by publius
So I've been reading Lessig's new book Remix, which provides further examples of how idiotic our copyright policy is. I'll write more later, but one of Lessig's main goals is "norms" reform. That is, he wants to change what people conceive of as normal and accepted.
For instance, it would be perceived as outrageous if, say, Josh Marshall sued me for excerpting a piece of his post. Even if fair use didn't exist, selective quoting would be perceived as "ok" -- that's the prevailing norm. File sharing is the other side of that coin. We may not like the fact that RIAA was allowed to sue elderly people and penniless college students. But because of prevailing norms, the broader public didn't see it as the utter outrage that it is.
This idea of "norms" is playing a key part in the Detroit debate. The debate not only reflects the poverty of our existing norms about economic relations, but it provides an opportunity to change them -- one we seem to be squandering.
Republican opponents of the bailout like Senator Shelby (libertarian hero; defender of state-subsidized Alabama plants) have unfairly targeted union workers throughout this debate. One goal of their rhetoric is to discredit the norm of union-provided prosperity. The very idea that workers could enjoy a higher premium and better benefits through union negotiations is anathema to them. The UAW's success isn't Exhibit A for the benefits that unions could provide to middle-class America -- they're an undeserved freak show that violates the immutable natural laws of the great free market.
In short, the great tragedy of Detroit could be the idea (the norm) that this form of middle-class prosperity is possible. As Jonathan Cohn explains, the success of UAW earlier last century cascaded to employees across the country. Its failure (its forced failure) will do the same.
Looking forward, the debate would also allow us to change other norms -- such as the idea that it's ok for executives to receive gazillion times more income than workers whose wages have stagnated for decades. We've come to accept this idea -- this norm -- but it's a pernicious one. Concentrating wealth at the top creates all sorts of problems -- it helped, for example, create the conditions of our current meltdown. If the top 1% didn't have all this disposable income sitting around, maybe they wouldn't be as inclined to blow money on the latest speculative fad.
The larger point here is that the battle for Detroit is about more than just the auto industry. It will also help reinforce -- or reverse -- the norms that currently govern economic allocation questions.
"Even if fair use didn't exist, selective quoting would be perceived as 'ok' -- that's the prevailing norm."
Er, it's the prevailing norm because of the "fair use" doctrine. Obviously, without the fair use exception, it would not be the prevailing norm.
Posted by: Gary Farber | December 22, 2008 at 12:54 PM
not necessarily -- how did the fair use doctrine get crafted int he way it was. not saying you're wrong -- but it's not clear causation runs in the way you say.
plus, there's the different question of how much law on the books really matters in this debate. laws that run counter to widely-held norms are largely ignored
Posted by: publius | December 22, 2008 at 01:12 PM
Publius, your post reminded me of this article about Lewis Hyde (about whom I'd known nothing), which I found extremely worthwhile. I can't wait for his book.
But as to norms, the idea is relevant to the torture debate, and so many other things about the past 8 years. We need to do serious recalibration in almost every area.
Posted by: Sapient | December 22, 2008 at 01:16 PM
"One goal of their rhetoric is to discredit the norm of union-provided prosperity. The very idea that workers could enjoy a higher premium and better benefits through union negotiations is anathema to them. The UAW's success isn't Exhibit A for the benefits that unions could provide to middle-class America -- they're an undeserved freak show that violates the immutable natural laws of the great free market."
I believe that the Republican rhetoric on unions is wrong. But using the UAW to support your case FOR unions is bad. The UAW is not a success for the same reason the GM is not a success. In both cases the products provided are not worth payment requested. The UAW has been largely successful in propping up union member pay by resisting and problematizing automation. That isn't good for auto buyers.
And your link sends me to some spam place which opens multiple pop up windows, so I can't read it. :) But I would at least urge serious caution about the unreserved 'nothing good could ever happen in the historical labor market without unions' concept that I see going around progressive circles right now. There are lots of counterexamples of areas that do fantastically well for workers and companies without much union involvement. See for example the success of Silicon Valley. And unions really do also contribute to declines in efficency--see for example the dockworkers issues of the past two decades. I'm happy to agree that the CURRENT place of unions hasn't struck the right balance. But getting carried away with false arguments isn't likely to get us to the right balance either.
