Don't have a lot of time to write today, so we'll hope that whole picture-is-worth-a-thousand-words thing is true after all:
On the horizontal axis, we have the civilian unemployment rate; on the vertical axis, we have the number of people who approve of labor unions, in 35 distinct Gallup surveys going back to 1948. There is a moderately strong relationship between these two things, as you can see.
Gallup recently found sympathy toward labor unions is at an all-time low, at 48 percent. but then again, unemployment is close to its post-WWII highs. Gallup did not happen to ask this question in late 1982 or early 1983, when unemployment exceeded 10 percent. They did ask in August 1981, when unemployment was up to 7.4 percent and rising rapidly, and at that point support for labor was at 55 percent, which was the lowest figure it had achieved before this year's survey.
The regression line finds that, for every point's worth of increase in the unemployment rate, approval of labor unions goes down by 2.6 points. Alternatively, we can add a time trend to the regression model, to account for the fact that participation in labor unions has been declining over time. This softens the relationship slightly, but still implies a decrease in approval of 2.1 points for unions for every point increase in unemployment. Both relationships are highly statistically significant.
9.07.2009
As Unemployment Rises, Support for Organized Labor Falls
@ 7:37 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
89 comments
The question that leaps to mind is whether the decrease in union support has been the cause of the unemployment, or whether the unemployment has caused there to be decreased support for unions.
Hmm interesting note that is made by the article but I'm certain I see why exactly higher unemployment implies lower support for unions. Unions can't exactly prevent higher unemployment and they should only be tied to the government under liberal presidents. Right?
On the same note it seems like unemployment has seen a very slow rise since 1948 as the bottoms where unemployment is highest show higher levels and the peaks of unemployment also seem to be increasing on the whole.
http://fiscalfrenzy.com/blog/labor-day-2009-bad-day-labor.html
Any chance we could see comparative data from Europe?
There's a general feeling among leftists in the US that the US labor movement has failed to strongly endorse "safety net" policies - which, I'm going to assume in the absence of data, are more popular when unemployment is high - in strong contrast to the European labor movement.
I would also be very interested in the correlation between unemployment (with a similar and highly useful correction for the date) and support for various policies.
One point of concern re: interpretation, "support for labor unions" could encompass a variety of question wording. It would not surprise me if some of the erosion is among people who like labor unions in principle but feel they are doing a bad job.
I suspect that a lot of the health-care polling is reporting a similar effect - a mixture of people who disapprove of the President for failing to endorse the public option, and people who disapprove of the President for sending the Gestapo to kill Grandma.
P.S. - Nate, it's Monday night, you're a New Yorker now! You should be drunk.
Is it possible labor unions are a cause of unemployment? They tend to raise wages, install stringent work rules, make it difficult to discharge under-performers,and generally hurt the compeitiveness of the firm in which they are employed. When they are in a private industry which competes globally they thus reduce US employment.
The above is especially true in manufacturing industries which are easily moved overseas. It is less true in service industries which require an on site presence or in government employee unions which have no competition.
Look at the state of the auto industry, airline industry, educational system, US Postal Service. All dominated by unions and all a mess.
I suspect anecdotally that the increase in unemployment leads to the decrease in support for labor unions, at least in part. I cannot fathom how decline in support for unions would lead to higher unemployment (the line union supporters generally use is that decline in union /membership/ leads to lower /standards of living/, while conveniently ignoring the effect of a union's labor monopoly in overall employment) though of course they might both be caused by a third factor.
It'd be really interesting to see the breakdown by education, former income, union affiliation, etc. This might give some idea whether the decline in support comes from more blue collar employees who lost their jobs and are mad that the unions couldn't save them, students recent graduates who can't get jobs and blame unions for economy-killing labor laws (*cough-cough*), something else, or some combination.
However, I suspect that at least part of this may have to do with public employee unions. When employments down, states and munis tend to see revenue shortfalls, and need to renegotiate contracts with the unsurprisingly reticent public employee unions. There's always at least one holdout among these unions, and it always makes news, which might effect people's opinions.
I wonder how strong the relationships would be without the point in the lower right of the graph...
Jealousy
The polls are reflection of the age old American need to feel jealous of our eqals rather than address the systemic issues that face us all.
When the MTA strike happened in NYC, I supported the union although I was inconvenienced by the strike. Indeed, heavily inconvenienced since it cut into my earnings that were lower middle class.
I ran in to quite a few people who did not support the strike because "Why should the MTA workers have health benefits when I don't." I was often stunned by it, but over the last few years I have come to realize America as society , at least a portion of it, is truly disturbing.
When I see the unemployment go up, I do not assume people's pettiness ends. I assume it gives them greater reasons to cling to it.
I suspect the relationship has something to do with resentment. It's reasonable to assume that the aggregate unemployment rate doesn't affect union support among union members -- especially since they're the least likely to be laid off when the economy turns sour. It's also fair to assume that wealthier people would be less affected by unemployment trends, so their opinions would remain fairly constant over time.
So the bulk of the variation should come from those most vulnerable to the economy's mood swings: the non-unionized working class. When unemployment is high, I suspect they may resent unions for giving their members greater job security while they're left out in the cold.
GROG said...
Look at the state of the auto industry, airline industry, educational system, US Postal Service. All dominated by unions and all a mess.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Although there are many why's and wherefore's re: each industry, interesting to note w/unions, the auto industry was the backbone of America ie as GM goes, so goes the nation. Could easily argue the decisions by CEO's of GM, Chrysler and Ford ie quality and fuel efficiency of their product has doomed the industry wayyy more than unions. Bottom line, supply and demand as Japan was making better, more fuel efficient cars.
