Amazingly, I am not making this up — who has that kind of imagination? HT to alert reader TedF for catching what I assume is an unintentional @petehoekstra issued yesterday by the spokesman for the MA branch of the AFL-CIO.
[L]abor unions, which came out strongly against the transportation legislation a day earlier, were furious yesterday over a budget that includes deep cuts to – and the eventual elimination of – the Quinn Bill, a controversial program that awards bonuses for police officers who hold college degrees.
“This budget squeezes as much as you possibly can out of workers, on our backs, and out of our pockets,” said Tim Sullivan, legislative and communications director for the Massachusetts AFL-CIO. “It’s legislative water-boarding of unions and working people. That’s how it feels.”
“That’s how it feels,” said Tim Sullivan, who has no freaking idea how it actually feels to be water-boarded, legislatively or otherwise.
Come on, folks. Yes, it’s a tough budget. But silly rhetoric doesn’t help anyone — and, as Pete Hoekstra has learned, it just makes the rhetoritician look foolish.
Deep breaths, Tim, deep breaths. And for God’s sake, stay off Twitter!
seascraper says
That’s the way we budget now. You cut everybody back and then let the wheels get started squeaking. It’s demeaning isn’t it? McCrea had it right in his interview… this gives the power to the bosses to restore a piece and then you are in debt to the speaker or whomever.
fdr08 says
Some communities have in their collective bargaining agreements that if the State fails to fund the Quinn Bill that the local city or town will make up the difference. I think Somerville is one city with this provision. Will these provisions still have to be honored with the elimination of the Quinn Bill?
<
p>And shame on those communities for agreeing to that!
pablophil says
and congratulations for those local unions that foresaw that the Legislature, with its putative Democrats would actually believe in imposing things on workers rather than negotiating them.
<
p>And, please, none of that “but that what happens in the private sector,” because the private sector could be unionized, too. Those workers seem to have chosen to be powerless, and now want unionized workers powerless, too.
fdr08 says
what do you call the Republicans that voted against the bill? Working class heroes?
farnkoff says
Hundreds of pissed-off cops armed with machine guns and grenade launchers.
(Just kidding!)
annem says
bob-neer says
From the Labor and Worklife Program at Harvard Law School.
<
p>
farnkoff says
I think that graph looks pretty similar.
goldsteingonewild says
bob-neer says
I saw that chart too, on the same page. It is interesting, but all that it shows is that some parts of the labor movement have been more successful than others. Deck chairs on the Titanic.
<
p>The point of the example is that the spokesperson for the MA branch of the AFL-CIO sounds completely out of touch — just as one would expect from a movement that has lost about 2/3 of its members over the last 60 years. The AFL-CIO is a broad-based union if ever there was one (admittedly, it does include AFSCME đŸ™‚
<
p>But, I agree it is an interesting graph in its own right.
<
p>Personally, I think a strong labor movement is very important for our economy and something every American should support. Sadly, the unions often are their own worst enemy, as Mr. Sullivan’s comment demonstrates more clearly than 500 pounds of academic studies ever could.
<
p>
gary says
If you overlay a graph of say, US GDP over the same period, the GDP has risen at an impressive rate over the same period as non-private sector unions have declined.
<
p>So, even though you can’t attribute US growth to US Union declines, certainly the latter doesn’t seem to have hindered the former. So, what’s your basis for concluding that the strong labor movement is “very important for our economy”?
gary says
Had to destroy the village to save it. Manufacture a “crisis”, with a government solution in hand.
<
p>Refute this WHO recap..
<
p>The US has the highest quality of health care in the world. The only single factor that causes WHO to rank 37th, and behind Cuba (What a joke. US healthcare is inferior to Cuba’s. WHO actually believes this?) is [http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4664 WHO’s political considerations, not medical objectivity and data.
<
p>US leads the world in the medical research, and new treatments; the world relies on the US for drugs, devices, delivery, treatment and procedures. The US cares for every sick person within its border.
<
p>Tough to fix a ‘crisis’ like that.
sue-kennedy says
This is a crisis! The US was #1, but has not just slipped, but is falling like a rock. So cato doesn’t believe 3rd world country statistics? These are from industrialized countries.
Life expectancy,(OECD 2008):
US 77.8
Canada 80.4
Sweden 80.8
Italy 80.9
France 80.9
<
p>Infant Mortality per 100,000 births,(OECD 2008):
US 6.7
Canada 5.4
Italy 3.9
Germany 3.8
France 3.8
Sweden 2.8
<
p>Maternal Mortality per 100,000 births,(OECD 2008):
US 15.1
Canada 5.9
Australia 3.5
Norway 3.5
<
p>The US cares for all sick people within their borders… really? The US comes in last place among 19 industrialized nations.