Posted by: Sebastian | December 22, 2008 at 01:18 PM
"Fair use" has been recognized as common law since the origination of copyright with Great Britain's Statute of Anne of 1709.
Copyright and "fair use" have co-existed together since the invention of both. This is why speaking of one as separable from the other doesn't make historical sense. The concepts have never been separated.
One U.S. decision that codified the test for fair use was Folsom v. Marsh, 9 F.Cas. 342 (1841).
(You work in publishing, you can wind up knowing more about fair use and copyright law than many lawyers.)
Posted by: Gary Farber | December 22, 2008 at 01:23 PM
In short, the great tragedy of Detroit could be the idea (the norm) that this form of middle-class prosperity is possible. As Jonathan Cohn explains, the success of UAW earlier last century cascaded to employees across the country. Its failure (its forced failure) will do the same.
Wasn't there an opportunity for Detroit to be "the norm", and the Detroit norm was rejected? Protections for organizers and unions have not substantially changed, and yet union membership has been falling for many years.
Indeed, on one key issue, we're at the point that the roles of labor and management are effectively reversed. Unions are lobbying hard for open unionization votes, while management to lobbying to keep the vote by secret ballot. You'll recall that unions originally favored the secret ballot because there was concern that a popular union would be defeated by management pressure. Now, management is concerned that union pressure is going to create unions where they may not be wanted.
I agree that unions have made important historical contributions. But it's far from clear that the union model -- much less the Detroit union model -- is a model that should be favored today.
Posted by: von | December 22, 2008 at 01:28 PM
My understanding of fair use is the same as Gary's (i.e., it's effectively inseparable from the common law of copyright), but I think that Publius was trying to make a point that would be understood by folks who aren't aware of this history.
Posted by: von | December 22, 2008 at 01:30 PM
"Now, management is concerned that union pressure is going to create unions where they may not be wanted."
Bullpuckey. Management couldn't care less about what the workers want. Management is concerned that unions will be created against management's near-universal desire to not be bothered by unions.
Posted by: Gary Farber | December 22, 2008 at 01:37 PM
von - the reason membership has been falling is that those protections HAVE changed in rather drastic ways since the 70s. it's not like workers are rejecting unions on the free market. a combination of reinforcing laws and norms (and apologetic liberals who like to show their moderate cred by bashing unions) have led to the declines.
and gary's right - management does what is good for management. it's not doing to for the integrity of union voting process. they understand the reality behind the formal "secret ballot"
Posted by: publius | December 22, 2008 at 01:44 PM
If management were "concerned" about "pressure" on unions, for the good of the workers, they wouldn't, you know, threaten to close down plants, stores, and enterprises, to prevent unionization, and they wouldn't harass and threaten pro-union workers. Which is the case for countless millions of workers across the nation.
Here, by the way, is a great result from my neck of the woods a couple of weeks ago.
But note it took sixteen years to get this union established.
Why do some folks always have all these worries about non-existent labor bullying, and they express no concern about the fact that management harassment is endemic in all low-paid endeavors and the overwhelming variety of working class factories, stores, and jobs, absent a union?In this case, it took sixteen years to get a fair result. Countless other workers are still waiting. Where's the concern for their welfare?
Posted by: Gary Farber | December 22, 2008 at 02:12 PM
"Why do some folks always have all these worries about non-existent labor bullying"
Because it isn't non-existant.
I remember back in the day when it was the consensus around here that publishing an abortion doctor's address constituted more than bullying. Abortion violence has happened, but is very rare. If we stipulate that union violence has happened and is very rare (though I suspect less rare than anti-abortion violence) will you, Gary Farber, admit that this counts as pressure?
Does getting stabbed count? Rod Carter.
Do creating Molotov cocktails for the New York Daily News strike count? What about the violence against the non-union members in that strike?
