DISQUS

Kevin_Davis · 2 years ago

'”It turns out,” Mom sighed, “that our Ohio owners had made a big deal with General Motors. It needed coal, and fast. The union could've asked for little pink hearts to be pasted on their lunch buckets and the company would've given it to them. Your dad was caught in the middle.”' -- Homer H. Hickam, Jr.'s mother discussing a strike settlement [Rocket Boys: A Memoir,1998, pp. 352-3 (basis for the film October Sky [anagram of Rocket Boys])].

Brennan Young · 2 years ago

Unions are about a whole lot more than wages. Mainstream media sources prefer to frame the debate as though it's only about salaries and 'handouts', because capitalists are only really interested in the bottom line, and of course it's hard to feel sympathy for a scrounger, but there are other important elements too, not the least of which is having a job in the first place, and feeling like a productive member of society.

There's also stuff like decency, dignity, respect, health and safety to consider. Management is typically rewarded (by the market) and lionised (by shareholders) for scrimping and saving on those aspects. Example: the construction of the the Hoover Dam, where trade unions were banned, was finished 6 months ahead of schedule at the cost of 114 lives, so a trade body is often important for keeping the working environment safe, dignified and (I would argue) optimised for the human(e) aspects of work. My take is that it's more effective to cultivate professional pride than to leap straight to the carrot-and-stick method.

You've also not mentioned a very important point about the early 20th century: Two world wars, and a couple of monstrous pandemics (notably influenza in 1918) which decimated the workers' population, adding considerable value to labor. Exactly as the Black Death led to the birth of European democracy in the middle ages, the surviving workers were in an increased position of power. In addition, the Wall Street crash undermined the very idea of capitalism as a project, and the labor movement flourished in the western/developed world. (Then came the cold war and the baby boom, forcing everyone into ideological corners. As GWB might have put it - "If you're not with us, you're with the communists" and so on).

It's certainly a myth that the golden age of union power was due to heroic union organizers, but you wont find that the idea has much credence amongst anyone seriously involved in workers' organisations. It's a fantasy mostly perpetuated by the American 'liberal' media and even by Hollywood. (viz. the movie "Hoffa").

The mass media loves a popular hero, but the true heroes of the people are the people themselves, especially when they dare to organise together. It's when their solidarity is broken that the despots (e.g. Stalin, Hitler) rise to the top.

Unions are, by definition, 'bottom-up' structures of control/feedback (to use the cybernetic paradigm). The greatest successes in the labor movemment (internationally) have occurred when they have had a very broad base of grassroots support, rather than when they had dynamic charismatic leaders and steep hierarchies. A good example: the 1980s Polish shipworkers' union Solidarnosc, which was highly instrumental in eroding Soviet/Russian imperialism, and an international embarrassment to a system claiming to be a workers' state.

As long as there are people doing work for managers/owners/business leaders, I don't see any reason why the concept of trade bodies and worker organisations should be obsolete, except as part of some kind of propagandistic anti-union narrative, which is implicit in most English-language mass-media; That's if the labor movement is discussed in any depth at all, which is relatively rare.

Bringing things right up-to-date, there are growing trends to cultivate truly international unions, as a way to balance the way that multinational corporations pit workers in one country against those of another ("if you don't accept a wage cut, we'll have to move the factory to Mexico"), leading to a 'race to the bottom' both in terms of wages and safety/security. You wont hear about it from Fox or CNN, that's for sure, but it's happening now. The internet plays an important role in building worker solidarity across national boundaries. It's therefore an obvious and very contemporary development. Perhaps the golden age of trade unions is still to come.

dlweinreb · 2 years ago

Another big reason that unions have declined is that they get much
less support from the government. Labor laws are enforced laxly
if at all, particularly by the present Republican-dominated administration. Look at what has happened at attempts to unionize at Wal-Mart; the techniques Wal-Mart uses to foil unions are illegal, but nobody stops them. Enforcement, if it exists at all, is so slow that by the time anything happens, the question is moot.

I think that the underlying reason behind all this is that the public lets it happen and doesn't protest, and the really interesting question is why. One reason is that the people who are most interested in union power are the most powerless and least influential people. The whole cause of unions used to be considered important by a wide range of middle and upper class people, but that's much less so now. It reflects an underlying change in values and opinions. So the big question is why unions aren't popular amongst the people who have the influence to make the government enforce labor laws.

