Union Legislation (updated)
There are few economic issues on which the Church’s teaching is more clear than the importance of organized labor within a market economy. Here, for example, is John Paul II in Laborem Exercens:
All these rights, together with the need for the workers themselves to
secure them, give rise to yet another right: the right of association, that
is to form associations for the purpose of defending the vital interests of
those employed in the various professions. These associations are called labour
or trade unions. The vital interests of the workers are to a certain extent
common for all of them; at the same time however each type of work, each
profession, has its own specific character which should find a particular
reflection in these organizations.
. . . . [M]odern unions grew up from the struggle of the
workers-workers in general but especially the industrial workers-to protect
their just rights vis-a-vis the entrepreneurs and the owners of the
means of production. Their task is to defend the existential interests of
workers in all sectors in which their rights are concerned. The experience of
history teaches that organizations of this type are an indispensable element
of social life, especially in modern industrialized societies. . . . It is always to be hoped that,
thanks to the work of their unions, workers will not only have more, but
above all be more: in other words, that they will realize their humanity
more fully in every respect.
Building on John Paul’s discussion, the US Bishops said the following in Economic Justice for All:
104. The Church fully supports the right of workers
to form unions or other associations to secure their rights to fair
wages and working conditions. This is a specific application of the
more general right to associate. In the words of Pope John Paul II,
“The experience of history teaches that organizations of this type are
an indispensable element of social life, especially in modern
industrial societies” [58]. Unions may also legitimately resort to
strikes where this is the only available means to the justice owed to
workers [59]. No one may deny the right to organize without attacking
human dignity itself. Therefore, we firmly oppose organized efforts,
such as those regrettably now seen in this country, to break existing
unions and prevent workers from organizing. Migrant agricultural
workers today are particularly in need of the protection, including the
right to organize and bargain collectively. U.S. labor law reform is
needed to meet these problems as well as to provide more timely and
effective remedies for unfair labor practices.
In fact, in many cases in which the magisterium talks about leaving questions of economic justice to be resolved in the private sphere, according to the principle of subsidiarity, it has in mind not an unregulated market, but rather the resolution of those issues through negotiations between employee unions and employers. For example, in Centesimus Annus, John Paul said:
[S]ociety and the State must ensure wage levels adequate for the
maintenance of the worker and his family, including a certain amount for
savings. This requires a continuous effort to improve workers’ training and
capability so that their work will be more skilled and productive, as well as
careful controls and adequate legislative measures to block shameful forms of
exploitation, especially to the disadvantage of the most vulnerable workers, of
immigrants and of those on the margins of society. The role of trade unions in
negotiating minimum salaries and working conditions is decisive in this
area.
In other words, unions are a key part of the Church’s conception of the sorts of mediating institutions that take some of the pressure off the state to attempt to fully implement economic justice through legal interventions in the market. And so it is worth more than a passing notice that the Democrats are trying to do something that will (hopefully) help reverse the decades-long decline in private sector unionization:
The legislation, also called the card check bill, would certify a
union as soon as a majority of workers at a plant signed cards
authorizing it. Currently, employers can require elections, overseen by
the National Labor Relations Board, on whether a union should be recognized.
The
labor rights group American Rights at Work said that, in the run-up to
such elections, 80 percent of employers hire union-busting consultants
and 90 percent force employees to attend one-on-one anti-union meetings
with their supervisors.
The legislation would toughen penalties
against employers who violate worker rights during organizing drives
and set up a binding arbitration process to prevent companies from
thwarting a new union by bargaining in bad faith on an initial contract.
Perhaps unsuprisingly, the White House has threatened to veto. In opposition to the bill, Republicans are raising arguments about protecting workers’ rights not to unionize and relying on a rhetoric that demonizes labor unions (”union bosses,” etc.) in a way that is fundamentally at odds with the Catholic attitude towards these organizations:
The celebrations may be short-lived. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has pledged to block the bill and the White House says President Bush will veto the measure if it reaches his desk.
