America Says Union No

Tim Cavanaugh | September 8, 2009

Popular approval of the existence of labor unions has plummeted 11 percent in just one year, according to the Gallup polling organization.

Just 48 out of every 100 of us answered "approve" when asked "Do you approve or disapprove of labor unions?" The 11-point drop is the largest year-to-year decline on record.

This question has been polled every year going back to 1936, when Nazi Germany militarized the Rhineland, the U.S. unemployment rate was 16.9 percent, and 72 percent of Americans approved of organized labor. In 1957, as the Soviet Union put the first satellite into orbit around planet Earth and Jimmy Hoffa led the Brotherhood of Teamsters out of the AFL-CIO's house of bondage, an all-time-high 75 percent of Americans looked for the union label.

Gallup's Lydia Saad alludes to the auto industry bailout as a factor in rising disapproval, but if that were the main factor turning people off, I'd expect to see a sharper decline in the number of respondents who say unions "mostly help" their own members (down slightly to 66 percent) and a roughly diametric surge in those who say unions "mostly hurt" (up slightly to 28 percent). Certainly the spectacle of the United Auto Workers' rigidity as Chrysler and G.M. collapsed -- especially stark as this was one of the union's rare concession-giving periods -- provided a pretty clear picture of organized labor as one of the culprits in massive job losses.

The article makes no mention of public sector unions. Though I've come to the sad conclusion that public sector unions are the only ones that make economic sense (because the customers' ability to flee is virtually nonexistent, the stream of revenue is relatively dependable regardless of worker productivity, and worker demands for a larger piece of the pie do not immediately endanger the organization), I expect a big reason for the drop will turn out to be popular disgust at the way public workers have retained exorbitant direct and deferred compensation packages during these hard times. In the large scope of things, I don't begrudge cops and groundskeepers and sewer workers their benefits. But begrudging other people their blessings is kind of the whole point of organized labor.

Comments

The Angry Optimist|9.8.09 @ 8:13PM|#

But begrudging other people their blessings is kind of the whole point of organized labor.

What? How on earth do you justify that statement?

|9.8.09 @ 8:30PM|#

"Gallup's Lydia Saad alludes to the auto industry bailout as a factor in rising disapproval, but if that were the main factor turning people off, I'd expect to see a sharper decline in the number of respondents who say unions "mostly help" their own members ..."

I disagree. The unions actually managed to get a pretty sweet deal for their members during the auto bailout. Thanks to its connections in the White House and in Congress, the UAW managed to kept their existing member's pay and benefits almost completely intact despite the fact that high labor and legacy costs were one of the reasons the GM and Chrysler went down.

That a pretty good deal for UAW members (considering the circumstances) even if it really sucks for the rest of us who have to pay for it with our tax dollars.

That would also explain the unions' decline in popular approval and the relatively high number of people who say that unions protect their own. 'Cause they did, even if meant screwing over the country as a whole.

anarch|9.8.09 @ 8:34PM|#

"Do you approve or disapprove of x?" seems a question with a range of interpretations, from "x is imperfectly pursuing its worthy mission" to "x ought not exist."

Cabeza de Vaca|9.8.09 @ 8:36PM|#

I think there are lots of people out there like me that have been members of unions. That realize the union does very little for you, other then take dues out of your paycheck. I'm not saying all unions are like that, just most.

|9.8.09 @ 8:44PM|#

I'm not rabid on either side of the issue. Labor unions are all about freedom of association and have done some damned fine things. Thery are also parochial, shortsighted and have driven entire industries into the ground.

Anyway, I watched some of the Labor Day parade in Detroit yesterday and the only times I started to get pissed was with GM locals and AFSCME walked past. I don't like the concept of government employee unions and that includes GM workers.

Robert|9.8.09 @ 8:56PM|#

Though I've come to the sad conclusion that public sector unions are the only ones that make economic sense (because the customers' ability to flee is virtually nonexistent, the stream of revenue is relatively dependable regardless of worker productivity, and worker demands for a larger piece of the pie do not immediately endanger the organization),

There's another reason: their lack of a profit motive gives the bosses no incentive to treat the employees well. From what I've heard, the Postal Service really needs their union just to counter the shit that managers try to inflict for no benefit to customers or to the bottom line. Of course that's no guarantee the union will help employees. Friends of mine who've been members of gov't employee unions report often being just as badly by their union as by the boss.