Does getting shot in the back of the head count? Eddie York
Surely you can defend unions without resorting to unsupportable overgeneralizations? And this kind of pressure happens when the political atmosphere is NOT amenable to union pressuring.
Posted by: Sebastian | December 22, 2008 at 03:06 PM
Sebastian, if you could post a source from someone other than a group of anti-union activists, people for whom their whole work lives depends on the "badness" of unions, you might have more of a chance at convincing me. Otherwise, I'll just respond by posting information about the depredations of corporate America from the socialist workers' party.
Posted by: John Spragge | December 22, 2008 at 03:33 PM
BTW, Sebastian, the workers in Silicon valley have an advantage that other workers don't: aside from their education and experience (which they, not the corporations, own) the capital goods used for production in Silicon Valley have deflated by 50% every 18 months for the past thirty years. In the year I started with computers, the computing power I now have beside my desk would have cost as much as an aircraft carrier with its air wings. In an environment like that, any arrangement short of outright chattel slavery will leave workers at a huge advantage over capital. Of course, silicon valley wages have stagnated to some extent, both because of overseas competition and because plenty of the best minds in computing (Richard Stallman, Linus Torvalds, and Sir Tim Berners-Lee come to mind) don't work for the money.
Comparing a silicon valley worker to a worker in heavy industry doesn't work.
Posted by: John Spragge | December 22, 2008 at 03:47 PM
"If we stipulate that union violence has happened and is very rare"
Of course it has happened -- certainly back before 1980 it wasn't unheard of, and in decades before 1970 there was loads of it, some in response to management violence, and some less or unjustified.
But as all those who love to discuss the usefulness of unions in the past like to say, we're talking about now, the 21st century in America, and all I'm saying is that union violence, particularly serious union violence, is extremely rare, particularly as measured against number of union members or number of union locals.
I'd never claim that at no time in a given year there has been no case whatever of union violence or harassment in America.
What I'm claiming is that in just about every retail store in America, in just about every manual labor factory and service job in America (janitors are an obvious example), and in most any low-paying job situation, management almost always treats workers like crap, and harasses them and threatens them against having a union.
Anyone who has ever worked in any of these jobs knows this as a fact of daily life, which is why the contrast is so stark when these facts of life are shoved under carpet and not spoken of by those who are so so so concerned about workers being harrassed. If people are truly concerned about worker harassment, they'd support unions all around, and then work on the relatively tiny contemporary problem of union abuses.
(Nor do I claim unions are perfect: they can have stupid leadership, or criminal leadership, and negotatiote stupidly, and featherbed, and so forth; unions aren't exempt from criticism; but they are, as a rule, the defenders of workers, and in the case of low-wage workers, almost universally a necessity.)
"admit that this counts as pressure?"
Yes, one guy, out of millions of union workers, was harassed three years ago.
And there's another guy, nine years ago.
And fifteen years ago, there was a very bad strike situation; the National Right To Work Foundation naturally reports not a word as to whether the mine management committed any questionable deeds.
So we've established that back in the 20th century, at least three guys, out of millions, were harassed.
Clearly national law should pay the most attention to this, and ignore the tens of millions of low-wage workers who need unions.
Yes, that's some sense of priorities in caring about the needs of workers.
When we have millions, or even thousands, of people harassed by Evil Unions, let us know.
Meanwhile, where's the concern for janitors?
Who can't support a family -- or even themselves -- on $20/day, and with no protection against harassment?Why worry about these people? Instead, we have to go back to 1993 to find a case of one guy getting shot. Because that's representative of the plight of tens of millions of poor fellow Americans today who just want to work.
Or maybe not.
Posted by: Gary Farber | December 22, 2008 at 03:48 PM
If you have specific reasons to believe that those cases are false, I'm happy to look at it. I suspect you aren't convinceable anyway. I've been suckered into the 'waste an hour researching things that you don't actually care about as evidence' thing too many times and I feel like giving myself a Christmas present by avoiding it for once.
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to give myself a present. :)
Posted by: Sebastian | December 22, 2008 at 03:52 PM
"So we've established that back in the 20th century, at least three guys, out of millions, were harassed."
