Time to enact Employee Free Choice Act
Some say this is the wrong time to fight for workers' rights to unionize. But commentator Robert Reich argues the sooner the Employee Free Choice Act is enacted, the better it'll be for workers and the economy.
Robert Reich (Robert Reich)
More on Jobs, Commentaries, Politics
TEXT OF COMMENTARY
Kai Ryssdal: The enduring tension between labor and management has made its way to Capitol Hill. The Employee Free Choice Act was introduced in Congress yesterday. If it does become law, it would protect workers' rights to organize. That's not necessarily a popular idea with everybody, even including some Democrats. Opponents of the bill say a recession is the wrong time to make unions stronger. Commentator Robert Reich says au contraire.
ROBERT REICH: The way to get the economy back on track is to boost the purchasing power of average Americans. One way to do this is to expand the percentage of Americans in unions.
Go back 50 years, when America's middle class was growing and the economy was soaring. Good pay meant more purchases, and more purchases meant more jobs. At the center of this virtuous circle were unions. In 1955, more than a third of working Americans belonged to one. Unions gave them the bargaining leverage they needed to get the paychecks that kept the economy going.
But now, fewer than 8 percent of private-sector workers are unionized. Middle-class wages slowed so much in the intervening years that most Americans could maintain spending only by working more hours and then, this decade, going deep into debt. But then the bubble burst, and now there's not enough purchasing power to keep the economy going.
The decline of unions is not the only reason for the long-term slowdown in American wages. Much of what Americans used to make can now be made more cheaply abroad or by automated machines. But the vast personal-service sector of the economy is not affected by imports or automation, including millions of jobs in big-box retailers, fast-food outlets, hotel chains, hospitals, construction, and transportation.
Few of these jobs are unionized. All too often that's because employees who want to form unions are threatened by their employers. And if they don't heed the warnings, they're fired, even though that's illegal. I saw this behavior when I was secretary of Labor over a decade ago.
We tried to penalize employers that broke the law, but the fines are minuscule. Too many employers consider them a cost of doing business.
The most important feature of the Employee Free Choice Act toughens penalties against companies that violate their workers' rights. The sooner it's enacted, the better -- for American workers and for the American economy.
Kai Ryssdal:Robert Reich teaches public policy at the University of California, Berkeley.
Comments
Comment | Refresh
From Washington, NC, 03/12/2009
Note:
If you would care to have me present my comments (which have been presented to the NC Legislature) on air and are particular to Public Sector Collective bargaining where I have 40 years of experience I would be pleased to do so.
From Washington, NC, 03/12/2009
Collaboration, Not Imposition Should Be the Goal of Municipal Labor Relations
James C. Smith, March 12, 2009
Legislative imposition of a collective bargaining environment on local government will fundamentally change the entire relationship between public sector management and employees. It might be easier to envision the change if you thought about it as a household which wasn’t getting along, so you hire a third party to resolve disputes. Working out a contract and payment rate with him is only the first step. Once the arrangement is in place you wake up the next morning and want eggs and bacon for breakfast – but your spouse wants pancakes and your children each want a different kind of cereal. You take about ten minutes to explain to the third party why eggs and bacon should be served. Your spouse does the same about pancakes and the kids all explain why the family should have their favorite cereal. Now you are all late for work and school, and the third party decides what will be served regardless of what is in the cupboard.
In theory collective-bargaining provides a workplace constitution where dispute resolution is conducted within a defined framework and controls virtually all aspects of the workplace. However, the system is fundamentally adversarial. In the public sector there are three parties to the collective learning process, labor, management, and the taxpayers. The taxpayers do not have the same choices as buyers in the private marketplace. Particularly in the recent decade the process has further broken down because labor and management do not really control the elements over which they are negotiating. Health-care costs are beyond the control of either labor or management. Unfunded legislative mandates by state and federal governments create expenses for local government which bypass collective bargaining. Tax cap legislation imposes revenue raising restrictions while offering no additional cost saving mechanisms.
Local government officials are ultimately responsible for making the decisions which affect the wages and benefits of public employees. To secure the best wages and working conditions for their members a public sector union will become politically active. They will work and spend dues to ensure that those candidates who support the firefighters, police officers and public works employees are elected and remain in office. One of the first political objectives of international unions when lobbying before a State Legislature is to ensure that employees may “check off” their union dues on a membership card and that the municipal government must collect dues and remit them to the union. It is not unusual to find that public sector unions will be represented by a member of City Council and that conversations within the Council, whether intended to be confidential or not, are shared with union leadership.