The airline industry has been regulated and de-regulated and is a beast unto itself. Again one could easily argue "service" is a more important factor than unions as airline travel has become an exercise in efficiency. Again, terrible leadership.
And speaking of regulation and de-regulation, funny you didn't mention the unregulated banking industry which nearly caused a depression! hmm, no union members in the banking industry, eh.
Again, one can easily argue the restructuring of the American family in the past 30/40 years and single parent families as more of a factor in education than unions. ie children are at home on the internet lol w/no parental supervision or members of gangs w/no parental supervision. This isn't the 50s/60s anymore w/two parent families and mom not having to work to support their family.
And speaking of the internet which has definitely cut into the use of the post office. Blogs, mIRC, ICQ, message boards, private chat has made the post office obsolete, not unions.
Bad corporate leadership and crumbling family structure in the U.S. has caused the disintegration of business in America much, much more than unions as corporate greed has led to relocation to China/India for the $2 an hour slave labor.
Soooo having destroyed one's snarky post re: unions.
take care
Look for the union label ...
@shiloh:
Yours is the same argument liberals are using to explain the health care reform debacle. Blame everyone but yourselves.
And speaking of the internet which has definitely cut into the use of the post office. Blogs, mIRC, ICQ, message boards, private chat has made the post office obsolete, not unions.
The postal service is delivering more volume of mail today than it did in the mid 1990's when the internet was coming into it's own. The things you listed have nothing to with the demise of the postal service.
I love the blog, but I am less than convinced at the results of this study.
You don't take into account the cumulative differences between times with high unemployment that might lead to a general disliking of labor unions. Also, your scatter plot does not show a significant correlation. It's kind of borderline between statistically significant and statistically insignificant.
Just a thought
Certainly makes sense to me. Unions tend to protect the employment of their own members to the detriment of non-union workers, so the non-union unemployed are probably blaming unions for their unemployment, and the union unemployed feel betrayed for being laid off. Meanwhile everyone else is just more inclined to dislike the existing economic institutions given the state of things.
re: GROGs later comment about volume of post being up, I know from my personal experience, and I have every reason to assume this holds for many or most people, that upwards of 90% of my mail is junk mail. The proliferation in junk mail, I would guess, is responsible for the increase in total mailings, which would still allow for a rather significant decrease in non-junk mail, which is presumably the kind that would make a post service feel relevant.
Even at 48% approval, that's a lot higher than I expected, given the relative weakness of unions these days, or at least the appearance of weakness.
GROG said...
@shiloh:
Yours is the same argument liberals are using to explain the health care reform debacle. Blame everyone but yourselves.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Interesting you didn't address the bad corporate leadership of the auto industry, or the greed/inefficiency of the corporate banking industry, many of whom should be in jail. Or the disintegration of the American family structure affecting education.
No you mention liberals and the health care debate lol interesting red herring.
Truman must have been wrong, the buck doesn't stop w/the CEO er corporate leadership ie blame the little guy. Yes Virginia, this is the conservatives idea of leadership er passing the buck, which is so ironic considering the following:
Wealth Distribution in America
In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2004, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.3% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.3%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.2%. Table 1 and Figure 1 present further details drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2007).
When you are in command, command! ~ Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz and if you fail miserably, unlike cheney/bush, accept full responsibility as Eisenhower would have done if D-Day had gone FUBAR!
JD: "...your scatter plot does not show a significant correlation. It's kind of borderline between statistically significant and statistically insignificant. "
I think there are two errors here, one obvious, the other subtle.
The obvious error is that the R-square = .3246, so r = .57. The SE, based on 35 data points, is approximately .17, so the relationship appears clearly significant. In fact, any experienced statistician who eyeballs the graph could tell you that.
The subtle error is that there are hazards in taking real-life data and applying statistical tests as if the data were gathered according to some independent process. It was good that Nate included a term for the secular trend, which goes a long way toward reassuring us that the relationship is real. But there may be any number of hidden processes which create dependencies in the error terms - the series may be auto-correlated, for example. When you take historical data, statistical treatment should be considered "illustrative" rather than rigorous.
What Nate has shown is that it appears there's been a historical relationship between unemployment rates and reduced public support for unionism. It's plausible, and the evidence is fairly clear, but there's nothing we can do now to rule out confounding as a cause of that relationship.
Hi,
I also do statistics for living, and usually find your analyses sound.
This correlation, however can not be as significant as you say. It basically depends on one high point (at 10% unemployment).
So it's a judgment call: whether you want to add data or to try to understand what's special about this point.
I can go as far as to suggest plotting unemployment and labor union support as a function of time on the same plot?
Yuri
Living in an area that is not very union-friendly, I have discussed organized labor with many people.
To a person they are convinced that unionizing causes factories to close and jobs to be lost.
This is usually combined with "union workers are lazy," etc.
Personally, I think it comes down to the jealousy factor: "people are losing their jobs, I will work for x amount, the union guys get z amount, so damn those unions."
Nate -
The Gallup data goes back to 1936.
You excluded several data points which would cause your effect to virtually disappear.
In 1936 the unemployment rate was 17%, yet union approval was at an all time high of 72%.
Similarly, during the war years, unemployment was very low and union approval fell somewhat.
In the immediate postwar era strikes were common, even as unemployment remained low. Union approval sagged a bit.
