In “Winner-Take-All Politics”, the authors seek to explain the many factors that have contributed to the real incomes of the bottom 90% of the U. S. population having stayed the same or only slightly risen over the past three decades while earnings of the top 0.01% have soared from $4 million in 1979 to around $24 million in 2005.
One of the several factors has been the precipitous decline in the percentage of workers represented by unions. “From a peak of more than one in three workers just after World War II, union membership has declined to around one in nine.”
Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson go on to explain: “…while there are many ‘progressive’ groups in the American universe of organized interests, labor is the only major one focused on the broad economic concerns of those with modest incomes. In the United States, and elsewhere, unions are the main political players pushing leaders to address middle-class economic concerns and resisting policy changes that promote inequality. Unions also have the resources and incentives to check corporate practices, such as bloated executive pay package, that directly produce winner-take-all outcomes. Indeed, even with their current weakness, American unions (through operations like the AFL-CIO Office of Investment) represent one of only two organized groups providing a potential check on the unfettered autonomy of top executives and investors – the other being ‘investors collectives’ like public pension systems and mutual funds. It is surely no coincidence that almost all the advanced industrial democracies that have seen little or no shift toward the top 1 percent have much stronger unions than does the United States.”
Furthermore, without unions to inform their members concerning their true financial interests, voter registration drives, and suggestion on how to vote, workers are misinformed concerning policies inimical to their economic interests and sidetracked by extraneous matters such as Gay marriage, abortion, entitlements and foreign threats.
The authors acknowledged certain structural changes that have made union organizing more difficult, but place must of the blame “to the stacking the National Labor Relations Board in favor of management…” and ability of anti-union forces, aided by the Senate filibuster rules, to prevent labor friendly legislation applicable to the changing times.
They cite how unions have not suffered in Canada because “Canadian law allows card certification and first-contract arbitration (both features of the Employee Free Choice Act currently promoted by labor union in the United States.”)
They also note that because Canada provides national health insurance, this is not a deterrence for employers or members.
The Watchdog’s experience is that the authors are correct. He would welcome paying more to hotel workers on the front desks and housekeeping who make near poverty level wages if competition also had to pay the same. Furthermore, issues of health insurance and pensions make employers more union adverse for fear of runaway costs in these areas. Lastly, the “check off” system whereby employees need only sign cards rather than holding elections is too extreme, but the National Labor Relations Board needs to crack down to violations of the labor laws by companies that are union targets and which have become common practice.
Most of the problems with government emplyee pensions are caused by State laws and/or mandates, passed at a
time when the stock market was in a seemingly endless rise. The problem with health insurance is the same exact problem that this entire country is facing: insurance companies are totally and completely out of control, wasting a third or more of all health care dollars spent.
The State could reduce the burden of health insurance on local government by MANDATING that ALL State and local elected officials and government employees in Pennsylvania MUST participate in the same statewide insurance plan. The pension mess was basically caused by the State, and only the State can really fix it.