Governor Scott Walker’s victory in the Wisconsin recall elections has not only cemented his place in the forefront of the Republican Party but has also has shined a light on the state of labor unions. Groups on opposing ends of the spectrum have either been quick to draw conclusions or dismiss the results as a synopsis of beliefs across the nation. Labor unions and thus Tom Barrett supporters have been quick to point to the influx of out-of-state political donations to the re-election campaign as a crux for the success of the Governor’s bid. Walker’s backers now have more affirmation about the public’s support for the policies enacted over the last 18 months. Of course, Barrett had a collection of disadvantages in this campaign, but what may be foretelling of the results is that anti-union legislation is already spread throughout the States and may continue to sprawl.
The argument for the merits of right to work states, collective bargaining for public service employees, or even the altogether existence of unions has been a matter for debate for years now and is increasingly nuanced when it comes to measuring purely business interests with the plight of American workers. Unions as an institution have been around in the United States since the mid 1800’s and have overcome a collection of obstacles. From a historical perspective, the success of unions has often come at great costs both in terms of money and human life. Never the less, the public goods that labor unions have provided is impressive and generally seen as a positive in the path to industrialization the U.S has taken over the years. Yet, at this juncture in the U.S unions have begun to be seen in a diminishing light, especially given the decline in industrial manufacturing produced in America and the subsequent job losses. Consequently, membership in private-sector unions continues to diminish and the political climate has grown to be riper for the questioning of their future existence.
The United States Bureau of Labor Statistics has released a report on the rate of Union Membership in the past calendar year, and the results are fairly astonishing. Private sector union membership has declined by over three million members in the last 20 years. Several takeaways can be made from this report:
- In 2011, among full-time wage and salary workers, union members had median usual weekly earnings of $938, while those who were not union members had median weekly earnings of $729.
- All states in the Middle Atlantic and Pacific divisions reported union membership rates above the national average, while all states in the East South Central and West South Central divisions had rates below it.
- By age, the union membership rate was highest among workers 55 to 64 years old (15.7 percent). The lowest union membership rate occurred among those ages 16 to 24 (4.4 percent)
- Among occupational groups, education, training, and library occupations (36.8 percent) and protective service occupations (34.5 percent) had the highest unionization rates in 2011.
- Public-sector workers had a union membership rate (37.0 percent) more than five times higher than that of private-sector workers (6.9 percent).
The age, geography, and vocational differences amongst union participation further envelop the reasoning behind the efforts to phase out the influence of unions. The growing demographic shifts are especially reflected in the younger age groups. The younger age groups are noticing trends that dictate that it in fact pays more to work in a private sector job. Given, the much lower prevalence of unions in the private sector, workers are perhaps unconsciously gravitating away from the public sector and thus the unions. In fact, the monetary advantages of employment in the public sector that have recently been ostracized are not as substantial as has been claimed. Professor Richard Hurd of Cornell University says “if you compare by education level, private sector workers earn about 10 percent more than public sector workers for any given level of education. And then if you narrow it further and look at the more professional occupations, then public sector workers’ deficit compared to private sector workers on wages is about 25 percent. ”
These trends continuously put a strain on labor unions as the increasingly global marketplace has diminished their influence. American Rights at Work, a non-profit pro Labor organization, published their findings on the status of employees and found:
“There are 140.5 million people in the civilian workforce. Our research found that of these employees, 33.5 million, or 23.8%, have no rights under the NLRA or any other labor law: no legally-protected right to join or form a union, no legally-protected right to bargain collectively for their wages and conditions of work, and therefore, effectively no freedom of association in the workplace.”
The idea that the plight of the average worker will in part be alleviated through labor organizations has not fermented in the collective psyche of many voters across the United States. In fact, a reverberating effect of the recent recall efforts is that the concept of intrusion into the workings of a free market place is not necessarily beneficial to the employee. Meaning that external forces like unions that can impede on the profits of a company via strikes or other less inflammatory measures are subsequently unnecessary in a system where their employees derives their share from the successes of the free market. The World Bank put forth a commission to examine the effects of unions on both developed and developing countries and their findings encompass the many positives of union organization but altogether pose another obstacle to the unions’ struggle.
Key findings of the report include:
- Unions can force firms to relinquish some of their profits only if they can monopolize labor supply. This is because unions wield the strike threat: firms are willing to give up some of their profits to avoid industrial conflict. Competition from a large nonunionized labor market reduces the union’s monopoly command over labor supply; if nonunion workers can readily replace union workers, the union’s bargaining position is substantially weakened.
- The more senior members, who typically have a disproportionate influence on union decisions, may institutionalize a seniority principle in relation to layoffs and other aspects of deployment, such as promotion, recall, and training. This can create insider/outsider dynamics that can lead to persistently high levels of unemployment.