Preventable deaths due to treatable conditions per 100,000 pop, (US Health Foundation 2008):
US 101
Australia 71.3
Japan 71.2
France 64.8
<
p>In 2001, 3000 people died from a terrorist attack. This threat was so grave that Americans were willing to spend billions, give up their freedoms and for many to lay down their lives to prevent this threat. You are more than 100 times more likely to die from lack of health care. Where is the American determination to sacrifice to end this crisis?
bob-neer says
You’ll have to try again another day, Gary.
gary says
Wow! 4 statistics where US is above average, not superior, and there’s a crisis! Further, there’s no relationship suggested between the US health delivery system in 3 of the 4 statistics.
<
p>Life expenctancy
<
p>
Some Harvard guy…
<
p>Really. When you can demonstrate that the health system caused the life expectancy difference, and not, say, lifestyle, violent crime, … and then demonstrate that the health system corrects the causal factors, then go with life expectancy as meaningful. Otherwise, I could say that the US wins more Gold medals at the Olympics; credit that to our health system. Schlocky.
<
p>Infant Mortality per 100,000 births
<
p>Never mind that you’re cherry picking the data, and conveniently ignored that the US is among the tops of the Nations for measles vaccinations; the number of small children underweight by age, and mortality for children below the age of 5. Possibly you didn’t see this data, but it’s here in the WHO study..
<
p>But, back to your particular statistic. It’s well known, and you can find any number of article to this effect, that the higher infant mortality is being adversely affected because of i) the inclination to take extreme measures to save premature born babies, whereas in many countries, said death would count as an abortion ii) The rise in multiple births from the increased use of assisted reproductive technology and increases in cesarean sections and inductions of labor for preterm infants have contributed to this increase.
<
p>Maternal Mortality
<
p>Interesting statistic. Nevermind that the maternal mortality has declined impressively over the decades in the US. That would be considered a success, but according to the statistics, the US hasn’t kept pace with Canada, plus many countries of Europe. Why not? You say, it must be the health system.
<
p>Look at the underlying causes. First major cause, Preeclampsia. Risk factors of preeclampsia: i) high blood pressure ii) diabetes iii) over 40. In short, opulent life style.
<
p>Look at who’s most affected: Not whites. There’s an ethnic factor. Native American have a significantly higher maternal mortality. That group HAS UNIVERSAL COVERAGE; didn’t do much for them with respect to this particular statistic. How about black mothers? The ‘weathering effect’ is quite documented: the fact that black women tended to smoke more, married less, less eductated, were more often exposed to conditions of poverty resulted in more complications of pregnancy..
<
p>And finally, Preventable deaths due to treatable conditions
<
p>Frankly, of the dog’s breakfast of a list of statistics you present to substantiate a “CRISIS!”, this particular statistic is the only one that appears to have some validity. The remainder, you’ve established no causality at all. None! You’ve simply listed some statistics where the US is high in performance yet trails some other countries. But this statistic is different. Reason being is that i) the researcher of this data (Nolte), unlike Woolhandler of Harvard who has destroyed her credibility producing supposed academic publications in the name of Single payer, is credible. ii) the statistic is compelling
<
p>
<
p>In short, the US is moving in the right direction, but too slowly by comparison.
Be mindful, that the statistic is old. 2003. So, who knows how we’re recently faring. And second, would a Universal government run approach remedy the statistic. Advocates have the burden to explain how, and in a country with a health system that in most respects excels, and absolutely excels in innovation, the trade-off is this: Are you willing to seek higher taxes and a risk of lower innovative medicine in order to delivery a broader but risk a necessarily broader reduction to all. YMMV.
<
p>And last, I’m 100 times more likely to die from lack of health care than a terrorist attack! Scare tactics much?
<
p>
sue-kennedy says
Maybe you misunderstood the statistics. I only listed a few countries for comparison value. According to the CIA, our own Central Intelligence agency, we are not near the top, we are a distant dead last among industrialized countries, (this is for 2009, the most recent – we are continuing to drop). Although we do fair in competition with 3rd world countries we are not near the top.
<
p>
https://www.cia.gov/library/pu…
<
p>We are not 19th in preventable deaths. They only analyzed the top 19 industrialized countries and it shows the US a distant dead last and that the gap is continuing to widen.
