Unions fight for Georgians

Moderated by Tom Sabulis

Unions are in the news, as calls continue for MARTA to privatize services and Michigan enacts right-to-work laws. Today, a Georgia union official writes about the benefits union workers bring to our state, while an expert from Emory University’s Goizueta Business School says right-to-work freedoms are needed for states to remain flexible in the new global economy.

Commenting is open below Ray Hill’s column.

Unions fight for dreams of all citizens

By Charlie Flemming

As we approach the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom organized by A. Philip Randolph, vice-president of the AFL-CIO, we are reminded of Martin Luther King Jr’s 1961 fight against anti-unionism. “In our glorious fight for civil rights,” King said, “we must guard against being fooled by false slogans, as ‘right-to-work.’ It provides no ‘rights’ and no ‘works.’ Its purpose is to destroy labor unions and the freedom of collective bargaining.”

Despite his warning, the anti-union crusade continues as de-industrialization, globalization and offshore production have diminished wages and greatly reduced the availability of good jobs.

Unions, despite the premature proclamation of their death, remain relevant in the continued fight for fair wages, decent benefits and safe working conditions. What happened in Michigan this week is a perfect example of corporations and politicians interfering with the freedom of employees to work together in unions to improve their lives. It not only undermines our belief in a voice for all who work, it lowers living standards for all of us.

Now more than ever, we need to be unified to create jobs and restore the middle class across our country, because work connects us all. While Martin Luther King Jr. made the ultimate sacrifice standing with the sanitation workers of Memphis in 1968, the work he gave his life for continues.

U.S. workers in right-to-work states, for example, earn an average of $5,538 less a year than their counterparts in states where they have the right to collective bargaining. Every citizen is diminished by these inequities, because the reduced salaries represent missed tax revenues and reduced money circulating in the local and state economy.

Unions and collective bargaining also make a difference in workplace safety; right-to-work states report 50 percent more workplace deaths. The campaigns for fair wages, decent health care, and safe working conditions through labor contracts are a continuing responsibility of the American labor movement.

Union concerns extend beyond the needs of our members. What is often left unreported is how unions work with business, civil society and government to realize the democratic vision established by our country’s founders. During the 2012 Georgia state legislative session, the AFL-CIO championed freedom of speech by opposing SB469. The bill would have curtailed the right to picket, a traditional American tool for social justice advocacy. Who can forget the picketing Memphis sanitation workers with their “I Am a Man” placards?

Organized labor also benefits the larger society in other ways often invisible to the public. More than 900 Georgia AFL-CIO members assisted in recovery efforts following the devastation of Hurricane Sandy. Each year, AFL-CIO members in Atlanta and Georgia provide millions of dollars of charitable donations to the United Way and many other charitable organizations that assist Georgians in need.

Organized labor also advocates for the reintegration of our U.S. veterans into the economy through our “Helmets to Hardhats” initiative. The program pairs our transitioning military veterans with quality career training and employment opportunities within the construction industry.

In the coming legislative session, we will fight for the constitutional and economic rights of all Georgians. We’ll push for Buy Georgia, Buy American legislation, which gives preference to products made in Georgia and/or the United States. We will also work on mass transit issues, immigration rights, privatization, unemployment, corporate tax breaks, living wages and public education.

In sum, your dreams for a better state with ample employment opportunities are what drive our work every day. The Georgia AFL-CIO will continue fighting to realize the dreams of all Georgians.

Charlie Flemming is president of the Georgia AFL-CIO.

Flexible workforce helps workers, economy

By Ray Hill

Right-to-work laws generate passionate arguments on both sides of the issue. All sorts of statistics are cited by those for and against these laws. Although econometrics was one of my Ph.D. fields, I don’t put much stock in any of this “evidence.” Too many factors contribute to an economy’s ability to create jobs and grow incomes to isolate the effect of right-to-work laws with much quantitative precision. I would rather consider right-to-work laws in a much broader context.

When we think of all the factors that contribute to an economy’s success, it seems clear to me that flexible labor markets are becoming more and more important in a world of globally connected business and rapid technological change.

