Backwards and In Heels

In the midst of the Bush years, at a time when things looked bleakest for American workers, something good happened:

For the first time in the past quarter of a century, in 2007 U.S. unions increased their share of membership among workers, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) annual union membership report released today. Unions added about 310,000 members last year, raising the unionized share of the workforce to 12.1 percent from 12.0 percent in 2006. . . .

Among women, union membership rose from 10.9 percent of women workers in 2006 to 11.1 percent last year. Rates for men remained unchanged at 13.0 percent. This modest narrowing of the gender gap in union membership was primarily driven by gains among white women, whose unionization rate increased from 10.5 percent to 10.8 percent in 2007. African-American men saw their membership rate grow from 15.6 percent to 15.8 percent, but rates for black women fell to 13.0 percent in 2007 from 13.7 percent in 2006.

In the private sector, which accounts for the bulk of employment in the economy, union membership gains varied by industry. Construction unions increased their membership faster than the rate of job growth in that industry, with membership jumping from 13.0 percent in 2006 to 13.9 percent in 2007. Membership in the private health and education sectors grew from 8.3 percent to 8.8 percent. Unions also made headway in the low-paying retail industry, increasing membership rates from 5.0 percent to 5.2 percent.

As the good folks at American Rights at Work point out, times are still really tough for working Americans seeking to organize.  And the increase in union density is pretty small.  But you know what?  It's an increase in union density.  For the first time in my professional life -- hell, for the first time since I was 6 -- the percentage of workers belonging to a union has grown.  No matter how you slice it, it's terrific news.  (Of course, the Bush DoL buried it in the Friday news dump.  Bastages.)

And here's the thing -- if American workers and their unions can grow when the most anti-worker administration in over 75 years is doing everything it can to thwart them, just wait till the political climate becomes more worker-friendly.  After a quarter-century on the back foot, American unions have finally learned to survive, and maybe even thrive, in a harsh environment.  Like Ginger Rogers, they're doing it backwards and in heels.  Just imagine what can happen when working people get to take the lead.

•  I am a proud scion of a union family

  (AFT and NABET).

  Thanks, TJ!

  by DemFromCT on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 07:55:09 AM PDT

  •  My dad was IAM which became IAMAW

    He ran the apprenticeship program at his shop. Do those things still exist?

    by Clem Yeobright on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 08:22:06 AM PDT

    •  IA >> IATSE

      that would be my grandfather.

      by DemFromCT on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 08:28:04 AM PDT

      •  So, AFL or CIO? Craft unions or industrial?

        I wonder how many people know about the distinction or are aware of the historic merger of the AFL and CIO in ... 1955? (I'll wiki this when I'm done).

        Samuel Gompers was in my 10th grade history text. I wonder if he still is.

        by Clem Yeobright on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 08:36:18 AM PDT

        •  Not there

          there's a real deart of labor history these days in high school education.  I know that the AFL-CIO has been working to develop curriculum materials and the like to help correct this, but most Americans have no idea what the Battle of the Overpass, Homestead, or Ludlow mean.

          That needs to change if there's going to be serious change in this country.  

          And again most Americans are oblivious to the fact that the US now has two labor union federations, the old AFL-CIO and the newly formed CtW (Change to Win) federation.  It's hard to get exact membership numbers, but I'd be interested in seeing where the growth occurred.  That's to say whether the AFL-CIO or CtW was the motor of growth here.

          by ManfromMiddletown on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 08:45:06 AM PDT

          •  Had railroad or airline or IT workers

            organized on the industrial model instead of craft, many things might be different for them and for us.

            Under George Meaney, the AFL-CIO certainly became moribund. Where is Walter Reuther when you need him?

            by Clem Yeobright on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 08:49:01 AM PDT

            •  Walter Reuther's

              well six feet under......

              I think that one thing thats essential for rebuilding the power of labor in this country is education and involvement of the general public in a more social movement oriented for of labor organization.

              Working people are unable to fight back against the powers that be, because they don't have the background and familiarity in economic to counter the lies of big business.  

              Labor needs to provide that background on a social basis.  

              What I'm talking about here is a widespread effort to provide populist economic education to the masses using local union halls and other similiar facilities as classrooms to give workers the tools the need to fight back.  

