Local blogosphere abuzz lately with talk about the Congressional vote on the Employee Free Choice bill. Randy Kuhl's vote, specifically, has received plenty of attention. He voted no despite originally co-sponsoring the bill. If we are scoring correctly Rochester Turning says that's bad and the Fighting 29th (a Colbert voice always says this blog title in my head) says it's not such a big deal.
The Fighting 29th examines the benefits of unionization in a post today. The WBP decided to take a look as well.
According to a January 25th, 2007 US Department of Labor report:
In 2006, full-time wage and salary workers who were union members had median usual weekly earnings of $833, compared with a median of $642 for wage and salary workers who were not represented by unions.
In plain numbers, being a member of a union will earn you more money. Numbers can be misleading, though, and perhaps the trend is more closely linked to what industries see widest union membership, rather than membership itself:
Workers in the public sector had a union membership rate nearly five times that of private sector employees . . . The union membership rate for government workers (36.2 percent) was substantially higher than for private industry workers (7.4 percent). Within the public sector, local government workers had the highest union membership rate, 41.9 percent. This group includes several heavily unionized occupations, such as teachers, police officers, and fire fighters. Among major private industries, transportation and utilities had the highest union membership rate, at 23.2 percent, followed by construction (13.0 percent) . . . Among occupational groups, education, training, and library occupations (37.3 percent) and protective service occupations (34.7 percent) had the highest unionization rates
At the least this data tells us how the legislation was pushed through as these sectors are represented by very powerful lobbies, but does it tell us why? The majority of "average American workers" who belong to unions are not benefiting from union membership because "average Americans" are not public sector employees.
What if the focus is pared down to state level? Not many would say that the Upstate New York economy is booming. Does union membership play a role?
Four states had union membership rates over 20.0 percent in 2006--Hawaii (24.7 percent), New York (24.4 percent), Alaska (22.2 percent), and New Jersey (20.1 percent). Hawaii and New York have recorded the highest union membership rates among all states for 10 of the past 11 years.
Alaska and Hawaii can essentially be thrown out since their economies are anomalies given geography; left are New York and New Jersey, economies on the grow or on the decline?
The southern United States, particularly the southeast, have experienced considerable economic growth over the past decade. How do unions factor?
Among the five states reporting union membership rates below 5.0 percent in 2006, North Carolina and South Carolina continued to post the lowest rates (3.3 percent each). The next lowest rates were recorded in Virginia (4.0 percent), Georgia (4.4 percent), and Texas (4.9 percent).
Union membership across the country is declining, but unions are big money and this legislation is a response to those declining numbers. The law may benefit the membership rolls but I have trouble believing it will benefit our economy.
7 comments:
Those Southeast states are where companies like Toyota want to locate. I wonder if there's any connection? If you're a non-union company that treats your employees well, like Toyota, why go somewhere where well-funded unions will try to convince legislators to make you unionize?
Are you sure that the only two things that New York and New Jersey have in common is high Union membership? Er, wait. Neither one has "high" Union membership, do they? Well below 50%, and we're not losing teachers, we're losing manufacturing jobs, most of which are not Union. In fact, the factories that are Union are losing a whole lot less jobs percentage-wise than those non-Union jobs.
I don't understand where you're coming up with this idea that Unions are some kind of poison from which manufacturing is running away. There are so many other problems with traditionally Union states that it's hard to know where to begin.
I'll tell you this, though: I might have some problems with Unions, but I'm not going to blame the people who gave us all vacation and 40 hour work weeks.
Haven't had to do this in a while, but let's break it down -
1. "Er, wait. Neither one has "high" Union membership, do they?"
Actually, compared with the national average, yes, Union membership rate for NY and NJ is very high.
2. "I don't understand where you're coming up with this idea that Unions are some kind of poison from which manufacturing is running away."
I didn't come up with that idea, nor did I mention anything similar in the post. The purpose was to examine whether the "Average American Worker" benefits from Union membership and if the bill would benefit our economy. If I suggest anything in the post it is that the average American will not see any benefit from this legislation.
Then what, exactly, are you saying here?:
Alaska and Hawaii can essentially be thrown out since their economies are anomalies given geography; left are New York and New Jersey, economies on the grow or on the decline?
The southern United States, particularly the southeast, have experienced considerable economic growth over the past decade. How do unions factor?
Among the five states reporting union membership rates below 5.0 percent in 2006, North Carolina and South Carolina continued to post the lowest rates (3.3 percent each). The next lowest rates were recorded in Virginia (4.0 percent), Georgia (4.4 percent), and Texas (4.9 percent).
The implication seems to be that the fact that there are lots of Union workers in NY is the reason for the decline. Otherwise, I can't imagine why you'd put these facts together in the post.
And Unionization is not the reason. Stagnation and corruption in the state government have a lot more to do with it than Unions. You'd have to show me a lot more before I believed it had anything to do with Unions.
Stagnation and corruption are vague terms, unions are actual organizations. That aside, let's say "stagnation and corruption" are the main reasons for economic decline. I am not saying Unions are THE reason for all our troubles in NY. I am saying that less unionized states seem to be doing better as of late, therefore, unions may be ONE of the reasons.
I am saying that less unionized states seem to be doing better as of late, therefore, unions may be ONE of the reasons.
OK, but by that logic, you might say that both of your cited examples are states whose names begin with "New." That is, based on the evidence presented, at least as valid an argument.
Let me "break it down" for you. You've documented that New York and New Jersey have higher Union membership compared to other states. You've documented that New York and New Jersey are not growing the way other states are. You have not shown any compelling evidence to support the notion that those two things are at all related.
The southeast doesn't have snow-fall, either, yet you do not suggest that this is the reason. Southerners "talk funny," but that's not the reason. The only comparison that you make is on the Union membership, and that alone would not stand up for any logical review.
Southern drawls are not economic organizations with powerful lobbies that represent their interests in government - Unions are. Therefore, even you have to acknowledge that they might, just maybe in someway, have SOME effect on the economy of which they are part. Or do you not think lobbies really factor in the legislative process?
Snowfall may play a role - again, the point of the article was to examine the motivation for and benefits of HR 800.
What we have are numbers, numbers indicate trends and patterns and what conclusions you draw from those numbers and my comments are your own.
If you weren't so busy kneejerking you would see that the statment you highlighted says unions MAY BE one of the reasons. Not is, MAY BE, unions were created in an era and economy much different than our own. It is shortsighted to think that this system may not need reexamination after decades of advancement that have seen the workplace change and the worker become more educated and aware.
Post a Comment