From whom, to whom?

Another random thought on workers and bargaining power: one of the reasons that I think that progressives assume that workers as a class have less bargaining power than employers is that workers with bargaining power generally use it to extract high salaries, whereupon they pass out of the class "worker" and into the class "wealthy".

Progressives don't simply want workers, as a group, to have as much bargaining power as employers; they also want that power to be distributed much more equally within the group. In that reading, one might argue that some significant portion of union redistribution is not from "employers" to "workers" but from "workers with bargaining power" to "workers with less highly demanded skill sets". Though I imagine that progressives would dispute that view.

Comments

Not being a progressive, I don't know whether your characterization of what progessives think is accurate or not. But American labor history may confirm your view: here in Pittsburgh, most unions were at one time comprised only of skilled workers in the steel mills (who were usually second-generation Irish or German); they excluded low-skill immigrants from Eastern Europe who did the dirtiest and most dangerous jobs. Only when automation eliminated the need for many of those skilled jobs did the unions expand, and strikes (like the famous one in Homestead in 1892) start taking place.

Posted by Joe Magarac | September 27, 2007 3:22 PM

??? Where on earth do you get your characterization of Progressive politics? It seems you are describing a rather historic liberal - or perhaps even socialist - view. Can you provide some citations or quotes or links? Anything to support your conclusions would be nice. (Of course, I just joined the conversation, so forgive me if you've already done so.)

For the record, I think "Progressive" describes my politics better than any other single term. As such (and as a Southerner) I am decidedly in the "right to work" camp. I would protect both a worker's and an employer's natural bargaining power, and that includes both making it illegal to fire anyone who joins a union (unless they participate in union activities while on the clock instead of working) and allowing people to work for a company without having to join the union (if the company wishes it). This is an American's inherent right to free assembly, and should be extended to workers in the same way free speech, etc., is.

If someone wants to strike then they can do so. They loose their pay, and perhaps their job, but that's up to them. And if the company wants to fire them, that's their right as well. What's wrong with that?

Posted by Ted Carmichael | September 27, 2007 4:09 PM

Ted,

I don't think you will find many progressives of this day and age that will mirror your stance on right to work, and employers right to not negotiate with unions. I have advocated the same position on a few progressive blogs, so I am fairly certain of this based on the response I was given.

Posted by Yancey Ward | September 27, 2007 4:25 PM

Given that union workers aren't typically highly skilled, I find it hard to believe this:

In that reading, one might argue that some significant portion of union redistribution is not from "employers" to "workers" but from "workers with bargaining power" to "workers with less highly demanded skill sets".

I agree with "workers with bargaining power" bit but not so much about the "workers with less highly demanded skill sets" bit.

I'm an engineer with a postgraduate degree working in a relatively specialized field. My skills are in demand. Yet, engineers in general have almost no collective bargaining power. Part of this is probably because labor laws treat us differently than they treat lower skilled workers. For example, I can be forced to work overtime for no additional pay.

Maybe we just like our jobs more and jobs like driving a truck or working on an assembly line just suck.

EI

Posted by Earnest Iconoclast | September 27, 2007 4:45 PM

Just to add to Yancey's post: For proof, look at the Orwellian-named "Employee Free Choice Act" which passed the House of Representatives easily this year behind a near-unanimous vote from the Dems. Under that law, secret balloting on whether to unionize would be prohibited and replaced with mandatory "card checks." Essentially, once an employee turned in their card, they would have cast an irrevocable ballot in favor of unionization. There would be a very lengthy time limit in which cards could be submitted (I think it was around 60 days, and at least 30). So if an employee, for just a few minutes over the course of a month or more, caves in to peer pressure (since everyone knows who has turned in their card), briefly gets ticked off at his boss, or feels threatened, then he has made an irrevocable vote in favor of unionization. And this says nothing about the increasing marginal pressure on the employee for every card that gets turned in. Compare that to a secret ballot system where you get to hear the campaigns of both sides over an extended period of time, think about it in private, and then cast a vote that no one knows about, and ask yourself whether the "Progressive" viewpoint really increases an employee's ability to freely choose.

