America Is Strong When Our Unions Are Strong

The Campaign for America's Future updates the stats on the benefits of unions for us.  Even with all of the attacks and set backs of the past, unions members still have better pay, benefits and working conditions.  Let's organize!

By Dave Johnson

August 30, 2010 

America was formed as a government of, by and for We, the People. It says so right in the first words of our Constitution. To get that Constitution we rebelled against the King and England's aristocracy and their corporations, with their concentrated wealth and power. And we continued that fight and over time we extended our system of one-person-one-vote, adding women and minorities to that equation.

The fight has gone back and forth. When our democratic government works, it pushes for increased protections and benefits for We, the People. This has included, for example, the mandated 40-hour workweek and minimum wages to fight exploitation, both pushed by labor. But at other times our government was "captured" by the power of concentrated wealth and working people are not well-represented. Even then we're still not necessarily each on our own. During those times we have depended on labor unions to push back against that power of concentrated wealth. Working people can organize into labor unions to bargain for higher wages and better treatment than workers could obtain individually.

What difference can unions make? In 1945 labor unions represented about 1/3 of all workers. When American unions were strong working people got the minimum wage, the 40-hour week, weekends off, paid vacations, health insurance, pensions, dignity and respect. This was when America built the middle class that everyone has been taking for granted since. Even the wealthy benefited greatly over the long run as more consumers with more money to spend lifted the whole economy.

But what has happened to us since the Reagan Revolution, when concentrated power of the big corporations weakened America's unions? Since the days of FDR membership in unions has fallen, but in 1980 unions still represented 24% of American workers. The Reagan administration famously launched an all-out assault on organized labor falling to 16.4% by 1989. And the trend continued: by 1998 union membership fell to 13.9 percent. By 2009 that had decreased to 12.3%, but only 7.6% in the private sector. And here are the results:

This is a chart of working people's share of the benefits from our economy. Note the brief return to normal under Clinton, erased by Bush II. But the assault on working people has recently been bipartisan. Clinton pushed to pass the Bush I-negotiated NAFTA treaty which hammered the bargaining position of workers, while Bush II consolidated the practice of "outsourcing" labor competition from non-democratic countries where workers didn't have rights or protections.

As we all know, since the Reagan Revolution weakened the negotiating power of working people, wealth and income have concentrated at the top, our country's debt has massively increased, household debt as well, the country is crumbling and everyone except the wealthy few and big corporations is generally worse off.

Unions still make a difference. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, "In 2009, among full-time wage and salary workers, union members had median usual weekly earnings of $908, while those who were not represented by unions had median weekly earnings of $710." Union members also often have paid vacation, paid sick leave, health insurance and other benefits that non-union workers do not. The difference is dramatic. In March 2009, 78 percent of union workers were covered by health insurance through their jobs, compared with only 51 percent of nonunion workers. Seventy-seven percent of union workers participate in defined-benefit pension plans, compared with 20 percent of nonunion workers.

When you hear someone complain about unions and complain that people in unions are paid better than the rest of us, let them know that they are reaching the wrongest conclusion. They shouldn't resent union members and complain about their pay, they should join a union and support unions, so they they and everyone else can come out ahead.

Fire Alan Simpson

Paul Krugman is right again.  But even is Simpson is fired, there is one unified message that the labor movement and working people generally want the commission to hear: hands off our Social Security.  The fix is to lift the cap on income taxed.  Next...


Paul Krugman, The New York Times
Aug. 27, 2010
I always thought that the deficit commission was a bad idea; it has only looked worse over time, as the buzz is that Democrats are caving in to Republicans, leaning ever further toward an all-cuts, no taxes solution, including a sharp rise in the retirement age.

I’ve also had my eye on Alan Simpson, the supposedly grown-up Republican co-chair, who has been talking nonsense about Social Security from the get-go.

At this point, though, Obama is on the spot: he has to fire Simpson, or turn the whole thing into a combination of farce and tragedy — the farce being the nature of the co-chair, the tragedy being that Democrats are so afraid of Republicans that nothing, absolutely nothing, will get them sanctioned.

When you have a commission dedicated to the common good, and the co-chair dismisses Social Security as a “milk cow with 310 million tits,” you either have to get rid of him or admit that you’re completely, um, cowed by the right wing, thatIOKIYAR rules completely.

And no, an apology won’t suffice. Simpson was completely in character here; it was perfectly consistent with everything else he’s said, and with his previous behavior. He has to go.