The House vote was short of the two-thirds majority that would be needed to overturn a veto. Thirteen Republicans voted for the measure; two Democrats voted against it.
…Boehner said the bill really was about ”taking care of union bosses. …
This is an effort to help them get more members, to make it easier for them to
sign them up and to intimidate them to sign cards.”
The case for the charge that card elections open the door to union intimidiation is less than robust. First, there is data that suggests that employers are far more likely to attempt to coerce workers during a protracted election campaign than unions are during card-check elections. Via American Prospect (HT Kevin Drum):
A poll commissioned by American Rights at Work (a pro-union org),
Rutgers University, and Jesuit Wheeling University surveyed 430
randomly-selected workers from worksites where employees had sought
unions either through the NLRB election process or card-check. The
survey included workers who voted both for and against the union, and
included campaigns in which the unions both won and lost. The Eagleton
Research Center and Rutgers conducted the calls over a couple of weeks
in 2005.
The results were telling: 22% of workers surveyed said management
“coerced them a great deal.’ 6% said the same for unions. During the
NLRB election, 46% of workers complained of management pressure. During
card check elections, 14% complained of union pressure. Workers in NLRB
elections were twice as likely as workers in card check elections to
report that management coerced them to oppose (it’s worth noting that
in card-check elections, 23% of workers complained of management
coercion — more than complained of union coercion). Workers in NLRB
elections were more than 53% as likely to report that management
threatened to eliminate their jobs.
In addition, the leverage that an unestablished union has over potential members is not nearly as great as that exercised by employers, who can, after all, fire their employees, depriving them of their livelihood.
UPDATE: I’ve updated the original post to add some more references to the documents of Catholic Social Teaching re. unions. and the data regarding coercion.
on March 2nd, 2007 at 1:11 pm
If my memory servces me correctly (and I don’t count on that 100% anymore), some of the major resistance points to unionization are the Catholic hospitals.
So much for in-house concern for “economic issues on which the Church’s teaching is more clear”
on March 2nd, 2007 at 1:14 pm
Post Reagan, there has been more and more talk about the excesses, real and unreal, of unions.
Having been both union and management in my career, this talk is mainly driven by the desire to retain complete control -and many unfortunate examples can be found in our own Church, both schools and health care.
Another case where ideology will drive policy. - and condition the religious values of some.
on March 2nd, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Jimmy — I think that might fall more into the box of the difference between teaching and doing. But it’s a valuable point.
on March 2nd, 2007 at 3:10 pm
Eduardo,
Again you are creating an impression that Catholic Social Teaching nearly mandates a particular point of view on a piece of economic legislation. Catholics can reasonably disagee about something like the best way to certify unions.
The Church’s teachings are meant for the entire world, and they don’t mandate unions. They state that unions can be a valuable mediating institution and should not be prohibited. That’s a long way from saying that we have an obligation to promote them no matter the circumstances.
The decline in unions in the US has had far more to do with the union’s own ineptitude and failure to adapt to economic change than any sort of conspiracy. The current system, that is under attack, has been in place for a long time, and the unions weren’t complaining about the system when they were growing. They are the ones who want to “fix” a system they agreed to.
on March 2nd, 2007 at 3:26 pm
Sean — perhaps you can point to the place where I say that “Catholic Social Teaching nearly mandates a particular point of view on . . . the best way to certify unions” or that Catholics cannot “reasonably disagree about” this question.
On the question whether Catholic teaching “mandates unions,” I’m wondering what you think the Pope might mean when he calls unions “indispensable.” I take him to be using the word in its ordinary sense as meaning “absolutely necessary.”
I’m sure you’re right that the Church’s teaching does not mandate a particular form of union elections — how could it? I never claimed or even suggested such a thing. But I do think the Church considers the existence of vibrant unions to be utterly essential within a modern capitalist society. In that sense, it does “mandate[] unions.” The slow decline of unions in this country, especially within the private sector, is therefore cause for concern.
Democrats have proposed something to try to help reverse the decline, something that seems like it might actually work, at least somewhat. Republicans oppose it. Fair enough. But what have Republicans proposed or done in their 6 years in control of the political branches to reverse the decline? What do you propose?