The Angry Optimist|9.8.09 @ 8:57PM|#

as in all things, government is to blame for what unions do or do not to to the public coffers and to labor generally.

we have statutorily enshrined protections for unions into law. Is it any wonder that they use those powers?

|9.8.09 @ 9:03PM|#

The simple truth is that unions have long outlived their usefulness. In the past they worked for their members. Now, their members work for them. They no longer serve any purpose.

Montgomery Burns|9.8.09 @ 9:03PM|#

Smithers, get me some strikebreakers. The kind they had in the thirties.

|9.8.09 @ 9:43PM|#

The Simpsons said it best (though the reference to the Japanese seems out of date now):

"You can't treat the working man this way! One day, we'll form a union and get the fair and equitable treatment we deserve! Then we'll go too far, and get corrupt and shiftless, and the Japanese will eat us alive!"

Elemenope|9.8.09 @ 9:54PM|#

anarch and J sub D with the thread-winning points.

qwerty|9.8.09 @ 10:16PM|#

My problem with the unions is they are too political. I have no problem with workers organizing, going to their boss, and saying, "We don't want to work on Saturdays anymore." I do have a problem when they start endorsing and donating money to political candidates who often disagree with the rank-and-file workers on all sorts of issues.

|9.8.09 @ 10:29PM|#

There were some Carpenters on strike near where my wife works in Bellevue, WA. When asked why they were on strike, they told my wife they were getting $30/hr and wanted $35.

Yeah, this makes unions look good. What's the current unemployment rate?

I belong to two unions, The Sailor's Union of the Pacific and the Inland Boatmen's Union, and I appreciate what they've done for me. I'm also free to seek non-union work. But going on strike for this reason is really ridiculous as it won't gain them any sympathy in this economy.

Then there are the teachers on strike in Kent, WA. Teachers remind me of people who move next to an airport because the house was cheap and then complain about the noise. If you want a high paying job with less demands on your time, I suggest you pick a different career. Like the Merchant Marine.

anarch|9.8.09 @ 10:36PM|#

I have no problem with workers organizing, going to their boss, and saying, "We don't want to work on Saturdays anymore."

What if you were one of the workers who does want to work on Saturdays anymore?

The Angry Optimist|9.8.09 @ 10:41PM|#

anarch - then don't join the union. If your employer is closed-shop, then I guess you have a choice to make.

|9.8.09 @ 10:44PM|#

then you leave the union. Or start a competing union.

Oh wait, that's not legal.

Yup, unions would be great if they were not granted government monopolies. While we're at it, corporations would also be great if they didn't siphon money from the government. And government would be great only if it followed the damn constitution.

But from a first principles point of view, the ONLY union that will never make sense, from the freedom point of view, are the public sector unions. Labor unions represent a freedom to associate, as long, of course, as they don't impinge on the rogue worker's freedom to dissociate.

Tim Cavanaugh|9.8.09 @ 10:47PM|#

There were some Carpenters on strike near where my wife works in Bellevue, WA

Don't there have to be construction jobs in order for carpenters to be on strike? Or maybe that capital-c means you're talking about Richard and Karen Carpenter. A hunger strike, maybe...

The Angry Optimist|9.8.09 @ 10:59PM|#

corporations would also be great if they didn't siphon money from the government.

I am going to ask this in all seriousness: do you even know what a corporation is? Corporations can be as few as ten people and, by and large, contribute a wholly disproportionate amount to the coffers as they take.

|9.8.09 @ 11:07PM|#

The union members I know have become totally oblivious to the consumer; they see themselves as employed by the union and dependent on it alone for advancement. Personal initiative doesnt get much consideration.

JB|9.8.09 @ 11:53PM|#

Look for the union label, and avoid.

That includes public school students who are brain-washed by the NEA.

|9.8.09 @ 11:56PM|#

TAO,

Closed shop workplaces were made illegal under Taft-Hartley in 1947. Another lovely reason to oppose EFCA and other attempts to whittle away at the most important economic legislation of the 20th century.

The Angry Optimist|9.9.09 @ 12:32AM|#

Whoops - shows how far behind the curve I am. I always just used "closed-shop" to represent the "union shop / hiring hall" model. Surprised I never got corrected.

Paul|9.9.09 @ 1:48AM|#

In the large scope of things, I don't begrudge cops and groundskeepers and sewer workers their benefits.

I do. When people who make more than I do poor-mouth it constantly, and berate me as greedy? I'll piss all over your Union label every chance I get.