<
p>You also misinterpreted the term “preventable deaths” These are deaths from “treatable conditions” directly attributable to the failure of the health care delivery system. Eating too much and walking in front of a bus are not included.
<
p>There are over 300,000 Americans who die each year from treatable conditions i.e. treatable cancers, bacterial infections, diabetes, stroke, heart disease, and surgical complications of people under the age of 75. If we improved our healthcare delivery system to match that of France, we could save 100,000 lives per year.
<
p>It’s not just a single health care indicator, its all of them. Each country that adopts a universal health care system starts out behind the US and within a few years surpasses the US. Yes Gary, they smoke in France..a lot and they still surpass us in every category, while paying less.
<
p>No one is advocating for Indian Health Services, (funded less than prisoner health services), which provides substandard health care for half about year, giving way to the joke “don’t get sick after June.” We are advocating for Medicare for all.
<
p>If we can spend $299 billion on the F 15 fighter jet, why not a little investment in saving lives.
goldsteingonewild says
There are two very different labor unions out there, the public ones and the private ones.
<
p>In some ways, it’s almost pointless to lump them together.
<
p>I think the privates are out of touch, as you say, but the public ones, not precisely.
<
p>The public ones are doing incredibly well in MA. The Carmen, the Hub police who make $200,000 per year. Teachers aren’t doing incredibly well, but quite well — pay rising much faster than average taxpayer’s pay, with no end in sight. Unlike the private sector union, the number of public sector union members is rising too.
<
p>The public ones “feel” out of touch.
<
p>But they’re not: they correctly perceive that they are almost unbeatable on Beacon Hill, that even in dire times they will end up making very small concessions.
gary says
The number of private sector unions has shrunk as traditional industries have declined. Of course, new industries have taken the place of old. But the new Industries pay and treat workers better than in the early 20th century and they do it defensively, i) to build a competitive workforce and ii) to avoid Union formation. Workers, in general cooperate, because they know i) they can quit and ii) that a Union requires Union dues. It’s a natural tension that has deminished the numbers.
<
p>But there’s no natural limit to the public union growth. It’s a cancer. Public Unions are “raising up against the Man”. But, the Man is a government bureaucrat. We have the Unions who want more, and the Man, who wants to give them more. Reckon at such a bargaining table they’ll get more?
<
p>So far, it’s worked, and I see nothing short of revolution or recession can stop it. Mass public wages have outperformed Mass private wages over the past decade.
jhg says
Since we’re theorizing here’s an alternative:
<
p>If new industries treat workers better than 100 years ago its only because of laws like the Fair Labor Standards Act, Child Labor Laws, OSHA, etc. that were passed as in response to pressure by organized workers.
<
p>Secondly workers would like to organize, problem is they’re afraid. The balance of power in the workplace is tited solidly in management’s direction. Try organizing a union, if you doubt this.
<
p>The “natural tension” is between owners and managers who have power and money and want to keep and increase it vs. workers who don’t and want to get some.
<
p>In the public sector organizing is easier. Politicians are elected by the public. Many members of the public are not as hostile to workers’ interests as are the average owner/managers.
<
p> Nonetheless there are significant limits on how far public unions can get: a)public entities have funds limited by the economic structure of the jurisdiction. Average taxpayers aren’t wealthy and the wealthy aren’t giving it up for the community. b) all managers like control and public sector managers are no different.
gary says
<
p>Go with that. Assume that the workers in Walmart, Cisco, EMC, etc…would like to organize, but are afraid. I’m sure they were fearful too, decades ago, but organized anyway because they had little to lose. But today, because of Federal and State labor laws, possibly even brought about because of the labor movements, conditions are better, and the calculus is this:
<
p>The risks of organizing + the cost (i.e. dues) of organizing are greater than the perceived benefits of organizing. It’s irrefutable. Look at the trend line down in the number of private sector unions.
<
p>Public unions are entirely different: no risk of organizing but there is a cost. Benefits are enormous! State cops on the pike making $200K plus. Teachers make very, very good salaries. The only constraint is tax revenues.
<
p>
mr-lynne says
“perceived benefits of organizing. It’s irrefutable.”
<
p>Perception is irrefutable. Got it.
gary says
Read the whole sentence, not just a clause.
mr-lynne says
I’m surprised at you gary.
<
p>Fine, we’ll look at the whole sentence:
“The risks of organizing + the cost (i.e. dues) of organizing are greater than the perceived benefits of organizing.”
<
p>You’re making a equation comparison. On one side of the equation are ‘perceived benefits’.