I am not saying your point is wrong. On the contrary, I think it is perfectly acceptable to treat postwar America as distinct.
However, it raises the interesting question as to what changed after WWII.
My sense is that the nature if unions gradually changed from one of fighting for workers safety and mitigating outright abuse to a more economic oriented role, which sought to extract higher wages at the expense if company management and consumers who are passed on the cost in the form of higher prices.
I think the role in postwar years became a bit more adversarial, violent and sometimes greedy.
Those who often suffer the most as a result of unions are younger, low-skilled workers who get frozen out of high-paying jobs because they are simply not worth the high union wage, and the union prohibits hiring them at a lower wage to be trained.
That is why union workers are disproportionately old guys. Young workers get screwed because if the lack of lower wage entry-level jobs. Unions forbid them.
Unions rarely protect workers broadly. They protect some workers at the expense of others and pass on the cost to consumers.
America us waking up to this fact.
So whenever the controlling class causes mistrust of unions to increase because of direct and indirect pressure causing unions to be portrayed badly, then the working class who might have gotten power through unions, gets shafted, and the unemployment rate goes up. That is what you were saying here right?
It is amazing how the rich class in America has convinced the working class since Reagan that the best thing the workers should do is just take the money out of their pockets, and all choice and power and just give it to the rich.
Billy: My thought exactly. Take out that point and also make the time correction, and I bet there's not much correlation left at all. Which would support the hypothesis that there's simply something different going on this time.
I doubt this is jealousy.
First of all, not that many workers compete for union jobs. Only about 1 in 5 jobs is unionized and many of those are government jobs where unionization really is quite silly.
The remainder mostly includes heavy manufacturing, telecommunications, the energy sector, and some of the construction trades.
The service sector is largely not unionized. You don't really jump between these sectors much.
I think it primarily has to do with the auto bailouts. GM and Chrysler waited too long before dealing with the unions. They had to sell big SUVs because they could not make small cars economically with high labor costs and stringent work rules.
Ford dealt with the unions aggressively some time ago. That is why there are solvent and soon to be profitable again. Ironically, they are calling workers back.
The UAW did everything but protect it's workers. The outcome proves it.
Layer on the fact that Southwest and Jetblue are by far better airlines that United and American and that their workers are happier, do not get laid off en masse, and with profit-sharing usually make more money.
The case against unions is growing. SEIU can't unionize Wal-Mart because most workers want nothing to do with them.
Unionized industries tend to be the ones getting decimated in the global economy. They simply are not competitive because they destroy productivity and positive work incentives.
They are also ruining our inner city schools. Teacher's union REFUSE to be held accountable for teaching our kids and place themselves ahead of our children.
It is almost criminal.
Is there a time control in there?
GROG said...
@shiloh:
Yours is the same argument liberals are using to explain the health care reform debacle. Blame everyone but yourselves.
Grog, I would like you to venture and explain how someone who is working for $2K a month is at fault when their job doesn't offer health benefits and premiums are around $1500 a month?
Explain how someone who had health insurance but suddenly is out of a job, through no fault of their own, and can't get health insurance because of a prior-existing condition.
Explain how someone who has health-insurance, but met the coverage maximum because their child is being treated for cancer, so now is looking at over $100,000 in medical bills, and will not be able to cover themselves or family again?
Your ignorance is overwhelming. Your character is revolting. Your quest for self-deprecation is remarkable.
Gen Sherman:
I was talking about Democrats blaming Republicans for the failed attempt (so far) at health care reform.
I didn't say anything about blaming workers.
It is impressive how you were able to judge my characer based on that statement though.
MidPointMan said...
Layer on the fact that Southwest and Jetblue are by far better airlines that United and American and that their workers are happier, do not get laid off en masse, and with profit-sharing usually make more money.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Southwest is 88% unionized and 99% of your post is/are Limbaugh/fixednoise talking pts.
Congrats!
and speaking of criminal, cheney/bush, ok that would be a red herring as your casual use of criminal, put in context, is laughable ...
yea, union voters helped Obama win the election, which pretty much explains all the party of No! talking pts. re: unions ...
take care
interesting that on the same day Nate makes this interesting post, the LA Times reports that union membership has increased in California to 18.3%, with 131,000 new union members in one year alone. The "experts" are surprised, since this in the midst of a recession. If Obama institutes some eve mildly pro-labor reforms around elections and organizing, that figure will be at 25% within 3-4 years, within shouting distance of the historical high of 33%
Main reason for this seems to be that unions are now getting better at organizing (such groups as janitors and hotel workers).
GROG said...
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Re: your conservative meme re: liberals red herring.
Begs the question, when are Reps gonna accept responsibility for the previous (8) years of cheney/bush incompetence/corruption and stop blaming everyone else for their current discombobulation.
All conservatives are welcome to answer er spin this question.
It's sort of a catch-22 lol like asking someone when are they gonna stop beating their wife! ;)
An R-squared of 32% indicates that the unemployment rate explains slightly less than one-third of the variation in union support. This is a pretty thin reed on which to base any conclusions about the effect of unemployment on union support.
Moreover, judging from the graph it appears that the rightmost point on the plot is an influential observation that is biasing the regression. I venture to guess that removing this point will significantly lower R-squared. I would like to see Nate rerun the data without this point and report the result.
Shiloh -
Southwest "Unions" are independent from the larger unions in the airline industry.
For example, their airline pilots do not belong to the Airline Pilots Association.
Given that Southwest Unions are largely independent from other unions they have very few work rules.
