One topic that has been on my mind lately is the attempt to kill the 8-hour workday.
In many places in the private sector, anything less than a 10-hour day is derisively referred to as working ”half-a-day”.
Purely by accident, I learned the May 5 is the anniversary of what is called the Bay View Massacre in Milwaukee, Wisc.
The gist is that on May 5, 1886, seven people, including a 13-year old boy, were shot and killed by National Guardsmen during a strike. The workers were striking for an 8-hour day.
The account on Wikipedia is pretty short.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_View_Massacre
The strike started on May 1, with about 7000 workers. By May 4, the number had swollen t0 14,000. (I’m guessing that both numbers probably included sympathy protesters.) At that point, the Republican governor brought in 250 Guardsmen. The next day, he gave the order to “shoot to kill” any workers who tried to enter the grounds 0f the Milwaukee Iron Company, where the strikers worked.
On May 5, the strikers/protesters attempted to enter the grounds, and the Guardsmen opened fire. Seven people died.
This is the history of labor. Capital and property were often protected by deadly force. Capital held a monopoly on the force of “law and order”, so the latter were used, almost exclusively, to prevent workers from attempting to organize.
Given that Capital had a monopoly on the law, it’s a bit silly to suggest that workers had any sort of leverage or clout to negotiate better conditions on the basis of individual contracts. Yet this, I believe, is what the ‘right to work’ position suggests: that unions interfere with the ability of a company to enter a contract with an individual worker. Correct me if I’m wrong.
But the point is, when Capital controls the law, the worker has no basis for negotiation. A real, live, effective negotiation requires that both sides have something the other side wants. If a company is able to fire any worker asking for a better deal, there is no way to suggest that anything like an equal balance exists between the two negotiating parties. The company holds all the cards.
The only way workers can deal in anything like equal negotiations is if the workers are organized. That way, the company has some incentive to accept that workers have something like a roughly equal bargaining position.
In a world where even lawyers are finding themselves expendable, outsourceable, and lacking in bargaining power as they look for jobs, it’s really kind of silly to suggest that straight wage earners can negotiate with employers for better terms. In fact, this is one reason Republicans have fought Obama tooth and nail trying to derail any attempt to stimulate the economy: employers love it when unemployment is north of 8%. That effectively kills all ‘wage pressure.’
This means you get circumstances like we have: high unemployment, low wage growth, but phenomenal profits for corporations and executives. Just like we had in the 1880s.
And, as we’ve seen, Capital was willing to kill to maintain its position of dominance.
This is why I so vehemently object to current Republican policies: we tried it. People died. It didn’t work, unless you were a plutocrat. Create the same conditions, chances are we’ll get the same outcome.
“[T]his, I believe, is what the ‘right to work’ position suggests: that unions interfere with the ability of a company to enter a contract with an individual worker. Correct me if I’m wrong.”
This is not correct. The stated purpose and legal effect of right-to-work legislation is to give workers a choice of whether to pay unions to represent them or not. It in no way prohibits workers from joining a union or unions from representing workers. Right-to-work states still have unions; the difference is that workers join those unions voluntarily instead of being compelled by law. This is an important check on the power and representative activities of unions by allowing workers to leave and withdraw financial support if the union practices become unethical, too expensive, or otherwise counterproductive to the workers. If unions truly are the ally of workers and the path to better wages and work conditions, then they should have no trouble retaining worker membership voluntarily, without the assistance of state coercion.
“But the point is, when Capital controls the law, the worker has no basis for negotiation. A real, live, effective negotiation requires that both sides have something the other side wants. If a company is able to fire any worker asking for a better deal, there is no way to suggest that anything like an equal balance exists between the two negotiating parties. The company holds all the cards.”