<
p>Irrefutable doesn’t apply as such. You’re usually more reality based than this, defending an assertion of ‘irrefutable fact’ of something that is described as ‘perception’.
gary says
If I sell you a car for $5000, then it’s your perception that the car has value equal to or in excess of $5000.
<
p>That sentence, is irrefutable.
mr-lynne says
My perception might be that I’m doing you a favor. My perception might be that I don’t correctly perceive the value of a dollar. My perception might be that it’s only worth 3,000 to me but I know a collector I might cell it to for a lot more (if I can talk him into it).
<
p>Of course these are unlikely, I’ll admit. But you’re doing a shell game of examples here by comparing “risks and benefits” to a definable hypothetical dollar value. If you wanted to say that the calculation was one of $5k of risk and $4k of benefit, then you’d have a stronger position. But of course there’s the rub…. nobody has defined the risks and benefits in concrete terms, never mind assigning a value to them… not to mention people’s terms will likely differ (you can’t count X because of Y. But you’re discounting Z). Thus, perceptions are still variable and as such can’t be asserted to be a certain value relative to another in any way that can be said to be an ‘indisputable fact’, how ever much you wish it did.
<
p>Again,… surprising from you.
gary says
If not irrefutable, then refute it, rather than fiddle with the words.
<
p>If the benefits to the workers of unionizing outweight the costs, whatever they may be, then why else have private sector unions declined so dramatically over the decades.
<
p>My answer: the same reason the number of buggy whip plants have declined in numbers. Costs > benefit.
<
p>Alternatively, public sector unions have flourished because the workers perceive benefits that outweighs the cost.
mr-lynne says
… hasn’t been defined. You should know better.
<
p>You say it better than I can: “whatever they may be”
<
p>You asserted ‘irrefutablitity’. Nobody should assume it to be irrefutable until you’ve shown how. Your assertion,… you have to prove it, not others.
<
p>Besides which, I’m not here to refute anything. I just pointing out that ‘irrefutable’ can’t possible apply to this situation because of the subjectivity of ‘perception’. My comment isn’t a value judgment, it an evaluation of the logic behind the aptness of the term ‘irrefutable’. Perception is variable, not indisuptable, especially perceptions of value in a complex equation with unstated and unnamed terms which in and of themselves might have subjective value (how much do you value your time off for example.)
<
p>Now I’m surprised that your even fighting this point.
mr-lynne says
… to illustrate my point:
<
p>Here is your sentence: “The risks of organizing + the cost (i.e. dues) of organizing are greater than the perceived benefits of organizing. It’s irrefutable.”
<
p>OK,… now I’m going to make a claim:
“I perceive that the benefits of organizing are greater than the risks of organizing + the cost (i.e. dues)”
<
p>How exactly are you going to prove that I’m lying? Are you going to explain to me what my perceptions are? If it’s irrefutable, you should be able to dot that, I’d think.
<
p>Of course if you’re going to claim ‘irrefutable’ knowledge of my perceptions on such a nuanced issue, I’ll have to ask what correspondence school did you go to to learn what you thought were mind reading powers and mention that you probably deserve a refund.
gary says
<
p>I look at it as a rather broad, obvious truth about rational behaviour. Absent some exogenous factor(s), if the benefits (broadly defined to include all known and unknown positives) do indeed exceed the equally broadly defined costs, then the number of Private Sector Unions would have risen, as they have in the public sectors. And, I think I am sufficiently aware enough about the US labor markets to be aware there have been no exogenous factors large enough to cause a prolonged Union decline. Therefore, it must simply be the work of an efficient and rational market.
<
p>Same reasoning to explain why are there fewer buggy whip factories. I know nothing about buggy whips, but know enough to hypothesize that factories declined because the cost of the factory outweighed the benefit of producing the buggy whip.
huh says
That last line is either the funniest or stupidest thing I’ve read in quite awhile.
gary says
Why are there fewer buggy whip factories? Tell me.
huh says
…I’m guessing there’s nothing anyone can tell you anymore.
<
p>Your response is both bizarre and disappointing. I’d thought your non-sequiturs in the recent health care discussion were outliers. Guess I was wrong.
gary says
In other words, you can’t tell me. Ok.
mr-lynne says
Now your assuming the absence of exogenous circumstances? Indeed if, as you say, the benefits do indeed exceed the equally broadly defined costs (again… no definition on either side of the ‘equation’… we’re comparing in the ether and asserting ‘incontrovertible proof’), why would there be any unions at all?