Posted by Mark | September 27, 2007 4:51 PM

I can be forced to work overtime for no additional pay.

I do not think that word (forced) means what you think it means.

Posted by ed | September 27, 2007 5:07 PM

If someone wants to strike then they can do so. They loose their pay, and perhaps their job, but that's up to them. And if the company wants to fire them, that's their right as well. What's wrong with that?

Because it removes the usefulness of the strike for workers who can in fact be easily replaced. For someone who can be easily replaced, the main attraction of a union and a strike is that the employer is forced to treat you as if you aren't easily replaced. There's no point to the whole operation otherwise.

Posted by BP Beckley | September 27, 2007 5:11 PM

BP Beckley,

In other words, employers should have no right of free assembly, in contrast to the class defined as "workers"?

Leaving that issue aside, however, it simply is not true that strikes are useless in such circumstances. Workers, as a group, are not "easily" replaced, nor is it ever cheap to do so. Yes, individuals might be easy to replace, but there is a cost involved in replacing a large fraction of one's workforce. Why is it that unions can't foreswear the use of physical coercion, by themselves or the state, and use their right to walk away from the employer, en masse, as a legitimate bargaining position (assuming, of course, there is no contract that prevents such job actions)?

Posted by Yancey Ward | September 27, 2007 5:26 PM

"Compare that to a secret ballot system where you get to hear the campaigns of both sides over an extended period of time"

Considering the number of people fired for organizing unions (and the corresponding # of people who never tried in the first place due to intimidation) this statement is laughable. See e.g. here (25% of all organizing campaigns get somebody fired illegally) and plenty of other places that I won't google because I'm on my way out the door. Suffice to say, there is a legitimate argument against employer-run ballots for unionizing drives.

Posted by Dan Miller | September 27, 2007 5:40 PM

BP Beckley:
The fact is that there are costs for replacing even an unskilled worker (I know from experience). Those costs can become very substantial when you are talking about a large number of workers that makes up a significant percentage of your operations.
The phrase "unskilled worker" is really something of a misnomer, because there can be a tremendous difference in ability and work ethic in just about any job you can imagine. The major difference between an "unskilled" job and a "skilled" job is just the slope of the learning curve - the curve still exists for both.
As a result, you are going to get lower quality and quantity work with replacement workers for a substantial amount of time in just about any job. And this says nothing about the costs of finding those replacement workers in the first place- most employers don't have a mob of people (willing to cross a picket line, mind you) just waiting in the wings in the event of a strike.
So, even if an employer fires everyone who goes on strike, they are looking at weeks, if not months or years, in which their operations will be noticeably slowed down or of much lower quality, costing the employer a significant amount in lost business, time, and possibly overtime (since the employer will have to make up for the lost time somehow). And this says nothing about the damage to the employer's good will if he fires that many people for seeking better wages, benefits, etc.

Posted by Mark | September 27, 2007 5:51 PM

No, ed, I know what "forced" means. By that, I meant that my only recourse if asked to work unpaid overtime was to quit my job and then try to find another. A "non-exempt" employee, on the other hand, must be paid overtime wages if he works overtime.

There are different levels of force.

EI

Posted by Earnest Iconoclast | September 27, 2007 6:22 PM

Dan:
The UAW's self-serving statistics based on rather old data aren't going to cut it in terms of making my statement "laughable." The number they used simply stated that "employees are illegally fired in 25% of all organizing campaigns." I've had enough experience doing labor and employment law(on both sides) to know that the phrase "illegally fired" has questionable value. This is especially true in the context of union organization where employers will have a hard time firing anyone without being accused of unlawful employment practices. In any event, the idea of employees being fired as a result of participation in organizing activities would seem to argue in favor of (not against) secret balloting as opposed to a card check system- an employer can't fire you for your stance on the union if he doesn't know what that stance is! Also worth mentioning is that card-checks are already permissible - they're just not required; so that 25% statistic includes an unknown percentage of card-check campaigns.
Either way, the point of my post was to show that Progressives favor measures like that, which I'm guessing the original poster Ted would not support (based on his support of right-to-work laws).
I am not trying in anyway to suggest that employers don't engage in illegal intimidation. But intimidation can cut both ways, and what is defined as illegal intimidation for the employer is defined as legal for co-workers and union organizers (with some exceptions).

