Union decline lowers wages of nonunion workers

[senseamp]

Something for union haters to consider:
http://www.epi.org/publication/unio...-growing/?mc_cid=1aa5d3deb3&mc_eid=d7a1dbeb2a

• For nonunion private-sector men without a bachelor’s degree or more education (non–college graduates), weekly wages would be an estimated 8 percent ($58) higher in 2013 if union density remained at its 1979 levels. For a year-round worker, this translates to an annual wage loss of $3,016. As a benchmark, consider that the wage loss from increased trade with low-wage nations (Bivens 2013) among non–college graduates is estimated to be 5 percent.

Yep, Republican base, you hosed yourself more than free trade did

 

[DrDoug]

But unions are bad! /wingnut

I heard that Trump and Republican leaders are meeting with union leaders in Cleveland today. Why would the union leaders waste their time talking to them? I wonder if Trump and his Republican toadies will finally be honest and tell the union leaders that they hate them and will work to destroy them once and for all if Trump and a Republican slate is elected. Hillary is also in Cleveland and will be going to a labor rally and meeting with union leaders.

Now that makes sense since Democrats aren't the party that's trying to kill unions.

 

[JSt0rm]

if i cant have 6 year olds working fr me i dont even know how i will stay in biz

 

[Starbuck1975]

But unions are bad! /wingnut

I heard that Trump and Republican leaders are meeting with union leaders in Cleveland today. Why would the union leaders waste their time talking to them? I wonder if Trump and his Republican toadies will finally be honest and tell the union leaders that they hate them and will work to destroy them once and for all if Trump and a Republican slate is elected. Hillary is also in Cleveland and will be going to a labor rally and meeting with union leaders.

Now that makes sense since Democrats aren't the party that's trying to kill unions.

I work in a union heavy industry and I am seeing more and more Trump stickers. While unions traditionally align to Democrats, I am finding that they feel abandoned as a constituency, and Trump's calls for economic protectionism is appealing to them even if it is something he cant deliver. It doesnt help that the Republicans are doing a fair job of tying both Clintons to globalization

 

[brycejones]

I work in a union heavy industry and I am seeing more and more Trump stickers. While unions traditionally align to Democrats, I am finding that they feel abandoned as a constituency, and Trump's calls for economic protectionism is appealing to them even if it is something he cant deliver. It doesnt help that the Republicans are doing a fair job of tying both Clintons to globalization

Which is funny since the GOP is pushing hard on "right to work" laws at the state level where they don't already exist.

 

[Jhhnn]

Which is funny since the GOP is pushing hard on "right to work" laws at the state level where they don't already exist.

Lots of Union guys voted for Reagan, too. Then Ronnie systematically broke their balls off.

It's what happens when guys think with the small head in their boxers instead of the large head on their shoulders. Trumpism is just another name for it.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Which is funny since the GOP is pushing hard on "right to work" laws at the state level where they don't already exist.

Unions need to rethink their role. Collective bargaining is their only true remaining function, which becomes problematic when corporations can lift and shift to right to work states or outsource entirely. I can't say either party has really done much to help blue collar industrial workers.

We've been pushing this expectation that everyone needs a college education. Society can only absorb so many history and english majors. There was a time when you could make an honest living being a tradesperson, and having a college degree was not a prequisite to joining the middle class.

You want to strengthen unions again? We need more kids going into trades that are reflective of today's economy. Our shift to a service based economy is not sustainable.

 

[shady28]

Shhh... OP apparently doesn't realize that Trump is the anti-establishment candidate. He seems to be talking about Jeb Bush.

Union membership peaked in the 1950s.

The only reason it is as high as it is, is because of the rise of Gov't unions. The American Blue-Collar private sector worker has been eviscerated and with them the private sector unions.

The only person speaking to the root cause is Trump. Need I post the pictures and quotes of Bill Clinton celebrating NAFTA?

Obama recently stated that he is confident TPP will pass. And we all know Hillary flip-flopped on TPP and will undoubtedly pass TPP or something very much like it. They are globalists and while I'm sure they're buddies with Union leadership, neither they nor the union leaders are acting in the interests of blue-collar union workers.

Democrats haven't done anything to stem the decline. Passage of trade deals like NAFTA were very bi-partisan.

 

[Texashiker]

Something for union haters to consider:

Yep, Republican base, you hosed yourself more than free trade did

A lot of unions have turned into nothing more than a business. The unions I have been a member of - boilermakers and seafarers international, they did not give a damn about the members. When it came time for a new contract, the seafarers international union had a standard contract they used with all the companies. When members asked about issues the union reps said there was nothing they could do.

The last place I worked that had a union, we did not even have vacations. No sick time, no maternity leave, no longevity pay, no bonuses, not even a Christmas bonus. Then the union got upset when we voted them out. Rather than addressing the issues we wanted addressed, the union used fear mongering.

