eastern healUnionism
Umm… consider another line of work?
Were just not very good at such things anymore. Even though the technology should be a help.
And yet. Over the past week Ive been researching the issue of migrant Eastern European labourers in the Netherlands， who are getting routinely stomped by the employment agencies that recruit them in Poland and Bulgaria， in ways reminiscent of Mexican migrant workers in the United States. The agencies tell them theyre coming to Holland to work in retail， or hotels; they deliver them by bus to a meat-packing plant. Theyre housed in huge camps in empty vacation trailer parks， or filthy broken-down apartments， four to a room， and paid €250 a week; the companies deduct€60 per week in rent， and periodically company inspectors come around， announce the apartment is too dirty， and fine the workers€50 each. Unable to speak a word of Dutch， the workers cant understand the monthly invoices explaining the multiple charges that have been deducted from their salaries. There are people in Holland who are reaching out to these Polish and Bulgarian workers， finding out what their problems are， helping them access lawyers and go after employment companies that cheat them. Those people are labour-union organisers. Labour-union organisers care about these abuses partly out of the self-interest of their members: if scammy employers can stomp the Poles， it wont be long before they can stomp the locals too. But that doesnt capture it. Theres also something basically spiritual about what theyre doing. Theyre essentially motivated by solidarity. While otheeastern health employmentr working-class Dutch are letting their resentment at economic uncertainty drive them into racism and xenophobia， solidarity gives labour-union organisers a paradigm that lets them reach across boundaries and see how workers of different ethnicities and nationalities are fundamentally in the same boat. Solidarity is a word you almost never see in American political discussions， since the decline of unionism in the 1970s. But those Polish migrant workers may be more miliar with it， as I believe it played an important role in Polish history at one point. At the time， I think both right- and left-wing Americans embraced the slogan， and maybe even the idea behind it， too.
Thats an interesting point. Something my agency has been trying to do is promote a group that works vaguely like a union whose major value added is that it helps direct care workers to gain credentialing in the field， as well as more standard union type stuff like lobbying for its members interests (groups like these are unusual， theyre not quite a union because they dont bargain collectively with employers since the employers are all small businesses or individuals， but provide a lot of the support services that unions do， they generally just get generally called NGOs but whenever I come across them am struck by how union like they are).
But what?
I also think that， while some of the decline of American unions is due to the success of the business class in destroying union power since Taft-Hartley， and while some is due to specific American ideological tendencies that I think are mistaken and should be argued against， a lot is due to inevitable historical and economic developments. Globalisation makes unionisation harder; its hard to control the labour market when there are at least a couple of million people in China who could probably do your job. People are less likely to identify as workers in a single profession when they change careers multiple times during their working lives. I even have some ambivalence about high unionisation rates in Europe， which do partly contribute to labour-market rigidities that make economies and societies more hide-bound and less entrepreneurial.
…Twelve voices were shouting in anger， and they were all alike. No question， now， what had happened to the ces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man， and from man to pig， and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
eastern healUnionism，Kevin Drum poses precisely the same question in his new article in Mother Jones:
Its interesting that you bring up solidarity as an animating force in your conception of the utility of unions on a societal level. I would argue that the decline of private-sector unionism in the US has coincided with a decline in solidarity as a union way of life. Unions that I see are more like artificial guilds. They are bastions of racism and ism， and they are dedicated not to safe work practices and ir pay， but rather to extracting a maximum cost for their services no matter what. Its never about protecting all workers， its only ever about protecting themselves. They have become a t， entitled class who see themselves a fundamentally separate from the logic of the economy at large.
For those that think unions can make themselves relevant again， I would point out that overseas competition is wiping out any hope of manucturing unions coming back in force. Service industry unions might stand a chance (like pilots， truckers， etc.) but the push for more immigration is the Achilles heel of service-workers unions — the ever increasing flood of cheaper and cheaper labor makes any attempt at pushing for higher and higher wages nearly suicidal.
Apologies for the extraneous of in my first post.
Ive been watching Tunisia， Egypt， and Libya， and I think that change will come when people are fed up enough that theyre willing to die in whatever numbers it takes to change the system. The original union organizers succeeded because they (and the workers) were that serious; current unions are iling because neither the unions nor the workers (at least in the US) are anything like that committed to change.
Great insight. The collaborative union models of Scandinavia and Germany offer value to both employer and employee; the adversarial model that has predominated in America offers no value at all to the employer.
Ive always liked the idea of belonging to a union， but then again they always seemed orthogonal to what I was actually doing with my life.