This is also not correct. As any business (or government agency) head will tell you, attracting and retaining talent is difficult and hiring and retraining can be an extremely expensive process. What you describe is only true to an extent in certain low-wage, low-skill industries; it is certainly not universally the case, and at leat as often the opposite is true – companies bend over backwards to retain talent and avoid having to replace employees. The natural order of a healthy modern economy is that excellent workers have excellent leverage, moderately good workers have moderately good leverage, and poor workers have poor leverage. What the “forced union” model does is erases these distinctions and gives even the poor worker a colossal amount of leverage over the employer. As occurred in the airline industry, the steel industry, the car manufacturing industry, other heavily unionized industries, and municipal governments across the country, this inevitably leads to unsustainable, ever-increasing costs and declining quality of service, and employer is left with no effective tools to reverse the process since any corrective actions will be met with protest, sabotage, or strikes. In a voluntary union workplace, the workers who realize that as union is harming the long-term sustainability of an organization can withdraw their support (or simply threaten to do so) and reverse the process for the good of both parties.
RightToWork: thank you for clarifying exactly what “right to work” means. Given you moniker, I had a feeling you could straighten that out :-) !!
That being said, I have the sense that your position is a tad either disingenuous or naive. I’m not sure which it is.
If I’m repeating myself, forgive me, but I would be willing to bet that I’m the only one here who has worked as both union factory labor and corporate management. I have, literally, seen the question from both sides. And my considered opinion, based on experience, is that I stand by what I said.
IMHO, your explanation of conditions within right to work situations may be what is supposed to happen, what theory tells us will happen, but does not generally reflect what actually happens.
The same is true about how companies bend over backwards to retain talent.
This is marginally true in high-skill areas, where someone’s knowledge or expertise or talent is truly an advantage. However, in retail, in call centers, in most factories, one person is pretty much like another. Yes, there is a learning curve, but it’s neither steep enough nor long enough to act as a truly effective check on the company’s decisions to shed workers.
Recall Circuit City: they fired all employees with more than 10 years experience, and allowed them to re-apply, but at a much lower wage. This situation does not exactly fit the scenarios presented. Granted, this was a desperation move from a company that shortly went out of business, but the point is that they did it. It was legal, it was considered practical. Not exactly companies working to retain talent.
Also, in a tight market, like the late 90s, companies will, absolutely, attempt to retain talent. In a slack market, like the current one, not so much. In slack markets companies will–and do–’reorganize’ to eliminate the jobs of long-service employees, so they can be replaced with much cheaper new hires. I know of situations where a department manager in an office environment got fired due to ‘reorganization.’ The manager was replaced by the next-in-line, who made much less money. This replacement was given the responsibilities of the manager, with only a minor increase in pay.
Tell me: how much leverage did the replacement have in the negotiations? Any? S/he has just seen the manager get fired; think the company won’t do the same, if s/he tries to negotiate very hard? No, it’s take the offer, shut up, and assume a whole new level of responsibility while only making 5% more in salary.
Then there’s the whole ‘unions are too expensive’ canard. As I mentioned in a previous post, union membership in Canada is around 30%, which is only a few percent lower than the max level in the US. And the Canadian economy is booming. New factories are being built. Companies are increasing operations there.
Then there’s Germany, which has one of the highest labor costs in the entire world. And yet, Germany is an export machine. They run a terrific trade surplus b/c they can sell their products around the world. Given your position, how is this possible? All of those operations should have been sent elsewhere a decade ago, but it hasn’t happened. Yes, German companies are building factories here, but these new plants are in addition to what is still operating in the home country.
I repeat: given your theory (and that’s exactly what it is) of how unions “inevitably” lead to “unsustainable, ever-increasing costs” have not completely killed industry in Ontario and Germany? Per your theory, this condition should be impossible.
Part of the secret, I suspect, is the proportion of gross revenue that goes to labor vs to management. The same $100 m (e.g.) can be divvied up in a number of ways. It can be paid to a lot of people, or it can be paid to a few people. In the US, the share of profits going to labor has plummeted, while the share going to management has skyrocketed. As have corporate profits.