 

[Sonikku]

The only reason it is as high as it is, is because of the rise of Gov't unions. The American Blue-Collar private sector worker has been eviscerated and with them the private sector unions.

This is why I want to cry when private sector employees have a big outcry over low level government employees not only having better benefits than them like in the past, but now increasingly comparable or higher pay in comparison. The idiots never stopped to think that maybe those low level government employees aren't so much riding a gravy train as much as the fact that the private sector has increasingly stacked the deck against him and flattened wages. What they want is a race to the bottom where all but the super rich are all equally poor and miserable. The have nots cry foul at the have littles and the have everythings have a good hearty laugh while everyone else is too distracted to see what they're doing.

 

[Jhhnn]

A lot of unions have turned into nothing more than a business. The unions I have been a member of - boilermakers and seafarers international, they did not give a damn about the members. When it came time for a new contract, the seafarers international union had a standard contract they used with all the companies. When members asked about issues the union reps said there was nothing they could do.

The last place I worked that had a union, we did not even have vacations. No sick time, no maternity leave, no longevity pay, no bonuses, not even a Christmas bonus. Then the union got upset when we voted them out. Rather than addressing the issues we wanted addressed, the union used fear mongering.

Mere bullshit w/o specifics, particularly the last paragraph. What union, what company, what date? What happened after the union was voted out?

 

[Jhhnn]

This is why I want to cry when private sector employees have a big outcry over low level government employees not only having better benefits than them like in the past, but now increasingly comparable or higher pay in comparison. The idiots never stopped to think that maybe those low level government employees aren't so much riding a gravy train as much as the fact that the private sector has increasingly stacked the deck against him and flattened wages. What they want is a race to the bottom where all but the super rich are all equally poor and miserable. The have nots cry foul at the have littles and the have everythings have a good hearty laugh while everyone else is too distracted to see what they're doing.

We're all poors to guys like Donald.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Yes union density is on the decline for many reasons many of which are self inflicted by poor union leadership. Take the UAW for example, they cannot even run their own business, unions are a business folks, correctly wasting millions of dollars on their Black Rock Lake Resort, just google it and see for yourselves, that should've been spent on taking care of their membership. The UAW practiced trade unionism for several decades but now has had to shift to a inclusive stance in order to survive in the 21st century.

Typically Republican business owners have historically abused their workers which brought on the industrial revolution in the late 1800's. As manufacturing jobs increased workers were forced to find ways to represent themselves and the unions were the vehicle for this representation. Senator Robert Wagner, a Democrat, saw this abuse first hand at the turn of the last century which prompted him to create the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, also known as the Wagner Act, to provide working Americans with a voice in the workplace.

I have been a member of both the IAM and the USW and have seen the effects of unionism in the workplace. The USW started resorting to a percentage of pay per pay period to increase their take each week from the membership as their numbers declined. This is a sad example of an organization sucking cash from their members rather than pairing back on the unnecessary expenditures to realign them with their decreasing cash flows. The USW never represented me as a worker like the IAM did and I would never belong to them again nor would I be inclined to work for an employer who had them representing workers in that facility. They also have resorted to imposing union administrative fees on non union workers to extract even more money from people to maintain their operations. This is technically a form of closed shop even though the NLRA allows for it and forces non union employees to pay a fee equal to membership dues while they work for a given employer which I believe is not fair. The IAM never did this to workers where I was which I respect.

When unions first came to be there were no federal laws protecting them in the workplace but that has since changed with multiple laws and amendments to those laws to protect workers in a multitude of ways. It's too bad that politics are involved at the NLRB/NMB meaning that interpretations of the law swing during different administrations based upon their views. I did a large research paper on unionism in the country last semester and found that many private and public sector unions are merging in order to survive because of how rapidly their membership is dropping. Public sector unions are limited in the items that they can bargain for since they are working for the public good and none of them can legally strike. The one thing that I do not agree with is the strikebreaker worker laws that allow an employer to immediately replace striking workers to keep going. This eliminates any leverage that workers have over their employers but as a HR manager I would leverage it immediately against them if I were forced to.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yes union density is on the decline for many reasons many of which are self inflicted by poor union leadership. Take the UAW for example, they cannot even run their own business, unions are a business folks, correctly wasting millions of dollars on their Black Rock Lake Resort, just google it and see for yourselves, that should've been spent on taking care of their membership. The UAW practiced trade unionism for several decades but now has had to shift to a inclusive stance in order to survive in the 21st century.

Typically Republican business owners have historically abused their workers which brought on the industrial revolution in the late 1800's. As manufacturing jobs increased workers were forced to find ways to represent themselves and the unions were the vehicle for this representation. Senator Robert Wagner, a Democrat, saw this abuse first hand at the turn of the last century which prompted him to create the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, also known as the Wagner Act, to provide working Americans with a voice in the workplace.

