi-trailer plant in Kentucky that I was doing engineering work for. There were signs in the break rooms and bathrooms, warning workers their jobs would go to Mexico if they even thought of organizing a union. They did dangerous dirty work for no more than $8.50 per hour.
There are very few cases of union intimidation during the card check
The card check process would remove the biggest union busting tool the bosses have and should be supported.
---USAn---
Hang in there. The Employee Free Choice Act is coming to solve these problems.
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota
Actually it is a 3 step process. Once a group of workers become "unionized" the next big challenge is getting a collective agreement together through the process of free collective bargaining. Again, the chips are stacked up for the capitalist class. Obtaining a collective agreement can prove harder and more work and also with the very great prospects of failure than getting the initial union representation. Remember, we live in a capitalist economy where that class has the hegemony and hence not only the wealth, but also the whole capitalist state machinery at its disposal when it comes to fighting the class struggle.
-----------------------------------------
Remember the butchery in Gaza by the IDF.
endCapitalism
Is there any real reason you know of to give up a secret ballot?
I was a union organizer for years (in Canada) and I see no problem with simply getting workers to join a union and if the majority do so in a particular place of employment, then they get their union. Voting on a collective agreement has always been by secret ballot, as was voting for union officers.
-----------------------------------------
Remember the butchery in Gaza by the IDF.
Thanks.
PJD/USAn (USAn was your original wasn't it?)
Actually I am familiar with it and I have seen the same things you have. But I have also seen union pressures and intimidations.
The secret ballot is too important to give up for a small gain. I believe its akin to the Patriot Act in giving up some of your freedoms for security...no can do. Sorry but I don't believe the unions should be given that power.
"There were signs in the break rooms and bathrooms, warning workers their jobs would go to Mexico if they even thought of organizing a union. They did dangerous dirty work for no more than $8.50 per hour."
And they probably did anyway.
How about a secret ballot and then no wait for an election if it favors a union?
I am extremely angry at the unions for their betrayal of the American worker, but I do realize they can also be the only defense of the worker.
the union wage did, indeed, support a number of ancillary entertainment, sales and service positions, and, if we wish to return to such economic models, a necessary ingredient would be a return to basic metal mining and refining, and all of the jobs that follow on the way to creating, repairing, and disposing of a marketable product...the problem, again, becomes the response of the natural world...the only way those activities have been able to go on historically is by hiding, ignoring or rationalizing this reaction...the reason things are becoming so difficult to digest (literally) is because nature is beginning to make her responses impossible to ignore any longer...
70% of U.S. workers want to belong to a union. If a fair vote were conducted in every company in America, the workers in every company in America would be unionized.
a
I agree with all the previous comments. However, I believe the end game must be greater equality for all who produce. Years ago, in our grandfathers and fathers day, we actually made things in this country. Things we were proud of having made. That was prior to our economy shifting to a financial economy where now more than 20% of our GDP is (was) based on the production of what? Exactly! Not diddly squat. Further, it seems we are beating around the bush in not calling these rational sentiments for what they are. All communities are undoubtedly more peaceful, sustainable, democratic, and all the other social benefits that go along with, greater economic equality. We must abandon this silly notion that for our country to forge ahead successfully in the global economy we are required to pay the so-called innovators hundreds of millions of dollars a year. What happened to common decency? Why do we accept that it is OK for there to be a 435:1 disparity between CEO and line worker pay? Sorry, but I've been around a bit, and I've never met someone worth more than 5 or 10 times what my time is worth. We must demand that the road to excellence be tied to more than financial rewards alone. What happened to personal pride, team spirit, and wholesome feelings of mutual accomplishment? After all, those who reap all the monetary rewards did not choose their parents, when they were born, where they were born, the smarts they inherited at birth, or so many of the other chance events that allowed them to be where they are. I'm not discounting hard work and luck, but 435:1? Remember that dogmatic Capitalism explicitly produces these dramatic income differentials. Unions are a great start. But, does't the honest discussion go further?
Wayout
Excellent post.
"Why do we accept that it is OK for there to be a 435:1 disparity between CEO and line worker pay? Sorry, but I've been around a bit, and I've never met someone worth more than 5 or 10 times what my time is worth"
Why indeed? Especially when their secretary does 3/4 of their real work.
"Remember that dogmatic Capitalism explicitly produces these dramatic income differentials. Unions are a great start. But, does't the honest discussion go further?"
By dogmatic Capitalism I assume you mean what we have had since Raegan began the removal of protections and regulations with the Coup de Gras by Phil Gramm and Clinton?
Regulated Capitalism with real oversight was what built our country and provided the middle class with their wealth. And if the middle class doen't have it all the lower class is in big trouble. Only the wealthy prosper. I'd also point out that it is only the US that has this disparity of pay.
"But, does't the honest discussion go further?"
Absolutely!
I'm all for worker representation, and I support the EFCA, even though it isn't perfect. The problem is that today's economy is not the economy of 50 years ago.
The only places where unions seem to have any kind of presence anymore are work environments that are immovable, such as government, public schools, post office, transportation, construction trades, etc. All the stuff that can't be done by slave labor in third-world countries. The 2 best jobs I ever had were in manufacturing plants that eventually moved out of the state to get away from having a unionized shop. Although I was not a union member, I certainly enjoyed much of the great pay and benefits (while it lasted).
Unfortunately, I don't see any other way to "stimulate" the economy without reasonable job security and livable wages. Here's a news flash for all the supply-side economists out there: consumers have to start out as wage-earners.
unions: middle class prosperity or working class consciousness?
Reich talks only about unions and "middle class" prosperity. Nothing about the dignity of a strong labor force, nothing about the intrinsic political potential of workers organizing in an oppositional relationship to owners. U.S. unions have certainly been right wing (and settle complacently for Democrats) - in part, because they were purged of their left wing after WWII - but they still have the inherent power to foster "class consciousnes": a concrete awareness of interests and power resistant to right wing political and media messages.
if working people had friends like the former labor secretary Reich, they wouldn't need their enemies.The main factors in cutting standard of leaving to the bone are; (a) exporting productive jobs (b) 'better dead than reformed' union politics (c) personal stakes in globalization of politicians, commercial journalists and labor leaders (d) channeling public founds to private bank accounts (via government's bundle of debts,bonds)Any idea how to crate labor movements active outside international corporations? edweg