The evidence is pervasive. A decade ago, Germany instituted a series of reforms designed to loosen up its very rigid labor market . Throughout the 1990s, Germany’s unemployment rate had been on par with France and much of the rest of Europe, and was consistently about twice that of the U.S. Ten years after these reforms, Germany has an unemployment rate half that of France but still pays its workers significantly higher wages. Indeed, Germany’s unemployment is now below that of the United States.

On this side of the Atlantic, we have the example of decades of migration of automobile manufacturing out of the highly unionized Midwest, where GM was required to pay its employees whether or not they actually worked. Even closer to home is last month’s bankruptcy of Hostess Brands (maker of Twinkies), brought on by incredibly rigid rules imposed by their unionized delivery workers.

Labor unions have made important contributions to promoting safer working conditions and other employee protections, most of which have now been written into our nation’s laws. However, unions also have the effect of reducing an economy’s flexibility and undercutting its ability to adapt to the rapid changes we experience in the global economy.

Unions’ ability to raise workers’ wages are a commonly cited argument in favor of right-to-work laws. High wages are great if you have a union job, but aren’t worth much if you are unemployed in a state with slow growth or shrinking industry. High wages are also not very useful when your company relocates to another state or outsources your job to another country. Even promises of job security are of little value when your company goes into bankruptcy, like Hostess, because it can’t compete.

By not requiring workers to finance unions as a condition of employment, Georgia’s right-to-work law helps to keep Georgia competitive. This is becoming more important every day since the rest of the world is moving in Georgia’s direction. In the U.S. as a whole, union membership as a percentage of the workforce fell last year to a level not seen since the 1930s. Private sector participation in unions fell below 7 percent.

Earlier this year, Indiana, in the old industrial heartland of America, became the 23rd state to adopt a right-to-work law, and just this week, Michigan became the 24th. Only in the government sector, shielded from competition, is union membership not shrinking. However, the budgetary problems of Greece (and Illinois!) should remind us that even governments are not immune from the inability of a unionized workforce to adapt to changing conditions.

Ray Hill is senior lecturer at Emory University’s Goizueta Business School.

34 comments Add your comment

Allan Richardson

December 15th, 2012
12:53 am

Sorry, bigjimkelly, I abbreviated my reference to your post. I meant to say that I know that union officers (”bosses” to the righties) are actually workers elected by their peers. However, I admitted that AT SOME TIMES in the past, SOME corrupt union officers (e.g. ALLEGEDLY, Jimmy Hoffa) acquired enough power to serve as the right wing stereotype of ALL union leaders. I then debunked that notion, although I know that no amount of debunking will persuade some anti-union (anti-worker) fanatics. I guess I depended on my readers going back to your post, rather than quoting your point in full.

bigjimkelly

December 14th, 2012
10:24 pm

nice beard Richardson, you misquoted me.

Allan Richardson

December 14th, 2012
7:12 pm

“bigjimkelly” made a good point. In the past, a few very large unions had, for a time, a problem with mob control, and this has been turned into an unfair right wing stereotype of all unions. The top level officers of THOSE unions may have been able to get rich for themselves, but regulatory scrutiny and anti-gangster movements have mitigated that problem I have worked for a union shop in a RTW state (Florida) and it was a struggle to get new people to join, especially the youngsters who had not studied labor history in school, and saw the job as a “really good McJob” rather than the start of a career.

The canard about “restrictive work rules” is based upon the conflict between workers and abusive employers who reassigned workers that had not been properly trained on a specific job, in order to cut costs and avoid overtime pay for qualified union members. The truth is that unions set high standards for skilled trades, and take pride in high quality work. The union people who “worked slower” could have known more than “Rick in Grayson” about the need for metal to cool between stages of fabrication, and were more concerned than management about the quality of the steel they were producing. A bridge in Jacksonville, FL in the 1970’s was built with all union crews and came in ahead of schedule and under budget. Smart management (and union pride in quality work), not abusive management, gets results like that (and the bridge is still in excellent shape).

As “Louis” said, employers who are good to their employees either honor the unions they already have (inherited from unhappier days, perhaps?), or never have their employees ask to start one. Abusive employers try to get rid of the unions they have, or avoid allowing employees to start a union, using illegal or barely legal means.

As to whether union workers are “worth” their union wages: are companies which have monopolies, or collude together with other companies (in a “union”?) to create monopolies, “worth” their profits? How about CEO and other top-level executives who get rewarded with bonuses for causing losses, even getting “golden parachutes” if they are fired, and make up the difference by laying off thousands of low-level workers? If a CEO can work under a contract, why not a worker?

