Manufacturing, manufacturing, manufacturing. Nobody seems to notice the BRONTOSAURUS in the room. 4% of jobs gone from automation and trade – half and half — true. But, 50% of employees have lost 10% of overall income — out of the 20% of a couple of generations back.
(This reminds me of comparing EITC’s 1/2 1% redistribution with 45% of workers earning less than $15 an hour.)
Could 50% of the workforce squeeze 10% of income back out of the 49% who take 70% (14% of their earnings!)? They sure could if they could collectively agree not to show up for work otherwise. Could if the 49% in turn could squeeze 10% out of the 1% (the infamous one percent) who lately take 20% of overall income — up from 10% a couple of generations back.
(Does the Chicago Bears quarterback really need $126 million for seven years — up from to top NFL paid Joe Namath’s $600,000 [adjusted truly] a couple of generations back?)
Mechanism? Ask Germany (ask Jimmy Hoffa).
* * * * * *
In case nobody thought about it — I never thought about until Trump — it goes like this. The NLRA(a) was written in 1935 leaving blank the use criminal sanctions for muscling the labor market. Even if it did specify jail time for union busting it is extremely arguable that state penalties for muscling ANY persons seeking to collectively bargain (not just union organizers and joiners following fed procedure) would overlap, not violate federal preemption.
It seems inarguable — under long established First Amendment right to organize collective bargaining — that federal preemption cannot force employees down an organizing road that is unarguably impassable, because unenforceable.
Upshot: states may make union busting a felony — hopefully backed by RICO for persistent violators.
6% union density is like 20/10 blood pressure. It starves every other healthy process.
My caveat about one concept in a great, comprehensive essay.
Unions in the Precarious Economy
How collective bargaining can help gig and on-demand workers
Katherine V.W. Stone February 21, 2017 http://prospect.org/article/unions-precarious-economy-0
“If gig workers in the United States are found to be independent contractors rather than employees, they cannot benefit from federal and state laws guaranteeing” … “as independent contractors, any collective action they might take to change their working conditions could make them liable for antitrust violations.”
I’m thinking, UPS and FedEx are identical companies (UPS 550 planes, 60,000 trucks; FedEx 650 planes, 45,000 trucks). If the First Amendment guarantees the right of UPS truckers to collectively bargain, how to justify denying the same right possessed by FedEx drivers even if they had been (are) found to be private contractors, not employees.
Underlying principle: monopoly of union balances monopsony of employers. Country founded on balancing competing interests.
Dennis, just out of curiosity, how would the crime of “union busting” be defined? Any concerns about violating the 1st Amendment guarantee of free speech?
CROSS-POSTED FROM
http://www.bradford-delong.com/2017/02/2017-02-21-tu-highlighted-lets-think-harder-about-the-role-of-globalization-in-wage-stagnation.html
Manufacturing, manufacturing, manufacturing. Nobody seems to notice the BRONTOSAURUS in the room. 4% of jobs gone from automation and trade – half and half — true. But, 50% of employees have lost 10% of overall income — out of the 20% of a couple of generations back.
(This reminds me of comparing EITC’s 1/2 1% redistribution with 45% of workers earning less than $15 an hour.)
Could 50% of the workforce squeeze 10% of income back out of the 49% who take 70% (14% of their earnings!)? They sure could if they could collectively agree not to show up for work otherwise. Could if the 49% in turn could squeeze 10% out of the 1% (the infamous one percent) who lately take 20% of overall income — up from 10% a couple of generations back.
(Does the Chicago Bears quarterback really need $126 million for seven years — up from to top NFL paid Joe Namath’s $600,000 [adjusted truly] a couple of generations back?)
Mechanism? Ask Germany (ask Jimmy Hoffa).
* * * * * *
In case nobody thought about it — I never thought about until Trump — it goes like this. The NLRA(a) was written in 1935 leaving blank the use criminal sanctions for muscling the labor market. Even if it did specify jail time for union busting it is extremely arguable that state penalties for muscling ANY persons seeking to collectively bargain (not just union organizers and joiners following fed procedure) would overlap, not violate federal preemption.
It seems inarguable — under long established First Amendment right to organize collective bargaining — that federal preemption cannot force employees down an organizing road that is unarguably impassable, because unenforceable.
Upshot: states may make union busting a felony — hopefully backed by RICO for persistent violators.
6% union density is like 20/10 blood pressure. It starves every other healthy process.
My caveat about one concept in a great, comprehensive essay.
Unions in the Precarious Economy
How collective bargaining can help gig and on-demand workers
Katherine V.W. Stone February 21, 2017
http://prospect.org/article/unions-precarious-economy-0
“If gig workers in the United States are found to be independent contractors rather than employees, they cannot benefit from federal and state laws guaranteeing” … “as independent contractors, any collective action they might take to change their working conditions could make them liable for antitrust violations.”
I’m thinking, UPS and FedEx are identical companies (UPS 550 planes, 60,000 trucks; FedEx 650 planes, 45,000 trucks). If the First Amendment guarantees the right of UPS truckers to collectively bargain, how to justify denying the same right possessed by FedEx drivers even if they had been (are) found to be private contractors, not employees.
Underlying principle: monopoly of union balances monopsony of employers. Country founded on balancing competing interests.
I am interested to know whether there was any strong-arming of Boeing employees to reject unionization.
Dennis, just out of curiosity, how would the crime of “union busting” be defined? Any concerns about violating the 1st Amendment guarantee of free speech?
Jack,
I presume it would be pretty simple work floor stuff — firing organizers, joiners, all I can think of.
Freedom of commercial speech is less protected than of political speech — but this would be more about actions that speech I think.