Loading · 2 years ago

If you don't mind, let me share my thought on similarities between internet companies and labor unions.

Labor unions are often though to be an only lever that could bring control under workers life to democratic process ruled by workers. On the over hand, the corporation management is to make workers use their skills with maximum efficiency, and to produce only that market demands.

Before startups these mechanisms there only tools to complete two functions: let people control their lives and to produce goods that the society needs. Today, startups and spin-offs are turning that belief round, because these small groups of workers not only are in control of their activities and capital, but also try to operate according to market needs.

And there are that could be called communistic, such as CraigsList or MySQL.

Vypuero · 2 years ago

Less support from government? The laws regarding unions are totally immoral. As someone paying a wage, it is my money and I have a right to fire and hire as I choose. A Union allows the government to use FORCE on the employer to keep them no matter how shitty their performance is. This is slavery of the employer to the employed. What immoral use of force has Wal-Mart employed? I can tell you that if you are prevented by law from firing someone, your rights are being violated right then and there.

Unions - A way to get a job and be lazy and get paid more than your labor is worth, at the expense of others who don't get to compete with your job by offering to do better work for less. This violates the rights of the employer and all workers who cannot compete for the job by offering lower wages!

JimFive · 1 year ago

The right to Unionize is the right of the Employees to negotiate collectively. If you sign a contract that doesn't allow you to dismiss a worker, that is your fault. The government's force is only in the enforcement of the contract. The law doesn't prevent you from firing someone, the contract that you voluntarily signed does that. That isn't to say that there aren't bad contracts. But the bad contracts are as much the fault of the employer as the union.
--
JimFive

jp · 2 years ago

"why are unions shrinking now?"
There is an even simpler explanation. Cheaper long range transportation, the lack of labor laws in the third world countries, and a compliant government (NAFTA, WTO) have made it easier for corporations to undermine union participation by threatening to move or moving production overseas. The early twentieth century was less an example of overpayment than the late twentieth century is of underpayment by artificially expanding the labor pool. (The artifice in this case means, mostly, unequal legal protection for workers. If foreign workers had the same rights to living wages and safe working conditions that domestic workers had there would be no incentive to move overseas. And I think you mean the middle twentieth, rather than early twentieth. The Jungle was written in 1906, and no one in the book was overpaid.)

kunal · 2 years ago

underpayment by artificially expanding the labor pool
>>> completely true.

ahsirk · 2 years ago

its nice... but too long for me to copy it all....

kunal · 2 years ago

Great Analysis. Your words are always full of wisdom. I like them.

Vineel Shah · 1 year ago

Yeah, that's not it. Historically, manufacturing companies circumvented "market forces" by creating company towns, paying with company scrip, etc. The "trickle-down effect" that was supposed to make life better for the mass of Americans simply did not trickle. This is the environment that gave birth to the unions. Were these people heroes? No, just desperate people trying to change their circumstances.

These days, companies have to play by society's rules. This has lessened the need for unions. In the computer fields, an individual can actually make a noticeable contribution to a bottom line. We are not interchangeable factory workers, so we don't need, and don't want, the horizontal protections of a union.

Please don't get me wrong... I have found most of these essays to be very intelligent and worthwhile discussions. This is a rare exception.

Chris · 1 year ago

Whoever wrote this knows very little about about the actual--as opposed to the popular--history of organized labor. Unions don't date to "the early twentieth century." The Knights of Labor was founded in 1869. And the reason unions are shrinking today is the same reason why you no longer see 9-year-old children working 12-hour shifts in coal mines. We have these things called labor laws, the minimum wage, workmen's compensation, and employer-provided health insurance. And employers do not provide them out of the the goodness of their hearts. All of them were fought for by unions.
It's true that labor is subject to the same law of supply and demand as anything else, and at certain times labor was in tight supply. The truth is, the demand for manufactured goods has not lessened, nor has production. World manufacturing of all kinds has only increased in the last fifty years, but where this production takes place has been moved to places where--guess what?--employers don't have to deal with child labor laws, a minimum wage, workmen's comp, or health insurance. It's called Asia, or, more specifically, China. And it shouldn't surprise you to learn the Chineses government clamps down on all forms on unionization. A sweet deal if you own a factory, but not so sweet if you're a Chinese kid working in a sweatshop.

paulgraham · 1 year ago

I never say that labor unions were a creation of the early 20th century, just that that was their peak.

magnus · 1 year ago

if you are not benefitting from society you have no reason following its' laws.