<
p>Also, this line of reasoning disproves you anyway. If you’re going to assert that the relative growth and/or decline in unions is somehow ‘proof’ of what you assert everyone ‘perceives’, then the fact that there are any unions at all ‘proves’ that not everyone is ‘perceiving’ the same way (I can assume the absence of exogenous circumstances here just like you). Someone is coming out of the value comparison opposite what you assert ‘their perceived value’ should predict.
<
p>Now I’m not surprised. I’m actually disappointed.
gary says
You’re just a bundle of emotion at the keyboard.
<
p>
<
p>If, say, Windows began losing market share to, say, OS, and the trend continued for 60 years to the point that only about 5% of all computer user used Windows, would you agree that buyers ‘preferred’ OS. Would you say the cost of Windows relative to OS exceeded the benefit. If not, it’d be interesting to know, why not.
<
p>But if so, then just substitute “Unionized workforce” for Windows, and “non-unionized workforce” for OS, and that’s my point. I think it’s kinda obvious.
mr-lynne says
… probably. For years, Mac users enjoyed satisfaction ratings much higher than PCs (no cite off hand, so I’ll postulate for now). However, the perceived value of the product is always in context. Windows enjoys it’s market share largely because MS has been able to leverage it’s share to protect it. So you’d have to consider this a ‘outside circumstance’ with regard to the quality and desirability of the product. The risks of organizing are similarly fraught with problems independent of the value judgment of unionization itself.
<
p>Your perfect rational market with the assumption on no outside forces doesn’t exist. If people always acted in their self interest American’s wouldn’t be so fat. It also presupposes perfect information and assumes nobody can be misinformed. Thus in the real world, when someone decides not to organize a union, it can’t be said to be ‘indisputably’ because of their perceived value of unions. It could be that their just afraid to get fired. It could be because they’ve been raised on a diet of conservative anti-union talking points. It could be because it’s not worth their individual risk (a collective action problem). It could be because their spouse would not like it. We can’t get inside their head for the reasons they act the way they do, so while we can make broad generalizations and theoretical assumptions, what we can’t do as assert ‘indisputably’ what’s going on in their head.
gary says
Who said the market is perfect or rational? Not me.
<
p>I see 60 years of a declining workforce that unionized. And, to your point, perhaps the worker doesn’t join because “he’s afraid to get fired”. Point proved. He doesn’t join because the “cost” is loss of job. Similarly, it’s not worth the individual risk, another cost. Spouse wouldn’t like it. Yet another “cost”.
<
p>I don’t know what the costs are, but simply based on the trend, it’s very obvious that the workers through the decades perceive a cost in excess of benefit. An irrefutable conclusion.
mr-lynne says
.. you mentioned that your assertion is based on a rational market. “I look at it as a rather broad, obvious truth about rational behaviour. Absent some exogenous factor(s), if the benefits (broadly defined to include all known and unknown positives) do indeed exceed the equally broadly defined costs, then the number of Private Sector Unions would have risen, as they have in the public sectors.” This is a central pillar for your ability to read peoples minds based on their choices on unions. Furthermore, your model assumes the absence of exogenous fator(s). Thus it can be said that choices on a thing (unions in this example) are not necessarily about the thing itself. You assume a rational actor and no exogenous circumstances.
<
p>Your looking at the trend and making assumptions about, and not a study of, the reasons why.
<
p>I prefer not to assume but to learn. As soon as I see someone spout words like ‘indisputable’ about subjects that are fraught with varying opinions, I tend to be skeptical. You should too.
tedf says
Gary, I agree with your truism. However, I think in the case of union organizing, employers spend a lot of money trying to persuade employees that they should not unionize, i.e., trying to alter and maybe warp their perceptions about what’s in their benefit. So they may be acting rationally in the trivial sense you have in mind, but they may not be acting as a rational person with perfect information would act.
<
p>TedF
mr-lynne says
… your agreeing with gary that his estimation of the relative value’s being weighed are correct.
<
p>I’m hoping you’re not agreeing with gary that is assertion of what other peoples’ ‘perceptions’ are is ‘indisputable’. The fact that there are places with unions and places without (following gary’s line of thinking) indicates that there is indeed ‘dispute’.
<
p>So much indisputability in discussions about unions. So glad everyone’s perception line up the same and everyone is in agreement.
tedf says
I’m agreeing that you can infer from the fact that a vote to unionize fails that the people who voted believed that it was not in their interests to unionize. I’m making the additional point that they may be wrong about what’s in their interest. I could make the additional point that there’s always the possibility of shennanigans of one kind or another–vote-rigging, etc.