              First and foremost of which is instilling class consciousness, and learning the history of our people.  To know the stories of the English Chartists, and why Marx was spot on when he called them "Satanic mills."  And to know that the current dip in labor organization has a parallel in the period between 1880 and 1930.  And tho know that they current situation can change.

              by ManfromMiddletown on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 08:59:59 AM PDT

        •  I remember some Labor coverage in my textbooks

          but our teacher never mentioned it, and once we got to WWII he said "and you know the rest" I'm old, but I'm not that old. This is like the stock market bottoming out - we still have a long way to go. One trend that benefits unions is that America has become a much more rewarding place for movements with a large minority of members. Years ago a few general magazines (Look, Life, etc.) dominated, a few networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC) ruled the airwaves. Today the NFL is more profitable than ever, even with falling viewership, because any programming that can bring in that many eyeballs is in demand. It's time for the labor movement to enter the 21st century. How can it be that this site seems to be more effective at getting out the labor message than the official AFL-CIO site. Democratic constituencies are turning out to vote in record numbers, so much so that the CW of Democrats suffering during low-turnout elections has been turned on it's head.

          by Sacramento Dem on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 09:17:54 AM PDT

  •  My dad belonged to the Longshoremen's

    union when I was growing up.  I read all of his union papers as a kid.

    by hairspray on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 10:11:38 AM PDT

  •  Proud daughter of a 65 year member

    of Local 103, IBEW.

    by oibme on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 10:17:12 AM PDT

    •  I forgot to say, Boston, Local 103.

      by oibme on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 10:18:32 AM PDT

•  Now that's something to cheer about.

  When unions are stronger, it lifts the wages of all Americans--even non-union ones.

  by Bush Bites on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 07:55:40 AM PDT

  •  yep

    and that's something that Republicans and union-haters don't get.

    by georgia10 on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 08:45:35 AM PDT

    •  maybe they do get it

      by a gilas girl on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 08:50:13 AM PDT

      •  good point

        by georgia10 on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 08:57:20 AM PDT

      •  Bosses in the US

        tend to have much better class-consciousness and class-solidarity than workers do.

        by Pesto on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 09:07:24 AM PDT

        •  Jeff Faux

          former head of the EPI (Economic Policy Institute) nailed this on the head when he noted the willingness of steel execs to promote policies of free trade even when their firms were gravely harmed by it.  

          It was class solidarity among the elites, which superceded even self interest.

          Think about the implications of that now.

          by ManfromMiddletown on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 09:37:59 AM PDT

    •  Oh, they get it alright. They want to keep

      wages depressed and the fewer benefits the better.

      by oibme on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 10:19:39 AM PDT

•  I love good news

  because it's so rare.

  by A Handsome Man on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 07:56:01 AM PDT

•  Ginger for president! n/t

  by Montague on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 07:56:40 AM PDT

  •  I wondered if anybody would get that

    I'm glad somebody did. I'd hate to think that all her work wasn't remembered by future generations. :-)

    by dianem on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 08:21:44 AM PDT

    •  I got it.

      Yay, me! I'm cultured. Or at least old.

      by Jaxpagan on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 10:23:47 AM PDT

•  yay!

  fabulous news to wake up to.

  by georgia10 on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 07:56:46 AM PDT

•  It's a small step...

  ...but a small step in the right direction, for the first time in a generation.  Which makes this small step mighty large, in my eyes.

  We still have a lot of work to do, but I'm confident (or at least hopeful) that a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress will be able to undo at least SOME of the unionbusting damage these thugs have pulled off in the last seven plus years.

  by rlamoureux on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 07:57:31 AM PDT

  •  there's a huge amount of work to do

    it's a pity that the card check bill won't be law, and that's the result of a huge disinformation campaign by the Chamber of Commerce and others.

    by georgia10 on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 08:47:44 AM PDT

•  We can't wait for a leader to follow.

  Things will turn around when thousands of individuals take small actions to turn them around. Joining unions is one such action. Blogging is another. Calling your senator to defeat the FISA bill is another.

  Everybody, go out and do something for democracy today. Do something imaginative and post it on the web for others to follow.

  by TheFatLadySings on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 07:58:07 AM PDT

  •  great point.

    joining unions, like being part of the netroots, is empowering.

    by georgia10 on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 08:48:25 AM PDT

•  Wow, thanks John!

  This really is good news.  Whap my ass, it happens.

  by paradox on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 07:58:10 AM PDT

  •  Whap! n/t

    by rlamoureux on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 08:00:10 AM PDT

•  Absolutely.

  We appear to be at the end of a 40 year cycle. Unions are just part of the story. More here about how the Democratic Party stands to have a revolutionary year in 2008.  I centered the diary around dr. King, but there is a lot more to talk about this year.

  by mikepridmore on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 07:59:24 AM PDT

•  Unions and bankruptcy

  A few years back I ran across an article the thesis of which was to explain the increase in bankruptcy filings from, IIRC, the mid 80s to maybe around 2000 or so. The author posited that a key factor was the decline in union membership and the attendant decrease in wages and benefits.