Do you see any tension between Republican hostility to unions and Catholic teaching? Or, in your view, does the Republican party perfectly reflect the Church’s views on every conceivable issue?
on March 2nd, 2007 at 3:31 pm
In the spirit of, “I cannot hear what you are saying, your actions are speaking too loud,” was the scandal in the Diocese of Brownsville t(TX) that came to a head in June, 2003 (see kanickers.blogspot.com and look back to that time). The diocesan administration engaged in a probably illegal attempt to prevent the unionization of parish employees, who were organizing to protect their pension rights and their right to due process when threatened with termination.
on March 2nd, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Thanks, Gerald. And don’t forget, of course, the Supreme Court case in NLRB v. Catholic Archbishop of Chicago, in which the Chicago archdiocese refused to bargain with lay teachers at Catholic schools, who had certified a union: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?friend=nytimes&navby=case&court=us&vol=440&invol=490
on March 2nd, 2007 at 4:15 pm
Eduardo,
You are confirming my point. There is no reason to conclude that the decline in union membership in the country is ipso facto a negative thing that needs to be “fixed,” or that Catholic social teaching mandates we stop this decline. As I said, I think that decline has been the result of many factors, but not an affirmative supression movement.
The availability of unions is indispensible, but that doesn’t mean they are necessary for all workers under all circumstances. Some of the loss in union membership has resulted in members themselves de-certifying the union - are those workers to be required to have a union because they are indispensible?
I don’t think Republican policies perfectly reflect Catholic teaching, but neither do I think that free market solutions to socio-economic issues are necessarily contrary to Catholic doctrine. Right back at you though - the hypocrisy stick is pointy at both ends - I haven’t heard say much about the Dem’s positions on abortion and same sex marriage. Last time I looked the Church was taking a dim view of those.
on March 2nd, 2007 at 4:34 pm
Sean — I’m not proving your point. You’re just revising your objection.
And, by the way, I’m the first to admit that the Republicans are right on abortion. As I said in the comments to this post: http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/index.php/?id=687
So, no, that stick is not pointy at both ends.
It’s also not quite as pointy for people who are not normally such sticklers for Church authority, as I take it you are. I’m willing to say that I disagree with the Church’s position on gay marriage. But you need to be able to say that you are agreeing with the Church about everything, including the importance of unions. The problem is that the Pope doesn’t say the “availability of unions” is indispensable. He says that actual, living, breathing, working unions are indispensable, especially in modern capitalist societies (like our own).
So I really fail to see the basis for your position that the decline of unions down to the point where, today, fewer than 1 in 10 private sector workers is unionized, is not a cause for concern, as the U.S. bishops correctly observe.
on March 2nd, 2007 at 5:49 pm
1) Republicans are not uniformly hostile to unions. Public sector unions have grown even under Republican auspices. Quite often at the local level and even at the national level they are quite cozy with particular groups (e.g., construction unions, teamsters, police, etc.). This particular bill seems to focus on a narrow issue, the replacement of the secret ballot with a card-checking procedure, about which there is plenty of room for dispute.
2) Eduardo thinks it’s obvious that Catholic social thought should oppose a decline in private sector unions. But shouldn’t our concern lessen if the decline is due to informed choices on the part of employees rather than the result of union busting tactics (for which this bill seems to be designed).
3) I assume that Catholic social thought allows for a distinction between public and private sector unions. Is it possible to view with concern the growth in unionism among our public servants? I can see many reasons why a Catholic might be concerned about the growth and power of teachers unions.
on March 2nd, 2007 at 6:05 pm
I was raised to believe that the only thing standing between us and starvation was the UMWA. I have belonged to the Steelworkers and the American Federation of Teachers.
I still believe in the idea of organized labor, and I do see the right to form collective bargaining units as consistent with the church’s social justice teachings.
But unions have helped maintain a two-tiered workforce for many years, and I am more skeptical when unions claim they want to help the working man and woman.