These things go in cycles though， I believe we have it in us to surprise ourselves by inventing something new to turn things around.
Im a recent college grad working in an industry in which it seems to be standard practice to ignore federal and state overtime laws for salaried personnel. We routinely put in 70， 80 hours a week and are paid for 40， despite having no technical certifications or management duties. Because of the continuous pressure to up your billable hours pits all of the lower-level employees against each other in a race for a promotion， no one complains. We have no union and no chance to bargain for ir pay. Whats the solution here?
Its interesting that you bring up solidarity as an animating force in your conception of the utility of unions on a societal level. I would argue that the decline of private-sector unionism in the US has coincided with a decline in solidarity as a union way of life. Unions that I see are more like artificial guilds. They are bastions of racism and ism， and they are dedicated not to safe work practices and ir pay， but rather to extracting a maximum cost for their services no matter what. Its never about protecting all workers， its only ever about protecting themselves. They have become a t， entitled class who see themselves a fundamentally separate from the logic of the economy at large.
Bernardo OHiggins，
Im still surprised that even though people were outraged about Tarp there was never any real movement to say， take the money and well boycott you.
Also clearly in the realm of cosseted liberal ntasy， and mostly unrelated to the lives of the people who really need unions to defend their wages and benefits: meat-packing plant workers， hospital and hotel employees， and so on. (Apart from the health insurance and child care. Everybody needs health insurance and child care.)
Thus， unions are going the way of all other efficiency-killing spongers in this global econeastern healUnionismomy. If the American labor movement adopted a different model， it would change the complexion of this debate significantly.
In this blog， our correspondents share their thoughts and opinions on Americas kinetic brand of politics and the policy it produces.
All those things about the middle class clawing back some measure of economic security are laudable， but (capitalized) Organized Labor， at least in Chicago， is just as focused on bilking the rest of us as is any Wall Street boardroom.
Long post， no answers.
Mr Drum doesnt have an answer， and at the moment， Im pessimistic. I dont see a realistic alternative organisation that can enlist and mobilise manpower in the interest of middle-class and poor peoples pocketbook concerns. A number of alternative models were created in the 1970s， including Ralph Naders PIRGs and the poor peoples participatory-democracy organisations that eventually became ACORN. They were never more than marginal players in power politics， and ACORN was ultimately destroyed essentially with a flick of the organised rights thumb. Organisations like the Campaign for Community Change sweat blood and tears to try to make poor peoples voices heard in government， but the evidence is that government just doesnt listen to poor people. Progressive mass organisations formed along other identity-based or single-issue lines， such as the National Organisation for Women or the Sierra Club， are inevitably going to be dominated by well-off people with leisure time; even those folks are hampered by the ct that people in America have less and less leisure time (see above). Most important， theres really no way in the long term for organisations that depend on voluntary donations to take on organisations that have dedicated funding streams based on real profits. The Sierra Club will never be able to match the mission intensity or the funding consistency of the National Association of Manucturers.
Thats a lot of words about the good that (lower-case) organized labor can accomplish and one line about its dark side. The next time youre in Chicago， drive west from OHare on I-90. Take a look at all the corporate HQs that have relocated to the middle of nowhere along the interstate. Its not because the Bennigans serve especially good french fries out there. Its because if you want to do anything in downtown Chicago， you have to pay the guy who picks up garbage at the construction site $25/hour. And if theres three of them， you have to pay someone else to sit there and smoke cigarettes (its called supervision on the union contract).
whaleyboy，
This is true for many of us. This is why unions are not a resurgence， even in the current climate – they dont address the actual issues that actually concern (most) real people.
Would you swap fewer hours for a lower salary and/or longer time to promotion? If so， a different company might offer that; you might even be able to swing it at your existing one if you phrased it right. (And if you wont take that deal， then I dont have much sympathy – unless you wound up in an environment that was different than the deal you thought you were getting when you hired.)
Whats the real answer? I like your use of the word spiritual. It needs to become not OK to exploit others. This is going to take something spiritual or moral， even religious. But weve kind of destroyed our moral frameworks， and it becomes hard to look an exploiter in the eye， tell him that his actions are morally wrong， and expect him to share a moral framework with you such that your statement means something to him.
Crowd sourced outrage?
Ah， plus ça change， plus cest la mme chose . . .
