Corporate and financial institutions that once seemed as solid as Mount Everest have turned out to be sand castles. Are we seeing the Twilight of the God-Tycoons? Or just a temporary eclipse?
Either way, are the shifting fortunes of corporate America an opportunity for unions to make a comeback? And should they? Are unions still relevant to U.S. working life?
Today fewer than 8 percent of U.S. workers belong to unions. A quarter century ago 17 percent of workers were unionized, and shortly after World War II about a third of workers belonged to unions.
Yet a majority of Americans favor unions. Gallup has polling numbers going back to 1936 (available on pollingreport.com; scroll down) showing consistent public approval for unions. For many years the part of the American public with favorable ideas about unions has hovered at around 60 percent, give or take. Approval for unions is 60 percent right now. Yet actual union membership has declined.
Why Unions Declined
At Forbes, Karlyn Bowman writes that “In 1954, 46% said big labor represented ‘the greatest threat to the country in the future,’ followed by 16% each who responded big labor or big business.”
Unions were the greatest threat to the country? If you know your history, you ought to be able to guess why folks in 1954 thought that way. It was Red Scare time.
In the 1930s and 1940s the American Communist Party put a lot of energy into union organizing, and by the 1940s some unions saw internal power struggles between pro- and anti-Communist Party factions. By the 1950s red-baiting politicians and anti-union interest groups had planted an association between communism and unions in the public mind. This association lingers on the Right to this day, although the Communist influence in U.S. unions was never that strong and disappeared entirely decades ago.
During the 1960s and 1970s — the Jimmy Hoffa era — unions became associated with corruption and the Mafia — rightly so, in some cases. And speaking as the daughter of union members I remember that some workers saw the big unions as just another power establishment, out of touch with the real needs of workers. Further, in the early 1970s the New Deal coalition of the Democratic Party, of which unions were a vital part, crumbled under pressure from antiwar and civil rights movements.
The 1970s also saw the rise of a new power pyramid of the Right. A cabal of wealthy conservatives such as Richard Mellon Scaife and the Coors family, special interest groups such as the National Chamber of Commerce, and other corporate interests began building an infrastructure of “think tanks” and media outlets. This infrastructure crafted conservative messages and pushed those messages relentlessly at the American public through right-wing TV and radio channels, such as Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News Channel. And, of course, they’re still at it.
A big part of this well-coordinated propaganda campaign is that unions are a problem. Too much unemployment? Blame unions. U.S. automakers struggling to compete? Blame unions. On the Right, to this day unions by definition are corrupt hotbeds of communist sympathy that cause a drag on the economy with their unreasonable demands. (The Right, of course, has two answers to every economic problem — cut taxes for the wealthy and bust unions.)
The “Card Check” Controversy
Union organization has declined in part because employers have learned how to fight it. One way to do that is to bully and intimidate workers from organizing and holding secret ballot elections. Another way is to refuse to recognize and bargain with the new union once it has organized.
The Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) was written to remedy these problems. It would allow employees to organize a union by “card check,” or simply signing a card indicating union preference rather than by secret ballot. This kind of election doesn’t require much advance preparation, so it can be done quickly before company management can mount an intimidation campaign. The EFCA also provides for mandatory mediation if employers refuse to bargain with the new union.
The Right claims that the EFCA would take away workers’ right to a secret ballot. This is a lie; under the EFCA workers could still hold a secret ballot election if they choose to. Yet right-wing news media continues to claim that “card check” would take away the secret ballot. One television ad showed a worker being intimidated by thuggish looking men (mob or union bosses?).
The propaganda has had its effect. In a recent Gallup poll, 53 percent of adults nationwide said they would be in favor of a law that would make it easier for workers to organize unions. But in a recent Diageo/Hotline Poll, 50 percent of registered voters nationwide opposed “card check.”
Last week Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) announced he would support a filibuster to keep EFCA from coming to a vote. Conventional wisdom says this has effectively killed the bill until after the 2010 elections, because without Specter’s support (he has supported similar legislation in the past) the bill has little chance in the Senate.