I have been a member of both the IAM and the USW and have seen the effects of unionism in the workplace. The USW started resorting to a percentage of pay per pay period to increase their take each week from the membership as their numbers declined. This is a sad example of an organization sucking cash from their members rather than pairing back on the unnecessary expenditures to realign them with their decreasing cash flows. The USW never represented me as a worker like the IAM did and I would never belong to them again nor would I be inclined to work for an employer who had them representing workers in that facility. They also have resorted to imposing union administrative fees on non union workers to extract even more money from people to maintain their operations. This is technically a form of closed shop even though the NLRA allows for it and forces non union employees to pay a fee equal to membership dues while they work for a given employer which I believe is not fair. The IAM never did this to workers where I was which I respect.

When unions first came to be there were no federal laws protecting them in the workplace but that has since changed with multiple laws and amendments to those laws to protect workers in a multitude of ways. It's too bad that politics are involved at the NLRB/NMB meaning that interpretations of the law swing during different administrations based upon their views. I did a large research paper on unionism in the country last semester and found that many private and public sector unions are merging in order to survive because of how rapidly their membership is dropping. Public sector unions are limited in the items that they can bargain for since they are working for the public good and none of them can legally strike. The one thing that I do not agree with is the strikebreaker worker laws that allow an employer to immediately replace striking workers to keep going. This eliminates any leverage that workers have over their employers but as a HR manager I would leverage it immediately against them if I were forced to.

Please. Non-union employees in right to work states who occupy union contract job slots are covered by the union in wage negotiations & in disciplinary matters as well. They get all the same benefits (other than a vote) as union members & should therefore pay for what they get, not act as freeloaders.

 

[Jhhnn]

Please. Non-union employees in right to work states who occupy union contract job slots are covered by the union in wage negotiations & in disciplinary matters as well. They get all the same benefits (other than a vote) as union members & should therefore pay for what they get, not act as freeloaders.

Members of govt unions also retain the right to strike depending on circumstances. Transit workers generally retain that right, for example, which is how they have leverage at all.

 

[senseamp]

Shhh... OP apparently doesn't realize that Trump is the anti-establishment candidate. He seems to be talking about Jeb Bush.

Union membership peaked in the 1950s.

The only reason it is as high as it is, is because of the rise of Gov't unions. The American Blue-Collar private sector worker has been eviscerated and with them the private sector unions.

The only person speaking to the root cause is Trump. Need I post the pictures and quotes of Bill Clinton celebrating NAFTA?

Obama recently stated that he is confident TPP will pass. And we all know Hillary flip-flopped on TPP and will undoubtedly pass TPP or something very much like it. They are globalists and while I'm sure they're buddies with Union leadership, neither they nor the union leaders are acting in the interests of blue-collar union workers.

Democrats haven't done anything to stem the decline. Passage of trade deals like NAFTA were very bi-partisan.

Isn't it interesting how the good old days are actually years of high union membership? You can hate on Clinton, but NAFTA was Bush Sr's baby that Clinton inherited.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Free trade opened the door to globalism where large companies practice social dumping to enhance profits without regard to their workers. Manufacturing jobs have been leaving for decades and will continue to do so unless fair trade laws are enacted. Union rhetoric cannot change the face of reality in a globally linked marketplace.

 

[bshole]

Which is funny since the GOP is pushing hard on "right to work" laws at the state level where they don't already exist.

With 6.7% of the private workforce in unions, why in the hell do they keep whipping the carcass of this dead horse? They won. They successfully destroyed labor and now we are all reaping the benefits.... the decimation of the American middle class. Thanks ya fuckers...

 

[Jhhnn]

With 6.7% of the private workforce in unions, why in the hell do they keep whipping the carcass of this dead horse? They won. They successfully destroyed labor and now we are all reaping the benefits.... the decimation of the American middle class. Thanks ya fuckers...

Don't thank the fuckers- thank the mow-rons who voted for the fuckers.

Cuz Freedumb! of course.

 

[1prophet]

Isn't it interesting how the good old days are actually years of high union membership? You can hate on Clinton, but NAFTA was Bush Sr's baby that Clinton inherited.

And Bush sr. never could have past it, Clinton had to strong arm unions and democrats in congress alike to get it passed, hardly something someone passed because they inherited it.

For all you koolaid drinking revisionist history pretend liberal democrats, the republicans were not the obstacle Clinton had to overcome to pass NAFTA, it was unions and the democrat party something quite impossible for any republican to do, president or otherwise.

http://articles.latimes.com/1993-11-08/news/mn-54558_1_free-trade-pact

In focusing on the unions, whose political strength in presidential races has been declining along with their membership, Clinton is turning on a constituency that was among the most important in his successful political alliance a year ago.