As for right to work in, say, a factory, this is a classic case of stacking the deck. OK, give workers a choice. Sounds great. The first problem is that you’ve set up a classic free rider situation. If the union works, great. I don’t pay dues, but I get the benefit. Where’s the incentive to join? Labor is effectively pitted against itself.
Second problem is that unions really only work when they represent everyone. Otherwise, they don’t have enough clout. Management has no incentive to negotiate. OK, the union goes out, but the plant/store still runs with non-union, and then most likely can hire scabs to replace them. (full disclosure: I’m not presenting that as a fact, but given a right-to-work state, I would suspect there are ways around laws against replacing striking workers. Reagan did it, after all.)
Per the BLS, TX, a right-to-work state, has about one-quarter the union membership of NY, which is not a right to work state. I would suggest that this pretty much proves my point: right to work is basically the same thing as no union at all. But then, that’s rather the intent, isn’t it?
Corporations play hardball. And they play it hard, and well. They have cadres of high-priced people whose job is to figure out ways to cut expenses. The biggest expense in any company is payroll. So that’s where they look b/e, like the man said, that’s where the money is.
As I stated before: I am not interested in arguing theory. My concern is the real world. Right to work is simply another term for union-busting. If that’s what you believe in, fine. But admit it. Please don’t try to hide behind euphemisms.
Oswald Krell: 24 hours after your response …. crickets. Your explanation regarding the realities of ‘right to work’ as anti-union is rational, clear and understandable.
Sorry Watchemoket that we don’t sit around all day waiting for people to respond to comments.
Ha! Didn’t know I was on a time limit.
OK guys, the ‘crickets’ comment was meant as ‘tongue in cheek’ – not actual criticism. Thanks for the votes, though.
The primary reason that ‘right to work’ laws are anti-union is that a union can’t usually sustain its membership if workers who benefit from their CB efforts don’t join or pay dues. I have mixed feelings about that rationale, since union organizers and leaders should be able to ‘sell’ the benefits of membership and collective bargaining without the need for ‘union shop’ rules, but it simply doesn’t work that way in reality. I suppose management only has to ‘buy’ a relatively small number of workers during an organizing effort (together with general apathy) to defeat the effort – usually.
I don’t think that there is a single, simple answer to the issues regarding unions, collective bargaining and labor generally versus management, owners and capital generally. But it is good that we are able to discuss these issues thoughtfully and without juvenile name-calling.
“but it simply doesn’t work that way in reality.”
I’d argue that’s because the NLRA prevents union leadership from only representing unions members, not because of any flaw in right-to-work. So rather than fighting a worker’s right to choose whether to join a union or not, they should be working to amend the NLRA to break up the monopolization on bargaining.
But then again, it’s probably easier just to fight worker rights and call those right-to-work laws “union busting”.
“However, in retail, in call centers, in most factories, one person is pretty much like another.”
Perhaps you missed the part where RTW noted that low-skill employees have low leverage? All of those positions would qualify as such, and therefore they do not inherently possess a great deal of leverage.
“Recall Circuit City:”
Terrible example, and you nearly admit as much.
“And the Canadian economy is booming. New factories are being built. Companies are increasing operations there.”
Booming is probably a bit of an exaggeration, but they’re certainly not is as bad a shape as we are. That doesn’t mean union membership prevented that from happening though. In fact, I’d argue one of the reasons they’re in better shape is their gov’t didn’t incentivize the stupid banking behaviors that tanked ours, leaving them less scathed.
“I repeat: given your theory (and that’s exactly what it is) of how unions “inevitably” lead to “unsustainable, ever-increasing costs””
That’s not RTW’s theory. Please re-read that section. His position is that forced union models lead to “unsustainable, ever-increasing costs”.
” If the union works, great. I don’t pay dues, but I get the benefit. Where’s the incentive to join? Labor is effectively pitted against itself.”
That’s a problem with the NLRA itself. Monopoly bargaining rights are a double-edged sword like that.