<
p>TedF
gary says
It’s all about perception. Employees could be completely wrong. Objectively, considering all factors, Unions could be the greatest thing on earth, however since they are in fact in decline, and in decline over 1/2 a century, the obvious perception by employees is obviously that the cost of joining the Unions exceeds the benefits the employee derives.
<
p>It doesn’t happen immediately just like the buggie whip stores didn’t disappear immediately. Tradition dies hard. Old timers will never quit. But slowly the trend tells the story, and presents the truism. What other possible factor has caused the 1/2 century of declining numbers?
jhg says
– increased ability of rapid capital movement across national boundaries
– a more physically dispersed and separated workforce in many areas of work
– The employer anti-union offensive of the 1980’s
– Ronald Reagan and the growth of the political right
– the need for more and more workers to work more hours leaving less time available to do other things
– the conservatism and anti-democratic tendencies of some union leadership
– Supreme Court decisions such as those allowing employers to permanently replace striking workers
– union leadership’s slowness in adapting to change
– free trade agreements
– an increasingly conservative National Labor Relations Board
– Employers’ increased use of part-timers, independent contractors, etc.
<
p>to name a few.
gary says
Growth of global economy; free trade agreements and movement of capital across borders. Absolutely. It created more competitive markets and made labor more ‘moveable’. The benefit of taking a higher paid job was easier, and the benefit of sticking with a union at a job for the longterm became very attractive. The cost of joining the union exceeded the benefits.
<
p>Dispense with the 1980s and Reagon stuff. This trend began in the late 1940s and continued, prior and after Reagan.
<
p>Conservatism and anti-democratic tendencies of some union leadership. You’re kidding right?
<
p>Increasing conservative NLRB. There’s no evidence of that whatsoever. If anything, in my representation before the NLRB, is that they are more and more pro-union over the decades.
<
p>Employers increased use of part-timers, ICs…True, but those part-timers have every right to join a union, just like a full timer. And even assuming the growth of ICs, the work force (measured by non-ICs) has grown and the Unions numbers have shrunk relative to that work force. ICs don’t enter into to either statistic.
<
p>Here’s the problem. I put forth a very broad truism, and Mr. Lynn, for some reason, disagreed, when it’s very, very, very difficult to disagree logically to my extremely broad statement with regards to the 60 year decline. I’m very puzzled that he disagreed, but I think I have a broader definition of “cost” and “benefit” that he assumed. Cost and Benefits to me are economic terms, not just dollar terms.
<
p>You come up with fine points, all of which are possibly valid, yet, almost all of them fit within my off the cuff broad truism. To show the statement wrong, he’d have to come up with something like: there was vote rigging throughout 60 years that twarted the will of the worker.
<
p>Q:Why have Unions diminished over 60 years?
A:The costs to members exceed the perceived benefits.
<
p>Q:Why has the Republican party in Mass deminished over 30 years?
A:The costs to members exceed the perceived benefits.
<
p>Q: Why have Public sector unions flourished?
A: The perceived benefits exceed the costs.
<
p>Q: Why has the DOW risen over the past 100 years?
A: The perceived value of investing has exceeded the costs.
huh says
That truism gives you no real insight. You’ve crammed the world into a convenient, but ultimately trite box.
<
p>
<
p>Put another way, what does this buy you except an excuse to frame everything in terms of short term benefit?
gary says
Ok, now you appear to agree with my statement, when at first you disagree, but now think the statement’s not insightful. Fine, it’s not insightful. You think everything in a blog has to be pithy? It was and is totally obvious and weird for anyone to disagree.
<
p>Now, was my comment a frame to posit something in terms of a short term benefit. Not even remotely close. To the contrary, it’s an explanation of long term trends.
<
p>Another example. Why has the membership in Lions Club, Bowling Leagues, Kiwanas declined over the decades? Specifically, I don’t know but apparently people have come to perceive the costs of joining to exceed the benefit. What are the actual and perceived costs and benefits? I really don’t know, but over time, more people have come to perceive the costs of joining those social clubs outweighs the benefits. It’s irrefutable.
huh says
Your final example is exactly why your rule is meaningless.
pablophil says
and treat workers better…until the schidt hits the fan. Then you get pensions canceled, health insurance increased, or dumped, pay cuts imposed, long term employees cut loose in favor of cheaper new people…
<
p>Employees circle the wagons when they’re under attack. That’s why unions were so popular during the depression. It’ll be interesting to see if these “new industries” wise up to the need to prevent employee abuse by unionizing.
gary says
When recessions hit, all the bad things happen anyway. You think the United Steel Workers Union in Pittsburgh, Ohio and WV had any clout at all when the US Steel industry went down?
