Class War in America: the Book |
|
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to download this material for personal, not-for-profit, use. If you duplicate it for others, attribute it to Charles M. Kelly, and with a link to this site. Print copies are still available at Amazon and Barnes & Noble, and used copies are widely available on the internet. 7. All
Power to Investors; Absolutely
None for Workers If
lying is a sin, most Republicans are surely going to hell—for saying that
unions are bad for workers. They deliberately distort reality when they
claim that union members are worse off than nonunion
because: 1. Union
members have to pay their own money (dues) to the unions that represent
them. 2. Union
leaders are interested only in their own incomes and not in the workers’
welfare. 3. Union
dues are used to support political candidates that some members may not
support. 4. Workers
would lose their “right to work” if they had refused to join a union in
the first place. Of
course, it is true that: 1. Union
members pay dues. They have to because it costs money to protect the
interests of workers—to hire lawyers, gain public support, research the
issues, finance a strike, etc. Whereas companies have almost unlimited
resources to fight against the interests of workers—unions have virtually
no financial resources to defend their interests, except for
dues. 2. It’s
unfortunate, but true: Some union leaders are selfish and interested only
in their own welfare. But the same can be said about executives in
corporations, officers in the military and clergymen in the church. Any
large human organization is going to have corrupt persons in it. But
still, unions are the only organizations specifically dedicated to
protecting the interests of workers. 3. It’s
also true that union dues are used to support specific political
candidates. If workers’ interests are to be represented in Congress, even
a little bit, funds must be raised to fight the conservative politicians
that free-spending corporations have already bought off.
4. When
all workers in a company must join a union because the majority voted for
its representation, it doesn’t mean that some workers lose their “right to
work.” It just means that the lackeys of management who don’t want to pay
union dues—yet, by law, still receive all the benefits of a union—lose the
right to destroy their coworkers’ collective bargaining
power. If
working Americans don’t have collective power, they have no power. Because
of conservative anti-labor legislation and the appointment of conservative
judges to the courts, American corporations have been able to ensure that
there is always a supply of hungry unemployed workers who will sabotage
the efforts of those who have guts enough to unite and demand something
more than a poverty wage. The
only reason working Americans experienced wage growth and improving
working conditions from the late 1930s to the mid-1970s was that they had
power. The increase in wages during those good years were
not: §
The
result of a growing economy (which we also have had for the past 20 years
of stagnating wages). §
The
result of growing productivity (again, which we also have had for the past
20 years). §
The
result of increasing work skills (workers also have been developing their
skills over the past 20 years). §
The
result of low taxes on the wealthy (to the contrary, taxes on the wealthy
from the 1930s and prior to 1982 were the highest in our nation’s
history). It’s
only because working Americans had power between the mid-’30s and the
mid-’70s, that they were able to form strong unions and, as a result, had
significant clout with Congress. Through legislation, unions were able to
get the 40-hour workweek, the 8-hour workday, overtime pay, medical
insurance, pension benefit protection, and a host of safety protections in
the workplace—for all workers,
nonunion as well. Even
today, after 20 years of Republican attacks on unions—and their resulting
declining power—union members still make more money than nonunion workers.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 1998 union members’ total
compensation in private industry was $23.59 per hour; non-union workers
was just $17.80.1
What makes these figures even more significant is that the incomes
of non-union workers would be even lower than they are now if it were not for the upward
pressures that unions exert on all wages. For
the real reasons financial conservatives are against unions, read the
following pages. Their own words, in their most prestigious conservative
financial publications, prove beyond any doubt that §
unions
protect their members from the predatory instincts of investors and
corporate executives, and §
unions
cause the wages and working conditions to improve even in nonunion
corporations and businesses. What
caused truck drivers’ work lives to deteriorate, trucking executives say,
is cost-cutting forced by intense competition. After deregulation opened
truck routes to new entrants in 1980, carriers turned to cheaper,
nonunion drivers and employed no-frills
trucks.5 Compare
these three articles with the previous Wall Street Journal
editorial: §
Even
Business Week recognized that
when unions have power they can cause an “upward push on wages to gel
among workers generally.” In other words, even nonunion workers benefit
from unions. §
The
ultra-conservative Fortune
considered union jobs to be “lucrative.” §
Again,
note that “union settlements” created upward pressures on “nonunion
shops.” As unions lost their power, and became less of a threat to
nonunion employers, those employers felt less pressure to pay their own
workers “more or less equally.” §
And
what caused the truck drivers’ lives to “deteriorate”? Companies destroyed
their unions. When workers lose their collective power—pay, working conditions,
safety, you name it—it all deteriorates. If companies can save money by
pitting individual workers against each other, no matter how unfair or
immoral, they’ll do it. If a class of worker is getting decent pay (union
drivers)—then corporations will abandon them for whoever is desperate
enough to work for less (nonunion drivers).