Posted by Mark | September 27, 2007 6:27 PM

Just to add to Yancey's response, BP, I would also wonder about a situation where workers "are easily replaced." That means, in short, that people exist who are willing to do the work at the rate offered. I am as interested in protecting those people's right to a good job as the ones already employed. I see no reason why the law should overly-protect workers just because they got there first.

On the other hand, I have often argued for an increase in the minimum wage. Without delving too much into the side issue, I believe the benefits outweigh the costs. What's more, it is equally as fair to those currently employed as well as those looking for work. Frankly, for me, that's the most important thing.

Cheers,

Posted by Ted Carmichael | September 27, 2007 8:54 PM

Actually... my one and only exposure to being a union worker was precisely an example of the smoothing out of wages... to my detriment.

I was a graduate student in physics at a school who's graduate students were unionized as a single block. The problem is, the market for graduate students as TAs (Teaching Assistants) and RAs (Research Assistants) varies widely by field. The union required one single wage for all. As a result I, and my fellow Physics grad students, where getting about 60% of the going rate nationally for physics TAs. This in a region with a cost of living about 130% of the national average. The TAs in fields like English, History, Women's Studies, etc were getting about 200% of the national going rate for TAs in their fields.

This naturally had the result you would expect. Fields like phyiscs, mathematics, chemistry, etc (basically all the sciences) had *huge* recruitment problems. They were actively having difficulties getting enough grad students to TA all the classes the needed to offer. Fields like English, History, etc had astounding success recruiting. They could be *highly* selective because of the way above market rate TA compensation.

I actually spoke to one of the university negotiating reps at one point wrt the contract negotiations. The university was desperately trying *anything* they could do to pay more to the science TAs, because they *knew* failure to do so was killing them. All such offers were vetoed by the union. Bringing *all* TAs up the going rate for science TAs would have been a budget buster...

There's just something particularly embittering about being forced to pay union dues to a union that is actively *suppressing* your wages.

Posted by quadrupole | September 27, 2007 9:58 PM

So what is a "progressive"? Does anyone actually answer to this tag? Or is the appropriate translation the one I get from context --e.g. "A straw horse I can use to disparage anyone who sympathizes with a position I don't hold --but not too much."

In this blog, serious disparagement without empirical support is saved for "liberals" and "socialists".

I think you stated this was random thought. You must see yourself as a big time thinker, if you are willing to disparage some phantom group in print based upon random neural misfirings.

If you want anyone with even the most minimal intellectual training to agree with you, however, you need to tighten it up.

Posted by tc125231 | September 27, 2007 11:28 PM

tc writes: "So what is a "progressive"? Does anyone actually answer to this tag? Or is the appropriate translation the one I get from context --e.g. "A straw horse I can use to disparage anyone who sympathizes with a position I don't hold --but not too much.""

Apparently "progressives" are people who think unions contributed to the growth of the American economy 80 years ago, but can be dispensed with today because employers are now really, really nice. If there's any more depth to this "surge" topic than that I'm not seeing it.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 28, 2007 2:24 AM

Very true. I remember a post over at Ezra's a while back when one of his commenters, as they like to do, simply announced that we were in an era where workers had no bargaining power. Contrast with the weekly WSJ headlines about employers desperate for quality workers offering absurd benefits to potential employees (hell, even NPR had a story on this trend), and it is basically what you said.

Posted by snrub | September 28, 2007 9:52 AM

So what is a "progressive"?

In my opinion it's a liberal who wants to avoid the label "liberal," due to the past 20 years the "conservatives" have spent demonizing liberals.

The heck with that. I'm a liberal and proud of it.

Posted by liberalrob | September 28, 2007 10:53 AM

Mark:

BP Beckley:
The fact is that there are costs for replacing even an unskilled worker (I know from experience). Those costs can become very substantial when you are talking about a large number of workers that makes up a significant percentage of your operations.