  Unfortunately, I was looking for something else at the time and didn't think to save this article. But it's point is still worthwhile -- the hard times Americans are facing can be addressed not just by appropriate regulation, but also by an increase in collectivism as workers.

  by VetGrl on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 07:59:48 AM PDT

•  The IBEW is working hard....

  ...to organize and train new electricians. Right now we are looking for young men and women to enter into our apprenticeship programs. If you know of anyone intrested in a career in the electricial field have them contact thier local IBEW union.

  by roastedcoyote on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 08:00:05 AM PDT

  •  I just posted above that my dad

    chaired the apprenticeship committee at his shop for the IAM (machinists), and wondered if apprenticeship programs still existed.

    And here was my answer waiting for me. Good on you, RC!

    by Clem Yeobright on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 08:24:32 AM PDT

•  Another sign the the Reagan Revolution is over?

  Unions are still trying to recover from the air traffic controllers strike in the early 80s. Reagan declared they were in violation of the law and canned them all with no remorse. It's been a long, hard slog for unions ever since. Looks like that might be changing.

  by Rp on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 08:01:11 AM PDT

  •  Exactly.

    Couldn't have said it better.  Hallelujah!

    by ceebee7 on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 11:41:17 AM PDT

  •  And remember they named National airport after

    that bastard.  I refuse to EVER call it ...... National Airport.  Only by it's real (pre-patco) name.

    Fuck him.  Saint Ronnie, the union busting bastard.

    Proud member of Local One, IATSE.  New York Stagehand.

    by Bob Friend on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 02:26:17 PM PDT

•  Nice to see good union news

  The fights I saw this year between the Culinary Workers union and the Teachers union, as well as the fight between the DGA and the WGA made me a little concerned about the strength of unions.  

  Unions are the most powerful when they work together collectively.  When they fight amongst each others, they weaken the labor movement even further.  

  by smash artist on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 08:02:51 AM PDT

  •  Peace among unions

    is not the same thing as strength for workers or for the labor movement as a whole.  Unions fought bitterly against each other during the decades when American labor was at its strongest, roughly the 30s through the 50s or 60s.

    by Pesto on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 09:03:49 AM PDT

•  50% of all workers in a union in 2008

  at my house, anyway.  A couple days ago, my wife's workplace became a union shop.

  by CalbraithRodgers on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 08:03:05 AM PDT

  •  Good news!

    For the two of you, especially.  :)

    by rlamoureux on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 08:05:03 AM PDT

•  Great post, Trapper John.

  Exactly right:

  And here's the thing -- if American workers and their unions can grow when the most anti-worker administration in over 75 years is doing everything it can to thwart them, just wait till the political climate becomes more worker-friendly.

  John Edwards congratulated those who fought for this, but reminded us that much more needs to be done:

  "I salute the courage, tenacity, and success of the men and women who have joined the labor movement in historic numbers over the past year, and in doing so, have helped strengthen the middle class in America.

  I have stood on countless picket lines and in the trenches of organizing campaigns across this country with strong men and women who simply seek fair pay, decent benefits, and a voice on their jobs.

  But I know too well the ongoing harassment that these Americans face for seeking unionization, and as we struggle with difficult economic times, I will fight even harder to make it easier for more workers to join unions through passage of the Employee Free Choice Act, by calling on employers to be responsible and law abiding, and by continuing to stand with workers in their campaigns."

  Edwards Statement On 2007 Increase In Union Membership

  That's the good news.  Here's the bad:

  The numbers are in on how much working people made in 2007, and they ain't pretty.

  This week, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released the latest data in their Current Employment Statistics survey. These figures cover workers' earnings as of December 2007.

  The BLS reports that after you adjust for inflation, real wages dropped by 0.9 percent over the last year. The Daily Labor Report notes that this is the biggest one-year drop in average weekly pay since 1990.

  Change To Win

  People should read the CtW and ALF-CIO blogs on a regular basis:

  CtW Connect

  AFL-CIO  Now Blog

  The only way to make the real changes we need, the only way to find economic injustice, is to grow the union movement.

  by TomP on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 08:04:51 AM PDT

  •  Whioops, typo.

    The only way to make the real changes we need, the only way to fight economic injustice, is to grow the union movement.

    It's quite easy to find injustice in Ameirca nowadays.  Just open your eyes.

    by TomP on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 08:06:25 AM PDT

•  A minor point about the Rogers quote

  It's actually "backward and in high heels." It's a minor point, less so for those of us who've worn the higher variety.

  by VetGrl on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 08:05:18 AM PDT

•  Two Words

  Card Check.  It should be priority one for the new congress and new DEMOCRATIC President.

  by feebog on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 08:05:38 AM PDT

  •  Three words

    Repeal Taft Hartley.

    Taft Hartley greatly limits the ability of workers to organize unions, and undermines the ability of labor for collective action.  