They do not suffer from strikes and labor disputes.
It is no comparison.
As for saying "those are Limbaugh talking points" that is the least intellectual response I have heard in a long time.
You must be an anti-intellectual.
GROG said...
Gen Sherman:
I was talking about Democrats blaming Republicans for the failed attempt (so far) at health care reform.
I didn't say anything about blaming workers.
It is impressive how you were able to judge my character based on that statement though.
I will take it at face value that you intended to blame Democrats for the difficulties of passing comprehensive health-care reform instead of unintentionally blaming the victims of this whole tragedy. I do sincerely apologize for any misunderstandings on my part.
As for what your argument then becomes, I disagree. If you are paying any attention to the whole debate within the Democratic party, it should become abundantly clear that Democrats are not blaming Republicans for this whole debacle. Where the Republicans stand in the whole debate is crystal clear. How clear? Crystal. The Republicans are for the status-quo.
Democrats have been blaming each other, from the President on down. There has been a serious lack of leadership and mismanagement.
Finally, as to being a good judge of character. You give me too much credit. It's not because of your recent posting, or one post in particular. It has come through in all of your postings put together.
I ask you just a few questions. What is the Republican plan to fixing health-care. What alternatives have they presented? What would they be willing to compromise on so Americans who are in dire need of medical treatment will be able to receive it?
Shiloh-
Most of your wealth distribution data is just correlated with age.
The oldest 20% of the population also have about 70% of the wealth.
Why?
They have had longer to save. They have paid off their houses.
People who are old and save a lot will be very wealthy.
Is that their fault?
The top 20% earns about 60% of income but pays about 95% of taxes.
Your weak socialist talking points are silly.
You don't even know how to control for age. Hahahaha...
MidPointMan said...
Shiloh -
Southwest "Unions" are independent from the larger unions in the airline industry.
For example, their airline pilots do not belong to the Airline Pilots Association.
Given that Southwest Unions are largely independent from other unions they have very few work rules.
They do not suffer from strikes and labor disputes.
It is no comparison.
As for saying "those are Limbaugh talking points" that is the least intellectual response I have heard in a long time.
You must be an anti-intellectual.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unions can always go on strike, regardless of their affiliations, nice spin. btw, Southwest pilots are currently still negotiating w/the powers that be re: their union contract, having declined SW's offer in June.
And having listened to Limbaugh and faux news occasionally the past year just for my own amusement, your spin is indeed right out of their LCD playbook as they cater to their lowbrow audience.
So no, you are the anti-intellectual, again congrats!
Unions exist as leverage against a company ie they can strike any time conditions warrant it. Otherwise, what's the point of being in a union.
take care
p.s. pretty sure this is your first reply to one of my posts and you use the childish hoity-toity ad hominem "anti-intellectual"
very impressive ;)
MidPointMan,
You talk about silly arguments. Well then, if the elderly are SOOOO wealthy, I guess we just should do away with Medicare and Social Security. They have no need for it. Let them live on their accumulated wealth.
Let's see Republicans try that. I wonder how well it will work out for them.
Try again when you have a better argument.
MidPointMan said...
Hahahaha...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Feel free to stop spinning at any time and provide source material for one's continual spin er agenda.
btw, have encountered conservative types like yourself at many progressive blogs the past (2) years. May I suggest RCP would be a much better fit for you, because it's dominated by disingenuously smug conservatives who use anti-intellectual and Hahahaha...
take care
and please, 538 is a small political blog on the net, no need to try to impress your fellow conservatives which total in the tens of tens at present.
Shiloh-
Oh, that us just an Olberman talking point.
/me pretending I have actually made an intelligent point.
See, I can be just like you.
Everybody knows the Southwest Unions are just a front to keep the real unions out. They are there to keep the other unions from legally being able to organize.
Every time SW employees vote to keep the unions they have it is really a vote against actually unionizing because the unions there do not really do anything.
This is pretty common knowledge in the airline industry.
Shiloh -
blah blah Limbaugh, Beck, Van Jones, Truther, blah blah
...the sign you are losing is the moment you pull the Limbaugh card and engaging in off-topic one-on-one monologues.
I really am not interested in your personal history, so save it for a post that is about you.
This post is about how America hates unions more than ever before. I do not see your name in it anywhere.
MidPointMan, do you have any reference for this common knowledge in the airline industry? For example, a history of controversy around the unions, as with JetBlue? Or statements by pilots that the Southwest unions are just a front? Or even some evidence that you'd know anything about what is common knowledge in the airline industry?
MidPointMan,
You are really getting boring. Just no challenge.
Everybody knows the Southwest Unions are just a front to keep the real unions out. They are there to keep the other unions from legally being able to organize.
Every time SW employees vote to keep the unions they have it is really a vote against actually unionizing because the unions there do not really do anything.
Well, like Shiloh was nice enough to point out, SWAPA rejected Southwest's contract offer. That must fall under your definition of doing nothing.
They obviously don't fall under your definition of a "real union" as well since they have no bargaining power. Wait, I just contradicted myself. I thought I just said they REJECTED Southwest's contract offer. How could that be?
Alon,
MidPointMan will not have any substantial evidence to back up his claims. We have seen trolls like him before.
The irony is that he, and others like him, would be more tolerated if they just offered any sort of proof to back up their claims.
No, they will never understand how to formulate an argument, produce a thesis, and defend it with actual facts and figures. It takes more than a fifth grade reading comprehension level to do this. Since conservatives are against encouraging students to do well in school, and actually advocate keeping them home, we understand it is not his fault.