But with only 10 days left until the House votes on legislation that would implement NAFTA, supporters are "30 votes short of having explicit, express commitments" from the 218 members needed to win, Clinton conceded.

With Republicans generally favoring the pact but lacking sufficient numbers to put it over the top, the White House is turning its attention to members of the President's own party, who have been more reluctant to support the deal.

Clinton attributed NAFTA's problems primarily to "the vociferous, organized opposition of most of the unions telling these (House) members in private they'll never give them any money again, they'll get them opponents in the primary, you know, the real roughshod muscle-bound tactics."

The President's criticism of the labor unions, which have mounted an aggressive campaign to defeat NAFTA, was so pointed that he later remarked that counselor David Gergen had expressed fears off-camera that Clinton was courting negative news headlines.

 

[senseamp]

And Bush sr. never could have past it, Clinton had to strong arm unions and democrats in congress alike to get it passed, hardly something someone passed because they inherited it.

For all you koolaid drinking revisionist history pretend liberal democrats, the republicans were not the obstacle Clinton had to overcome to pass NAFTA, it was unions and the democrat party something quite impossible for any republican to do, president or otherwise.

http://articles.latimes.com/1993-11-08/news/mn-54558_1_free-trade-pact

Interestingly you didn't bold this part

With Republicans generally favoring the pact but lacking sufficient numbers to put it over the top

Not to mention the point that stronger unions would have prevented NAFTA. So union bashers got what they deserved.

 

[Texashiker]

Mere bullshit w/o specifics, particularly the last paragraph. What union, what company, what date? What happened after the union was voted out?

Ohmstede machine works, late 1980s and early 1990s with the boilermakes union.

Moran towing, 2015, seafarers international union.

After the seafarers international union was voted out employees got a nice raise.

The seafarers international union would fight against deckhands and unlicensed engineers getting a raise. Ordinary Seaman and unlicensed engineers had not had a raise in 10 years, not even a cost of living adjustment.

When I spoke to the seafarers international union reps about getting us some basic benefits, they said the company would not allow it. These are benefits one might expect from a large comapny in the 21st century - paid vacation, maternity leave, sick days, even a christmas bonus.

 

[shady28]

This is why I want to cry when private sector employees have a big outcry over low level government employees not only having better benefits than them like in the past, but now increasingly comparable or higher pay in comparison. The idiots never stopped to think that maybe those low level government employees aren't so much riding a gravy train as much as the fact that the private sector has increasingly stacked the deck against him and flattened wages. What they want is a race to the bottom where all but the super rich are all equally poor and miserable. The have nots cry foul at the have littles and the have everythings have a good hearty laugh while everyone else is too distracted to see what they're doing.

Gov't sector hasn't and won't have to deal with outsourcing of their jobsto foreign countries. Carrier for example is/was a union shop, having their jobs moved to Mexico.

So yeah, they are kinda pissed that the minions (i.e. the Gov't worker) of the politicians that allowed that to happen to the private sector blue collar worker now have better pay and benefits than they do.

But it's questionable how long some of those Gov't workers will have before they are affected. Teachers, for example, are already being outsourced using technology. Unless your physical presence is required, you're not really safe from those same globalist economic forces pushing your job to lower pay workers.

 

[Jhhnn]

Ohmstede machine works, late 1980s and early 1990s with the boilermakes union.

Moran towing, 2015, seafarers international union.

After the seafarers international union was voted out employees got a nice raise.

The seafarers international union would fight against deckhands and unlicensed engineers getting a raise. Ordinary Seaman and unlicensed engineers had not had a raise in 10 years, not even a cost of living adjustment.

When I spoke to the seafarers international union reps about getting us some basic benefits, they said the company would not allow it. These are benefits one might expect from a large comapny in the 21st century - paid vacation, maternity leave, sick days, even a christmas bonus.

And what about the issues you expressed concerns about- vacation, maternity leave & the rest? Didn't you get a raise & then bumped off the payroll?

 

[Jhhnn]

Gov't sector hasn't and won't have to deal with outsourcing of their jobsto foreign countries. Carrier for example is/was a union shop, having their jobs moved to Mexico.

So yeah, they are kinda pissed that the minions (i.e. the Gov't worker) of the politicians that allowed that to happen to the private sector blue collar worker now have better pay and benefits than they do.

But it's questionable how long some of those Gov't workers will have before they are affected. Teachers, for example, are already being outsourced using technology. Unless your physical presence is required, you're not really safe from those same globalist economic forces pushing your job to lower pay workers.

So the answer is to tear down the other guy rather than to build oneself up.

Seems entirely Republican to me.