Auto union joins labor, green groups on climate bill push

If the US is to be successful in rebuilding our manufacturing base, green jobs are a huge part of the future.   The BlueGreen Alliance is doing great work.  Too bad they stopped in St. Louis and KC and didn't event honk when they went through mid-MO!  Let's work to make sure manufacturing  jobs don't pass us by also.

from The Hill

By Ben Geman - 08/23/10 12:10 PM ET

The United Auto Workers is the latest union to join the BlueGreen Alliance, which unites labor and environmental groups pushing for greenhouse gas limits and other policies to create “green” jobs.

The UAW — also known as the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America — claims to have more than 390,000 active members.

“UAW members produce best-in-class cars and trucks, key vehicle components, and top quality heavy-duty trucks, and we know that we can rebuild the American auto industry by building cleaner, more efficient vehicles — and developing the technologies that will get us there,” UAW President Bob King said in a statement Monday about joining the BlueGreen Alliance.

“We have enormous opportunities to revitalize this industry, and the American economy, by embracing the clean energy economy of the future,” he said.

The BlueGreen Alliance was formally launched in 2006, and grew out of a less formal collaboration between the Sierra Club and the United Steelworkers. 

It also includes the Service Employees International Union, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Communications Workers of America and several other unions.

The BlueGreen Alliance is in the midst of a cross-country bus tour aimed at reviving a broad Senate energy and climate-change bill that’s currently on ice on Capitol Hill.

Confessions of a Class Worrier

Former Clinton Labor Secretary  Robert Reich speaks plainly in this post from his blog.   

The decline of America’s middle class can be charted directly. In the three decades after World War II, the median wage (smack in the middle) grew rapidly, right along with productivity gains. Even as late as 1980, the richest 1 percent of Americans received only about 9 percent of the nation’s total income.

But starting in the 1980s — and increasingly since then — the economy has made the rich far richer without doing squat for the vast middle. The median hourly wage has barely grown, if you take inflation into account. Indeed, it dropped in the last so-called “recovery” between 2001 and 2007. And health-care and pension benefits have declined; we’ve gone from defined-benefit pensions to do-it-yourself pensions, while health insurance premiums, deductibles, and co-payments have skyrocketed.

Meanwhile, the rich have been getting a larger and larger portion of total income. From 9 percent in 1980, the top 1 percent’s take has increased to 23.5 percent in 2007. CEOs who in the 1970s took home 40 times the compensation of average workers now rake in 350 times. Financiers who forty years ago made only modest fortunes today, even after the Great Recession they helped bring on, routinely earn seven and eight-figures. In 2009, when most of the nation’s middle class was deep in recession, the 25 best-paid hedge-fund managers took in an average of $1 billion each. (Their marginal income tax, by the way, was barely over 17 percent, while the typical family paid a marginal tax far higher.)

What happened? It wasn’t just greed. It was also the systematic and ever cleverer manipulation of laws and rules by those able to pay lobbyists, legislators, lawyers, accountants to do their bidding. As income and wealth have risen to the top, so has the power to manipulate the system in order to acquire even more money and more influence.

To be sure, globalization and technological change have bestowed gains disproportionately on those with the education and connections to benefit most from them, while burdening Americans without the education and connections most needed.

But instead of enlarging the circle of prosperity so that the vast middle class could come out winners as well — instead of strengthening trade unions, improving public education, deepening public investments, enlarging safety nets, and making the tax system more progressive — the nation took direction from those at the top, and did the opposite.

It is not surprising America’s middle class is increasingly frustrated and are venting their anger — at politicians, the leaders of big business and Wall Street, as well as global traders, immigrants, and others who are easy targets of resentment.

A politics of audacious hope has turned into a politics of fear — meaner spirited than at any time in recent memory.

I’m not a class warrior. Call me a class worrier.

Our choice in the years ahead is either demagoguery that turns Americans further against one another and the rest of the world, or genuine reform that enlarges shared prosperity. It is the responsibility of all of us to fight the former and work toward the latter. (Pause for commercial announcement: In my forthcoming book, “Aftershock: The Next Economy and America’s Future,” I discuss this choice in detail.)

Schoolteachers Driving Cadillacs?

Paul Krugman, New York Times, Aug. 9, 2010

As state and local government continue to attack workers pensions, Paul Krugman does something unique and gives us some facts!