MidPointMan said...
Shiloh-
Oh, that us just an Olberman talking point.
blah blah, blah blah
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You watch/read Olbermann ;)
Of course your interested MPM or you wouldn't be replying.
Too funny you used Mule's phrase of blah, blah that I enjoyed throwing back in this face. Mule would be proud you are carrying on his tradition.
And no, one is gonna have to work on your sarcasm, spin, ad hominems, nothing to note so far.
Having read actual Rep intellectuals, they would not be impressed by your pedestrian tripe er conservative spin. A better fit for you would be RCP, which is dominated by disingenuously smug wingers who use anti-intellectual and hahaha all the time.
take care
No MPM, although you obviously hate unions, this thread is about As Unemployment Rises, Support for Organized Labor Falls
take care
shiloh,
We did our good deed for the night.
Once again, the trolls have been runoff to the wilderness, from hence we know they shall return again.
Our will shall not falter, our strength shall not fail.
The struggle has no end, our endurance has no limit. Will shall one day prevail.
I'll see you then.
Should be noted that the correlation with presidential approval ratings is actually more statistically significant and when you look at only pro-labor presidents even more so. I think that is important because it seems like people associate labor w/ the president when the president is liberal.
Take a look: http://fiscalfrenzy.com/blog/organized-labor-support-presidential-approval.html
@Gen Sherman:
I ask you just a few questions. What is the Republican plan to fixing health-care. What alternatives have they presented? What would they be willing to compromise on so Americans who are in dire need of medical treatment will be able to receive it?
It's called the Patients' Choice Act. You can read it here. Page 2gives a brief summary.
http://www.house.gov/ryan/PCA/PCAsummary15p.pdf
Finally, as to being a good judge of character. You give me too much credit. It's not because of your recent posting, or one post in particular. It has come through in all of your postings put together.
Can you cite anything I have ever posted on 538 indicating that I lack character? I have been nothing but respectful to everyone on this forum with the exception of maybe Mike in Maryland who pollutes this website with constant personal insults and filth.
Gen Sherman said:
shiloh,
We did our good deed for the night.
Once again, the trolls have been runoff to the wilderness, from hence we know they shall return again
No. It's just that 1 o'clock in the morning rolled around and some people went to bed.
Interesting.
To the extent that unions force wages above competitive market rates, they cause unemployment, but I would not think that this would be common knowledge in the population at large that would cause the causation noted in this post.
I would rather think that the current drop in union popularity has more to do with their connection with Obama attempts to use the unions to repress the Tea Party movement. Outside of its members, I wonder if most folks had ever heard of the SEIU before this Summer.
Blaming unions for unemployment makes no sense to me. If memory serves, union membership approached 50% in the 50s and early 60s. I also seem to remember that era as being heady prosperous times, not without bumps, but pretty good overall. Now less than 10% of the labor force is unionized and the economy is in the dumpster. It could be mere coincidence, but then again maybe not.
I would rather think that the current drop in union popularity has more to do with their connection with Obama attempts to use the unions to repress the Tea Party movement.
This is completely absurd. Most people appear to be laughing at you teabaggers.
With respect to unions and failures of large organizations such as GM and the Postal Service, will you make the argument that an organization that is recognized as well run and is a union shop is due to the fact that the labor force is represented by a union? UPS is certainly one example of a successful organization that depends on a fully organized labor force from almost their beginnings. Furthermore, if you cite GM as a failure due to union contracts, how do you explain Ford, where their management made the correct decision of mortgaging the company and stocking up on cash to ride out the tough times? FOMOCO operates on the same UAW contract as GM and Chrysler did. Furthermore, the USPS operates on the constraints of the Postal Commission, whereas UPS and Fedex can choose to increase rates, cut or modify service, as they please. The USPS cannot.
I always find the argument that unions cause uncompetitive labor conditions that lead to unemployment. yeah, let's blame the guy trying to make a living wage instead of the CEO making 300 times that (compared to 20 years ago when it was just 57 times that I believe, this number may be off but not by much). And I would somewhat dare you to refer to a labor unions members as lazy, there's a reason the majority of them are bullt like brick houses well into their 50's and 60's and could snap you in 2, you try doing their jobs, you'd last a week. I'm a white collar professional and have been my life, I would never presume to refer to a union worker as lazy while I sit behind a computer screen, it seems a little dumb.
The postal argument is so silly, of course it runs deficits, it's forced to deliver mail everywhere for the most part, including non profitable routs. It's the same thing as blaming Medicare for cost deficits. It has absolutely nothing to do with how they are run or the government being run poorly, it's a design flaw. Medicare's design flaw is that it has to ensure the riskiest people without insuring the healthiest younger segment of the population, making it next to impossible to turn a profit. That has nothing to do with a well run organization, it's a false argument. It'd be like saying a car insurance firm that only insured people between the ages of 27-54 is incredibly run because it is the most popular insurance firm. Well of course it's most profitable, it cut out the majority of risk factors. that's why even the public option is actually doomed to fail far down the road, in its current state. You can't have one segment taking on all the rewards of the least risk and then have an entirely different segment take on the majority of high risk. The Post office is a different story. I can tell you this, if the Post office could cut out rural area's (of course, majority of Republicans) it would instantaneously become profitable, there's no question. but it's forced to keep prices low, and offer its services to everyone, so those who benfit from it can then turn around and talk about how much it stinks. It's amusing
I'm not sure the graph represents a causal relationship. It looks more like a coincidental correlation. Anyway, I would posit that most of the polled reaction is colored by a perception that unions are more concerned with protecting "Closed Shops" and early 20th century work rules that protecting workers.