A quote from 1930’s Germany: “They came for the trade unionists, and I was not a trade unionist, so I did not object; … when they came for me, there was no one left to object.”

Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!

December 14th, 2012
7:07 pm

If I want to join a union, I will. If not, I won’t. Right To Work makes that choice possible, and as we all know, choice is my God-given right.

Proud Teamster

December 14th, 2012
6:52 pm

For all the folks who think people being “forced” to pay dues is wrong:
A) NO ONE is forced to join a union. “Closed shop” union contracts only require that freeloaders in by paying their fair share of the costs associated with the collective bargaining relationship that they benefit from.
B) “Right to Work” (for less) is the only exception to American free enterprise that requires an organization to provide goods and services for free. If freeloaders don’t want to join the union at their workplace then they should sign away their rights to the wages and benefits negotiated for members through their collective organization and pooling of resources. The fact that unions are forced to represent freeloaders reveals the true intent of “Right to Work” (for less) , to weaken unions and drive down wages and benefits.

Do ya’ll think it is coincidence that “right to work” (for less) states have the highest rates of poverty, families lacking health benefits, and the worst educational systems in the country? C’mon folks it’s in front of your face. Quit drinking the koolaid!

bigjimkelly

December 14th, 2012
6:10 pm

UNION: a group of workers get together to get a bigger peice of the pie;
a fairer cut of the fruit of their labors.
The people who run the unions are members, elected by members.
ie: Trumka actually shovelled coal.

If a Union Plumber only made $2.00 an hour, what would your trade pay?

nelson

December 14th, 2012
5:41 pm

When one says that states where the unions are strong, workers get $5,000 more. That does not say they are worth $5,000 more, it is the union wages opposed to non union. I think unions are not compatible with the free enterprise system.
Let us say a custodian in a union plant makes $40,000 At rhe same time a skilled worker in a nonunion business makes $35,000, which worker deserves the hgher salary. As Booker T. Washington said, “the better man is the one that can do the best job, not the one that gets the most money”. As recent as 1933, the Supreme Court declared collective barganing unconstitutonal.

Porter

December 14th, 2012
5:13 pm

What unions do best is negotiate for better pay and benefits. What unions do worst is seek all kinds of cumbersome work rules and job classifications that force an employer to behave in an inefficient and in some cases completely irrational manner. Whenever unionized and nonunionized companies compete against one another, such as automakers and airlines, the trend is always for the unionized companies to lose market share.

Louis

December 14th, 2012
4:26 pm

The fact is that no business that is treating it’s workers well is likely to be unionized. Conversely, no employees of a business that is treating it’s workers badly in any way should be kept from being unionized. But in most cases, the right-to-work laws are little more than right-to-abuse laws, and most of these right wing proponents of right-to-abuse-employees-at-work are the folks that push these laws.

Simply telling employers that it is OK to abuse their employees then have the “right” to fire them when they organize and hire more employees to abuse is wrong. Particularly when the job market is supply oriented should NOT make a revolving employment door OK. When a facility goes union, everybody there should get the benefit and no current employee should be forced to join the union. But new employees coming into that benefit facility should be told up front they have to join or they have the choice to apply somewhere else.

Right-to-work laws send the message to employers that are prone to abusive practices that those practices are OK and there are no ramifications. Our country had moved away from letting employees literally get killed and maimed by their employers, but these laws are on the slippery slope back to those days. If for no other reason than that, these so called right-to-work laws are wrong.

Allan Richardson

December 14th, 2012
3:58 pm

For SAWB, how long would the benefits to workers REMAIN in Federal law with a right wing gerrymandered Congress supported by biased media (Faux, for example) and million dollar checks from billionaires, and the greatest source of VOLUNTEER campaign labor and contributions from NON billionaire donors to fight them killed off? These Federal laws (and some state laws) that benefit workers AND the public safety were passed because enough workers were able to join unions and get benefits that other employers had to match. Without union shops to hold up as a higher standard, we would all be working for Chinese, or Bangladeshi, wages, with no safety rules (remember the radium painting workers whose employers denied responsibility for their deaths?) to protect us.