Here’s what happens:
An organization maintains a small, full-time, well-paid workforce with benefits.
A larger number of part-timers are hired on a contract basis at lower salaries and no benefits. “Part-time” is considered 30 or 35 hours per week–just a few hours under the full-time requirement that would mandate union membership.
If part-timers try to get into the union, full-timers generally vote to keep them out. Why would they want them in? It will simply mean that the organization must then pay higher salaries and benefits to more people–and their perks will be reduced.
The union and its members will make noises about opening more full-time positions. It is sometimes a bargaining issue–and one that is very easy to concede during negotiations because it doesn’t cost union members anything.
The good that DOES come out of a union is that non-unionized part-timers generally get some kind of token raise when the union members get larger wage and benefit increases. Non-union full-timers in management also get raises, because it is seen as “wrong” for administrators and managers to make less money than the people they supervise.
Unions may also bargain for better working conditions for unionized workers, which non-union workers will also benefit from.
Democrats–and I say this as a registered Democrat–have always relied on the union vote. I do not see the party’s effort to strengthen unions as automatically leading to an increased standard of living for all workers.
But I’m sure they’ll spin it that way.
on March 2nd, 2007 at 6:14 pm
I agree with the distinction between public and private sector unions, and, like you, I’m somewhat more skeptical of the necessity for unions in the public sector, in which employers are not as driven by the profit motive to squeeze everything they can out of employees.
As to (2) — I think, Patrick, that the concern is lessened but not eliminated. It seems to me that coercion against joining unions is a violation of the right of workers to associate, and so unjust. I think there’s good evidence that this sort of coercion is going on, and that the bill in question would help address it.
But decline of unionism, whatever the cause, is a problem notwithstanding the absence of coercion.
The Church’s views on the value of unions within a capitalist society (as I understand them, but you are obviously free to judge for yourself, which is why my post consisted almost entirely of quotations) focus on the very valuable role that they play as a counterweight to employer power and not just on their relationship to workers’ rights to associate. Declining unions increase the need for government intervention in the economy to protect the rights of workers. All things being equal, the Church favors non-state solutions to economic injustice, and eliminating unions from the equation makes those more difficult to achieve.
In addition to the negative impact declining unions have on the balance of power within the economy, the decline of unionism (even if not the result of coercion) would be a cause for concern if it resulted from a general decline in social expression among workers. An analogy might be useful here to Robert Putnam’s work on the decline of associative activity among Americans more broadly since WWII. This turning inward is a problem even if it’s not the result of coercion. And to the extent that declining unionization results from that turning inward, it is a cause for concern.
on March 2nd, 2007 at 6:49 pm
Eduardo,
If unions are in decline because workers don’t want them how can it possibly be a problem?
The decline is due mostly to changes in the workforce in a post industrial information economy. Patrick is right, if the decline was due to coercion on the part of capital (management), the very thing unions are supposed to counteract, that’s one thing, but if the change is primarily the result of free exchanges of labor and capital, then there is nothing wrong with that under Catholic social teaching.
Unions, as Jean points out, aren’t always what they are cracked up to be. They frequently take advantage of younger, newer members for the benefit of older ones. In many places, including my own city, unions have a long history of violence and political corruption.
As I said - an indispensible tool when needed - like a hammer - but you don’t need a hammer to screw in a light bulb.
on March 3rd, 2007 at 1:42 pm
In his revealing comment above Eduardo claims that firms in the private sector are
“driven by the profit motive to squeeze everything they can out of employees.”
This is a widely shared assumption and it no doubt motivates many on the left who are promoting the card-checking bill. But I believe it’s a caricature. Gary Becker, who is as partial to the free market as anyone, argues that to maximize profits firms must hire the most productive people, pay them a fully competitive wage and cater to their best customers. To do otherwise is to leave money on the table, an outcome that a truly profit driven ogre would find intolerable.
