Problem #4: The Growing Income Inequality Gap
This is fairly easy to explain, actually. During the 1950s, upwards of 35% of private sector workers belonged to a union1. Today, that rate is closer to 11%2. Today, corporate profits are at an all time high3. Finally, the ratio of CEO pay to average workr pay is up 1000% since 19504.
Combine these facts, and one thing becomes abundantly clear: decline in union membership is directly attributable to the decline in pay for the average American worker. Another significant factor has been offshoring of jobs. An excellent case in point is the US apparel and textile industry.
In the middle 20th century, many millions of people in the US- especially in northeastern cities like Philadelphia- were employed in the apparel and textile industry. In 1904, the textile industry employed more than 35% of workers in Philadelphia5. Then, later in the 20th century, the textile and garment industries fled Philadelphia, first for cheaper, non-union labour in the south, and then for even cheaper sweatshop + slave labour in the Orient.
Sadly, the predominant answer to this was not greater enforcement of labour laws or negotiation for jobs by unions, but rather the so-called “Right to work” laws, also known as “right to work for less” laws. These laws undermine unions by requiring them to represent employees even if the employees decline to pay union dues6.
The answer should be a rebirth of enforcement of labour laws in the US, as well as unions moving into representing employees whose jobs can’t be offshored- you gonna call China when your toilet leaks?. In this way, the organisation of clerks, hotel workers, skilled labourers, and domestic workers could represent the future of the US labour movement.
Endnotes
People forget that American labor law was written to effectuate a truce between ownership and labor, whose battles had begun to turn bloody, deadly, and increasingly threatening to the broader economy. Owners would have to recognize and negotiate with unions when a work place majority voted for one - and they couldn't retaliate against organizers, proponents, or joint actors. In exchange, courts were to replace direct action in most circumstances. And since court is expensive, the most successful unions would be those that could amass a war chest out of dues - not the union that could rally the rank to beat up scabs and engage in sabotage. Things were to get more civil and predictable.
ReplyDeleteBut once that status quo was achieved, ownership wanted more - they wanted the civility and stability, but they didn't want the union. congress, courts, and state governments largely went along.
I suspect that if labor woke up to the fact that the truce has been long over and find it within themselves to stand up boldly, it wouldn't be more than a decade before the powers that remember how nice it was to resolve differences through a more fair legal process.