Unionization of municipal employees will have a major impact on human resource offices and City Attorneys. The employee union will attempt to influence virtually every aspect of your human relations office’s activities - hiring practices, job descriptions, standards for assessing qualifications of applicants for hiring and promotions, the role of seniority, contents of employee personnel files, timing of the cleansing of files, and procedures for administering work rules and safety requirements. Even the relationships between confidential employees in your human relations office and the city manager’s office may be challenged. A major portion of human relations staff time will be dedicated to processing the several steps in the negotiated grievance procedures and frequently, arbitrating grievances before third-parties and arbitration panels. Management and union will keep detailed dossiers on the tendencies of various arbitrators to support municipal or union positions so that panels favorable to a particular result can be selected.
It is likely that the City Attorney’s office will need to add a lawyer who has experience in labor relations. Union paid attorneys will frequently intervene in issues arising between supervisors and employees. Labor relations attorneys will become an essential part of managing the collective bargaining procedure. Binding arbitration by third parties is almost always a component of the steps in the grievance process.
Further, State Legislators will ultimately be pressured into binding arbitration as the final negotiation step in police and fire collective-bargaining. Legislators will become convinced that binding arbitration is preferable to the potential for police and fire strikes. A third party will then essentially determine what your tax payers should be able to afford for public services. It is not unusual for the binding arbitration process to require as much as 12 months of hearings to conclude a single year’s decision on wages and fringe benefits. Each contract will likely cover a three-year period and negotiations will likely be under way at all times, often with multiple bargaining units. The municipality’s labor attorney and accountant will do battle with the union’s labor attorney and accountant in an effort to convince an arbitration panel that their position should be favored. Ultimately, the arbitration panel will set the wages, hours, and working conditions of public employees. The panel may well even determine how many people we must employ. In addition to the employee costs the expense for attorneys, accountants and one half of the cost of the arbitration panel can easily amount to a over a hundred thousand dollars for a single bargaining unit contract year.
Local governments must identify alternative dispute resolution procedures and determine how they can work successfully in their organizations. We will need to understand the differences between mediation and arbitration and prepare for each in a collective bargaining environment. The hostile environment in collective bargaining which exists today is a substantial further reason enlightened collaboration and good-faith cooperation between public sector employees, management and City Councils should be the goal in municipal labor relations.
In order to maintain a productive and cooperative work place environment local government must have proactive strategies that channel conflict into positive problem-solving approaches, and be prepared to investigate complaints before they become major morale busters. We must be prepared to actively address personality based workplace disruptions and develop techniques for communicating with difficult employees. We must develop and implement effective, progressive disciplinary procedures. We must ensure that our grievance procedures and policies are legal and we must train managers to comply with policies and with the law. If we fail we must be prepared for our employees to have a third party representative present during even investigatory interviews.
The foundation of a relationship between an employer and a union is collaboration. To avoid encouraging collective bargaining, local government must consider current trends in compensation and benefits to determine what best addresses public sector organizations and satisfies public employees. Local governments must compare wage and benefit plans with other public and private sector organizations for equity and fairness. Perhaps above all local govern policy makers must avoid the appearance of being arbitrary and of balancing the budget on the backs of employees. In order for employees to understand that we are providing reasonable levels of wages, benefits and proper staffing it is fair to share the basic financial condition of our government organizations with the public, including our employees. There is nothing which encourages collective bargaining more actively than demonstrating to employees that they are not being treated honestly, and that they are powerless to do anything about it.
From Washington, NC, 03/12/2009
Collaboration, Not Imposition Should Be the Goal of Municipal Labor Relations
James C. Smith, March 12, 2009
Legislative imposition of a collective bargaining environment on local government will fundamentally change the entire relationship between public sector management and employees. It might be easier to envision the change if you thought about it as a household which wasn’t getting along, so you hire a third party to resolve disputes. Working out a contract and payment rate with him is only the first step. Once the arrangement is in place you wake up the next morning and want eggs and bacon for breakfast – but your spouse wants pancakes and your children each want a different kind of cereal. You take about ten minutes to explain to the third party why eggs and bacon should be served. Your spouse does the same about pancakes and the kids all explain why the family should have their favorite cereal. Now you are all late for work and school, and the third party decides what will be served regardless of what is in the cupboard.
In theory collective-bargaining provides a workplace constitution where dispute resolution is conducted within a defined framework and controls virtually all aspects of the workplace. However, the system is fundamentally adversarial. In the public sector there are three parties to the collective learning process, labor, management, and the taxpayers. The taxpayers do not have the same choices as buyers in the private marketplace. Particularly in the recent decade the process has further broken down because labor and management do not really control the elements over which they are negotiating. Health-care costs are beyond the control of either labor or management. Unfunded legislative mandates by state and federal governments create expenses for local government which bypass collective bargaining. Tax cap legislation imposes revenue raising restrictions while offering no additional cost saving mechanisms.