If by any chance the left-wing views about business tactics accurately described a sure means of gaining filthy lucre you can be sure hundreds of get-rich-quick-by-squeezing-employees treatises would appear in the bookstores. Classes on best ways to exploit the masses would be over-subscribed in business schools. No doubt there are a few consultants claiming special expertise in the exploitative arts, but if anyone is so gullible as to believe in the power of consultants, for good or ill, he has been leading a truly sheltered life.
Goldman Sachs doesn’t make its outsized profits by paying its employees the minimum wage and neither did IBM or GE in their heyday. On the contrary, the shrewdest managers argue that one secret to success is to hire people smarter than themselves and pay them what they’re worth.
I don’t think much can be found in Putnam about union busting techniques as a cause of declining social capital. It’s difficult to tell what his current position is because he’s currently under attack from the diversity police. But in the past he blamed television (perhaps a new edition might focus on blogging) for the decline in social capital. At any rate his solution to the problem of declining social capital doesn’t point to a clear preference for union growth over, say, volunteer work, church activities or even communal bowling leagues.
Those who feel that the only way to improve their economic lot is to bolster union strength may be surprised at the fact reported in today’s Times: 47 million people look for a new job each month. When the job market is that fluid there won’t be a lot of money to be gained by managers squeezing employees. Under these conditions union leaders may be merely reinforcing feudal ties rather than enhancing a vibrant economy.
on March 3rd, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Patrick, I agree that what you describe is how wise market-driven capitalists act in order to retain people for administrative/management jobs.
Line- or even skills-level employees are sometimes treated somewhat differently, as interchangeable cogs in the machinery.
My husband is a cabinet maker. He hit the top of his pay scale four years ago. When he turned 50, his employer axed him. My husband was devastated.
The boss, however, explained that while my husband did a great job, it was now cheaper to incur the expense of hiring and training a new guy who wouldn’t hit the top end of the pay scale for another 15 years.
Plus after age 50, carpenters start to get repetitive stress syndrome and other health problems, leading to lost productivity and higher health benefit costs.
Even though my husband had never missed work because of a work related injury or health problem.
Once this employer got rid of the older carpenters, discovered other firms were not offering health benefits at all, and he axed them for his new workers.
No hard feelings, all just good business dollars and cents.
I also take your point about unions maintaining “feudal ties,” but I have to wonder how “vibrant” it is for young families to have parents having to change jobs every couple of years in order to get ahead instead of having opportunities with the same company.
Taking new jobs, getting used to new work environments, and being “fluid” forces people to migrate, weakens the ties of extended families, and creates a lot of stress.
on March 3rd, 2007 at 8:53 pm
Jean,
I’m truly sorry about your husband’s situation. I fear anything I might say will seem inadequate. Perhaps only a guarantee of lifetime job security is the answer, though that too entails its own set of problems. I am however puzzled about the needlessly rigid set of choices that were available — the wage scale seems to have been determined exclusively by length of service within the firm and the decision seems to have been completely unanticipated. But I’m sure you would agree this is probably not the place to discuss particulars. I do concede that older age unemployment can be cruel, especially when entre rust-belt factories close, though I don’t think the problem can be usefully described as management squeezing employees. Too often everyone is squeezed.
I also have my own policy preferences for these situations but I won’t burden you with them here, except to say that they don’t include strengthening collective bargaining by unions. By no means do I oppose all labor unions, especially when they are non-adversarial (you’ll find some wise words to this effect in the papal documents), but I am certainly not an uncritical enthusiast. Unions don’t have a magical way to resolve within labor conflicts. Sometimes unions favor older workers, sometimes younger workers. Sometimes they favor those wishing medical benefits and other times they favor higher wages without medical benefits. And it even happens that they sometimes make matters worse for all.
I’m afraid I still resist the idea that different rules apply at different occupational levels and that profits are to be had by treating workers as interchangeable cogs in the machinery. I suppose there may have been slave camps where attitude or morale were unimportant but contemporary Simon Legrees will become far richer if they embrace “touchy-feely” techniques, however this may grate against their “squeezing” instincts. I do agree with your view that taking new jobs can be stressful; moving can weaken extended families, etc. But people are not forced to do these things unless “forced” is given a weak meaning. As with keeping up with the Joneses, one can just say no.