When folks who work earn less money, they have less disposable income. This is a fundamental cause of a bad economy.
other causes include:
When folks do not have steady employment, they hord their money, and therefore do not have disposable income.
When unemployment lasts a "long time" and impacts a large percentage of the work force, the economy will suffer.
When the explanation that profits are needed for reinvestment in the economy is betrayed by "investors" playing the economy as though it were a Craps game, the economy will suffer.
Therefore, I see no relationship of Unionized labour at all, when discussing the effect of Unemployment on the economy. Looks like another scapegoat.
A shout out to michael.
It's not unions getting better at organizing. It's one union, SEIU.
And that union has the advantage of a previously nonunion pool of workers.
One huge problem with regressions is they don't explain ANYTHING!!! They only establish a correlation, in this case between two variables. What else was going on during these periods that might lead to deteriorating labor union support? Firing air traffic controllers and destroying their union? Anti union media coverage?
I doubt Mr. Silver is a supporter of labor unions given his pro-market, i.e., pro-capitalist economic training. Wow! What a difference training in different schools of economic thought can make on one's thinking!
@Nate Another interpretation. When unemployment is high, people are pessimistic about LOTS of things. In that situation, people are more likely to be down on BUSINESS, GOVERNMENT, SCHOOLS, POLITICAL PARTIES, THE PRESIDENT, CONGRESS, GOVERNORS, STATE LEGISLATURES -- you name it.
In other words, what may be being captured in your data is a part of a more generic thing, even if the question you are analyzing refers to labor unions specifically.
It baffles me why conservatives would think that higher wages for workers would produce any unemployment at all, in particular manual labor businesses like manufacturing and cleaning.
Where are these wonderfully charitable business managers that are employing even 5% more people than are necessary to do the job?
They are mythical. Middle class employee pay is an expense that is the easiest to minimize because the supply of labor is usually sufficient; so businesses uniformly employ almost exactly the number of people they need to get the job done, and they keep them busy. The number of hours paid is inelastic and this means that raising the minimum wage, or paying a higher union wage will not cause anybody to lose their jobs; it will only reduce the profit margin. That might lead to higher prices, or lower pay in the executive suite, or lower returns for investors, but as long as some profit is being made the number of people employed will remain the same.
Unions do not cause unemployment. When unemployment is high and people are looking for jobs, I suspect a false perception on the part of job seekers leads to disapproval of unions. The false perception is that if the Union did not demand such high wages then more people could be employed; thus the blame goes to the Unions.
This is false; however. If the Unions accepted lower wages, the companies would still only employ exactly as many people as necessary; and in actuality, due to Union restrictions on job activities, the companies could probably get by with even fewer workers by coercing employees into handling more work outside their job description, training level, or safe work load.
On that last sentence I meant to say;
and in actuality, due to Union restrictions on job activities, [if Unions did not exist then] the companies could probably get by with even fewer workers by coercing employees into handling more work outside their job description, training level, or safe work load.
John said...
I always find the argument that unions cause uncompetitive labor conditions that lead to unemployment.
What is the purpose of a union if not to obtain compensation for their members above their market value?
let's blame the guy trying to make a living wage instead of the CEO making 300 times that (compared to 20 years ago when it was just 57 times that I believe, this number may be off but not by much).
If the CEO fails to bring in profits several times his or her compensation package, then the CEO is indeed a drag on the company and the owners of the company would be well advised to replace the CEO. However, this has nothing to do with the fact that any union compelling labor costs in excess of the market rate is also a drag in the company.
I don't understand this definition of "market" that some people have that seems to exclude the demands of labor. Is your version of economics based on robot labor?
@BDP:
And you think the CEO is being paid at "market rate"? Where is the evidence of that? I personally know at least half a dozen actual CEOs of smaller companies that would have happily worked for a tenth of the compensation received by any bank or auto CEO, and I am confident they would have produced something other than bankruptcy in return.
The BOD and C-Level officer selection of megacorporations has nothing to do with competence, it is 100% "you wash my back, and I'll wash yours," either that or political or corporate connections. It is pretty fair to say that, excluding actual founders of companies, Board members with actual competence in the company's niche are rare indeed. They tend to be financiers and friendly reciprocating CEOs (you sit on my board and vote for my pay package, options and bonuses, I'll sit on your board and vote for yours).
@BDP:
Besides, your arguments are a moot point. There is no "market value" of labor, because it is impossible to define one without proposing a model for achieving it. If all workers spontaneously agreed to collective bargaining without a union, they would set one wage, if they don't that sets another wage. In your model, the "market value" is determined as if the workers are all too stupid to organize and everyone is out for himself. But that is more artificial than the opposite; in reality people often band together into tribes and coalitions for common cause.
Further, the union model is a more fair representation of equitable wages, because it pits one organization with power against another organization with equal power, instead of a giant corporation against individuals.
Tony C:
The market value of labor is what a particular industry must spend to get each additional worker to perform the work of a particular job. Nothing compels a person to work at a particular job in a free economy and he or she is free to shop around,
Unions are third party labor brokers. They justify the dues taken from the workers by offering the workers above market compensation.
Unions do not offer business an increase in worker productivity in exchange for the above market compensation they provide. Rather, by demanding above market compensation, they promise the company lower productivity. The only reason a company would agree to lower their productivity in this way is because the union can threaten an even larger reduction in productivity by striking. In other words, unions run a protection racket.