<
p>The trend is your friend. See the decline in the private sector unions? The trend’s there for a reason. Although the particular reason, or sum of reasons may not be totally known or knowable, broadly speaking, it’s because i) employers see no benefit to unions, and ii) Employees don’t see enough benefit to join one.
stomv says
It’s not a two-outcome scenario with equal probability. Look: let’s say there are 3 possible outcomes:
<
p>A: Employee joins union forming activity, is successful, gets +10% value on employment (wages/bennies/safety/etc)
<
p>B: Employee joins union forming activity, is unsuccessful, goes back to doing what he’s always done: +0%
<
p>C: Employee joins union forming activity, is unsuccessful, suffers consequences of vengeful employer, ranging from crap shifts and no promotions to being fired and blackballed: -70%
<
p>
<
p>Now, even if A has a probability of 0.8 and C 0.1, many employees will still wisely choose C because the downside is far higher than the upside and people tend to be risk averse about employment, particularly if they have a family and are the primary breadwinner.
<
p>
<
p>Thing is, much of C is illegal. It happens anyway, and there’s no way to know how or when. I worked as “lower management” for a big box hardware store. We were trained to listen for union activity and to immediately report that person to the top but take no action. I can’t prove anything and wouldn’t libel anyone by speculating, but this is a sample size of one. I can say with certainty that many longer-term employees at that store were sure that union whispering would result in getting screwed over with unworkable schedules, cut hours, transfers, and the like. Result C is too severe to risk going for outcome A. It seems to me that the only way for unions to get formed is for employees to have nothing to lose — to know they can go out and get just as crappy a job they have now fairly easily, and have enough money at home to bridge the job gap.
gary says
Leaving out the P(x)s and such, that’s precisely what I’m saying: Result C is too severe to risk going for outcome A. In other words, the “cost” of result C exceeds the potential benefit. My statement is hardly partisan, debateable or even controversial. It’s frickin’ obvious.
sabutai says
Bob, you’re probably the most anti-union Democrat I regularly read. That graph represents the percentage of jobs available in unionized sectors much more than the volition of people to join a union. The unionization rate of certain sectors where UNITE HERE and SEIU are organizing is regularly going up.
<
p>When you give people a chance to join a union, they are inclined to say yes, which explains why industry is dead-set against the EFCA. (Of course, for some faux-progressives, they like all unions except public-sector ones, because the public-sector unions cost them money…and their progressivism ends at their wallet.)
krooma says
It seems to me the Union leadership has long ago lost sight of their basic motive of shared burden and shared responsibility. The leadership only cares about survival of the Leadership. That’s why they are so successful at the State House, sharing the goal of self perpetuation.
krooma says
When is the last time anybody met a “Union Leader” who actually labored for a living?
krooma says
Are you all so afraid of the unions that you refuse to comment even anonymously? Any honest review of the current situation would have to admit it was largely fueled by unions refusing to admit fiscal reality Hello BTU are listening?
annem says
<
p>See link for full listing of Board of Directors; most are working nurses. http://www.massnurses.org/abou…
<
p>A fact that should be extremely troubling to those who are trying to build the union movement back up in this country and earn the support of American workers and families is this:
<
p>Robert “Bobby” Haynes, long-time President of Massachusetts AFL-CIO Massachusetts has simultaneously held a PAID position on the board of BCBS Massachusetts. Also George R. Alcott III, President, Local 1301, Communications Workers of America enjoys a generously paid position on the board of BCBS MA. When I went googling for a link for these ( http://www.bluecrossma.com/com… ) I also came across a few other items BMG readers might find of interest, and of cause for concern…
<
p>
<
p>The National BCBS site provides the below lovely item; something stinks about Robert Haynes of MA AFL-CIO and George Alcott of MA CWA being paid officers of this corporation while its industry (private health insurance) rapes our country and its citizenry–and many of our public budgets and employers, too.