Finally, I notice that Mickey Kaus at Slate has succinctly highlighted the political problems involved in the card-checking campaign better than I’ve done so I’ll quote him:
“Democrats Will Do For America What the UAW Has Done for Chrysler, GM and Ford”: Here’s a legislative triumph Pelosi’s party doesn’t want to publicize too much. Do Democrats really want to campaign in 2008 on eliminating the secret ballot in union elections? Luckily, they’ll probably be saved by Mitch McConnell. … P.S.: Only 7% of private sector workers are now unionized. Is that a) because of all that employer foul play (what Dems tell each other inside the cocoon) or b) because the ponderous legalistic and adversarial structure of the Wagner Act–advancement by seniority, due process, work rules, labor-management negotiation–is especially unsuited to competing in a tumultuous, innovating economy that prizes flexibility and adaptability over predictability and job security? …
http://www.slate.com/id/2160585/?nav=fix
on March 4th, 2007 at 11:39 am
Patrick, yes, unions often create adversarial relations where they need not exist. I was involved in an informal collective bargaining unit with a reasonable employer once. Reasonable people can usually come to reasonable agreements.
Unions also (as I think I pointed out in an earlier post) often contribute to unfair labor practices where they represent only some of the workers–usually full-timers–and don’t want to share the pot with part-timers in a commensurate way.
Innovative companies–I worked for a small tech firm, and I think that’s an example of what you’re talking about–really can’t support a union and don’t need one. Those organizations tend to be pretty flat, and authority lines between managers like me and the tech people who invented applications was pretty fluid. And, many of those organizations have a generous stock option program.
Since you have done much more reading about the “big picture” here than I have, perhaps you’d care to comment on “management consultants.” These are the hired guns who come in to advise business owners, who have no real knowledge of individual workers and what they contribute, and simply lay out for the client in dollars and cents how benefits and labor are the biggest costs in the business and here’s how to lower them. Most of them also offer “termination services.”
I also think we need to do a better job helping our kids select jobs that not only if their skills levels but prevailing market forces and future trends. The ol’ Kuder Preference Test just isn’t sufficient for preparing a kid for the workforce these days.
Finally, as older workers in unwanted positions are culled out of the workforce before around 50, what does this do to Social Security and Medicare costs? Those workers will not be able to save the last 15 years of their work lives because a) they become self-employed and get hit with twice the taxes or b) they take an hourly job at a megastore like WalMart to get by.
I’m not saying businesses must keep unproductive older workers on the force out of charity. But those businesses will be the first to gripe about having to support the elderly, no?
on March 4th, 2007 at 8:41 pm
Jonathan Chait, in today’s LA Times:
Companies that face organizing drives have an enormous amount of control over the elections. They can hold mandatory meetings and barrage employees with anti-union propaganda. … They can predict that a union will result in the shop closing and everybody losing their jobs.
And that’s just the legal part. On top of that, they can do all sorts of illegal things: fire workers involved in organizing, actually threaten to close the shop if a union forms and so on. Enforcement of these violations tends to be spotty and lax. Generally, it takes years for illegal union-busting firms to face any penalties and, even then, whatever fine they pay is often well worth the price of maintaining their bargaining power over the employees.
In theory, it might be possible to create enough regulations with enough enforcement to ensure fair secret-ballot union elections. In reality, it’s never going to happen. Hence, the card-check proposal… The fear raised by business groups is that letting pro-union workers approach their fellow employees with a card would amount to intimidation. …
But the real problem in the American economy is not that workers have too much bargaining power. It’s that they have too little. Corporate profits have exploded in recent years, while wages for average workers have barely budged. It’s obviously great that business is doing so well. What we need are a few measures to help divvy up the pie just a bit more evenly. Anything that helps to slow down the massive erosion of unions is one of those sensible, small steps.
on March 4th, 2007 at 9:50 pm
Jean,
I’ll try to be brief because I don’t want to veer too far from the card-checking bill.
