Saturday, January 27, 2018

IGNORING LABOR HURTING DEMOCRATS

Mike Fiorillo sent out a great New York Magazine article earlier on the Democrats destroying themselves by ignoring unions, particularly when they are in power.

From the article:
The GOP understands how important labor unions are to the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party, historically, has not. If you want a two-sentence explanation for why the Midwest is turning red (and thus, why Donald Trump is president), you could do worse than that.
With its financial contributions and grassroots organizing, the labor movement helped give Democrats full control of the federal government three times in the last four decades. And all three of those times — under Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama — Democrats failed to pass labor law reforms that would to bolster the union cause. In hindsight, it’s clear that the Democratic Party didn’t merely betray organized labor with these failures, but also, itself.
Between 1978 and 2017, the union membership rate in the United States fell by more than half — from 26 to 10.7 percent. Some of this decline probably couldn’t have been averted — or, at least, not by changes in labor law alone. The combination of resurgent economies in Europe and Japan, the United States’ decidedly non-protectionist trade policies, and technological advances in shipping was bound to do a number on American unions. Global competition thinned profit margins for U.S. firms; cutting labor costs was one of the easiest ways to fatten ’em back up; and breaking unions (through persuasion, intimidation, or relocation) was one of the easiest ways to cut said costs.
Nevertheless, there was lot that Democrats could have done — through labor law reform — to shelter the union movement from these changes, and help it establish a bigger footprint in the service sector. At present, employers are prohibited from firing workers for organizing or threatening to close businesses if workers unionize — but the penalties for such violations are negligible. Further, while they must recognize unions once they are ratified by workers in an election, employers can delay those elections for months or even years — and, even after recognition, face no obligation to reach a contract with their newly unionized workers.
Democrats could have increased the penalties for violating labor law, enabled unions to circumvent the election process if a majority of workers signed union cards (a.k.a. “card check”), and required employers to enter arbitration with unions if no contract was reached within 120 days of their formation — as Barack Obama promised the labor movement they would, in 2008.

Or, if they were feeling a bit more radical, they could have repealed the part of the Taft-Hartley Act that allows conservatives states to pass “right to work” laws. Such laws undermine organized labor by allowing workers who join a unionized workplace to enjoy the benefits of a collective bargaining agreement without paying dues to the union that negotiated it. This encourages other workers to skirt their dues, which can then drain a union of the funds it needs to survive.
The article then cites a study from the National Bureau of Economic Research which makes the case by examining data that right to work laws lead to Republican gains. Let's examine the abstract and the conclusion of the paper.
The Abstract:
Labor unions play a central role in the Democratic party coalition, providing candidates with voters, volunteers, and contributions, as well as lobbying policymakers. Has the sustained decline of organized labor hurt Democrats in elections and shifted public policy? We use the enactment of right-to-work laws—which weaken unions by removing agency shop protections— to estimate the effect of unions on politics from 1980 to 2016. Comparing counties on either side of a state and right-to-work border to causally identify the effects of the state laws, we find that right-to-work laws reduce Democratic Presidential vote shares by 3.5 percentage points. We find similar effects in US Senate, US House, and Gubernatorial races, as well as on state legislative control. Turnout is also 2 to 3 percentage points lower in right-to-work counties after those laws pass. We next explore the mechanisms behind these effects, finding that right-to-work laws dampen organized labor campaign contributions to Democrats and that potential Democratic voters are less likely to be contacted to vote in right-to-work states. The weakening of unions also has large downstream effects both on who runs for office and on state legislative policy. Fewer working class candidates serve in state legislatures and Congress, and state policy moves in a more conservative direction following the passage of right-to-work laws.
Now read the conclusion as you ponder your future without being in a union or paying union dues:
Conclusion

The anti-tax political activist Grover Norquist recently declared that while President Trump may be historically unpopular, the GOP could still “win big” in 2020. The secret to the Republican party’s long-term success, Norquist argued, involved state-level initiatives to weaken the power of labor unions. As Norquist explained it, if union reforms cutting the power of labor unions to recruit and retain members—like RTW laws—“are enacted in a dozen more states, the modern Democratic Party will cease to be a competitive power in American politics.” A weaker labor movement, Norquist reasoned, would not just have economic consequences. It would also have significant political repercussions, meaning that Democrats would have substantially less of a grassroots presence on the ground during elections and less money to invest in politics.

Norquist’s theory is also shared by state-level conservative activists who have been driving the recent push to enact additional RTW laws in newly GOP-controlled state governments. Tracie Sharp runs a national network of state-level conservative think-tanks that have championed the passage of RTW laws in recent years in states such as Michigan, Kentucky, Missouri and Wisconsin (Hertel-Fernandez 2017). In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Sharp explained why she was optimistic about the long-run effects of her network’s push against the labor movement, explaining that “When you chip away at one of the [liberal] power sources that also does a lot of get-out-the-vote...I think that helps [conservative activists and GOP politicians]—for sure.”36 Internal documents from Sharp’s organization provide an even clearer message: by passing RTW laws, the work of conservative organizations like hers was “permanently depriving the Left from access to millions of dollars...every election cycle.” That meant dealing “a major blow to the Left’s ability to control government at the state and national levels.”

In this paper, we have brought these arguments to the data, examining the short- and long-run political consequences of state RTW laws. Comparing otherwise similar counties straddling state
(and RTW) borders, we find that the passage of RTW laws led Democratic candidates up and down the ballot to receive fewer votes. In Presidential elections, Democratic candidates received about 3.5 percentage points fewer votes following the passage of RTW laws in the counties on the RTW side of the border. RTW laws also lower turnout in both federal and state races. Further survey-based analysis revealed that working class Americans (but not professional workers) were less likely to report get-out-the-vote contact in RTW states following the passage of RTW laws, suggesting that weakened unions have less capacity for turning out Democratic voters. And we showed that union fundraising for state and local races (and Democratic funding in general) falls sharply following the passage of RTW laws.