I find the argument that supports high CEO pay if it leads to sufficient profit as economically irrational. If CEO is a commodity then the smartest move would be to maximize the investment of CEO dollars. CEO seems to have assumed the aura of celebrity rather than a commodity which will seek the its lowest price. What actually seems to have happened in recent years (decades?) is that the revenue from gains in productivity have been routed to the penthouse instead of the paychecks of those productive workers, hence the increasing difference in income. And that may indeed be the result of unions losing their way, their membership and their strength.
@BDP:
The market value of labor is what a particular industry must spend to get each additional worker to perform the work of a particular job.
1) Hence my point, which you missed. If the workers are unionized, the industry must spend more to get each additional worker to perform that particular job; thus the union wage IS the market value.
2) A union is not necessarily a dues charging agency and is not necessarily a third party broker; thus a union does not "justify its dues." Some union members choose to pay full time workers or professional negotiators to better organize themselves; that doesn't make a union a third-party broker any more than an attorney is a third party broker for their client; union officials work for the people they represent just like attorneys work for the people they represent.
Your definition of "market value" depends entirely upon your theoretical model in which unions are prohibited, making it an entirely circular argument.
So your entire argument is that if unions were prohibited, people would be paid less, and you want to call that lesser pay "market value." Well, I propose a different theoretical model: If unions were mandatory, people would be paid more, and I want to call that greater pay "market value," and thus I say that any unions that do exist will move us closer to market value than we are without them.
My theoretical phrasing is just as valid as yours; and since it puts a different number on "market value" I claim it proves there is no arbitrary value that represents market value. As always, market value is what you can expect to earn for your work, with or without unions. Unions help set market value, they don't get more than market value.
@BDP:
And I could just as easily say that were unions prohibited, corporations would be happily and mercilessly endangering and exploiting workers and colluding to use their monopolistic power over the job market to extort free overtime and non-job related services from workers, including sexual services from female workers who were given the choice of compliance or being fired. You conveniently forget that this is the reason unions were formed and given legal standing in the first place, to correct the gross abuses produced by this imbalance of power.
Unions are no more a "protection racket" than are the police, demanding we pay taxes to protect us from crimes -- The gall of those cops! Imagine!
Tony C. said...
@BDP: [T]hat doesn't make a union a third-party broker any more than an attorney is a third party broker for their client; union officials work for the people they represent just like attorneys work for the people they represent.
Of course, I am a third party to my client in his relationship with the other party of a case. Like the union, I offer value in exchange for a fee. In the case of a union, that value is an above market wage.
Your definition of "market value" depends entirely upon your theoretical model in which unions are prohibited, making it an entirely circular argument.
Not at all. A market wage is one without any third party unions. Unions do not perform work for the employer and are thus not part of the base employer/employee relationship.
So your entire argument is that if unions were prohibited, people would be paid less, and you want to call that lesser pay "market value."
Not necessarily. Some unions like public employee unions cannot legally strike and thus simply lower their members' compensation without delivering above market wages.
However, in general, private unions do raise the cost of labor or their members soon de-unionize.
Well, I propose a different theoretical model: If unions were mandatory, people would be paid more, and I want to call that greater pay "market value," and thus I say that any unions that do exist will move us closer to market value than we are without them.
Once again, this is an artificial construct imposed by yet another entity outside the voluntary employer/employee relationship - the government.
A market wage is one without any third party unions
Arguendo by Assertion. The World According to Baghdad Bart.
That's the title of the book Baghdad Bart is going to write after he's done telling the world how Obama is a socialist.
Bart:
First, as has been pointed out, you have a pre-existing definition of "market" that allows people to join together as employers to bargain but not to join together as employees. There's nothing natural about that -- in fact, every western democracy grants legal rights for workers to bargain collectively in free trade unions. That's one thing that sets all democracies apart from all dictatorships: free trade unions.
Second, there is a good deal of literature suggesting that unions in fact have a somewhat positive effect on productivity. You're obviously unaware of it, which isn't surprising.
Finally, this thread shouldn't degenerate into what Bart (or any other partisan hack) thinks about unions. Rather, it should focus back on what is causing the drop in public support for unions. I'm thinking it's a general dissatisfaction with the economy.
jslater said...
First, as has been pointed out, you have a pre-existing definition of "market" that allows people to join together as employers to bargain but not to join together as employees. There's nothing natural about that...
You are free to offer and example of an industry where non-union employers collude with one another to set a standard set of wages. If such collusion exists, I agree with you that this is a distortion of the employer/employee relationship similar to that created by unions and would probably require unions to remedy. However, in general, compensation packages are not shared between businesses.
Second, there is a good deal of literature suggesting that unions in fact have a somewhat positive effect on productivity. You're obviously unaware of it, which isn't surprising.
Nothing that has been definitvely linked to unionization itself. Generally, unionized companies tend to automate sooner to avoid hiring at union rates. This tends to increase productivity.
Bart DePalma said...
You are free to offer and example
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As you are free to offer source evidence material to back up your spin er talking points. btw, the internet is like the Bible, one can always find source material to back up a bogus/erroneous claim/argument.
take care
@BDP:
An attorney is not a "third party," that suggests a middleman and that is not the case; an attorney is an employee of the client, not a middle man.
The same is true for a union; the union negotiator is an employee of the union members, not a middle man, and therefore not a third party.