This
deterioration in moral standards has been a conscious conservative
strategy: Destroy workers’ power to collectively bargain—and, as Business Week explained under the
head “Sweeney’s Blitz,” get at least two decades of wage stagnation and
heightened inequality: Today,
though, workers may be receptive to labor’s renewed message, coming as it
does after two decades of wage
stagnation and heightened inequality. In the 1980s, for example, the
10-year average earnings of the bottom fifth of male wage-earners plunged
by 34%. Now more than half of
families say two members must work to make ends meet. And constant
downsizing has chewed away at pay and job stability, even among
professionals.… If unions do regain power,
Corporate America is certain to feel the squeeze. With just a tenth of
private-sector employees in unions today, most employers have had a free
hand to hold down labor costs. Reunionization would force up pay and
benefits, which typically are 20% higher among union members.… Globalization and the growth
of services, too, will continue. Employers still have the upper hand in
most unionization battles.6 In
a rather comprehensive and succinct way, Business Week here summarized why
conservatives hate unions, why conservative politicians enact anti-union
legislation and appoint anti-worker judges to the courts, and what these
actions have resulted in: §
Corporations
and businesses have been able to achieve two decades of wage stagnation
and heightened inequality. §
In
our glorious Reagan ’80s, the 10-year average earnings of the bottom fifth
of male wage-earners plunged by 34%. §
More
than half of families say that two members must work to make ends
meet. §
Constant
downsizing chewed away at pay and job stability, even among
professionals. §
A
flat-out admission: Corporate America was able to achieve these feats
by, among other things, taking away union power—they’ve had a “free hand
to hold down labor costs.” §
Another
F.O.A. (flat-out admission): If workers could unionize, it would force up
pay and benefits, which typically are 20% higher among union
members. How
clear can it be? The future of workers’ pay, benefits and working
conditions depends upon who controls our government: Anti-worker
Republicans and conservative Democrats, or liberal Democrats and independent
Populists. As usual, it’s all about money and power, and right now
Republicans and conservative Democrats have almost all of
it. Those
who fail to appreciate the degenerating effects of anti-unionism should
look at the new conservative model for capitalism as described by The Wall Street Journal under the
head “Threat of Cheap Labor Abroad Complicates Decisions to Unionize”: “You
all knew what the job paid when you applied for it,” Edward Hakim,
president and co-owner of Monroe Manufacturing Corp., reminds about 200
workers—almost all earning around the minimum wage of $4.25 an
hour—gathered on the plant floor. “There are no chains on your legs. You
can go. Go ahead.” Silence. Some look down. One
woman, sitting at her machine, gnaws nervously on her knuckle. No one
budges. “Listen,” Mr. Hakim continues, “if I can’t compete in America with
American workers, I’ll take your jobs overseas where we can be
competitive!”7 The
Journal went on to report that
Monroe Corporation was able to gain market share by underpricing its
competitors, who were mostly unionized and offered workers health plans,
pensions, and unbelievably high wages of $7 to $9 an hour. In addition,
Mr. Hakim told his workers that if they ever struck they would be
permanently replaced, that the union was racist (the work force is
predominantly black) and that his company was
bankrupt. But
in an interview, Mr. Hakim said that Monroe was “strongly profitable,
virtually debt-free,” and that millions spent on new machines in the past
two years “came straight out of profits.” When
Republicans and conservative Democrats create conditions where workers
cannot unionize—or if they are unionized and have no
power: §
Workers
must “agree” to whatever pay and working conditions our modern barbarians
offer. §
The
recurrent threat, and the theme of the last two decades: “I’ll take your
jobs overseas where we can be competitive!” Of course, “competitive” means
that workers must compete (by
sacrificing their incomes)—so that business owners and corporations can
have outrageous profits. §
The
conservative principle: Enable the barbarians to destroy work standards
and pay levels, and thus lower costs for everyone. His “lower costs” force
moral competitors to do the same or they lose market share and,
eventually, go out of business.