Paul|9.9.09 @ 1:52AM|#

I don't like the concept of government employee unions and that includes GM workers.

Public sector unions should be banned. Period. If they can't be banned, then their contracts should come up for direct vote with their employers: the public they serve.

smartass sob|9.9.09 @ 3:07AM|#

If they can't be banned, then their contracts should come up for direct vote with their employers: the public they serve.

I kinda like that idea. As far as banning is concerned, I think they are at least prohibited from striking - used to be anyway. It's remarkable that of all government employees military personal are not allowed to form unions per se - no collective bargaining and no going on strike.

Tricky Prickears|9.9.09 @ 6:23AM|#

Don't there have to be construction jobs in order for carpenters to be on strike? Or maybe that capital-c means you're talking about Richard and Karen Carpenter. A hunger strike, maybe...

Perhaps they were protesting a non-union jobsite. Is WA a right to work state? In my part of the country, construction unions are much different than labor unions. They generally don't protest over things like wages and benefits. They protest commercial construction projects being built by non-union contractors. I just love those giant inflatable rats :)

kc|9.9.09 @ 8:04AM|#

public unions? BAH! As an "in home caregiver" for my son with DS, I'll give up all gov't benefits before I give one dime to a union forced upon me. Unfortunately, many families cannot afford to thumb their noses at the state. In Illinois, SEUI is attempting to organize in-home caregivers:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-caregivers-unionsep03,0,4172799.story
and I thought Massachusetts was supposed to be the most leftist state --

yonemoto -- that's exactly the problem, unions don't allow/recognize the "rogue worker's right to dissociate".

@|9.9.09 @ 8:14AM|#

PapayaSF | September 8, 2009, 9:43pm | #

The Simpsons said it best (though the reference to the Japanese seems out of date now):
"the Japanese will eat us alive!"

Chinese, Japanese, it's all the same to a Hollywood writer (and union member).

Kolohe|9.9.09 @ 8:49AM|#

A hunger strike, maybe...

I el oh elled.

I have no problem with private sector unions, because market forces in the end keeps everyone honest. Public sector unions, however, have no such feedback mechanism

PR|9.9.09 @ 8:58AM|#

if government employees need unions because they can't trust the govt. to treat them fairly, why am I supposed to trust the govt. with my healthcare or anything else?

|9.9.09 @ 10:18AM|#

But begrudging other people their blessings is kind of the whole point of organized labor.

What? How on earth do you justify that statement?

Unions = collectivism.

Collectivism = begrudging other people their blessings.

Invisible Finger|9.9.09 @ 10:26AM|#

because the customers' ability to flee is virtually nonexistent, the stream of revenue is relatively dependable regardless of worker productivity, and worker demands for a larger piece of the pie do not immediately endanger the organization

From an I'm-the-one-paying-them-but-I-don't-get-a-seat-at-the-bargaining-table perspective, these are all reasons public sector unions DON'T make any sense.

The Angry Optimist|9.9.09 @ 10:40AM|#

Unions = collectivism.

No. Wrong. The pooling of individual interests to further the interests of the group sounds like...insurance to me. Are you saying that insurance is collectivist?

Tim Cavanaugh|9.9.09 @ 11:37AM|#

I say they're all about begrudging based on actual behavior. In every labor action I've ever witnessed or participated in, the public relations framework has always been based on how profitable the sector is, how much money the bosses are making, and how terrible it is that they're not sharing these revenues with the real creators of value (the lifeguards, journalists, delivery people, screenwriters, etc.). This may not be the theoretical point of unions, but it is certainly the practical point. Which makes sense: If most people judged only according to their own needs and circumstances, they'd conclude that getting $30 an hour to do construction, $40+ to do journalism (unskilled labor if ever there was such a thing), or $10,000 to write a 90-page script is a very attractive prospect.

|9.9.09 @ 2:16PM|#

The Writers Guild (and SAG)have never bothered me, mainly because writers/actors ARE forced to deal with the market on a daily basis.

Their members may be guaranteed a certain wage for a script or a re-write, but first they actually have to SELL that script. And being in the union doesnt guarantee they get any future work.

It's the unions who keep "unprofitable" people employed for life that are dangerous.

LarryA|9.9.09 @ 2:47PM|#

The 11-point drop is the largest year-to-year decline on record.

I wonder how many of the respondents saw labor union members in action at last year's political rallies? Or actually got beat on?