Local government officials are ultimately responsible for making the decisions which affect the wages and benefits of public employees. To secure the best wages and working conditions for their members a public sector union will become politically active. They will work and spend dues to ensure that those candidates who support the firefighters, police officers and public works employees are elected and remain in office. One of the first political objectives of international unions when lobbying before a State Legislature is to ensure that employees may “check off” their union dues on a membership card and that the municipal government must collect dues and remit them to the union. It is not unusual to find that public sector unions will be represented by a member of City Council and that conversations within the Council, whether intended to be confidential or not, are shared with union leadership.
Unionization of municipal employees will have a major impact on human resource offices and City Attorneys. The employee union will attempt to influence virtually every aspect of your human relations office’s activities - hiring practices, job descriptions, standards for assessing qualifications of applicants for hiring and promotions, the role of seniority, contents of employee personnel files, timing of the cleansing of files, and procedures for administering work rules and safety requirements. Even the relationships between confidential employees in your human relations office and the city manager’s office may be challenged. A major portion of human relations staff time will be dedicated to processing the several steps in the negotiated grievance procedures and frequently, arbitrating grievances before third-parties and arbitration panels. Management and union will keep detailed dossiers on the tendencies of various arbitrators to support municipal or union positions so that panels favorable to a particular result can be selected.
It is likely that the City Attorney’s office will need to add a lawyer who has experience in labor relations. Union paid attorneys will frequently intervene in issues arising between supervisors and employees. Labor relations attorneys will become an essential part of managing the collective bargaining procedure. Binding arbitration by third parties is almost always a component of the steps in the grievance process.
Further, State Legislators will ultimately be pressured into binding arbitration as the final negotiation step in police and fire collective-bargaining. Legislators will become convinced that binding arbitration is preferable to the potential for police and fire strikes. A third party will then essentially determine what your tax payers should be able to afford for public services. It is not unusual for the binding arbitration process to require as much as 12 months of hearings to conclude a single year’s decision on wages and fringe benefits. Each contract will likely cover a three-year period and negotiations will likely be under way at all times, often with multiple bargaining units. The municipality’s labor attorney and accountant will do battle with the union’s labor attorney and accountant in an effort to convince an arbitration panel that their position should be favored. Ultimately, the arbitration panel will set the wages, hours, and working conditions of public employees. The panel may well even determine how many people we must employ. In addition to the employee costs the expense for attorneys, accountants and one half of the cost of the arbitration panel can easily amount to a over a hundred thousand dollars for a single bargaining unit contract year.
Local governments must identify alternative dispute resolution procedures and determine how they can work successfully in their organizations. We will need to understand the differences between mediation and arbitration and prepare for each in a collective bargaining environment. The hostile environment in collective bargaining which exists today is a substantial further reason enlightened collaboration and good-faith cooperation between public sector employees, management and City Councils should be the goal in municipal labor relations.
In order to maintain a productive and cooperative work place environment local government must have proactive strategies that channel conflict into positive problem-solving approaches, and be prepared to investigate complaints before they become major morale busters. We must be prepared to actively address personality based workplace disruptions and develop techniques for communicating with difficult employees. We must develop and implement effective, progressive disciplinary procedures. We must ensure that our grievance procedures and policies are legal and we must train managers to comply with policies and with the law. If we fail we must be prepared for our employees to have a third party representative present during even investigatory interviews.
The foundation of a relationship between an employer and a union is collaboration. To avoid encouraging collective bargaining, local government must consider current trends in compensation and benefits to determine what best addresses public sector organizations and satisfies public employees. Local governments must compare wage and benefit plans with other public and private sector organizations for equity and fairness. Perhaps above all local govern policy makers must avoid the appearance of being arbitrary and of balancing the budget on the backs of employees. In order for employees to understand that we are providing reasonable levels of wages, benefits and proper staffing it is fair to share the basic financial condition of our government organizations with the public, including our employees. There is nothing which encourages collective bargaining more actively than demonstrating to employees that they are not being treated honestly, and that they are powerless to do anything about it.
From Princeton, NJ, 03/12/2009
Wow, has Marketplace changed it's focus to a commerical-free, pro-socialist, pro-communist format? Must be, because the delusional rantings of Mr. Reich on unions last night was so utterly absurd, it was downright irresponsible of you guys to broadcast it. Never in my life have I heard such a series of historical reinventions, and ultra-leftist panderings. I have long believed that this commentator damages the credibility of your program, because he is a pure socialist, claoking himself in "super-capitalist" clothing. If all the workers Mr. Reich mentions were to unionize, it would worsen the reciession, cause enormous inflation, slow productivity, and worst of all, it would send even more jobs overseas in search of reasonably priced labor. I should also mention I voted for Obama. I suppose in the balance of the universe, the GOP has Rush and the left has Reich. Can we get rid of both and have a reasonable dialogue, please?