Sorry: two guys from the previous century, and a single guy in this one. In all of America.
I'm sure there other cases. But, again, show me thousands of cases, and we'll start talking an actual serious problem. Or show even cases of hundreds of people being seriously threatened, and then we'll talk. Handfuls, even if you find thirty or forty cases -- and I doubt you can -- from the last five years, aren't significant.
There's simply no significant problem of union violence or union harassment in America today. There is, however, absolutely endemic and utterly widespread harassment of millions of American workers by management.
So why are your priorities focused on the few, and not the many?
Posted by: Gary Farber | December 22, 2008 at 03:55 PM
"If you have specific reasons to believe that those cases are false, I'm happy to look at it"
I stipulated they were true. My point is: so what?
You're quite right that you needn't bother finding another dozen or two dozen cases. I'm concerned about millions of American workers who suffer right this week.
Your focus is on the alleged problems of how many workers, exactly, Sebastian? At most, a few hundred?
Why no concern about the non-unionized workers, and what unions can do to make their life less hellish? Why no comment on 4,500 people at a single plant?
Posted by: Gary Farber | December 22, 2008 at 03:58 PM
And Sebastian, it's hard to believe you read my response. I wrote:
Your response: Tell me you read what I wrote, and then kindly explain your response. I say the cases are true, you say I believe they're false: wtf?Thanks muchly.
Posted by: Gary Farber | December 22, 2008 at 04:01 PM
"But as all those who love to discuss the usefulness of unions in the past like to say, we're talking about now, the 21st century in America, and all I'm saying is that union violence, particularly serious union violence, is extremely rare, particularly as measured against number of union members or number of union locals."
Let's see. You say that back when unions were stronger, there was more violence. And this is evidence *for* unions.
And that is the overt violence, I think we can safely presume that nasty pressure of lesser levels occurs as well, unless you think the violence springs forth out of the head of Zeus full formed.
Funny, how a much lower level of established violence over time in pro-life protests creates an enormously different reaction among the commenters here.
"And fifteen years ago, there was a very bad strike situation; the National Right To Work Foundation naturally reports not a word as to whether the mine management committed any questionable deeds."
I'm sorry Gary, I didn't realize you were going all situational ethics on me. And you can't even bring yourself to actually name the 'bad' part. Hmm terrorists do bad things THEREFORE torture is ok is a good argument for you right?
And for like the millionth time (slight exaggeration perhaps) I'm not saying that unions have NO place. Just that forcing their place isn't important enough to say expose workers to violence which could be easily avoided by not making it obvious which ones vote for the union and which ones don't. If you are mad at the company, don't attack it by removing worker protections.
Most of my objections to unions are ones that you claim to agree with. So instead of sniping and whining back and forth at each other how about this.
I would love to be able to support unions that don't featherbed, don't frustrate technological improvement, don't stick rules where seniority is preeminent, and don't make it ridiculously difficult to fire workers that are actually bad.
What types of structures would you be willing to see that would allow unions to fulfill the functions you see as important without empowering them so much in the bad areas?
Posted by: Sebastian | December 22, 2008 at 04:04 PM
Gary, 3:52 was written in response to John Spragge, not you. Sorry for not making that clear.
Posted by: Sebastian | December 22, 2008 at 04:05 PM
The pro-life movement has a goal which is intrinsically evil: trying to force women through pregnancy and childbirth against their will.
The Union movement has a goal which is intrinsically good: trying to ensure that all workers receive fair treatment and a living wage from their employers.
Yes, I know the intrinsic evil of the pro-life movement is disputable (I am sure Sebastian mentioned it in an effort, which will probably succeed, to derail the thread). FWIW, not that I suppose Sebastian will care, the Union movement has probably done more to prevent abortions indirectly by ensuring better economic circumstances for women, than the pro-life movement ever will.
One aspect of workers being bullied by management which leads to more abortions is the plain fact that many women who become pregnant have to consider whether or not they will be able to look after the child and keep their job. A union which supports healthcare benefits for workers and their dependents, and other benefits such as job security and even paid maternity leave, will directly prevent at least some abortions: but Sebastian, like most pro-lifers, has never shown any interest in preventing abortions, let alone in doing so by ensuring better economic security for low-paid women.