Well, ok. What you're saying is that even workers who don't seem to have any bargaining power actually have some, and in that situation, it makes sense that workers can take collective action without the help of the state and actually have it be effective.

I was exploring what it takes to get bargaining power for workers who wouldn't have any if nature took its course. Perhaps a nonexistent situation in its pure state, but everything's on a continuum. A company with 50 plants will care a lot less about one being shut down by a stike than a company with one plant, a plant located in a high unemployment area will care a lot less than a plant in a low unemployment area, a company that's the biggest employer in the county will care less than an employer who has to compete with 50 other companies for the same pool of workers. For some workers, the power differentials are going to stack up, and what is their recourse?

I'm not trying to make a general defense of unions or strikes, by the way, I'm wondering what it takes to make the strike weapon effective.

It occurs to me looking back at what I just wrote that there is a geographical angle to this that isn't getting much play in this thread. In a large, economically diverse metropolitan area, the idea that a single employer not liking you can be a big problem is kind of foreign, but it's a much more real prospect in the mining and factory towns outside the big metropolitan areas.

Posted by BP Beckley | September 28, 2007 11:14 AM

And if the company wants to fire them, that's their right as well. What's wrong with that?

Corporations are legal persons, not real persons. As such there is no 'state of nature' for them. Their rights are limited by what the laws through which they exist allow.

Posted by BT | September 28, 2007 11:56 AM

BT, a company is not necessarily a corporation.

Are you saying businesses shouldn't be allowed to fire employees?

Posted by Fraggle Rock | September 28, 2007 2:51 PM

BP:
I know this is probably the end of the thread, but thank you for the reasoned response.
Anyhow, even I am willing to accept some restrictions on employers' rights to prevent collective action by their employees, particularly where the employer is a corporation rather than a partnership. Admittedly, effective leverage is a continuum, with the unskilled individual striking in a high unemployment area at the bottom, and essentially the pilots' union at the top (ie, essential, highly skilled and trained, with few people who are unemployed and qualified, plus high demand for the skill set in other arenas).

I agree with your point about the geographical element of all of this. The ability to change or not change jobs easily creates a major issue of leverage, maybe even the most important. I'm frankly not sure of how to compensate for this discrepancy since the costs of moving to an area with high employment are very high and may give the employer leverage that it doesn't necessarily deserve...It's an interesting issue though that I want to give more thought. Maybe I'll follow up on my own blog this weekend.

Posted by Mark | September 28, 2007 5:45 PM

Mark:

Do I read you correctly as saying you'd entertain making employing people in a high unemployment area even more unattractive ("I'm frankly not sure of how to compensate for this discrepancy [...] moving to an area with high employment [...] may give the employer leverage that it doesn't necessarily deserve").

Is that really a good incentive structure? Don't we want companies to move to areas with high unemployment (to bring jobs and reduce the unemployment rate) instead of punish them for that decision?

Or am I misunderstanding your point?

Posted by SG | September 28, 2007 6:43 PM

SG:
I think you misunderstand my concern, and I'll admit to horribly wording that particular section. The concern is whether the employer's negotiating position is inappropriately strengthened by the high cost for an individual employee to move to an area with more readily available jobs if he is fired. In other words, I was questioning whether an employer's negotiating power should be strengthened by the employee's personal circumstances.
That said, and having had the time to think about it more, it's really not that problematic to me. An employer is still going to have to invest significant resources to train replacement workers in just about any conceivable situation, or will have to shut the plant down temporarily (which likely means lost profits). Plus, there will be more lost goodwill for the employer in a high unemployment scenario than there would be in a low unemployment scenario. Finally, the difficulty of employees moving is already factored into the areas's market price for labor; any government action to remove this element from the employer's bargaining strength is going to drive up the market price for labor, thereby discouraging other employers from moving to the area, and encouraging the existing employers to move out of the area.

Posted by Mark | September 29, 2007 1:40 AM

blossom neologianism orthologian outstride wheelwright shrewmouse salinometry cholecystocolostomy
http://www.aminaproducts.com >Amina
http://www.therawvegannetwork.com/

Posted by Francisco Gillespie | November 27, 2007 1:16 PM