    I see few limitations of this sort placed upon the ability of capital to combine in order to advance their interests, and I think of Adam Smith's comment on this in The Wealth of Nations.

    We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combinations of masters, though frequently of those of workmen. But whoever imagines, upon this account, that masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject. Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labour above their actual rate... [When workers combine,] masters... never cease to call aloud for the assistance of the civil magistrate, and the rigorous execution of those laws which have been enacted with so much severity against the combinations of servants, labourers, and journeymen.

    by ManfromMiddletown on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 08:50:46 AM PDT

    •  What an excellent quote!

      The word "combination" in this context has been lost, probably because we have terms with more precise meanings, like "union" and "corporation". But "combination" seems to have been used well into the 20th century--I've found it in old business books.

      It would be a useful term to bring back. As Smith says, combinations of masters exist all over the place, even if they are not followed by ", Inc." And we as workers need to be aware of our own power of combination, which has to happen before we can form, or join, a union.

      by Anne Hawley on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 09:25:02 AM PDT

      •  Ask yourself this

        why is it that capital has the right to combine into corporations that are insured by the government against liability beyond capitalized value, while workers are forbidden the right to form similiar organizations for the marketing of their labor?

        by ManfromMiddletown on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 09:28:22 AM PDT

        •  I asked myself

          and my self answered, "'Cause...he who has the gold makes the rules?"

          And only where labor rises up and reminds capital the hard way that the gold don't get out the ground without them do they start to exercise their natural power.

          by Anne Hawley on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 10:26:30 AM PDT

          •  Amen. n/t

            by ceebee7 on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 11:48:11 AM PDT

    •  Repeal Taft-Hartley

      here here!

      Most folks don't realize Taft-Hartley was crafted to control organizing workers, not protect them.  And anyone who's organized a new unit or worked in one knows the law works against you, not with you.

      The power of the worker has always been in their ability to band together and withhold work.  Modern union members depend too much on the law and not Solidarity to protect and promote themselves.

      And anyone ever fired for attempting to organize knows the NLRB, even in good times, is not going to save you from losing everything.  The punishments for violating Taft-Hartley are laughable, less than a slap on the wrist, and no union busting organization will think twice about taking the risk.

      Unfortunately, I'm afraid that 2007 bump has alot to do with the organizing of masses of state paid independent providers (child and home care) many of whom don't even know they're in a union and aren't often seeing traditional union benefits from it.   Thus, we may not see this up-tick in new members continue into 2008.  That said, some unions (the AFT and UniteHERE for two laudable examples) are doing great work in tapping into pools of unorganized workers and doing it the old fashioned way -- one worker at a time.

      Unions in both the AFL-CIO and CtW are taking new organizing more seriously than they have in 50 years.   They are also rethinking their strategies to outwit chains and global monsters.  This bodes well for unions, especially with the prospect of a labor-friendly Washington.  

      One caveat -- if unions organize new workers at the expense of servicing and listening to their existing members they will drive the bus right off a cliff in less than ten years.

      by nancyj on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 10:24:33 AM PDT

      •  Very good points, nancyj

        What exactly is AFT doing?  I used to work for an AFT-affiliated health care local as an organizer.  AFAIK, AFT-healthcare hasn't won any huge organizing victories since Fletcher-Allen in Vermont 5 years ago; they're not getting private-sector grad students any more, since the Board declared them non-employees.  Are they organizing public-sector graduate employees, or regular public workers?  Are they showing any interest at cracking the nut of private school teachers?

        One caveat -- if unions organize new workers at the expense of servicing and listening to their existing members they will drive the bus right off a cliff in less than ten years.

        I agree with this to the extent that they can't sign lousy contracts and expect to grow (q.v., UAW).  But on the other hand, the opposite extreme is what doomed labor back in the 50s and 60s.  The big challenge, IMHO, is to get workers to see organizing and fighting as not only the job of the union, but their job personally.  If the members third-party their own union, we're doomed anyway.

        by Pesto on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 10:40:49 AM PDT

        •  good points

          the AFT is cracking the nut on adjunct and part-time faculty, para-professionals and charter schools.  Not in huge numbers yet, but when you track the trends in higher ed they are heading them off at the pass.  Public sector grads and now researchers are their font of new talented labor professionals.  Yeah, they do TAs and RAs and how.  Last time I looked, they hadn't figured out right-to-work state universities but that was awhile back.

          When it comes to servicing I'm a bit more pedestrian -- you can't not answer your phone or return member phone calls and expect them to follow you into the voting booth every other November.  You can't ignore their grievances or bargain away what's most important to them or shut them out of the bargaining process either.  

          And I would contend it's not the members fault if they aren't involved in their union.  It's their leadership's fault for not figuring out and taking seriously organizing the members to become involved.