The distractions from stagnant wages， putting the women to work and hocking the house， are used up now. If nothing changes， at some point a real populist – not a mere celebrity – is going to combine nativism and resentment of the rich into a witchs brew of voter fury and Congressional terror. So， filthy rich， dont say you were not warned when the truth hits the n. People have no idea how skewed the wealth distribution has become. Moreover， they believe that the more equal distribution they imagine to be the case， is itself not equal enough.
Although its maddening to Europeans and Liberal intellectuals， the majority of the U.S. electorate must either be satisfied with or indifferent to the status quo. They certainly keep voting for it. If the Republican Party and corporate America push their agenda too r， I have enough ith in American Democracy that voters will punish them for it in spite of how much propaganda is put on TV by the US Chamber of Commerce. The Tea Party movement is a good case example of such a bottom-up response to perceived government overreach. The Republican establishment did not jump on the Tea Party Express until it was well underway. And although there certainly were wealthy individuals and organizations ready to help things along， they were obviously sowing seeds on fertile ground.
Heres the problem: unions are essentially labor cartels. Cartels work best when the thing being sold is an undifferentiated commodity. These days we are all convinced that we are special flowers with a unique perspective that we bring to the workplace. Differentiation makes it difficult to maintain a cartel.
Heres the problem: unions are essentially labor cartels. Cartels work best when the thing being sold is an undifferentiated commodity. These days we are all convinced that we are special flowers with a unique perspective that we bring to the workplace. Differentiation makes it difficult to maintain a cartel.
Bernardo OHiggins:
Overtime laws do not apply to salaried or professional employees. Ive been on the receiving end of that one， too.
There is certain kinds of work which lends itself quite well to union organizing， but less and less of that work is being done in the United States and the developed world.
Well figure something out， or well decline. The current trends were following certainly dont seem to be working and we seem less able to borrow from the success of others every year.
Umm… consider another line of work?
(I hate the connotations of the word system that I used in the previous paragraph， but， while I reject the connotations， the word itself seemed to best say what I was trying to say.)
Where this group comes in is that one potential problem for these programs is that people dont know who they can trust to hire， and when youre letting someone into your home at least once a week， if not daily， this is rather important and people dont want to just hire someone off the street. With this group， the person doing the hiring knows that whoever they hire from them will have credentials promising a certain degree of professionalism and a brand that can be tarnished， just like what theyd get with an agency. But， its a group dependent on voluntary membership and member dues， similar to a union.
Perhaps this is a part of the answer – for unions to thrive or even survive maybe they should get out of politics and into promoting a higher standard of quality from within their ranks.
@ whaleyboy:
And yet: The heart and soul of liberalism is economic egalitarianism. Without it， Wall Street will continue to extract ever vaster sums from the American economy， the middle class will continue to stagnate， and the left will continue to lack the powerful political and cultural energy necessary for a sustained period of liberal reform. For this to change， America needs a countervailing power as big， crude， and uncompromising as organized labor used to be.
Unions， for better or worse， are history. Even union leaders dont believe theyll ever regain the power of their glory days. If private-sector union density increased from 7 percent to 10 percent， that would be considered a huge victory. But it wouldnt be anywhere near enough to restore the power of the working and middle classes.
The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
… ACORN was ultimately destroyed essentially with a flick of the organised rights thumb.
One issue that I never see discussed is that the unions， in general， do not offer any value to the employer over a non-union employee. As an employer if you can obtain as good or better performance at a lower cost from a non-union person why in the world wouldnt you do that?
Hmm， sounds like a business opportunity， albeit with low margins. I wonder how one could make this work.
Damn if I know what that is though. Some sort of union that works for the multiple industry worker is what Id like to see， but it lls in the category of I dont see any way to get to there from here kind of impossible.
… the left will continue to lack the powerful political and cultural energy necessary for a sustained period of liberal reform.
Because of the continuous pressure to up your billable hours pits all of the lower-level employees against each other in a race for a promotion， no one complains. We have no union and no chance to bargain for ir pay. Whats the solution here?
MY COLLEAGUEasks an excellent question: if stronger private-sector unions arent in the cards in America， then what? What other force do progressives think might play the role unions played in the postwar era， providing greater negotiating power for the working and middle class， so that they can try to claw back some of the 52% of all US P growth from 1993-2008 captured by the top 1% of the income scale and organise politically for concerns like universal health insurance? (Or， my pet beef， more vacation time. Why on Earth do Americans settle for two weeks vacation time per year? Have we no unemployed people? Have we no robots? Isnt the whole point of advancement in technology and efficiency to give us more leisure time? Ever notice what words make up the phrase labour-saving devices? Okay， Im done.)