- The union’s role … is to communicate worker preferences directly to the management, as well as to participate in the establishment of work rules and seniority provisions in the internal labor market. This … provid[es] a channel through which they can express their grievances without having to leave the firm. This reduces turnover (voting with the feet), increases the incentive of employers to provide firm specific training, and facilitates long-term working relationships that benefit all parties.
- Safety is desirable from the point of view of workers. Therefore, safety has an opportunity cost, and safer jobs pay a lower wage. In an unregulated labor market, workers may be unable to appreciate the dangers inherent in different jobs. As a consequence, firms would not be required to compensate workers fully for the hidden risks involved in their jobs
- Unions may be keen to promote a compressed wage scale across different groups of workers employed within the unionized sectors of the economy. One reason may be that they have egalitarian wage goals. Egalitarian wage goals can arise if productivity differs among union members and if the median member has low (compared to average) productivity. Under these circumstances, a democratic union tends to enter wage contracts that compress the wage structure.
Though these are just a few observations from the extensively researched report, they are conducive to the argument that unions are designed to intervene, or to some interfere, with business run at its optimal productivity level. The report does not however delve as extensively into the reasoning behind public service unions. As current legislation stands, the status of the unions for all public service employees except police, firemen, and emergency medical technicians is in a state of limbo. This in and of itself is foretelling of the political inclinations of such legislation. For example in Alaska, a bill sponsored by Republican Representative Carl J. Gotto calls for severe limitations on collective bargaining for public service employees though it explicitly states that police, firemen, and emergency medical technicians are exempt from the proposal. That bill and HB 134 also sponsored by Grotto which prohibits collective bargaining contracts [to} require employees to join a labor or employee organization, were ultimately rejected.
Perhaps it may be cynical, but allegations have come about that the exemptions for police and firefighter unions come from their noted support for conservative members of government. In Ohio, voters repealed the collective bargaining restrictions placed upon public service employees including police and firefighters. The inclusion of those two groups received immediate backlash and further proposals have carefully tiptoed around the inclusion of those powerful unions. That is not to say the Ohio legislature has given up on the issue and in a largely anti-corruption bill have included measures to remove previous agreements as negotiating tools in new collective bargaining agreements. In Hawaii, a bill calling for further impositions and restrictions on collective bargaining agreements also mentions the exemptions made specifically for police and firefighters.
States have also sought out other loopholes in order to draw less publicity to their legislation revolving around curbing collective bargaining rights. In Michigan, SB 0116 relieves the state from enforcing an all-inclusive limitation but rather delegates it to voters at a more localized level. Though this legislation is in limbo while in committee, the premise behind its intentions is clear. SB 0116 would allow:
“A city, county, township, or village may authorize a right-to-work zone within its boundaries by a vote of its governing body or by adoption of a measure initiated by the people. The commission shall not enforce an all-union shop agreement covering employees in a right-to-work zone if the employer entered into or renewed the agreement after the date of adoption of the measure creating the right-to-work zone.”
The results in Wisconsin on Tuesday, and to a lesser extent in California, have illuminated a dreary picture for labor unions regarding future legislation. Gary Chaison, a professor of industrial relations at Clark University said “it will embolden politicians in other states [and] private sector employers to demand greater concessions and will hurt organizing because it will tarnish the reputation of unions as an effective representative.” Of course, unions have attempted to put a positive spin on what is assuredly a large disappointment. “Remember that collective bargaining rights were taken from workers in Kentucky, Missouri, New Mexico, Ohio and Puerto Rico — yet they all ultimately won them back,” said Gerald McEntee, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, in a statement.
Regardless, what may be foreboding for unions is not just the anti-union attitude in staunchly conservative states; rather it is the shifting attitudes in moderate to liberal states. While it is still ominous that states with formerly large industrial bases like Missouri and Indiana have bills like SB 514 and SB 269 respectively that forbid unions to draw dues from unwilling employees. It is more menacing that in Washington, a state that has voted for a Democrat in the last six and likely seven presidential elections is on the verge of passing SB 5349 which states that
“in tight budget times it is clear that the legislature needs more flexibility to truly prioritize spending, and must take back its authority over state employee compensation choices. Therefore, the legislature intends to repeal the ability of state employees and other nontraditional groups to collectively bargain with the executive branch over compensation.”
If corporate dollars maintain the influence that they do in upcoming elections, public outcry may not be enough to deter further cuts to unions. In fact, with only seven percent of private sector employees in unions and falling, it may not be long before unions become a fringe group in influencing public policy. The upcoming election may turn out to be the most influential on worker’s rights since the days of the robber barons at the turn of the 20th century.
About BillTrack50 – BillTrack50 offers free tools for citizens to easily research legislators and bills across all 50 states and Congress. BillTrack50 also offers professional tools to help organizations with ongoing legislative and regulatory tracking, as well as easy ways to share information both internally and with the public.