The surreal part of this is that as soon as Specter made his announcement, anti-union organizations heaped praise upon Specter on on behalf of workers. Groups like the National Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) could not broadcast their tender concerns for workers loudly enough. NAM released a statement that expressed relief workers would be saved from a “system that would expose employees to intimidation and coercion.”
What they really meant was they are relieved employees can still be intimidated and coerced from joining unions.
What Can Unions Do?
Once upon a time, in communities large and small across America, young people graduating high school could reliably find stable jobs with good wages and benefits in local factories and mines. The wages paid for new houses and cars and furniture and behemoth Winnebagos. The benefits paid obstetrician and pediatrician bills and gave retirees something to live on.
That way of life is nearly gone. These same communities now are poorer and shabbier places today. Jobs don’t pay as much, and many don’t come with benefits. The standard of living that one wage-earner could provide a family in 1970 now requires at least two wage-earners and a lot of maxed-out credit cards.
The reasons for this are complex. A great many jobs have gone overseas, of course. Revitalizing unions will not bring back the sweet economy of 50 years ago. Do we need unions at all? I think so, although going forward they may not play exactly the same role they played in the past.
Globalization. American workers feel left behind by globalization. Some unions, including the United Auto Workers, are attempting to build alliances with unions overseas. Eventually it is hoped that world-wide union organizing will reduce the pool of dirt-cheap, exploitable labor. These multinational union alliances also have global climate change and other environmental issues on their agenda. This effort has a way to go.
Workplace safety. Unions give workers a voice on the job and a way to say no to hazardous conditions. Non-union workers are at greater risk for employer abuse, and workers cannot count on law alone to protect them.
For example, at least one meatpacking worker in ten is injured on the job every year. Government safety inspectors are only able to inspect about 75 of the more than 5,000 meatpacking plants annually. For another example, statistics show us that most asbestos exposure happens in a workplace, and asbestos exposure leads to mesothelioma and other deadly diseases.
Wages and benefits. There’s no question that the cost of providing health care and benefits to workers and retirees is a big part of what sank the auto industry. The Right has an insane idea that everyone should be left to the tender mercies of the health insurance industry. Congress and the Obama Administration will be pushing forward with health and retirement benefit programs. Workers could use the clout of unions to give them a voice in Washington, or else the legislation will be written by the likes of NAM.
Going forward, unions may be more about advocating both for a broad spectrum of workers’ needs than perpetually striking for more wages, although I doubt strikes will become a thing of the past.
However the financial sector and auto industry crises are settled, the remedy must not forget workers and working families. If workers’ wages and standard of living continue to decline, there can’t be much of a recovery.
Oh, and Karlyn Bowman of Forbes says that today only 11 percent of Americans see unions as the "biggest threat to the country." That's down from 46 percent fifty years ago. Looks like opportunity to me.

Salon.com
Comments
What do you suppose is the driving factor behind anti-union sentiment in the modern age? Leftover kneejerk reactions from the cold war? People buying management's anti-union propaganda hook line and sinker? Are we just becoming more ideological as a people?
Yet union bosses and union members often had differing needs, one for power, one for security. And then Reagan came along and, after writing to the PATCO bosses that he fully supported them, which induced them to go on strike, he broke the union, and with that action, people began to believe unions were dangerous, willing to sacrifice your safety at a time when you were completely vulnerable (30,000 feet off the ground) so they could feather their own nests.
The discussion today really needs to first address whom the 14th Amendment is supposed to protect. Was it individuals (ex-slaves) or was it the fictional "corporate person?" We need to change the paradigm so that people have guaranteed rights, as planned by the framers of the Constitution, rather than people serving the corporate machine, as happens when you give corporations that cant die, cant be put in jail and have the ability to morph into a different corporation when challenged people-type rights and priviledges.
Barbara - maybe some people are willing to stand behind their value to their employer and don't need a collective contract to thrive. Can't you get it that GM is broke because of unions.