This is important because for most of these support workers theres a set rate that the government pays for them. Most of them are hired through an agency， which takes a big chunk of the payment and they get paid a low wage. For most cases， theres a big value added here because of scheduling， high support needs， and the individual being served not wanting to deal with hiring and benefit issues directly.
http://www.people.hbs.edu/mnorton/norton%20ariely%20in%20press.pdf
Given what the left considers liberal and reform， that might be a good thing.
However， where groups like this are important is that some people do want to handle this directly and can work with the budget they get through the service system. This is better for everyone， since the individual gets more control over how the money is spent and the direct care worker gets to keep most of the pay allotted for those hours since there isnt an agency that needs to take a cut for management.
Something like this is kinda my imagined ideal for the future of unions. A group that would be selective of members， always eager to get as many new members as possible， that could provide potential employers a brand so that they know when they hire someone with membership in this group that theyre adequately trained and a desirable worker. While this serves a niche purpose in an unusual field like direct care， I do think there might be room for groups like this in other industries as well. Especially since employers seem increasingly reluctant to pay for training. Training for members by members might provide a way to get around expensive technical training in certain professions， especially if its giving the trainer one year access to new skills so they can be trainee the next.
There may be unions that offer tremendous value to employers but I havent seen one， yet.
Yeah， that seems to be about it. Thing is， I actually like my job and it is not a great time to be looking for work (it was a small miracle getting hired where I am now).
As for private-sector unions， Ive been hearing the left talk about the need for a renaissance of the union movement since the early 1990s， at least， and it hasnt happened. Heck， I dont belong to a union; unlike Matthew Yglesiass ther， I never wrote enough television scripts on union shows to make it into the Writers Guild. Ive always liked the idea of belonging to a union， but then again they always seemed orthogonal to what I was actually doing with my life. The one time I found a union useful was when I used something called the freelance writers union to get health insurance in the mid-90s. When I ntasise about what a union could be in the modern economy， I think of a kind of one-stop-shopping membership club that takes up all the public-goods and collective-action deficits of the fluid contemporary multi-career worker: not just help in negotiating better wages and benefits with your employer， but group-rate health insurance， baby-sitting co-ops， get-out-the-vote drives， carpooling， affordable music and art after-school programmes to make up for public-school arts budget cuts， maybe with a nice coffee shop area with WiFi so you can hang out and get some work done while your kids taking his lesson. Neat， right? Also clearly in the realm of cosseted liberal ntasy， and mostly unrelated to the lives of the people who really need unions to defend their wages and benefits: meat-packing plant workers， hospital and hotel employees， and so on. (Apart from the health insurance and child care. Everybody needs health insurance and child care.)
If the question， Am I delivering a service which is economically worth my wage? is never asked at the union hall， something is wrong. And I posit that the question isnt asked often enough.
Jon Stewart had his show on 21st on the same idea， but of course he was funnier and more bitting. The message， working people are screwed unless they get a third world make-up， so that corporations will invest in America.
ACORN was destroyed for ACORNs own documented indiscretions. The organized right would not have had the ability to do so had not ACORN been caught， on videotape， aidind and abetting pimps and prostitutes to evade the law.
Welcome to corporate America! :-). It gets even better. If you start automating stuff theyll really get ticked off.
In the 1990s， some progressives were briefly seduced by utopian emanations from the dreamier sides of the internet boom. The notion at GovWorks.com was that somehow the participatory democracy of the future was going to demand nothing more than mouseclicks in pajamas， that it would emerge spontaneously from the architecture of cascading style sheets， and that it would itself also be a corporation in which everyone could own shares (and that， having all gotten rich off the IPO， we could then spend the rest of our time sitting around in our pajamas engaging in participatory democracy). A decade on， only a tiny minority of us， including myself and my colleague， can actually sit around in our pajamas getting paid to pretend to engage in participatory democracy， and the pay…well， lets say it probably accurately reflects the real social value of what were doing.
A beautifully short and sweet summation of exactly why private sector unions have been declining for the past several decades. Bravo!
Its hard. The big， bad old union movement was unquestionably one half of a conspiracy with management to fleece the rest of us – especially in Detroit. They were hostile to women and minorities， when they were the new and non-union workers who could have increased union membership. Certainly， they seemed much more interested in political power than in improving the lot of people not yet organized. There ought to be a way for employees to organize， perhaps company-by-company， that avoids or mitigates such problems. But maybe not. What then ?