Connelly Barnes · 1 year ago

The real question is in the absence of scarcity, why are people working.

Mattia Landoni · 1 year ago

As an economist I have to say that certainly your readers have made some points worth addressing on your side if you want to add credibility to your theory. You should also address the fact that in Europe unions are alive and well and - while shrinking in some instances - still enjoy a large participation.

Most importantly, though, I made a graph (http://www.webpresident.org/images/unskilled.png) that you should try to reconcile with your theory. Unskilled labor is arguably paid, today in the US, less than it is worth. For the US, labor productivity (as measured by per-capita GDP) explains 88% of the variation in real unskilled wages. If, hence, we predict unskilled wages starting from per-capita GDP we find that in the Fifties labor was paid much more, and in the Noughties it is paid much less, than the average.

Mattia Landoni · 1 year ago

Oops, apparently I misread my own graph. The current unskilled salary as a percentage of gdp is actually higher - not lower. Ergo, please invert the second paragraph :-)

Mattia Landoni · 1 year ago

OK, this is the final version. This graph is correct (I realized the reason why things seemed so strange.
GRAPH 1
http://www.webpresident.org/images/unskilled_ac...
The value of unskilled wage depends mainly on average productivity (per-capita GDP), as the actual and predicted values are relatively close to one another.
GRAPH 2
http://www.webpresident.org/images/unskilled_pe...
Unskilled wage as percent of per-capita GDP has decreased ever since 1820; however, there is a bump in the period 1930-1970. You explain this with the US being a startup, but one may explain it as being the effect of unions as well. Considering that in Europe unions are stronger and unskilled wages are proportionately higher, there may be a case that they DO sort that effect.

Mensarefugee · 1 year ago

Its a nice theory, but ultimately too simple.
A few cross cultural/national comparisons might enlighten things a bit - India, for instance, is highly unionized. My friend's family, who owns a factory thee cannot even enter the factory premises without the Unions permission. Is that because India is in a massive expansion? No, the Unions there (with the government) are preventing expansion. As I said, you frame the problem too narrowly, but its an interesting 'sub-take' on the matter.

Manish Joshi · 1 year ago

Paul,

Your theory is interesting about the justification for unions. However, I think it might only apply to mid-20th century and later. The original impetus for unions was to improve the lot of the workers at the beginning of the twentieth century. When workers started making enough money to have disposable income, their purchasing fueled a big part of the industrial development of the US. Their employers weren't paying them higher wages and working them fewer hours merely because it was expedient; the National Labor Relations Act , passed in the 1930s, took away a lot of the companies' power to resist unionization. Business managers have always wanted to maximize profit. If its by paying higher wages to keep production going, they will. But, they only accepted that because they had to, not because they wanted to. Very few employers realized that it was the workers' higher wages which was boosting demand for a lot of their output, since the US wasn't exporting substantial amounts of its output until the 1960s and later.

Andrew D · 1 year ago

I think you are on to something here. However, you might also want to think about the effects of law - a lot of corporate law of the last half century has made it easier for capital to organize, and laws like Taft-Hartley have made it more difficult for labor to organize. Throw in the law and economics movement and its effect on the jurisprudence of the past forty years, and you may come up with a more complete explanation for why unions are in decline.

Barbara Saunders · 1 year ago

I love this post. I have a similar theory about permanent jobs in general. When the pressing project for the country is building a transcontinental railway, then there is a lifetime work for the guy who knows how to figure out which hills the railway should go over and which ones should be tunneled through. The vast majority of work to be done right now is not of that nature.

JBaxter · 1 year ago

While making your own good living in a country which has provided you with so much opportunity, you compare your fellow workers to pieces of interchangeable circuitry, without noticing the irony.

shar · 1 year ago

why we don't say people are worked hard to be dumm enough to not understand why union. How about making people work part time jobs o work hard and not complain to get more hours and not be paid for vacation, sick days and other benefits. If you think the era of unions is past is not because it is usedless, but because people don,t get to see what is their benefits, they read less, know less about other countries, more tv stupidity....

