Should Congress Change Labor Law on How a Union Can Organize?

Reader Comments
Back to article

Hi Ray,
I'll start by saying that my comment will be short. I'm traveling right now and trying to type this thing on a mobile phone. It's trecherous to say the least. Not be with a normal keyboard until tuesday. I address the remaining points after then.
1) This has been fun. Nothing personal. You've been a formidible opponent. I like that. Most of the time people just pst one liners.
2) Political science (East Africa). And yes, I do ackowledge that much of what we say is guided by subjectivity. I do believe in objective material facts, and that's a subject of another discussion.
3) Agree that growing the middle-class is more complicated than what we make it in these posts.
I'll post details when I return to computer. My wrist is aching from these mobile phone buttons.

Richard Whitehead 3:15AM April 09, 2009

See below for my 1st response. I may be out of reach tomorrow, and to that end I want to offer the following additional thought(I apologize for the double post and the associated rudeness):
Your comment from the other day, "The distribution of wealth is a POLITICAL not an economic question...." is very revealing. To me what you are saying is political = big goverment, and economic = small government - and in your view big government is the 'solution.'
Assuming I am interpreting that correctly I will argue that neither model is pure, absent of corruption, or contains all the answers to prosperity and justice. And said another way, neither socialism or capitalism is pure, absent of corruption, or contains all of the answers to prosperity and justice. I argue that the answer is somewhere in between. And depending on each's biases, we debate which direction (and how far) the pendulum should lean. And this leaning will vary depending on many social, geopolical, economic and domestic factors. Your position seems to indicate that you strickly view Political = big government as the pure solution (and I'm not calling you a socialist or a communist). Am I correct on this?
Your positions also reveal that you have a sociology background. Am I correct? Nothing wrong with that, but at least consider that it may be affecting your subconcious biases. I have an engineering, business and entrepreneurial background, and there is no doubt that I have biases - but I do acknowledge that.
Take all of this for what it is worth - no insult intended, but you can respond how you want to respond. It's all good.

Ray of KY 8:03PM April 07, 2009

Glad to hear from you. Let's reset:
1) To be clear, I never stated that unions should go away. I stated that they should change as opposed to enacting EFCA. I will also concede some and say that if unions can change (job transportability, etc), then maybe some of the labor laws should/could change.
2) Add value to the products/services you produce such that there is market demand and viability for the business. It may not be fair at times, but there is a lot of competitive forces out there working against every business - and employees (both union and nonunion) have to bring collaborative energy to their employer. 'Wishful thinking' or 'fantasy island' as you put is described by others as imagination and vision, which is how we were able to put mankind on the moon - so I take your remarks as a complement.
3)Education is the key. I have friends in the UAW, and they tell me that the UAW wants their rank and file to be technically proficient, but emotionally & financially weak. This keeps the UAW relavant, and when it is time to stoke the flames of fairness, toeing the line of election tickets, or carrying signs they fall in line like a bunch of lemmings. My point is to get education about personnal finances (living by a budget), going to night school when the plant declares a possible shut down in 3 to 5 years, or learning to listen to what leadership tells you with a grain of salt so that you can think indendently.
4 & 5)Unions pull the emotional middle class card way too much. I do not disagree with your last post - there was a large spill over, and the industrial/manufacturing base of the USA supported it. The manual nature of the work allowed for and commanded real value for these wages. And the GI bill and the rise in post G12 education had a profound affect as well. However, that time has passed. For the unions to declare 'bring back the middle class' is inferring that unions and their business as usual will do this - and that is not so. It is also too dramatic, and for them to reassume their seat at the table requires real and sustainable internal changes on their part. I would love for the unions to appply their current model to China, Mexico, Vietnam, etc - but it will not work the way it once did in the USA; EFCA or no EFCA. If EFCA passess I propose that unions will be out flanked in ten years. In current form, unions do not add enough value to retail. The Walmarts and Costcos that I've been to are safe, well lit, and employ knowledgeable and caring associates who seem to care and seem satisfied with earnings. I too have many family members who made a life in the unions, and others who did it independantly in business or as farmers. We own our futures, and how we get their is our responsibilty - coersion or not.
6)whether you acknowledge it or not - real and/or perceived - unions must address the corruption metaphore (label) no matter how you or I define it.
I am not anti union, but I am anti excuse.