<
p>
<
p>Some of today’s labor “leaders” (Haynes, Alcott, Andy Stern of SEIU) might talk the talk, but if you look closely you’ll soon see that they are not walking the walk. So what’s to be done?
yellowdogdem says
Maybe the analogy was over the top, but Mr. Sullivan does have a point. With an overwhelming Democratic majority in the Legislature and a Democratic Governor, organized labor has suffered some major defeats just trying to hold onto what they already have — e.g., the flaggers, Quinn Bill cutback, health insurance contributions by public employees, and the Conference Committee’s transportation legislation. And organized labor’s major legislative initiative — resort casino’s — went no where. And that’s just the self-interest legislation — Labor’s position on taxes, for example, has largely been ignored.
<
p>While I personally take a different position on many of those specific issues, I am concerned about Labor’s diminishing influence on Beacon Hill. Everyone who witnessed Bobby Haynes’ speech at the Democratic Issues Convention understands the power of Labor’s principles. And without Labor, Democrats and progressives face severe, maybe insurmountable, challenges. Somehow, we progressives need to find a way to collaborate with Labor. Maybe it would be the Employee Free Choice Act, but we have to find a way to bridge this divide.
fdr08 says
We are in the most serious economic decline since WWII and you expect that Gov’t unions don’t need to share in the sacrifice! Join us in the dreaded “private sector” and we will show you what sacrifice is all about. Flaggers – the way the Gov. implemented it probably only affects 2% of details statewide. Quinn Bill – has been controversial from the start what with the diploma mills grinding out degrees. Health insurance contibutions – in the private sector our contributions and co-pays have been going up for years. Resort Casinos – I am in favor of them but a lot of progressives are not.
<
p>Tell Bobby Haynes that labor needs to be organized in China. Get all nations to play on a level field with US.
krooma says
Are you kidding? The unions have taken a hit? My husband is unemployed, I have no insurance, spent 3 weeks in the hospital last yr at $100 an admission and 8 months on antibiotics and i blame the unions
krooma says
krooma says
<
p>show me one person in union leadership
who has lost their job like the rank and file? you can’t b/c it hasn’t happened
krooma says
the union leaders and the union members are 2 different entities, you may get money from the union leaders but the union members are completely fed up with your antics and you will be gone come Se[tember
farnkoff says
In what way were the unions responsible for your husband losing his job, you having no insurance, etc?
af says
wants to provide their employees, police in this situation, with the benefit of a salary bump for achieving college degrees, that’s fine, but it should be between them and their employee, the state has no business being involved in it. If their town doesn’t offer that benefit, then they can try to convince them to do so, or look for employment some place where they do.
jhg says
They (actually it’s we) don’t publicly articulate our principles, speeches at Democratic conventions notwithstanding. We don’t make a public case for why our members’ benefits shouldn’t be cut. It’s not that there is no case, it’s that we don’t make it.
<
p>We don’t ally with government reformers, human service advocates, etc. to articulate a truly progressive vision of government. Sometimes we do on paper, but we don’t bring it to the members and organize them around it. We do no community organizing.
<
p>Instead we play inside baseball. We figure because we can organize electoral support for state democrats, therefore we have clout. We keep things quiet. We assume we can’t win the public argument but instead can get “our friends” to take care of us.
<
p>This just feeds in to the perception that we’re special interests. And it doesn’t work well, especially when times are tough.
<
p>Spoken after 30 years as a public employee union activist.
judy-meredith says
<
p>When the unions and the community groups work together to support each other’s interests (better wages and living conditions for working people) it is a very powerful force indeed.
<
p>Check out Community Labor United here in greater Boston.
<
p>
sabutai says
I will say about teachers’ unions that a lot of the problem is snobbery. Despite the fantasies of some folks, my union is a lot less influential than it should be, given the size, education, and income of the membership. A lot of this is due to teachers’ reluctance to see themselves as union members, or to do union work.
<
p>If the teacher’s unions had the political impact of the AFL-CIO, education would probably be reformed by people who’ve been inside a classroom more than a couple times since their childhood.
pablophil says
but watch what happens when/if the MMA “Let’s force employees into whatever health plan we want” bill goes through. Suddenly they’ll want to know why that can happen, and they’ll understand the depth of disrespect in their employers for what they do every day. That’s the kind of impetus that renews the 107,000 MTA members into a union…and the 20,000 or so AFT-Massachusetts members, too.
<
p>Teachers are not tolerant of disrespect.
sabutai says
The MTA and AFT-Mass are dang powerful in gaining their members the best possible working conditions — in other words, they are very successful in that portion of union organization. (To my anti-labor friends: it is not labor’s responsibility to negotiate away advantages in the adversarial system we use in this country. Labor is simply doing its job.)
<
p>On the flip side, they are horrific at creating the impetus for smart education policy when they should have a central role.