From MI, 03/12/2009
I have leaned to the left politically for my whole life. What I understand of this bill is not left leaning, it is political gerrymandering by Unions in a very self-serving way.
If the problem this bill solves is really that a secret vote takes 45 days and the employers too often intimidate or even (illegally) fire organizers, the solution seems simple: make the vote quicker. Next day? How about that? (And does the company have a lock on intimidation during that time period?)
A Card Check rule would allow intimidation by potential unions that I find reprehensible just as much as the above mentioned (illegal) activities. At least with company based intimidation, you don't need to be worried about your knees in the parking lot... Maybe your financial health, but not your knees.
Disclaimer: my wife worked for a UAW organized former Ford plant and drove our brand new, Indiana built, Michigan designed, Toyota Sienna to work on our second day of ownership.
There was approximately $2000 worth of damage done to it that day. The $0 damage was written in the light dust on the side: "buy American you f****t!"
She was afraid to return to work and drove my Jeep for some time after.
Parking lot intimidation is real; unions have a place, and I don't deny the value in appropriate cases, but a blanket statement of "All unions are good" is just about as stupid as "All unions are bad."
From Cincinnati, OH, 03/12/2009
The problem with the Union debate, just like with the financial sector, is the history of flagrant abuses. Business is the life blood of the economy and our standard of living. Hence, the key is to find a balance with equitable return for the investor and the employee. Recently employees have become inventory and the implied mutual understanding, contract has been destroyed. We need to find:
1. A way to give appropriate return for the contributors to a business.
2. To provide a living wage, especially in the service sector. The previous, historical manufacturing sector wage advantage has been neutralized by less expensive labor in China.
3. Make businesses and employees more receptive to the economy. We can't have Unions ratcheting up wages in good times to hold those levels in bad times.
One option is to provide a realistic base pay system and a bonus system that tracks business performance. This way the employee is rewarded for their efforts also stays tied to the health of the business.
There is no reason why we can't come up with a system that is not based on extracting from, or taking away from one of the groups involved with a business. Business is not bad. Abuses in all aspect of business is very bad. Business, investors, and employees float the boat for all of us. Business and employee purchasing power affect all of us directly and indirectly.
There is a solution when we get past the abuses and finger pointing.
From Camarillo, CA, 03/12/2009
I think Mr Reich is completely upside down in his logic concerning labor unions. In cases where there is corporate suppression of good working conditions unions have provided a voice and strength for the working man. However unions tilt over to become a problem for industry and jobs in most cases.
The main function of unions is to build benefits and income for workers. If a union fails to do that job it becomes useless to the workers paying dues for that function. Unions therefore squeeze companies out of the profits needed to keep the business sound and competitive.
Mr Reich states that service jobs are what run the economy. Sorry to say the world depends on selling products to each other, not service. America is no longer able to manufacture products that can compete in the world economy, salaries and benefits are out of line with our false standard of living. Serving each other does not bring money into the country, it just moves some money around while a huge leak we call the trade defect bleeds away our economy. Further there are service jobs moving overseas such as banking, help desks, sales, and more so even the service function isn't safe. Unions don't help in most cases, they hurt.
I blame unions largely for the failure of the American auto industry failure for reasons stated above. If we want to further sink our economy we will follow Mr Reich's advise.
I observe that the larger the intrusion of big government the longer it takes to show that it was a failure. Social Security and Medicare seemed like good ideas to some at the time but they are now dragging the economy down. Contrary to intent Social Security has taught people not to save for retirement because they assumed the government would take care of them. Now decades later we are experiencing the faults of that type of thinking. Government boosted union growth already has shown it is a failure. Why would we want to further stimulate a failed program?
From Rye, NY, 03/12/2009
I came to this website all worked up about how backwards I believe Mr. Reich got cause and effect in his polemic to the good unions do. Imagine my relief when seeing that the majority of contribtors saw problems with both Mr. Reich's comment as well as NPRs incomplete coverage / introduction to those comments.
The key point - Mr. Reich has confused cause and effect. Economic growth created the resources that unions grew to redistribute. The growth of the unions did not add to economic growth.
From Chicago, IL, 03/12/2009
I'm amazed that Kai finds that the issue of secret ballots is so trivial that it's not even worth mentioning.