Result: Conditions and pay for all workers
deteriorate. §
There
are no moral restrictions on
employers when they resist the efforts of workers to bargain collectively.
Employers can threaten them with the loss of their jobs (“permanently
replaced”), they can lie about the union being racist, and they can lie
about their own financial condition. §
And
the owner’s increasing millions that came “straight out of profits” are
irrelevant to workers’ low pay and deplorable working
conditions. Lack
of union power always results
in lower wages and worse conditions for working Americans. Another Journal article, under the head
“With Housing Strong, Builders Often Find Skilled Help Lacking,” reported
that But
during the 1970s and 1980s, those traditions [well-paid construction jobs]
began eroding as major corporations and other customers, in a quest for
lower building costs, awarded more jobs to non-union contractors.
As unions’ market share
dwindled, cutthroat competition among such firms drove down wages. In some
regions, especially the right-to-work Southwest, construction wages fell
even further for experienced workers, into the $12-to-$15-an-hour range
with no benefits. By last year, even the
Associated Builders and Contractors, whose members are primarily nonunion,
was sounding the alarm. In one newsletter, Mr. Bennett, the trade group
executive, wrote that many construction workers could no longer afford
homes or health insurance.… “When you squash down, year after year, on
wages, you don’t attract a good person into the industry,” he
observes.8 Although
the subject here was union versus
nonunion, remember the issue that is always in the background: The
workers who lost jobs in manufacturing immediately become competitors for
construction jobs, especially the nonunion jobs. Conservatives are pitting
worker against worker from many directions. It’s
automatic: §
As
unions’ market share dwindles, cutthroat competition becomes the norm and
the downward spiral of wages is assured. Workers at nonunion companies see
that union sympathizers are fired with impunity, and there are plenty of
workers who are desperate enough to work without a union
contract. §
This
excerpt is a classic illustration of why Republicans love “right to
work” laws. Wherever unions
are weak, employers have virtually all of the power. Even experienced
workers must compete with each
other for the constantly lowering levels of pay and benefits, or no
benefits. §
Conservatives
sometimes go too far. In this case, even nonunion construction workers
began to lose their enthusiasm for work when the pay was so low that they
could “no longer afford homes or health insurance.” §
What
an admission: The people who loudly proclaim that unions are bad for
workers are the same ones who cynically “squash down, year after year, on
wages” when they know workers are defenseless. Under
the head “Inequality,” England’s prestigious conservative financial
publication, The Economist,
gave its analysis of why the rich got richer, and the poor got poorer in
the ’80s: All
countries have been buffeted by the forces of changing technology and
stronger global competition. So why should wage differentials in most of
continental Europe have changed by much less? The answer is that
deregulation in America and Britain has allowed market forces to do their
work, whereas in continental Europe powerful trade unions, centralized
wage bargaining and high minimum wages have propped up the wages of the
low-paid. Indeed, pay differentials
narrowed through the 1980s in western Germany, where trade-union
membership has held steady at around 40% of workers over the past 20
years; in America, membership has fallen from 30% to 12% since 1970. A
study by Richard Freeman of Harvard University confirms that, in general,
wage inequalities are smallest in highly unionised
countries.9 Again,
a conservative publication tells us that global “free trade” and weakened
unions are major reasons for the income and wealth disparity between the
rich and everyone else. A “lightly regulated labour market” means that the
government has given corporations the freedom to ruthlessly control wages
and working conditions. Republicans
have convinced working Americans that the biggest reason they are losing
the race with inflation is that the government is taxing them too much.