          Look at the Australian models for how this is done.  Right-to-Work wall to wall and the survivors figured out how to survive and grow.

          Fast answer?  Listen to your members. Then keep them organized.

          by nancyj on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 10:54:08 AM PDT

•  Good catch, TJ.

  This is a notable numbers item, well interpreted.

  by Rob Cole on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 08:09:15 AM PDT

•  Necessity is also the mother of restoration.

  Great news.

  by Quilldriver on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 08:11:51 AM PDT

•  i have to say

  after IBM pulled their latest stunt of a 15% wage cut of certain job families, and a demotion,  I went from a subcriber and non-paying supporter to a paying supporter of the union that has been working to organize the workers of IBM.

  by baffled on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 08:19:28 AM PDT

•  This IS fantastic news

  and I am going to have to give a hat-tip to the ladies of Blogging for Michigan, because I read their piece on this story yesterday. :-)

  by MichiganGirl on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 08:20:19 AM PDT

•  This was reported on Marketplace yesterday

  I too found it exciting news.

  by Clem Yeobright on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 08:20:37 AM PDT

•  How did they let that happen?

  Someone must not have been paying attention at the Department of Labor.

  Or they thought the Department of Labor was in charge of forcing women into childbirth.

  Seriously, this is good news.  Thanks

  by billybam on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 08:23:24 AM PDT

•  First, Ginger Rogers didn't actually do...

  ...everything Fred Astaire did, as anyone who has actually watched Astaire's movies knows. For one thing, there are Astaire's solos, which are unequalled by anyone before or since. Watch Astaire bounce that cane on the floor in "Puttin on the Ritz" and tell me Ginger Rogers ever did anything as electrifying.

  For another, Astaire wrote the choreography Ginger Rogers did not. He invented dance numbers. Rogers learned the steps.

  For another, following, when you are following a dancer who know what he's doing, is easier than leading.

  For another, Astaire could -- and did in "Royal Wedding" -- dance as well with a coat rack as he did with Ginger Rogers. In that movie, Astaire also danced on the walls and ceiling of a rotating hotel room.

  It just goes on and on.

  by expatjourno on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 08:31:21 AM PDT

  •  Don't let Astaire's remarkable talent

    spoil a great metaphor. Ginger Rogers was very talented and "Backwards and in heels" is definitely going in my phrasebook.

    ;-)

    by Joffan on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 09:19:42 AM PDT

    •  Amen (again). And

      expatjourno's misogynist-sounding comments notwithstanding, Fred never did anything backwards and in heels, high or otherwise...  

      I, too, love that metaphor re: union advances in the face of corporate hegemony ever since Reagan...

      by ceebee7 on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:05:36 PM PDT

•  'The more we get screwed , the more we multiply'

  This is a necessary step toward fair treatment of workers, but it reminds me of Nader in 2000 spinning pretending that the growth of the Sierra Club during Reagan was a net positive for the environment.

  by Sacramento Dem on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 08:31:58 AM PDT

•  UTU-United Transportation Union-Here

  Unions are so important. I never bitch about my union dues-got that from my Dad. Its been a tough struggle for our union this last seven years. The company sure gets cocky when the GOP is in power.
  Reagan really fucked things up. And with the MSM backing him and his outlaws it has escalated. We need to get the heads of this unions in the spotlight more often as they really know how to explain the plight of the working man and woman.

  by Horsehead on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 08:41:13 AM PDT

•  My favorite quote

  Ginger Rogers response to Fred Astaire's accolades. She did the same thing, but: "backwards and in high heels! "  

  Well, yes good to have unions...but not enough.  Too many working people do not have the benefits of unions: Cerical, small businesses, etc: the preponderance of workers in fact.

  We need more than unions to stave off child labor,  robber barons and other abusive tactics of workers.

  Gotta bring back government regulations!

  by leema on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 08:45:18 AM PDT

  •  Bring Home the Jobs first!

    Of course if we don't have the jobs, we can't unionize either.   "Free trade" is not free.  It means outsourcing of jobs and guess who pays for this?   Need to get the government back in the regulation business: tax those companies that outsource our jobs, tax those US companies sold off to other nations.  Impose sensible tariffs on competing goods.

    by leema on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 08:53:45 AM PDT

    •  Demand equal access for labor abroad

      I think that in our current era of globalization, we made need to look at requirements that labor orgnanizations have the right to organize across borders as a prerequisite for any trade agreement.

      If countries are unwilling to open their border to our labor organizers.

      Again to return to the qoute from Adam Smith I linked to above.

      Why is it that combinations of masters (read capital) are permitted (nay facilitated) across borders while those of labor face condemnation and outright repression?

      by ManfromMiddletown on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 09:04:45 AM PDT

      •  I agree but...