Nick Lash
From Tampa, FL, 03/12/2009
Reich has a very simpleminded view that fails utterly to reflect the fact that free competition is the only method of achieving excellence. Unions today are basically massive restraints of free trade that engage in price fixing of labor rates, screwing the consumer and destroying any industry they control if there is foreign (or even non-union American) competition. The UAW has reduced the American auto industry, steel industry, ruber indisyrt,electronics industry, etc. from theri previous from their previous positions of world leaders, to bankrupt empty shells that simply cannot compete against the world. Reich's prescription for unionization is surefile consumer fraud. If he desires for all workers to be paid a "decent wage" (which the UAW defines as $138 per hour for unskilled, unproductiove labor) then he should campaign for some realisitic minimum wage, not anticompetitive and destructive and unconstitutional union
trusts. Reich is simply one narrow minded dumb bunny.
From Kalamazoo, MI, 03/12/2009
Mr.Reich lives in an ivory tower. I invite him to come live in the real world of Michigan where he can experience first hand the impact of heavy unionization. Does he want the entire United States to suffer the same fate as Michigan?
From Atherton, CA, 03/12/2009
Dr. Reich misleads NPR listeners with his description of the so-called Employee Free Choice Act. The Act would in fact allow union organizers to expand their membership by simply collecting signatures, completely sidestepping business owners. Then, if the union and business are not able to finalize a contract within 120 days, a government arbitrator is given the authority to establish a contract. Dr. Reich apparently sees entrepreneurs and business managers as "the enemy", and government as a more appropriate decisionmaker. He forgets that entrepreneurs and expanding businesses will be the drivers of economic recovery and job creation. We should all be supporting American businesses, instead of replacing innovation and competition with the demands of union and government bureaucracies.
From Rembrandt, IA, 03/11/2009
In response to Mr. Sarpolis, I believe this bill has also been referred to as "card check." In that respect, it would allow 50% of the employees of a given business to decide---in secret and subject to horrendous peer pressure---that the entire work force would become subject to a collective bargaining agreement. The vote would be very public, unlike typical votes that would be secret in nature and thus immune to influence from either side. It violates the spirit of American democracy.
As well, this is just another step in the direction of forcing otherwise non-union-sympathizers to pay union dues when they get "fair play" laws enacted.
The whole effort is counter-productive in today's economic environment. I agree with Prof. Bowers.
As to Mr. Songer from OH who says he "would not be employed if there were no contract protecting me," I can but say "Exactly!!" He may do his job enthusiastically and even well, but if his postion would not exist absent his union's influence on the employer, he is putting in extraneous and essentially unproductive time by definition.
Unions in this environment are ultimately employee-detrimental because as businesses are forced to pare labor costs, they have to lay off part of the workforce in order to give the remaining workers the wage and benefit increases the union demands.
From Tucson, AZ, 03/11/2009
I was surprised and disappointed with Robert Reich's comment that the most important thing in the Employee Free Choice Act was the incresed fines on employers. He knows better than that, the most important thing, as he knows, is the ability of unions to become certified through authorization cards and not elections.
From Homer Glen, IL, 03/11/2009
I have read the previous comments and I believe that many do not understand what the Free Choice Act is really about. Right now, if 30% of the workforce wanted to join a union they file with the National Labor Relations Board. If the employer decided that he wants an election is to be held an election must be held. It usually takes about forty-five days for this to occur. In the meantime, the employer can threaten, intimidate, spy on, or even fire employees who they think are responsible for the organizing attempt. The employees have to wait it out in fear and it happens all the time. What the Free Choice Act allows is the employees can choose to instantly be recognized by a majority of the workforce, or have an election. It would be their choice, not the employer. That is why it is called the Free Choice Act, because it is a true Free Choice!
From Rembrandt, IA, 03/11/2009
Robert Reich----like many other progressives of his vintage---continues to fight the last social war without realizing that the economic climate has changed. When capital claimed an inordinate amount of the margins in manufacturing---with the concomitant abuses in the workplace a hundred years ago---collective bargaining was a viable antidote and equalizer.
Today, US labor has had an inordinate claim on margins in virtually all businesses and capital is crippled. For Reich to offer knee-jerk support of an anachronistic notion that increased unionism somehow adds the jobs our economy now needs does his intelligence a disserrvice----and it insults mine. He is so out of touch----and so NOT progressive---that I have to wonder why you give his idiotic comments the dignity of being on your broadcast.
Labor made phenominal gains over the past 60 years, but they priced themselves out of the world market The US Auto industry is Exhibit A). Reich does not seem to understand that basic fact. He apparently thinks that increasing labor costs will encourage the entrepreneurial activity we need to get us out of this abyss. Duh! Unions have never been the cause of economic vitality, only the result.
