And in the ultra competitive private sector, unions have destroyed plenty of high paying American jobs over the years as global competition has intensified.
Jobs are provided by companies as well as governments. Not by unions.
Unions sometimes represent the workers of these employers. When they do, they collect dues from their members. Dues are the revenue stream of unions, and unions thrive in a non-competitive or monopolistic environment. Like the public sector, for example.
Today union membership in the competitive private sector is ~7% and is ~36% in the monopolistic public sector. In the 1940s those percentages were essentially reversed as 34% of private sector workers were then represented by unions and about 9% of public sector workers were so represented.
What happened to all those private sector union represented positions? And how did the public sector show such dramatic growth in the midst of the decline of union representation in the private sector?
In case the union's 2012 TV campaign (see below) doesn't address the causes of and reasons for this historical reversal between private and public sector union representation, which it most assuredly won't, the two key words to remember are competition and monopoly. Competition exists in the global private sector; not so in the domestic monopolistic public arena.
In the global marketplace, we're all potential customers acting as consumers with free choice with respect to what to buy, whether to buy and how much to pay with our own money. It's MOM at work.
If the company's offering is attractive relative to other offerings, we may choose to buy it. If not, we won't. And we won't care or even know whether unions represent that company's workers or not. It's none of our concern. We're free to choose.
In the other case where government is the monopolistic provider or "seller," we're mere taxpayers who are forced to "buy" whatever the pols and union leaders are selling. They assure us that they're acting on our behalf, and that it's the right thing to do, regardless of what they decide to do with our money. It's OPM to them.
And if we ask too many questions about whether we're getting full value for our money, they wave us off and tell us not to be concerned. But we should be concerned, because it's our money they're spending. And purportedly on our behalf, too.
In other words, when it's private MOM and we're free to choose, we don't and shouldn't care about the union's presence or absence. But when it's taxpayer money, we should be very concerned about how politicians and unions decide how much of our money they're choosing to spend. What begins as our money becomes simply OPM to them.
Unions Try to Boost Image in New Ads discusses some of the money unions are going to spend to improve their public image this election year. Although they won't admit it, they're spending their members' money in large part in an effort to re-elect President Obama over Mitt Romney (that evil private equity fat cat job killer!).
Here's part of what the article says:
"The AFL-CIO is launching an ad campaign that seeks to bolster the labor movement's image—the first such effort in more than a decade—as unions try to reverse a slide in public approval and membership.
Labor officials say the broad campaign, which is being rolled out initially in three cities at a cost of $1.5 million, isn't political and remains separate from the AFL-CIO's election mobilization, when the federation is expected to spend tens of millions of dollars to support President Barack Obama. The AFL-CIO spent $53 million on the 2008 presidential election.
"I think they see that [Mitt] Romney has a very good chance of being the [Republican] nominee, and that the campaign will be waged on issues of income distribution and workers' rights," said Gary Chaison, a professor of industrial relations at Clark University in Worcester, Mass.
He noted the federation may be trying to capitalize on energy from the Occupy Wall Street movement, which sprang up last year and has argued for greater economic equality, a big theme for Democrats. "This is part of their search for relevancy," Mr. Chaison said. . . .
Randel Johnson, senior vice president for labor at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said the campaign isn't surprising given declining union membership, but he said it wouldn't likely change public sentiment.
"No one questions the value of work, but that doesn't really relate to whether one wants to join a union," he said. "If employers are abusive, employees are going to turn to unions. But the union problem has always been that most employers are not."
A Gallup poll in August found that 52% of Americans said they approve of unions, near a record low, compared with 42% who disapprove and 6% who had no opinion. The pollster, which has been tracking union sentiment since 1936, also found the partisan split over unions at its widest ever, with 26% of Republicans approving of unions, compared with 78% of Democrats.
In recent decades, unions have lost members in traditional industrial strongholds such as steel and autos, while more nonunion jobs were created in the service sector. . . .
In 2010, U.S. union membership slipped to 6.9% of workers, or 7.1 million, in the private sector and 36.2% of workers, or 7.6 million, in the public sector. Combined, unions represent 11.9% of workers, down from roughly 20% in the early 1980s. The AFL-CIO is the nation's biggest labor federation, with member unions representing 11 million workers,
Marick Masters, a professor of business at Wayne State University in Detroit, said the partisan split on favorability toward labor could make it difficult to shift views about unions.
"We're in a very divided political economy right now, where opinions are polarized," he said.
The current AFL-CIO campaign is far different from earlier ones that urged people to vote for unions as a way to give workers more clout in the workplace."
The upcoming TV image campaign won't be about giving unions more clout in the workplace, because they have had too much clout for far too long now. Want a few examples?
How about Detroit and the implosion of the American auto industry? The UAW (autoworkers) did a number on that city and those companies these past several decades.
Now virtually all new U.S. automotive facilities are non-union, foreign owned and have been located in right-to-work states. Unhampered by silly and counterproductive union work rules, they are both competitive and profitable while making cars right here in the U.S.
Or how about Pennsylvania steel towns where the USW (steelworkers) once ruled? Now Charlotte headquartered Nucor Corp. is the strongest steel company in the U.S. It's non-union workforce is making highly competitive steel right here in the U.S.
Wal-Mart is another highly successful non-union company. And there are countless others as well.
So where have the union leaders turned, having done more than their fair share to make the U.S. union represented industrial companies uncompetitive?
They've moved to the monopolistic public sector, of course. And positioned themselves as the strongest ally of the Democratic party as well.
Since monopolistic government agencies (i.e., public schools and drivers' license bureaus) aren't faced with competition, public sector unions can opt to get as much pay and benefits as possible for the public sector employees they represent, regardless of the impact on taxpayers. And that's exactly what they do.
Now it's 2012 and the unions through their feel good TV ad campaign are going to tell us all the good things they do. And they'll be spending their members' dues and taxpayer funds, at least indirectly, to tell us that happy story.
Why don't they tell us how well they've done for Detroit and its autoworkers? Or about Pittsburgh and its steel workers? Or the Akron, Ohio rubber workers? Or countless others?
And they should tell us how this effort has affected those local communities as well? Maybe they could interview some shopkeepers whose shops have closed, employees of car dealers that have closed, people whose hopes for a comfortable retirement were lost, and so forth.
And how much the public schools and related public services have improved as a result of their "good work."
Here's something I've never understood. When times are tough, business leaders are often vilified while union leaders get a pass. In that regard, the current flap over private equity is instructive.
Today private equity fat cats are made out to be the bad guys, but the recalcitrant union leaders get a pass. Why?
Unions are parasitic. They earn no profits and provide no jobs, other than those for their high paid leaders.
Without profitable private sector companies, private sector unions have no economic future. Nor do their members.
But that's not the case in the public sector, of course. In the public sector, the taxpayer pays the bill.
Maybe the union ad campaign should explain all this to us. But then again, maybe it's not in their best interests to do so.
Tell the truth, that is.
Thanks. Bob.
No comments:
Post a Comment