        I think one of the great ironies of the trade debate is that progressives agitate for including labor protections without realizing that U.S. labor law is much weaker than people imagine.  Here is the law: if workers are represented by a union an employer must bargain with that union before making changes to terms and conditions of employment.  If the union and the employer can't agree, the employer can unilaterally implement (do what it wanted to do in the first place).  If the union doesn't like it it can strike.  If the union strikes, the employer can permanently replace the strikers.  That, in a nutshell, is the law.  Labor organizers can organize across borders now, but they will be (and have been) killed.  Even in the U.S. the true expansion of labor rights has come when organizers were prepared to die in defiance of the law.  Not a rosy picture - but I think the bottom line is that we have to fix labor law here even as we are thinking of other ways to disincentivize the resort by "domestic" employers to cheap labor overseas.    

        by seemlessweb on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 09:26:56 AM PDT

        •  I know that US labor law is

          utter shit compared to what's enforced in most of Western Europe (Russia and Eastern Europe is a different game, see the strike against Ford in St. Petersburg), and to what's nominally the law in Latin America.  

          The key here is establishing a floor beneath which the labor is not allowed to fall.  The model of economic integration in the European Union has been much, much more effective in this regard, because acceding states must implement nearly 100,000 pages of community law regarding product standards and the like, into their national legal codes.  

          NAFTA has no similiar mechanism. And the only venue for the legal resolution of conflicts exists in the Chapter 11 tribunal, which meets in secret, and which operates on the notion of precedent found in common law more than adherence to a code.  And in doing so falls prey to the power bias that often occurs in common law systems.

          by ManfromMiddletown on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 09:35:11 AM PDT

          •  And there is China and Sarkozy

            ...which jointly raise the spectre of the undermining of the European floor.  Jeff Faux pointed out the weakness of the NAFTA "labor standards" procedure in his book, "The Global Class War..."  As I recall, no more than a handful of these actions has even been brought, and none have been successful.

            by seemlessweb on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 09:46:19 AM PDT

            •  Well

              there's two issues.

              Because the Chapter 11 tribunal deals with issues of what Republicans like to call "regulatory takings" the idea that in limiting business action, the government obstructs the creation of value by the business, taking these potential profits from them, thus they argue this constititutes a "taking" that the government most compensate for just the same as if it used emminent domain to seize land that the company owned.

              Chapter 16 is a different matter, and is only now becoming a huge issue.  For many years, this allowed Mexican nurses to cross the border and work in the United States, undermining the wages and potential to organize nurses in the area near the border.  

              Now with Mexican trucks allowed out of the border zone, you have the potential to seriously undermine trucking wages and saftey standards.  Theoretically, these trucks aren't allowed to do US to US deliveries. But if you can take a truck across the border to drop it at a Mexican warehouse, and then have a Mexican truck take it to another US destination you're in.  And it might be cost efficient in terms of reduced wage costs over increased fuel costs, for shipments from California-Long Beach to much of the southern tier of the US.   That's going to undermine US trucking wages.

              by ManfromMiddletown on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 10:11:16 AM PDT

      •  and Read The Shock Doctrine

        It explains some of the intricate forces at work that are denigrating our earth and our people around the globe.

        by leema on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 09:31:37 AM PDT

•  great title

  from the best keynote speech at a Dem convention ever.  we still love you Ann!  

  And I like the substance even better.  Thanks Trapper.

  by a gilas girl on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 08:52:42 AM PDT

•  This is good news but the unions need to

  start really serving their membership. I've seen too many industries that even with unions have reduced wages or negotiate wages today only equalling what they were twenty years ago. This is usually accompanied by reduced benefits. The ability to move functions offshore is still a terrible, terrible stick used to bludgeon negotiations and it prevents many unions from being effective. The federal manipulation of unemployment levels through fiscal and tax policy is also a clever antiworker program.

  by java4every1 on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 08:56:20 AM PDT

  •  absolutely yes and

    unions need to start listening to their members and remember without the members there is no Union.  

    A radical idea I'd like to get moving (and one sure to bring down the wrath of all) with absolutely no idea how to move it forward:

    In exchange for card-check and rescinding  right to work statutes, unions should agree to state or federal oversight of how they do business.