Jonathan Cohn tells us that public-sector employees are the new welfare queens. Quite: any time you try to talk about the fiscal plight of state and local government, you get spittle-flecked denunciations of unions and their crazy pay packages.

So, how much truth is there to this? State and local employees are paid more, on average, than private-sector workers — about 13 percent more, according to this analysis by John Schmitt. But as Schmitt shows, that’s an apples and oranges comparison: state and local workers are much better educated and somewhat older than private-sector workers, and once you correct for that the comparison actually seems to go the other way.

I think the easy way to think about this is to realize that about half of state and local workers are teachers and academic administrators — which means that they’re college-educated, at minimum. And think about it: how many ambitious young people do you know saying, “My goal in life is to become a high school teacher — that would put me on easy street”?

Yes, firefighters and police get pretty generous pay packages; they also pull people from burning buildings.

And here’s a point I haven’t seen made: even if you believe that the age-and-education-adjusted calculations are wrong, and public employees do get paid somewhat more than they “should”, how big a deal is that? I went to the Census state and local finance data, and got this picture of the composition of non-federal government spending:

U.S. Census Bureau

A few percent either way in workers’ compensation would not make a big difference to state and local spending. This is a phony issue.

Of course, so were the welfare queens.

Update: A number of commenters have alluded to large unfunded pension liabilities. Two points: first, the fact that state and local governments haven’t been making large enough contributions to pension funds says nothing, one way or the other, about whether workers are overcompensated. Bear in mind that, as Cohn notes, many government employees don’t get Social Security. Second, a “trillion dollar liability” needs to be placed in context: state and local governments spend $2.8 trillion per year. Compare the pension liability with total spending over, say, the expected remaining lifetimes of those workers, and it’s a real problem but not inconsistent with my point that these compensation issues have been grossly overstated.

If 60+ Organizations Representing 30+ Million People Gave A Press Conference In A Forest …

The Campaign for America's Future is doing a great job on their blog with the Social Security issus.  Too bad the mainstream media is too busy covering every gathering of three or more tea party people to notice the issue that could effect everyone in the country.

By Dave Johnson

August 3, 2010 

If more than 60 organizations representing more than 30 million people gave a press conference in a forest and no media covers it ... will these 30-plus million people still vote against politicians who vote to cut Social Security benefits? You can bet your seat in Congress they will!

Last week leaders of more than 60 national organizations that represent more than 30 million Americans held a press conference to announce a campaign to protect Social Security. Also this weekend the Tea Party held a national rally in Philadelphia and approximately 300 people showed up. (A local Apple Store opening drew more people.)

So which do you hear more about in the media, the Tea Party, or the 30-million-strong campaign to protect Social Security? Do I need to answer that?

At Columbia Journalism Review, Trudy Lieberman writes in, Who Will Tell the People?,

. . . when it comes to Social Security, the MSM, where most Americans still get their news, have been MIA. You could almost say that Social Security has become the MSM’s third rail. For the most part, nobody wants to touch it. [. . .] It has been this way all year, ever since Obama established his deficit commission in January, thus raising the stakes for Social Security. The MSM’s treatment of the program is all the more puzzling since any changes the commission brings forth will be far more important to most Americans than health reform ever was or will be. A vigorous public discussion has yet to take place, and the commentary so far has been framed mostly by one side of the issue—the deficit hawks, privatizers, and Peter G. Peterson acolytes who believe Social Security (and other entitlements) are causing the deficits.

Politicians, do not be fooled by one-sided coverage of the Social Security issue.60+ organizations representing 30+ million members will carry more weight on election day than corporate-funded astroturf "Tea Party" organizations that can't get more than 300 people to a national rally.

Citizens, demand that your representatives take the pledge to protect Social Security. Click here: Hands off Social Security: No increase in the retirement age, no privatization, no Social Security cuts. Sign the petition to your member of Congress.

Campaign for America's Future is tracking which representatives are and are not signing the pledge. Click here to watch the list grow.

Come On Down! It's Time To Play "Social Security Survivor"!

I bet you thought that we had at least a four year safe period protecting us against attacks on Social Security when President Obama and large Democratic majorities were elected in 2008.  I did, but we were wrong.  Get ready for another fight.