It’s true that conservatives have shifted the tax burdens from the rich to
middle- and low-income Americans. But,
as The Economist points
out: §
The
major reason for the wealth
disparity between rich and poor is
“wage differential.” Not surprisingly—and despite Republicans blaming
the financial problems of the poor- and middle-class on taxes—income is the primary determinant
of financial health. §
“Market
forces doing their work” in America and Britain means that conservative
politicians passed laws that gave corporations the power to relentlessly
control those forces. §
The
governments in continental Europe, on the other hand, allowed workers to
organize (“powerful trade unions”), to bargain collectively (“centralized
wage bargaining”), and to insist on “high minimum wages” for workers. §
Want
more proof that unions help minimize income and wealth disparity? The Economist gives it, via Harvard University: “Wage
inequalities are smallest in highly unionised
countries.” Today’s
Union Members Look
at who’s organizing today. Under the head “Joe Hill Takes On Joe College,”
Business Week noted that
college professors and students are “feeling squeezed” and are turning to
unions: And
as old definitions of teacher and student change, profs and grad students
alike are turning to unions for help in keeping up salaries and benefits
and negotiating job security. About 40% of all faculty are organized
today, up from about a third in 1982, making higher education a key growth
area for white-collar union organizing.… So
far, most of the activity has occurred at public universities, where state
laws make unionization easier. Now, the trend could spread to private
universities as well—at least among graduate students (federal law largely
prevents unionization by professors at private
universities).10 The
Wall Street Journal
also cited a traditionally conservative group that experienced a
surprising change of heart in its attitudes toward unions. Under the head
“Doctors’ Union Interests Become a Spreading Syndrome,” the Journal described how some of the
most powerful professionals in the country suddenly found collective power
to be necessary: About
2,100 doctors, part of doctor-owned MDNY Healthcare Inc. on New York’s
Long Island, affiliate with the Office and professional Employees
International Union, which already represents 8,000 podiatrists in
Northeastern states. “There’s
no doubt that physicians’ interests in unions are rising across the
country,” says Dr. William Mahood, a trustee of the American Medical
Association.11
The
new conservative values of corporations—greed and materialism, to the
exclusion of virtually all other values—have only one antidote: employee
collective bargaining power: §
In
universities, the administrators, athletic coaches, and funded “stars” get
unending raises in their incomes. On the other hand, those who do the
intended work of the university, professors and grad students, must turn
to unions to protect their “salaries and benefits and job
security.” §
Whether
or not anyone can organize depends upon the laws in effect.
Right-to-work laws and the
“federal laws governing private universities” are conservative tools to
destroy collective bargaining rights, and to give all the power to
investors and their administrators. §
Doctors—traditionally
a very conservative group—are beginning to see how the philosophy of greed
and materialism will impact their professional standards. At this point,
doctors’ concerns appear to be less about wages than about doing the work
of their profession. They are finding out that when cost cutting becomes
the dominant criterion of managers and their investors, profit becomes
more important than the original purpose of the
organization. In
both cases—professors and doctors—the ones who are committed to doing the
intended work of the organization are the ones who must make all the
sacrifices. Those who profit most are those with the power:
administrators, bosses, and investors. America’s
Third-World Values It’s
a shame what has happened to our country. The U.S., traditionally a leader
in the moral treatment of workers, is now the world leader of greed and
materialism. The Wall Street
Journal inadvertently highlighted what is happening as the United
States sells-out its workers. Under the head “In Employment Policy,
America and Europe Make a Sharp Contrast,” it explained that “U.S. spawns
jobs, but often ill-paid; Germany offers high pay, few
openings”: Although
there are poorly paid workers everywhere, only the U.S. tolerates having
millions of its people accurately classified as “the working poor.” On the
other hand, chronic unemployment is an enormous problem in Europe but less
of one in the U.S. Thus, in confronting a
common problem—waning demand for low-skilled workers—the U.S. and
Continental Europe have responded in very different
ways. The U.S. creates lots of
jobs. But by weakening unions and failing to adjust the minimum wage for
inflation, it has allowed the wages of those at the bottom to fall. The
result is companies that are more globally competitive, but also a
widening gap between rich and poor and an uncomfortably large number of
workers living in or near poverty.12 Continental
Europe is now the defender of the values of fairness and justice for
workers, and the United States has become one of its major anti-worker
antagonists: §
The
Journal subhead, “Spawns jobs,
but often ill-paid; Germany offers high pay, few openings,” indicates that
Germany and Continental Europe are losing the “jobs war.” Does that mean
that the U.S. is doing it right? §
No,
the opposite is true: The United
States is the one that sold out its workers. The U.S.—along with such
morally principled countries as Indonesia, Guatemala, Mexico, China,
Haiti, and other Third World countries—undercut the moral positions of the
governments of Germany and Continental Europe in order to rob them of
their exportable jobs. §
It’s
the same old story: Immoral businesspersons—or countries—will drive moral
persons, or countries, out of the job market. When greed and materialism
are the only criteria, anything goes. Those who most brutalize workers get
the jobs. §
The
Journal’s observation that “By weakening
unions and failing to adjust the minimum wage for inflation, (the U.S.)