Do you think that GM management ha a magic button to push to make sure it is always profitable as it need to be to pay union demands. You seem to think that GM exists solely for the purpose to provide jobs. And that it can't just make mistakes and fail.
IBM made mistakes. It was a company that without unions had a policy of never laying off. That lasted many many years until
they made mistakes. They gave away the entire world of PC hardware and software because they thought it was just a toy. They had to lay off and do business differently. They can't make money.
from nothing.
Everyone wants to think if GM would have just built the right (green) cars
they could have so much money that they could pay unions anything they want. That is wrong. GM built and sold plenty of cars that the people wanted but they still could no make a profit anymore. And even if the built the wrong car, that is life. Businesses fail everyday because there is no magic or guarantee a business will succeed. GM is failed now. The have been for a long time. Maybe they can pay a union wage when profitable, but how can they once they are broke. Broke is broke. There is no money for any worker, union or not.
You might not like it, but if they were allowed to set wages as need, then like IBM they would not be broke.
How would you like to have a small business and need to hire one person, only to find out they had union support that caused you not to be able to afford them. Do you have the magic to do that. And if you did what happens when business goes down. You are supposed to somehow just produce the money? Well thats ok because you don't need to pay it all. Just give them 95% and send them home. That should save your business. Now you pay for an employee that you cant get any productivity out of.
How can any company function that way?
GM is broke because of bad decisions, a focus on high-margin trucks and SUVs that made perfect economic sense at the time, and because the legacy costs of former employees are through the roof in a way that's not comparable to Europe and Japan. What's the difference? Not unions, but Universal Health Care. When the state picks up the cost of health care, industry doesn't have to pick it up themselves and pass the full cost to the customer. The amount in a car price that owes to health care costs is several times higher in an American car than in foreign rivals and it makes for an uneven playing field.
Welcome to reality. Leave your abhorrent stone-age opinions at the door.
The entirety of recorded history backs that up, whether compulsion from society came in the form of labor unions, peasant revolts or just prevailing standards of decency and fair play.
There is a framework of protections beginning with constitutional governance and culminating in the labor movement that offsets that recklessness. And it's the only reason labor today doesn't more closely resemble Dickensian workhouses or feudal serfdom.
assume that if Health costs would just go away all would be good.
Well IBM and every other business deals with those costs also.
Costs are costs. Why can't you get it that business can fail?
As I said IBM would have if they could not had control of the number and salary of employees.
Seems to me union employees have a choice. A job or not a job.
Broke is broke. What can you not grasp about that fact.
But don't worry, Obama s to the rescue. My tax dollars will pay for Universal Health Care so that GM can afford union wages. Thats great. non union employees all over the country pay taxes inrder to pick up GMs cost to pay unions. And of course the union worker wi l get taxed too for healthcare so he will want higher wages to pay for it. You just dont get it that nothing is free. You are just talking about passing the buck around and you think that can makes things better. Ignorant selfish attitude. Wages are part of what an employee need to be able to control. Please go into business for yourself and see how you make it with a union.
But forget being an accounting firm. Your statement that GM problems can be fixed if someone else pays for health care is incredible ignorant. I can succeed in a business too if someone
first demands I pay for something, and then when I can't someone else comes along and pays it for me. And when GM still sucks, what will the gov give the employees then? But don;t worry. Obama is to the rescue of GM while the vast majority of non union workers deal with the facts of life that unions refuge to accept.
Part of anti-union sentiment is based on personal observations. I was once part of a student government group at a university. We decided to pay for a dart board for a commons area, and put it up ourselves. We were forced to take it down, and then pay a union worker to do it. A $25 dart board costed us over $100.
I don't think it, I know it.
What is the average education of a GM factory worker. What is their pay, retirement, and job guarantee compared to the same education level worker in a non union job? DO GM workers have t otowrl 60 hr weeks with no overtime pay. Are they required to stay at work until they solve complex mental problems. No solution , no go home even if it means working 20 hours a day.
Are they required to generate more patentable ideas then the guy next to them or get laid off.