By Richard (RJ) Eskow

August 3, 2010 

A broad coalition of groups has been formed to defend Social Security, and the videos announcing it are all worth watching. Of all the ideas proposed, my personal favorite comes from AFSCME President Gerald W. McEntee: A new reality show starring the people who want to cut Social Security. He suggests having John Boehner, billionaire benefit-cut advocate Peter G. Peterson, and Deficit Commission chairs Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles live for a year on the average Social Security benefit of $14,000.

"They won't get a COLA (cost of living increase," says McEntee, "but they'll still have to deduct $100 a month for Medicare Part B and still have to pay $200 a month for Medigap insurance." (The video of his comments is below.)

Great idea, Mr. McEntee! Mr. Peterson should be more than happy to take you up on your offer. He likes games, having funded one called "Deficitball."(1) Alan Simpson seems like a playful sort of fellow, too. It sounds a lot like I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here!, where the famous and well-to-do are dropped in a jungle and forced to do icky things like eat bugs and snakes. But in this case the jungles will be our own cities and towns and contestants are more likely to eat Purina than piranha.

But why limit ourselves to only four contestants? Why not invite those Senators who have pushed for these sorts of cuts, too, like the senior Senator from California?Dianne Feinstein, come on down! And let's not exclude economists like Alice Rivlin, a member of the Simpson/Bowles Commission who wants to cut benefits for all the wrong reasons. Let's meet our newest contestant! Dr. Rivlin thinks it's "absurdly unlikely" that "widows living on the edge of subsistence" will have their benefits cut - but then, she doesn't tell us where she thinks that edge lies.

That's a shame because, as women, our last two contestants will be asked to survive on less than the men. The average Social Security benefit for older women is $11,900, so that's what our female contestants will receive. Unfair? you say. Outrageous? Sure it is, but this is a "reality show" and that's the reality.

"When do you think they'll stop calling for benefit cuts?" asks McAfee. "Probably in the first episode." He's probably right. Chances are that our contestants live in pleasant communities, surrounded by the nearness of family and friends. That'll be the first thing to change. There may be tearful farewells to children and grandchildren and lifelong friends, as our contestants move to urban slums or the distant and fading outposts of the American dream.

Our next dose of reality: Our male contestants will be living on $1,166 each month, and the women will have $991. After those premiums are subtracted they'll have $866 or $691 for all their monthly needs. (And let's hope they don't have out-of-pocket medical expenses.) Rent? Food? Transportation? These amounts will have to cover everything. Our contestants may not know what it's like to live like this, but here's their first lesson: Monthly budgets are too long-term when you're subsisting at this level. If they're lucky enough to pay no more than $500 per month for rent and utilities, our male contestants will now have $85 per week for all other expenses and the women will have $44.27.

Is our reality show "real" enough for you yet, contestants? Are we "living on the edge of subsistence" yet? Eating bugs and snakes for a few weeks is probably starting to look pretty good by comparison.

What would we call this reality show? Survivor? The name's been taken. The Real World? Taken. Extreme Makeover? That one's taken too. American Chopper? Not quite right, although would be a good name for what the Deficit Commission is trying to do right now with our benefits.

Here's the reality: Generations of Americans benefited from a three-legged system that ensured their financial security in old age. The first was the pension system, which has been gutted by employers. The second was savings and personal assets, which for most households have been decimated in the last several years. And now the only remaining leg, Social Security, is under attack.

"It's not a benefit cut," proponents claim. "We just want to raise the retirement age." But many people who live in the reality show we call "life" can't work until we're seventy. Their jobs are physically demanding, or there aren't any jobs to be had. Raising the retirement age means less money for them. (Of course, it also means less money over a lifetime for those who retire at seventy, too.) Social Security's the most conservatively managed, financially stable public program we have. It has survived multiple economic downturns. Its greatest threat right now comes from our would-be contestants.

Some deficit cutters will promise that lower-income people will not see benefit cuts. But any cuts will break the covenant under which workers have paid payroll taxes for a lifetime. And the question remains: Where will you cut? If you say you won't do it for people living on $44 per week, what about those whose total income adds up to $65 a week? $75? $100? What will satisfy you? And what assurances will we have that you won't break your promise again someday?

show's about to begin. Some of the faces look awfully familiar .. .

Hey, America! It's time to meet our newest contestants!
____________________________________

(1) I thought "Budgetball" sounded like a cross between The Fountainhead and Death Race 2000, but if Peterson plays this game I promise to reconsider.

(click here to send a message to every Washington politician on the campaign trail: Hands off Social Security!)

(The reality show remarks occur at 2:30.)
____________________________________