From Philadelphia, PA, 03/11/2009
Mr. Reich is a bright person and an entertaining commentator to listen to, even though we are on opposite sides of the universe politically and philosophically. I don't understand how an individual can extol the virtues of unions in a manufacturing enviornment when they have never had to manage an organization that has one.The labor rates are not the issue in any successfully run business, due to the fact that you have to compete for and retain talented labor whether you are union or non union.The major problem with unions are the work rules, which are onerous and debilitating. You don't get to be the New York Yankees by adhereing to the premise that everyone is equal,seniority rules coupled with guaranteed employment. In the private sector, which naturally excludes academia, you are not guaranteed to stay in business, keep a job or play shortstop unless your customers are willing to pay for your product, service or talent. Mr. Reich should be aware of the fact that the 1950's were a great time for American manufacturing, there just not the times were living in.
03/11/2009
Mr Reich claims Unions are an integral part of an American middle class renaissance. Perhaps the distance from UC Berkeley to places where people actually work for a living has fuzzed his memory of WHY companies choose to eschew unionized labor and off-shore as much labor as possible: flexibility, cost of labor & tort litigation. He shows remarkable insensitivity by proposing to steal (raising the cost of services) from Americans to buy off other, unionized Americans.
My humble alternative to Mr. Reich's bucket of bad ideas is to provide education vouchers to subsidize the re-training of US citizens in productive areas such as, engineering, technology, health care & education. Public & private institutions are allowed in my scenario. Students who fail a "B-" average are not reimbursed and "feel-good," time-wasting aims would not be funded. If Mr Reich's golden past is any indication, a self-reliant, entrepenurial middle-class will be the happy outcome.
From Winston-Salem, NC, 03/11/2009
So many errors! Reich asserts that the prosperity of the 50's was the direct result of unions; he badly misunderstands cause and effect. The primary cause was that the economy was based on manufacturing (!) and that the US exported goods all over the world. Our current problems are related to a reversal of those two structures.
From Blacksburg, VA, 03/11/2009
I am sadly disappointed to hear this illogical rant on NPR. Unions are another burden and tax upon businesses that have a chilling effect on the economy. According to Dr. Reich's reasoning, Detroit and its auto industry (UAW) and Pittsburgh and its steel industry (USW) would be the most economically successful cities in the country. They are clearly not. Do people not understand that totally destroying the goose that lays the golden egg will not save our economy or our livelihoods?
From WA, 03/11/2009
Do you even know the National Labor Relations Act protects the right of employees to decide whether OR NOT they wish to be unionized? Reich made no mention of it. Niether did you in your intro. If you did any research at all, you would know that the National Labor Relations Board only did card-checks if both the employer and union agreed, even before the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act. In Reich's case, this is clearly intellectual dishonesty, but the kind you would expect of him as a union lackey. But you should have some journalistic integrity. You have lost one listener.
From OH, 03/11/2009
I'm unionized, and would not be employed if there were no contract protecting me. I have the best healthcare in the nation, a pension that is 3/4 my annual pay and unlike management will not have to see pay cuts. I am a corporate asset. I do the work, I please the customer, I bring back the profits and I care about the success of my employer. All the while, the rest of America plays catchup. Don't want unions? Fine. But don't blame the employees for failing the company. If you can't manage, even the best employees won't make you succeed.
From Heber City, UT, 03/11/2009
Utah is one of the few states in the Union that is not suffering huge job loss. Why you may ask? Maybe it is because we are union free. Unions did not lead to the growth of the middle class as liberal historic revisionist would have us believe. All you have to do is look at the car industry to see the real effects of the union. High cost, taxes on the workers,called dues, and of course unemployment.
The so called Employee Free choice act is a way for Unions to bully employees into forming Unions. A desperate act by a desperate group. If you want to know why middle class Americans have stagnant wages just ask the Democratic Congress that consistently rasie taxes and the ever increasing cost of health care. A good resourse for Professor Reich would be Elisabeth Warren who has done extensive research into the subject, writing the book The Two Income Trap. Funny thing, she never mentions the fall of the unions as a bad thing or even a factor in the middle class.
03/11/2009
Unions used to play an important role. Right now, they will have no power. Sadly wages are going to decline no matter what.
However, unions will play an important role in the years to come as employee rights are moved to the side for the "Greater Good" of the economy.
Corporations, particularly here in America, are motivated by a single factor: profit. Unions, that is to say an organized workforce, once were and will be again, the only way to assure reasonable pay, fair treatment and general rights.
Do I care for unions? No, not much. But I do see the service they perform.
From Charlestown, IN, 03/11/2009
Wow! Did I really hear what I think I heard from the mouth of Dr. Reich? Wait, should I be surprised? Thank God for rational thought from other academicians like Dr. Tom Bowers.
Maybe Dr. Reich should investigate the real causes of the downturn in the auto industry...it's called price and quality competitiveness, Dr. Reich.