That is my competitive workplace. And you know what. GM employees make as much as I do. I wish t God I have skipped that 7 years of college thing and gone t for fr GM 25 years ago. I would be better off. Just as much money. Much easier work. Steady regular work weeks. Better retirement. And sometimes I get to go home for 95% pay. If high tech was unionized you would be paying 20K for a PC and and 5K for an iPhone.
The vast majority of workers in this country are not unionized.
A union worker is a thief on society. Demanding that everyone else pay them what they cannot make in an open market.
Try working hard, competing against your co worker and negotiating your own compensation, one on one with your employee. Life is tough. Quit crying.
We had a computer delivered that was the size of a dishwasher on a palet. It sat there on the floor of the open ofice area. We need in in a nearby room. We had a pallet jack. When I asked what were we wating for, that we could easily move it ourselves (believe it or no t this white collar guys was wiling to do a little physical work. I done it many times in my IBM office. I done lots of physical labor in my job as an engineer). What was the answer. It wasn't the move that was the problem. We could meve it no problem. We just couldn't plug the damn thing in the wall. F''ng brilliant. Electronic engineers cannot plug in a computer. That is union mentality.
And even worse. I arrived at Chrysler in a rented Ford. IBM always rents form Hertz and it is always a Ford. Some neanderthal
union boss wants to take my head off in the parking lot because I dared drive a ford on Chrysler property. Of course he couldn't grasp that IBM was charging $200 an hour for my time while he delayed me. How childish. Ford vs Chrysler in a bonehead ego pissing match. And I should feel bad for people with this mentality.
Acting like 2 year olds. But then I am just an ignorant southern boy that grew up in Louisiana and worked in Texas, where the are no unions and where if I personally bought a Dell computer and brought it inside IBM the world would not come to an end.
So what you do is enforce the current law and up the penalty for worker intimidation. Make it so that a company which engages in worker intimidation forfeits all profits during the time where intimidation went on and the managers who engage in it go to jail.
You will never see worker intimidation again.
And change the law so that you keep the secret ballot -- let's face it, guys, if you've got card check, nobody's going to want the secret ballot -- but it must be done within 30 days.
if nothing else, i would defend the right to collective bargaining as a fundamental feature of the first amendment. i read joseph cole's arguments, and he doesn't even seem to realize that he's essentially arguing for feudalism. today, that company you speak so highly of, ibm, is laying off thousands of people in america and canada... but they still get to be employed if they promise to move to india.
only a fool would simply trust a rich benefactor to take care of him as an employee, no matter how hard he's worked. there's no reason in the world for them to do that, and there are millions of reasons for them not to.
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2009/01/26/ibms-growth-secret-layoffs.aspx
The problem with anti-union perceptions is very similar to the "welfare queen" myth of the Reagan era. Everyone has one of those stories where they went to plug in a projector at a conference only to find out they had to call a union worker to do it. Even I agree that is wasteful.
But that's because over the years, unions became more and more bureaucratic and lost their teeth. Thanks to the things that Barbara pointed out (linking unions with communism), workers collectively pooling their resources to fight for their rights turned into corrupt union bosses bargaining with management and usually selling out. Unions hardly strike - they usually threaten and then get beaten down by the media for stirring up the status quo. Unions became mostly bloated and impotent organizations.
The second perception problem regarding unions is that people think of them primarily as a tool for factory workers, mechanics, and some service workers. There's been a large divide between white and blue collars - with white collars never having any collective power. I know plenty of people (myself included) with college degrees that work pretty menial office jobs that make a hell of a lot less than folks like my dad. Most people don't realize that all it takes to form a union in its purest sense is to organize the workers of a particular company to fight collectively for what you want.
Long story short - what made America dislike unions is the same thing that caused the banking crisis: valuing profit and the almighty market before people.
Are you kidding me?
You just got ripped off, son. Your employer took advantage of you.
You're slaving away and qualifying for a small merit bonus every year for what?
So you can make Palmisano rich? Because you ain't never gonna be playing in his league. Ever. He will make more this year than you will see in your entire career working for IBM. So what did all those 20 hour days get you?
Nothing.