The effects of RTW laws go beyond elections. We also examined how, by weakening the relationship between unions and the Democrats, RTW laws may have changed the political landscape across the U.S. states. Working class candidates—politicians most likely to be backed by the labor movement—are less likely to hold federal and state office in states following the passage of RTW laws. State policy as a whole, moreover, moved to the ideological right in RTW states following
the passage of those laws.

Beyond revealing the importance of state RTW laws for a wider set of political outcomes than has been previously appreciated, our paper makes a broader contributions to the study of labor unions and the labor market. In older debates in the literature, scholars have asked what unions do in the United States. While a long line of work has shown the ways that labor unions directly affect the wage and income distributions—by compressing wages in unionized firms and industries—we emphasize the political nature of labor organizations. Beyond the bargaining table, unions affect inequality through the ballot box, through the politicians and policies they support. The capacity of unions to affect the labor market and the income distribution through this second channel may be waning as labor’s strength—and political clout—diminishes in the face of unfavorable state policy, such as RTW laws.


We're losing as working people and as if we read some of the right wing comments on this blog, we can see that some of our own people are contributing to our defeat.

14 comments:

  1. Yeah but we are the ones who end up losing in the end.

    ReplyDelete
  2. When the unions stopped caring about their members, and focused on the political, going so far as to to endorse politicians who were against their members interests (but not the union fatcat leaders) then this was bound to happen. I was a very pro uft person for many years, however when the union supported al sharptons political stunt of walking over Verrazano, or occupy Wall Street, or Democrats who were not pro public schools, just because they were Democrats, but at same time refused to support the atr’s or publicly take a stand against corrrupt lawless principals, i began to see why people are disgusted.

    Unions should fight for interests of members, not their own leaders conflicts of interest.

    ReplyDelete
  3. What don't you get James? We already lost, and we are losing more and more. Thats Mulgrew's answer, well, we suck, but without us it will be worse, so continue to pay us to suck. Huh? No thanks, not anymore. When I stop wanting to kill myself just because I was stupid enough o become a teacher, when students are actually disciplined for wrongdoing, when we get a fair contract to make up for the worst contract in history, ask me again. By the way, I plan to resign soon, because of how bad it is, meaning I will lose 80% of the retro I already worked for an earned, exactly what the DOE and UFT worked together to set up.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The unions have nobody to blame but themselves. They have disregarded the interests of their members for many years. They have acted like a cabal by hiding behind closed doors while taking our dues money year after year. After Janus, they will finally be held accountable. If they want my money, they better earn it with a good contract.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Why would de Blasio give us a good contract? Both sides have to agree. We have no leverage. Don't you think the city knows this? We will have even less leverage when you or anyone else leaves. The Union is not Michael Mulgrew or Randi Weingarten. It is all of us. Yes, the system is rigged but if we came together we could change it. Remember the words of retired Bryant High School Chapter Leader Sam Lazarus: "The problem with the UFT is the leadership and the membership." So true. Mulgrew has no reason to change, nor does the city, until we collectively demand it. I wish I could get the people who read this to understand that point.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Well said, James, Try to get the rank and file to acknowledge that they are the union.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I would like to see the contract go to arbitration. We should have a contract that is comparable to the districts that surround us. We should demand that our class size, observations, and salary are comparable to the districts that are right next door to NYC. There is no need to race to get a contract done. Patience should be the key in order here. And yes, we are all the UFT. However the rank and file do not get to make contract demands or negotiate behind closed doors. The rank and file are rightfully pissed right now. A mass exodus might be the push that Mulgrew needs to get us a fair contract. If he is just sitting back and taking whatever the City throws at us, he is not doing his job and as such, he should not be making 200 grand a year off our backs. Shave the beast and maybe there will be positive change.

    ReplyDelete
  8. 283 grand, plus expenses, well over 300 grand.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Mulgrew is going to have to stop eating quail and caviar and soon hit up White Castle once Janus passes.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Muldrow will be taken care of. He has served the Democratic establishment quite well. The rank and file I am not so sure about.

    Our contract has gone too arbitration four times. Once it was binding and three times it was fact finding that we accepted. We basically lost each time because of pattern bargaining where one municipal union settles on a percentage raise, it sets a pattern and other city unions get the same increase. Arbitrators compare us to other city workers and not surrounding districts. Our conditions keep deteriorating because we have no credible strike threat. That needs to change.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Sorry James but I gotta call bullshit on ya'. Mulgrew will not be taken care of. The rank and file are beyond pissed at him and his crap. He has notconnections like Weingarten does. Once Janus goes through he is gonna be shit out of luck. Back to the wood shop he will go. Lastly, we should have never accepted the fact finding. Binding arbitration is the only fair way to get something as close to a fair contract as possible. I have been around the block in the DOE since 1996. This ain't my first rodeo.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Historically, 3% minimum. How did we get 1% backloaded and way backloaded retro?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Jeff-7:35,

    If you can, try to hang in there. Everyday do something nice for yourself. Try to get a transfer to a school better for you. Even go to therapy. I resigned years ago, but I wish someone had worked with me to try to find a way to stay. Either way-good luck!

    ReplyDelete

●Comments are moderated.
●Kindly use your Google account. ●Anonymous comments only from Google accounts.
●Please stay on topic and use reputable sources.
●Irrelevant comments will not be posted.
●Try to be respectful; we are professionals.