Ray of KY 4:13PM April 07, 2009

Hi Ray, I'll cut straight to it.
6) The fact that I asked you to clarify a metaphor “CORRUPTION”, that is so often used with other ambiguous terms, most notably “THUG”, to describe union leadership, does not seem as much of a deflection as DOES YOUR REFUSAL TO ANSWER IT.
2) With respect to your atomistic view of the individual, as somehow autonomous from government, business, or forms of collective action is nothing but ideologically loaded wishful thinking. Look at what you are saying. “Each of us owns our future”, while at the same time you’re arguing that incentive structures should be established to discourage mediocrity. On one hand, you see people in atomistic terms, and then a sentence latter, you’re claiming that people should aspire to your standards and are willing to use coercion to enforce it. At least have some consistency. Ditto for response 3.
4) The GI Bill argument is no secret my friend. And, yes, it holds solid merit as ONE of the causal bases for the growth of a middle-class. But, read my earlier response. I evoked a counterfactual, which you did not answer in the first place. Is it reasonable to conclude that, without the growth of organized labor during the 1950s and 1960s, could one expect to find a middle-class of the same proportion? If your answer is yes, then you’re going back to fantasy land again. Some of the 10 million WWII veterans which benefited from the GI Bill I’m sure entered the workforce and became union members. Those that did not, certainly benefited from the spillover that union wage demands has on wages for non-union members. Relatedly, it still does not explain why non-veterans workers (range from 80% of the WF in 1950 to 90% in 1965) saw their incomes rise. Both of my non-veteran grandparents (neither of which had a high school diploma) earned a respectable wage, one as a truck driver and one as a steel worker and both were unionists.
1and 5) As for you claims about Unions not adapting to greater levels of globalization and changes in sectoral composition of the labor market, well, you’re right. But, it’s not for a lack of effort, especially in relation setting up stricter standard in the WTO and greater cooperation with the E.U. on labor organization matters. But, unless you are willing to concede to granting Unions greater capacities to enter into the service sector (especially retail), which the EFCA would do, and to deal with labor issues on an international level (which judging from your take on atomized individuals and so-called meritocracy, you are not) then raising this issue is nothing more than a red herring anyway.
Oh, I’m sure the Kilpatrick paper works for you, since it is penned by two officials who have for a long time, advocated on behalf of business in labor-management relations.
Anyway, aren’t you supposed to be doing something to create more value for consumers? And, writing here is probably not going to advance your career. You should be striving for more!

Richard Whitehead of PA 1:11PM April 07, 2009

Mr. Whitehead,
Nice deflection. I'll move on to say:
1)Rather than throw money to buy an election so that the rules to organizing can be changed, why don't the union's consider changing themselves internally? The Kilpatrick (sp?) white paper does a good job decribing the pros and cons of current collective bargaining statutes, and why the current laws are sound. There are so many changes (jurisdictional restrictions, worker and job trasnsportability and ratios, forming ESOPs, etc) that unions should consider, but that seems too difficult to acknowledge.
2)Each of us owns our furture - not the gov., not the employer, not the unions. We all may not be dealt the same cards in life, but that still does not give one a 'pass' or an excuse to lead a life of mediocrity. Steven Covey says a lot in this regard - check out his books. UPS does not want their ramp workers making a career out of loading airplanes - to this end they limit their hours and give incentives for them to seek higher education. Seems like others out their should consider the same rather than assume they should be entitled to a comfortable life for doing non-skilled work.
3)I disagree with you. Non-skilled work should be a stepping stone to bigger and better expectatioins.
4 & 5)You are wrong here as well. I purposely did not mention in the previous post the importance of the WW2 G.I. bill in leveraging the ascendancey of the middle class. Also, the rise in the number of post WW2 colleges and the greater percentages of men, women and the diversity of the groups seeking educations beyond grade 12 is the main reason for the middle class' staying power. Now with our economy moving away from manufacturing and becoming more focused on service and technology the unions are on the outside looking in. Yes, their portion of the middle class is evaporating, but those with the right training, education and connections will prosper.
6)no comment from you for response.
The world ecomony is changing, technology is changing, and busisness is more diversified - unions need to adapt and change internally before they brag about their offerings and/or complain about their situation.
The fact that you participate on this internet is disturbing - don't you know that you are helping to lessen the demand telephone operators? It is also likely to put print press operators out of business. Where will all of these good union workers find another job with benefits? Shame on you.

Ray of KY 4:10PM April 06, 2009

Hello Ray
There is a 3000 character limitation here. I prefer not be rude to others by making double postings. But, I will respond by asking you what corruption you are referring to and why it is objectionable.