    They should be regulated in the sense that they are held to certain standards for:

    effective representation for all members, new contracts and enforcement of existing --
    a balance of resources between new organizing, political campaigning and service of existing members
    --
    complete transparency in finances, elections, endorsements and back-room negotiations --
    percentage of all members voting levels in all elections --
    executive pay and priviledges --
    hiring and promotion policies and processes --
    side benefits deals --
    regular third party polling of members to determine how well they are being represented --
    and all unions should be required to contract with their own employees with no "work at will" bullshit for union staff

    I'm getting my asbestos umbrella out now.

    by nancyj on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 10:41:26 AM PDT

    •  Quite right. I've noticed over many years that

      when union staff have something to say, they get a company audience. When the company has something to say, they get a union staff audience. When a worker has something to say, both the company and the union say STFU or we'll show you the door.

      by java4every1 on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 11:07:50 AM PDT

      •  nicely put

        power corrupts no matter who has it.  Too often the member is treating like an annoying outsider to union business.  

        And, I'll say it again, until every union staff in this country is unionized or working under a mutually binding contract (and no longer "working at will")

        unions are not what they claim to be ... agents for the betterment of ALL workers.

        by nancyj on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 11:12:49 AM PDT

•  I hate to rain on the parade

  I'm a former blue collar worker, Teamster steward, to Harvard Law to union side labor lawyer to Government (NLRB) lawyer and now a law professor focusing on labor law and workers compensation.  My grandfather was an original member of the United Mineworkers in Harlan County Kentucky.  I have seen the labor movement from many angles.  The current numbers mean very little because they represent a growth of public sector (government) union members, not private sector growth.  Private sector union density actually diminished about a half percentage point during the time period under discussion.  The distinction is important.  Public sector unions have very little power - they can't strike or they can be summarily fired (the discharged PATCO workers were public sector union members).  Governments have much less legal obligation to bargain over the working conditions of public employees than do private sector employers. Private sector unions have the right to strike and, at least in theory, private sector employers cannot unilaterally change their terms and conditions of employment.  Last September the National Labor Relations Board issued 61 decisions that taken together struck a severe blow to the rights of private sector unions (the AFL-CIO dubbed it the September massacre).  While any good news is welcome, the Democrats simply have to find a way to reverse the right wing capture of the NLRB and the Employee Free Trade Act must pass Congress before we allow ourselves to think that anything significant in the labor movement has transpired.

  by seemlessweb on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 09:13:33 AM PDT

  •  cough

    Employee Free Choice act.

    by ManfromMiddletown on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 09:25:24 AM PDT

    •  Right you are

      by seemlessweb on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 09:27:51 AM PDT

  •  You're painting with too broad a brush

    on public employees.

    Public sector unions have very little power - they can't strike or they can be summarily fired (the discharged PATCO workers were public sector union members).  Governments have much less legal obligation to bargain over the working conditions of public employees than do private sector employers.

    All of that, as you know, depends on federal law (which is what you're describing here) and the particular laws in each state, which vary enormously.  In some states, mostly in the South, public employees cannot form unions that bargain over anything.  In New Jersey, where I live, public employees can organize, but are forbidden to strike.  In Pennsylvania, they have the right to strike.  In fact, according to PA law (and this differs from NLRA doctrine), if both parties bargain past the end of a contract, the entire contract continues -- the boss can't stop deducting dues and sending them to the union once the contract expires, as they can in an NLRB-governed situation.

    I grew up in California, where public employees have the right to strike, including during the term of a contract (which means the boss needs to bargain for a no-strike agreement).  Even non-union employees in California have the right to a hearing before they're terminated, since California courts consider firing by a public employer to be a "taking" of your property.

    I agree with your general point about the significance of private-sector organizing and union density.  But it's not the case that all public sector unions are neutered legislatively.

    by Pesto on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 10:23:47 AM PDT

    •  The line between stike/nostrike is usually drawn

      along  "Public Heath and Safety" definition.
      Police, Firefighters, Sanitation workers are usually precluded, but they are assured binding arbitration. One really strange "breakout" we had were the garbage collectors and sewer plant operators within a city worker bargaining unit. i could take the whole unit out (strike), but an injunction (must return to work) for the collectors and operators only was almost automatic without the right to binding arb.
      And for some strange reason the Asst. States Attys. we represented were also prohibited. I beleive the speedy trial provisions were the reason for that one.

      by geez53 on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 02:25:46 PM PDT

  •  That said

    Some private sector gains were made -- density in construction up 1%, for example.  It's the continuing decline in manufacturing that hurts the overall numbers.

    by Trapper John on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 10:56:41 AM PDT

    •  service is the new manufacturing

      retail, hotel and restaurant, food service, long-term care

      by nancyj on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 10:59:12 AM PDT

      •  It *can* be the new manufacturing

        If organizing can raise the wages to middle-class standards, as organizing in manufacturing did in the 30's-50's.  But that doesn't mean that we should give up on manufacturing -- not at a time that we're re-opening coke ovens.

        Construction is still the old construction. ;)

        by Trapper John on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 11:03:55 AM PDT

        •  Have you seen

          Paul Krugman's speech from the launch of EPI's Shared Prosperity initiative?