Jessiegirl53 · 1 year ago

Yes--they overspend on themselves! My union Rep in Mammoth Lakes, Ca. is making 97,000/yr (probably more now). Unions are no longer for the people, they are simply for themselves to put more money in their pocket. I was a Union member for over 20 years and when after paying extreme amounts in Union Dues, my representative let me down. Not once, not twice, but three times!!!! I have the documentation on every single thing I went through with this Union and proof they were in the wrong and dropped the ball on me. I am now un-employed, un-insured, 55 yrs of age, and struggling daily to live my life. I fought for over four months in a strike with this Union in 2003/2004, stood by them, heart and soul, lost ALL of my savings. I believed in them and trusted them with all I had. I have been fighting this case since May 2007...all the way to the International's Union (who say "they are not a party to this and can't help me")...sent me back to my Union...who won't help me in the first place. My Rep. had the nerve to let me know while I was shopping in the only store we have here (the one I worked at), in front of other employees/customers that the company won't give in and they are not going to fight for me anymore and that I no longer have my job. Then turned and walked away without another word. I had tried reaching him by phone four times previous to this announcement and he wouldn't return my calls. They believed in me for five months...why did they quit believing? It was very embarrassing and hurt more than words can say...this man makes 97,000/yr!! It's crazy! There isn't anyone that knows me that isn't as upset as me over this. I am no longer a supporter of Unions and probably never will be. I guess my dues only go in their pockets as they grin and walk away. I can't get a lawyer to help me because they say that is what my Union Rep is....my lawyer. I now tell people they are insane to take a union job for ANY reason. They only steal your money and when the chips are down, they desert you. I have not given up on this case...I have not lost yet and with perseverance, I still might get that job back that I had just two years left to receive full medical for life. So, if anyone out there has ANY suggestions for me as to where to go from here, please let me know. I would truly appreciate any help from anyone regarding this. The case is now in the hands of the Trustee for the Union....have no idea where this will take me....called him to ask and he is out of town for a while (no surprise here). Jessie...dbrlebux@aol.com

Jonathan Wilkes · 1 year ago

How exactly does having worked for a startup during the bubble reveal insights about the historical development of the rise of U.S. labor unions in the mid-20th century? I'm familiar with the act of researching a subject, synthesizing information and drawing conclusions, but I'm quite unfamiliar with...

wait, when you wrote about viewing history with "as cold an eye as" etc., is that eye also closed? Oh, I get it now. It's like starting without the facts and having a conclusion, then working backwards based on a priori assumptions about how the world operates.

I think there's a word for that. It reminds me of this great article I once read about how people some people look back on the mid twentieth century as a golden age, but if you think about it...
(see top of page)

Jack Bruce Hughes · 12 months ago

I am not sure that I agree with your historical perspective. No analysis of unionization can be complete without considering the vast upheavals in societies, both in Europe and North America, that accompanied the demand of workers that their rights in the workplace be recognized. People were shot, beaten, bombed, and murdered by private and public armies to preserve the "right" of factory owners to unilaterally define wages and working conditions. I think it is less a case of growth industry managers "deciding" to "overspend" on labor than it was a realignment of the thinking of much of society forced by the solidarity and courage of labor organizers and workers.

Raul Garcia Jr. · 11 months ago

You don't seem to take into concideration the vast waste on do nothing management layers of yesmen and women in the automotive industry. The designers of planned obsolecence, the use of inferior materials and parts. The UAW built products as directed by the greed driven agendas of short sighted CEO's. and the obscene wages and perks paid to them for continuos FAILURE. How about the collusion between big oil and inneficient milage designed into the finished products? Are assembly line workers responsible for that? can you explain how foreign companies got tax breaks up the wazoo to build factories in the USA as we all watched our companies loose market share? European union manufaturers are having us build their products. Why? because we are becoming the new world sweat shop because of union decline. We are turning into Mexico where corporatism, greed and corruption reign supreme. You realy should do more open minded research. For all the words in your article, you only say do away with unions, something you've been told has outlived its need.

Ana · 1 year ago

If anyone wish to learn how forex trading works, without loosing money oin long term tradings http://www.fxpalace.com/ and babypips are great places with forex tutorials and articles. Very good places for any forex trader.