Richard Whitehead of PA 2:40PM April 06, 2009

Mr. Whitehead - you neglected to respond to my point #6. Once I hear your thoughts on that one, I'll be glad to rebut your points.

Ray of KY 6:48PM April 05, 2009

Mr. Whitehead - you did not address point #6 of my piece. I'll fully respond to you after I hear back from you.

Ray of KY 6:16PM April 05, 2009

Well RAY, your argument below is filled with questionable assumptions and a downright FLAWED INTERPRETATION OF THE WAY THE WORLD HAS WORK AND CONTINUED TO WORK. I’ll respectfully take each of your comments in turn:
FIRST, you claim that Unions “want to change the rules” as if somehow, in a democracy rule changing is forbidden. Are the current rules sanctioned by God? Complaining because the workforce wants to change the rules of the game as if they have no right to is a complaint more appropriate for the politics of a dictatorship, not a democracy.
SECONDLY, you seem to think that the solution to making a better wage is to put aside everything in your life and simply go out and make yourself “valuable enough that the consumer is willing to purchase you”. Man, I just don’t know where to start here. 1) Not everyone is brought up in situations that allow them to just go out and become the next business entrepreneur with some hot product or service. I’m not sure if you know this, but these things require capital, time, social networks, and sometimes the right skin color. 2) Even if everyone had easy access to the route to entrepreneurship, you assume that the economy could magically operate just on the development of gadgets, sophisticated financial advice, specialized tech services, etc, etc. Tell me Ray, who’s going to collect your trash, clean the streets, serve your drinks, etc. In the world I come from, someone still has to do these basic non-skilled tasks, so logically not everyone can become a successful business entrepreneur.
THIRDLY, your emphasis on the importance of getting an education so you can get a better paying job is fine! But, basic non-skilled jobs should be enough to support healthcare for a family and cover basic costs of living a respectable life. In the world I know, the economy needs non-skilled labor just as much as it needs skilled labor.
FOURTHLY, you claim that “Unionism does not own the middle class”, which is an empirical disaster on your part. 1) Think comparatively across countries. Where one finds stronger union representation, one also tends to find stronger the middle-classes. The same holds longitudinally within the U.S., which brings me to your fifth comment.
Finally, just because the rest of the world was in the shambles of WWII in the 1950s does not logically mean that workers in the U.S. would be paid a respectable wage for work. To get there you have to 1) assume that the invisible hand of Adam Smith magically makes profits trickle down to the workforce, or 2) take action to ensure that it does trickle down. While you clearly go with the former, the latter is a more realistic proposition. The distribution of wealth is a POLITICAL not an economic question and one addressed by the organizational power of collective action. Do you really think that, without Unions, the middle-class of the 1950s would have been as big as it was?
What we have here Ray is your world, and then the real world.

Richard Whitehead of PA 2:24PM April 05, 2009

Mr. Hoffa and the EFCA proponents give the typical 'working class hero' self pity arguements. The unions must consider: 1) the world has evolved and they have been slow to keep pace. Now they want to change the rules - similar to the loser kid who could not win the ball game, so he wanted to change the rules to his convenience so he could "compete." 2) quit complaining that the world is not fair. Do what everyone else in successful businesses do (and yes, unions are a business), make yourself valuable enough that the consumer is willing to purchase you. 3) on a personal level value education (all through your life - not just when you 'have' to go to school) and build positive relationships so that you command skills and connections that make you invaluable and irreplacable. 4) Unionism does not own the middle class - so quit hijacking the title. The middle class was build by people who did not own the company, but go educations and worked 'for the man', made him money, and was rewarded in turn - union or no union. 5) to correlate the prosperity of the '50's with the height of unionism is a misleading and insulting over simplification. At that time the rest of the world was bomb out and depleted and rebuilding - and the US of A was the only show in town that could produce and export goods to the world for that rebuilding. Therein lies the key to our prospertity during the '50s. 6) the unions must stop the corruption - the consumer is not willing to tolerate deny/defend/deflect tactics that unions suggest with respect to corruption.
The world economy, the fact that new technoligies lessen the dependancy on manual labor, and the diversification of business are all realities. Adapt internally before you brag/complain about your situation.
On its merits, EFCA makes no sense - so the supporters have to play the emotional card in order to mask its fundamental short comings.

Ray of KY 8:21PM March 28, 2009