has allowed the wages of those
at the bottom to fall”—isn’t the half of it. Republicans and conservative
Democrat politicians deliberately
caused wages to fall! And destroying unions was a significant part of
their strategy. Although
President Clinton has, by and large, betrayed his populist supporters, in
some cases “The White House” has attempted to defend the rights of working
Americans against the Republican onslaught. It proposed new rules that
would allow the government to reject contract bids from companies with
unsatisfactory employment practices, and would bar the government from
reimbursing contractors for the costs of fighting off union organizing
drives. The Wall Street Journal
reported that the “White House Plans Rules for Firms To Protect Unions”:
In
a nod to organized labor, the Clinton administration will issue new
guidelines requiring companies doing business with the government to
maintain good relations with their workers and the unions that represent
them.… At the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce, Jeffrey H. Joseph, vice president for domestic policy, said the
new rules almost certainly would raise the ire of congressional
Republicans. “Obviously, the Congress is not going to stand still for this
kind of stuff,” he said. “It’s just like trying to hang out a red flag in
front of a bull.”13 Working
Americans should read The Wall
Street Journal every day. It’s a textbook illustration of conservative
propaganda techniques, and it clearly describes which politicians actually
fight for their rights. According to the Journal: §
Protecting
workers is never “protecting workers,” it is a “nod to organized labor.”
This automatically leads the reader to react emotionally to union
“bosses,” dues, and all the other phony distractions that have been
created by the Republican right wing. §
Do
congressional Republicans believe that companies should be able to have an
unsatisfactory record of
employment practices—and still get government contracts? Of course they
do. Because then, unscrupulous
businesses, by ruthlessly cutting labor costs, will either get all the government contracts, or they will drive down wages
generally. Either way, our richest citizens will save on taxes and
wages—and the only persons to suffer will be the
workers. §
The
Journal and the Republicans not
only want to allow unscrupulous businesses to get government contracts,
they want to have the government finance their fights with the
unions! One
would think that the massive leverage corporations now have over unions
would allow them to relax a bit their hell-bent single-minded urge to
totally destroy them. Sadly, not so. In a commentary for Business Week, Aaron Bernstein
updated the 1999 conditions for union certification, and explained why
“unions only win half the elections held at private companies, but are
voted in 85% of the time by public-sector
employees”: What
is the probable cause? The increasing use of antiunion tactics by private
employers. According to analyses of data from the National Labor Relations
Board (NLRB) by labor researcher Kate Bronfenbrenner of Cornell
University, companies are increasingly using every weapon—legal or not—to
thwart attempts to organize their workers. A third of the companies in
the NLRB study illegally fired union supporters during elections,
Bronfenbrenner found. That was up from a mere 8% in the 1960s. Half
threatened to close facilities if the union won…14
American
corporations have found—after over 20 years of conservative legislation
and the appointments of conservative judges to the courts—that present
pro-labor laws have no teeth, and the courts are decidedly biased in favor
of business. The penalties for firing union sympathizers are incidental
and quite affordable, and the new free trade laws allow them to threaten
workers with impunity. Even
with their severely reduced power, unions are still feared by America’s
conservatives—and their publicly stated fears prove the positive effects
that unions still have on workers’ lives. In September, 1999, Barron’s was still warning its
readers about how unions might increase wages: Then
there are the recent rumblings on the organized labor front. After years
of defeat and paltry wage gains, some unions are winning hefty pay
increases, raising the specter that our historically tight employment
markets may finally cause wage inflation. In one marquee-caliber
victory, machinists at Boeing won a 10% bonus and annual salary increases
of 4% for two years and 3% in the third year. In another, Northwest
Airlines offered flight attendants pay raises averaging 25% over five
years and an average 80% boost in pension
benefits.15 The
articles quoted in this chapter represent a tiny fraction of hundreds of
similar articles that explain why the Fed doesn’t have to raise the prime
interest rate to keep wages from going up. In almost every case, the
weakening of unions is listed as a major cause of wage stagnation and the
deterioration of worker protections—and the record corporate profits—for
the past 20 years. While
conservatives delight in their victory over American workers, they are
often remarkably frank in admitting the unfairness of it all—“years of
paltry wage gains.” They chalk it up to the nature of free markets,
totally ignoring the fact that they strictly control those markets. Despite
the fact that conservatives and their corporations have gained
overwhelming power over unions, our “family values” Republicans in
Congress continue to attempt to further weaken the power of workers to
collectively bargain for fairer pay and more humane working
conditions. Now
it’s time to look at the results of the conservative attacks on working
Americans that were described in this and the previous six chapters: the
victimization of American workers. Now go to:
|
—