          First of all, arithmetically, most of the decline in unionization is a result not of the decline in manufacturing share, but of the decline of the unionization of manufacturing itself. So the big thing that happens is that there is a collapse of unionization within the manufacturing sector and then of course also a smaller share of manufacturing in the economy, but it's much more dramatic on the collapse within the sector.

          The other is that there is no law that says that unionization should be a manufacturing phenomenon. What it really is, to the extent that there is a story, is that large enterprises are more likely to be to be unionized. The reason why the high tend of unionization was also a period when manufacturing was the core of the union movement, is that at that time, large enterprises were largely a manufacturing phenomenon.

          Now we have a service economy in which there are a lot of large service sector enterprises. Not to put too fine a point on it, but why exactly couldn't Wal-Mart be unionized? It doesn't face international competition. There is no obvious reason why it wouldn't be possible to have a strong union in Wal-Mart and in the big box sector and other parts of the economy. And just think of how different the whole political economy would look if the service sector enterprises were unionized.

          by ManfromMiddletown on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 11:23:44 AM PDT

•  I think after 8 years of bushco,

  we are going to see a lot of union growth and I could not be happier, being a union baby.  Maybe people are finally learning not to vote against their best interests and that employers, for the most part, don't give a rap about them, only their own paycheck and profits.

  by oibme on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 10:16:14 AM PDT

•  Repeal of Taft-Hartley and 'Card Check' should...

  ...........be litmus tests for our candidates. Instead we have Oprah and Bill.

  Disgusting doesn't do it justice.

  Get behind Edwards and push if for no other reason than because that will move Sentor Tears and 'I luv Reagan' to the left.

  This test should also be applied to any and all 'More and Better Democrats...'

  Litmus tests folks. Not cheap talk.

  by Nestor Makhnow on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 10:26:30 AM PDT

•  I joined a union last year

  so I'm part of this statistic. I grew up in an anti-union household, though my grandfather was a union man - my dad's disdain for organized labor was probably a result of his rejection of anything that smacked of his dad.

  But it never had occurred to me to join the union at work, until last year when I was taking a course in Catholic Social Teaching and realized that being in the union would help put me in solidarity with workers around the world.

  Being part of the union is not for me, but for everyone who needs leverage in negotiating with employers. I'm pleased to see a resurgence of unions - it will go a long way to restore the balance of power and improve working environments around the world.

  by TxTiger on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 11:24:06 AM PDT

•  Federal Employees

  Perhaps membership jumped because more federal employees joined a union in order to have some say and try to preserve bargaining rights as we watch this administration try to shove NSPS down Defense Employees' throats. If they get their way, all federal employees will fall under some sort of performance-based system.

  I'm not saying performance based pay is bad, I'm saying the way it's being implemented for Defense is the gold-ole-boy network +1. Supervisors can hire without making jobs available to everyone..have a friend who needs a job? Give them one you have. The pay pot is divided by those same supervisors..you're my friend, you get more money. You, I don't know so I don't like. The training was supposed to head that off, but money for training is scarce (there's a war on, don't you know) I saw an article saying Defense employees got better raises than the rest of the federal services, but anecdotal evidence speak contrary. I want to meet those people who got 5% raises this paycheck.

  The federal unions have fought tooth and nail to preserve bargaining rights and they have recently won a round. Let's hope they're able to keep the pressure on and get rid of bad policy.

  Me, I'm an union member...teacher's union and proud of it.

  by karlawithaK on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 11:36:49 AM PDT

•  This is an icredibly important

  issue and topic.  Humanity will not advance, indeed will continue to deteriorate, as long as corporate power dwarfs the power of workers, as it has since the 50s, and really, ever since the beginning of the industrial age... and prior to that, the power of those with property over those without.  The labor laws on the books are extremely weak compared to other developed nations... and the only reason we have them is the fair and balanced (boy, that sounds familiar!) Supreme Court we used to have, whose decisions forced corporations to negotiate with unions in the first half of the 20th century... and corporate America tossed the labor movement a few crumbs, only because they were forced to.  Those in power will always attempt to depress wages and conditions of workers, the most expensive item in any business's budget.  I suppose it's an eternal fight -- President George Washington was the richest man in America.  Those with property will always advocate against those without.  Power corrupts is an axiom.  Every social advance has been a knock-down, drag-out fight against those with power, and I can't imagine it will ever end.  But we don't have a snowball's chance in hell of improving our lot absent a body whose power at least approaches that of ownership, and that body of power is organization of the workers.  I don't think most people recognize yet how devastaing Bush's placements onto SCOTUS will prove to be, because that's ultimately where struggles of this magnitude wind up.

  by ceebee7 on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:30:41 PM PDT