When $4-5,000 of every U.S. automobile sold is benefit and pension (not salary)related contributions for retired union workers whose contracts, until just recently at Ford, have been allowed to continue in a market climate that will not support it, I would think that our Healthcare cost woes would be magnified 10 fold with this kind of initiative in this sector.
Harken the $10 Big Mac, with McDonalds covering the diabetes, chronic obesity, stroke, hypertension, and coronary artery disease of its retired workers who ate the product!!
Go back to your cozy office and the tenured position of your academic cocoon and leave the economy to the Market(place)!
From PA, 03/11/2009
This is an unbeleivable opinion but not surprising coming from Robert
Reich. Nothing could be worse for the economy then what he suggests. The name "Employee Free Choice Act" is a big joke, the act takes away the employee's right to cast a vote in private and subjects them to the Union Organizer's peer pressure. Businesses will not ultimately stick around if the business enviroment is not suitable to a competitive cost structure (they will outsource service jobs to India, Manila, Eastern Europe, etc). Take the US auto industry for example, Reich should talk about how it is working there (where the taxpayer's are supporting the company to rationalize a non-competitive labor cost structure). This is just one example, the airlines are another and the list goes on.
Reich could not be more WRONG, can we hear another more realistic opinion on the subject.
From MD, 03/11/2009
Truly amazing that Dr. Reich would favorably compare 1955 with today. There were two recessions in the 1950s: 1953-1954 and 1957-1958 (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions). Some of your listeners will remember a blues tune, "The Eisenhower Blues" by J.B. Lenoir (lyrics here: http://www.lyricsdrive.com/lyrics/j-b-lenoir/356653/eisenhower-blues-lyrics/).
Following Dr. Reich's let's-unionize-everything prescription will slow job growth just like we had in the 1950s. Back then if you had a job, you did pretty well.
From Bloomington, IN, 03/11/2009
When I heard Kai Ryssdal introduce Robert Reich this evening, I knew I was likely to disagree with Mr. Reich opinions: I usually do.
[I'll ignore here the unfortunate name of the Employee Free Choice Act. I think all your listeners know that the bill would allow union organizers to coerce fellow workers to support a union rather than facilitate true free choice by protecting secret elections.]
What surprised me was how much I disagreed with Mr. Reich's supposed facts, which are contrary to logic and experience.
I have, perhaps, a unique perspective, having formed in 1967 at age 14 with my childhood friend a paperboys' union that successfully organized 40 or so paper boys in my hometown, enforced a strike in which all but two paperboys refused to deliver the evening newspaper (the Greenville Advocate), and extorted from management concessions to some of our demands.
I admit that in 1967 the word "extort" did not come to my mind, but I understood clearly the power we paperboys had collectively. Over time, I have come to know that union members receive higher wages, just as Mr. Reich indicates, but only because they obtain concessions at the expense of other stakeholders, including customers and non-unionized employees of the same employer.
In other words, unions don't increase total wages and salaries or money spent. They merely cause a redistribution of wealth. The pool of money doesn't change. Mr. Reich is being facile and specious, therefore, when he argues that unions have historically increased spending by getting more wages for their members. Union members may spend more, but other workers receive and spend less.
Mr. Reich, who is five years older than I am, should know better, just from observation during his lifetime. He watched, as I did, labor unions extract lucrative contracts from GM, Ford, and Chrysler, resulting in line workers making more than even a college professor, job banks paying auto employees not to work, and defined benefit retirement plans allowing workers to receive payments for life starting at age 48. Everyone would like such a deal, but no other employee can get such as deal unless he or she, on his or her own, merit, deserves such a deal in the eyes of the employer. Moreover, those union wages and pension payments came at the expense of other employees of automotive companies and workers at other companies, who received lower wages or who bought American-made cars at a higher price than a free market would dictate, and so have less to spend on other good. One can see that it is a zero-sum game.
We allow unions to do what we allow few others in our free society: to combine or conspire to restrain trade by acting together. Businesses can't so collude to restrain wages. That would be an antitrust violation. Unions, however, enjoy an antitrust exemption that gives employees not just equal power, but actually more power than the businesses with whom they negotiate. Yes, GM, Ford, and Chrysler could have tried to stand up to unions in the 60s and 70s. Had they done so, those companies would not be in the bad shape they are today. Maybe even AMC would still be in business as an independent company giving consumers more choices in cars. Ultimately, each gave in, fearing that if it took a stand (typically the UAW would strike only one employer at a time) it would be out of business before the strike was called off.
So what is a poor worker to do if he doesn't like his wages or salary. Take it like a woman or man, not a child. That is, demonstrate why he or she deserves more pay or find a better paying job somewhere else. That is the beauty of free enterprise and its companion rights: freedom of contract and employment-at-will, the latter of which was adopted to protect employees, instead of making them apprentices or serfs tied to a craftsman or lord for life.