To be a third party, then like all middlemen, the union would be in an adversarial relationship with both his supplier (of labor, meaning the employees) and the buyer (of labor, meaning the business). Middle men make more money when they buy low and sell high. Unions are not middle men buying labor from workers and selling it to a company; thus they are not third parties.
Unions are moe like talent agents; such people do not earn more money by getting the talent to take less; they earn more money by getting the talent more money. They are not middle-men, or third parties, they are hired negotiators on commission that can be fired by the talent.
You don't know what you are talking about; you are just inventing terms and then arguing from your own self-serving definitions. Unions are not third parties, they are hired employees that negotiate contracts and ensure they are enforced. Nobody considers employees "third parties."
I am strongly for unions at the level of the individual member who needs representation by his union vs. management. That, however, does not translate into the big-wigs who purport to speak on behalf of the entire movement and membership, but often do not at all. Card check was an absolute anti-democratic proposal that no one but a doctrinaire organizer could possible support. And the reflexive support of ultra-liberal proposals by union big wigs is by no means representative of overall membership. Union big wigs are about as admirable as the corporate leaders who most of the commenters on this website abhore.
I do not often post here, not being a polling wonk; typically I simply soak up the useful information this blog offers. But when someone posts claims I know to be false, as mid point man has concerning Southwest Air Lines, I feel compelled to respond.
As my moniker indicates, I am a union lawyer. Though I do not represent the unions who have bargaining relationships with Southwest, I know the lawyers who do. These are NOT "company unions" in any sense of the word. While it true that the pilots union is independent of the unions who represent other carriers, that is not the case with Southwest's other unions. For example, the flight attendants and ground crews are represented by the Transport Workers Union (TWU),an AFL-CIO affiliate which also represents workers at American Airlines, United, Northwest and Continental, among others. This information is easily available on the internet; see, e.g. http://www.twu.org/index.php/international/our_history#air
Also though they may be independent, the Southwest pilots union is no pushover. They voted down their last contract and are presently in difficult negotiations due to the Frontier merger. This again is easily available: http://www.project7alpha.com/2009/08/southwest-frontier-airline-merger/
When someone comes on and posts false statements easily identified as such, it becomes obvious they have an agenda more important to them than the truth. We in the labor movement are quite used to these tactics. You want to hate unions, fine, just don't lie about us.
False statements, agenda, spin, daily Limbaugh talking points, no source material ~ MPM in a nutshell!
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/blog/2009/09/bill_moyers_on_obamas_moment.html
Bart:
You're wrong about studies and union productivity. In the biggest picture, in 2002, the World Bank released a report based on more than 1,000 studies on the effects of union and collective bargaining. This report found that countries with high unionization rates tend to have higher productivity, less pay inequality, and lower unemployment, and that overall having a large number of workers represented by unions tends to have a stablilizing and beneifical effect on the country's economy.
For cites to this and specific studies on unions and productivity that you obviously haven't read, see the list of sources in my article, Joseph Slater, "Homeland Security vs. Workers Rights? What the Federal Government Should Learn From History and Experience, and Why, 6 U. PA J. of Labor and Employment Law295, 338-42.
Also, the point about how the market is defined seems to have gone over your head.
You are suffering from "internet hack know-it-all" syndrome: you want to have a right-wing talking point on every subject, but you don't know anything beyond the talking point. Learn or shut up.
More constructively, there is an interesting critique of Nate's analysis here at Lawyers Guns and Money: http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/
.
Typical bass-ackwards statistical bullsh*t: Try turning it reality-wards: The less union support, the more unemployment.
Duh, logic is not graphable, I guess.
Here, try singing it.
.
Samuel asked for comparative data from Europe. I found some UK data ("Trade unions have too much power in Britain today" -- agree/disagree) from 1975-1995 a did an analysis similar to Nate's. Controlling for general growth in trade union support in the UK during that period, I fit a regression model that incorporates the time effect and found that the coefficient on “unemployed” is negative (-2.4) as is the case for the US data. Each addition percentage point of unemployment corresponds to a drop of 2.4 percentage points of _net_ support for trade unions in the UK.
Alternatively, using "agree%" as the response (where the statement being agreed with is that "Trade unions have too much power in Britain today") the coefficient for unemployment is 1.3.
@JAW:
Thanks! That's quite informative.
Scapegoating. Historically, when times get tough, the lynch mobs come out in full force. Labor unions have always had a tenuous "foreignness" to them (blacks, Hispanics, eastern Europeans); thus, the backlash.
By and large, if something seems like a cultural mystery, look for the racism angle. It points true north.
Correlation does not equate to causality. Bet you could plot support for unions against Republican presidents and find a lagging correlation...get that bully pulpit crapping on unions, the support might drop too.
For folks interested in the relationship between party/policy preferences and unemployment/inflation, there's a book called The Macro Polity.
Nutshell version: When unemployment is high, swing voters like Dems. When inflation is high, swing voters like Repubs.
I have a question. When I was in DC and observing the "Teaparty" protest, someone had a shirt that said: "I'd rather be a right wing nutjob than a liberal with no nuts and no job." It was pretty funny. But my question, as an employed "liberal" without testicles, is, what's the relationship between employment status and participation in these protests? Because my assumption would have been that people are protesting because they're scared of getting laid off and scared about the economy, and that they want to preserve whatever middle-class wealth they have left. Do you have anything on party affiliation and employment status?
a correlation of around -.5 is not very significant. If anything there is a weak correlation between the two. This graph conveys barely anything interesting. Find other variables that are more strongly related please! You are better than this 538!
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
Post a Comment