1) Regarding consultants it’s easy to be cynical, perhaps too easy. Here’s a sample of current book titles about the phenomenon. I think the titles reflect widespread opinion within the business community.
House of Lies: How Management Consultants Steal Your Watch and Then Tell You the Time
Consulting Demons: Inside the Unscrupulous World of Global Corporate Consulting
Rip-Off! The Scandalous Inside Story of the Management Consulting Money Machine
The Witch Doctors: Making Sense of the Management Gurus
Dangerous Company: The Consulting Powerhouses and the Businesses They Save and Ruin
My own view, based on limited experience, is that even when consultants are handled in a sophisticated way perhaps only one in ten of these initiatives are successful. On the other hand, when the hiring firm has a former consultant on its own staff overseeing the current consultants, one wise in the ways of consultancy, it has a much better prospect of gaining valuable insights - - a happy result when the usual product mixes mush and fog. There simply are no management secrets in the sole possession of consultants. Their practical knowledge regarding the execution of the plans they innocently propose is at best negligible.
2) On the topic of post - 50 unemployment and its impact on social security/medicare I agree it certainly has a negative impact. But it’s probably not the focus of many policy wonks because the problems of these programs, even without this added wrinkle, are sufficiently challenging as to occupy the full time attention of a batallion of policy analysts (perhaps the number of private sector consultants will diminish as they find their way to social security turf!). On the general topic let me recommend the invaluable website of the Boston College Center for Retirement Research. The Center produces both original research and policy briefs and the site has lots of related links. On this topic there’s a paper the abstract of which reports “the good news is that the data from the Displaced Worker Surveys show that older workers have a lower risk of displacement than younger workers, with no trend toward increasing displacement or worsening outcomes…(though there are suggestions of) a greater risk of displacement in the future.”
http://www.bc.edu/centers/crr/ib_53.shtml
3) Back to the card-check bill. George Will’s recent column on the subject is valuable for its focus on the dangers to free speech implicit in the provisions of the bill. It’s odd that the mainstream media, ever eager to expand its own free speech rights, is less than vigilant when the speech rights of others are curtailed. Perhaps their cognitive dissonance is reduced if they believe speech rights of employers are less important since they are driven by a profit motive to squeeze everything they can out of their employees.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/26/AR2007022601246.html
on March 5th, 2007 at 8:26 am
Eduardo, I would be more sympathetic to labor’s woes if they were doing the hard work of representing all workers.
In my view, unions need to rehabilitate themselves and take in ALL workers, though this will be a hard sell to existing unions workers who benefit from the exclusion of part-time and temp workers.
It’s a lot easier for an employer to give concessions to the union when he knows that he has a considerable number of part-time and temp employees he can pass those costs along in the form of wage freezes and benefits cuts.
This perpetuates the two-tiered labor system and encourages the hiring of more and more part-time and temp workers.
Our workforce is moving in the direction where everyone’s an independent contractor now. This has affects family stability, access to health care, the ability to care for elderly parents, etc. etc.
Unions shape their bargaining units to exclude some employees. When you have part-timers and temps in a shop who are un-unionized, the employer is more likely to concede to wages and benefits increases for the unionized and pass the costs on to the non-unionized in the form of wage freezes and benefit reductions.
Patrick, George Will’s point that unions are failing through their own fault and are now seeking redress through legislation seems on target to me.
However, George Will, as a member of the mainstream media, bemoaning he loss of corporate free speech (speech on which corporations spend billions of advertising dollars nationally) while the Bush administration has been curtailing freedom of information for the past four years, strikes me as ironic.
I think I may be repeating myself here, so I’m done now.
on March 15th, 2007 at 9:09 pm
You have to teach yourself to notice- notice things like freedom, dignity, bravity,human rights…. When you can not notice these , it means two things-either you have to get your eyes examined or it’s time for you to stop pretending that justice exists!
I’ve got no problems with my vision, all right?!
How about you????
Get used to this truth folks. That’s life- all the right people are on the wrong places. That’s where God asks them to stay. He is after peace, right?!
I love you, anyway!
Always,
All Ways