Mr. Reich knows better. Marketplace should also. Shame on Marketplace for allowing Mr. Reich a forum for making arguments that are contrary to intelligent discourse on this issue.
Prof. Thomas Bowers
Argosy Gaming Faculty Fellow
Department of Business Law & Ethics
Kelley Graduate School of Business
Indiana University
bowers@indiana.edu
812-855-3447
From San Antonio, TX, 03/11/2009
This law does NOT eliminate the secret ballot. Please read the bill before you start hurling accusations.
From NY, NY, 03/11/2009
Apparently Mr Reich has allowed his political ideology
to affect any claim to economic common sense. Unions benefit the few, mostly the union leaders and their democrat representatives who proceed to add another cost of doing business which in turn gets passed on to the consumer. Unions will prevent full employment as businesses will, to minimize expenses, hire less. The increased wages will be offset by the corresponding rise in inflation. The government will benefit as inflated asset prices will increase the corresponding tax inflows which will help grow government. It is no surprise Mr Reich, an unabashed statist, would approve of this.
Businesses do not exist to create jobs.
They exist to return a a profit for invested capital.
From NY, NY, 03/11/2009
Apparently Mr Reich has allowed his political ideology
to affect any claim to economic common sense. Unions benefit the few, mostly the union leaders and their democrat representatives who proceed to add another cost of doing business which in turn gets passed on to the consumer. Unions will prevent full employment as businesses will, to minimize expenses, hire less. The increased wages will be offset by the corresponding rise in inflation. The government will benefit as inflated asset prices will increase the corresponding tax inflows which will help grow government. It is no surprise Mr Reich, an unabashed statist, would approve of this.
Businesses do not exist to create jobs.
They exist to return a a profit for invested capital.
From IL, 03/11/2009
What Mr. Reich failed to note is that many of those "good union jobs" were in the manufacturing secter and those jobs have left!! Why, because labor became too expensive! Unions suck-up a good deal of workers $'s to further their own existance.
From St. Louis, MO, 03/11/2009
I found former Secretary Reich's comments concerning the value of unions to be a bit puzzling. He stated that our previously strong manufacturing base was depleted by a corporation's ability to off-shore the work to more cost-effective alternatives. Why does Secretary Reich believe that the service industry will be immune to such a retasking of its labor needs? If I were in a service related business, e.g. food service, hospitality, etc., I would likely find a solution to my wage concerns by moving solely to part time employees, elderly employees, very young (school age) employees, etc., or some other alternative that would restore my ability to control my cost of goods. Secretary Reich assumes that by passing EFCA he will "check mate" the business man. On the contrary, American small business survives based upon its guile and ability to adapt. Controling costs is a primary priority to such a survivalist. Passage of EFCA will only serve to disenfranchise a currently avaiable block of workers, as they will simply price themselves out of the market.
From IL, 03/11/2009
Robert Reich is on target when he says that the buying power of the middle and lower class has been shrinking for decades. It is logical that an economy that thrives on consumer spending will stall, when the majority of consumers have too little money. His solution of using unions to give labor the power to collectively negotiate higher pay and benefits might help. In my opinion the corporate management concept of managagment vs labor is a root cause, which unions help to preserve. Take the GM situation for an example. When analysts cite the high labor cost to make a car, they focus only on the direct labor content. They recommend that unions give up pay and benefits, rather than addressing the high indirect costs. Both the direct and indirect costs need to be cut. The current mind set is that all the cuts need to come out or the direct labor. How much has management given up? As we saw at the congressional hearings, they have not given up the private planes and bonuses. What is the board of GM thinking? They need to take steps to reduce costs throughout the company. They must take action because left alone management will not take the self sacraficial steps that are needed. Only the board has the perspective to consider the company as a whole rather than as a battle field between management / labor. Unfortunately, most of the board thinks from the management perspective and they show a preference for the management point of view. That is why Robert's idea that unions are needed to get the consumer fair wages and benefits.
From Wayne, NJ, 03/11/2009
Kai,
Too busy to find the opposing opinion or too biased?
From Wayne, NJ, 03/11/2009
Kai,
Too busy to find the opposing opinion or too biased?
From Statesboro, GA, 03/11/2009
Yes indeed Mr.Reich! Unions can do for the economy what they did not do for the UAW!
It's also curious that neither you nor NPR mention the fact that the Employee Free Choice Act eliminates the choice of a secret ballot.
Post a Comment: Please be civil, brief and relevant.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. All comments are moderated. Marketplace reserves the right to edit any comments on this site and to read them on the air if they are extra-interesting. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting.
You must be 13 or over to submit information to American Public Media. The information entered into this form will not be used to send unsolicited email and will not be sold to a third party. For more information see Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.