(The level of violence in the pro-life movement directed against health clinics and health care providers is also far higher - there are multiple instances of arson, murder, anthrax threats, and other terrorist acts in the past 30 years.)
Posted by: Jesurgislac | December 22, 2008 at 04:24 PM
Should have put this here as a tonic from Sebastian's anti-union vibe.
Posted by: bedtimeforbonzo | December 22, 2008 at 04:54 PM
I hope there is a way that the value of Unions can be discussed without pointing at the current Detroit mess. I don't see how GM, Chrysler and Ford can move forward in a competitive, self-sustaining way unless they are competitive across the board - wages, benefits, capital costs, designs, selling structures, manufacturing techniques, etc.
It is a fact that the Big Three pay more for retiree costs than their competitors. Should this cost have been accrued and funded years ago when those retirees were working? Yes, absolutely. It is unfair to count it against the current workers or even discuss it in the same breath. But the two costs have been conflated in many reports. I have read some reports that the Transplants (Honda, toyota, BMW) don't have many retirees so their costs are low. If this is true it points to a separate problem - the Transplants should be accruing for and funding the future benefit costs now.
My question is: How should the Big Three be structured going forward so that they can be self-sustaining and competitive with Honda, Toyota, BMW, et al AND continue to provide their union labor with a better standard of living than those laborers would otherwise get?
I'm not trying to sidetrack the thread. Publius ends by saying "The larger point here is that the battle for Detroit is about more than just the auto industry. It will also help reinforce -- or reverse -- the norms that currently govern economic allocation questions." I'm trying to see how it would work if all non-labor areas of the company could be made competitive with the Transplants but labor is paid more than the transplants.
The only way that could work is if the labor component is more productive than the Transplants.
Maybe Publius is proposing a new norm where capital or some other area is allocated less return so that labor can have more in the absence of a productivity gain.
Posted by: d'd'd'dave | December 22, 2008 at 05:44 PM
Sebastian, you are studiously avoiding Gary's questions.
Posted by: J. Michael Neal | December 22, 2008 at 06:16 PM
"You say that back when unions were stronger, there was more violence."
I say that back when unions were stronger, management was far more inclined to use violence. And back before that, when unions were weaker, management was even far more inclined to use violence.
And, yes, there was more violence by unions for various reasons. One is that it was in response (I'm not saying it was right, or excusing it -- not at all -- I'm simply saying that's why some violence occurred then, and doesn't know) to frequent management violence. Another reason is simply that there were more unions. Another reason is that in the first half of the 20th century, and even into the next decades or two, labor/management relations were simply more unsettled: both sides played harder. Another reason is that, indeed, for various reasons, some idealistic, some simply greedy, and some purely immoral, some unions made -- or in some cases were forced to make -- deals with the devil, i.e., the Mob, and unsurprisingly, violence would ensue. That's pretty much gone now.
This history is something I can easily document, but if you know anything at all about labor history (and I have no idea how much you do or don't know on that topic), you're familiar with these facts.
In recent decades, management doesn't need to be violent very much, because the law has been bent to so overwhelmingly favor them. All they have to do is fire people, close plants, and threaten to. And all the other abuses they get away with largely go unpunished. Outright violence is unnecessary.
Beyond that, correlation isn't causality.
"And this is evidence *for* unions."
No.
"I would love to be able to support unions that don't featherbed, don't frustrate technological improvement, don't stick rules where seniority is preeminent, and don't make it ridiculously difficult to fire workers that are actually bad."
In principle, I agree. The devil tends to turn up in the details.
"What types of structures would you be willing to see that would allow unions to fulfill the functions you see as important without empowering them so much in the bad areas?"
I don't particularly know how to answer that. I'm perfectly willing to grant that various specific cases of unions can stand improvement in various ways.
Let me ask you in turn if you think that unions are needed by most low-wage employees, and if our society would be better off if we changed our laws and enforcement to make that much easier to occur? Or not?
Are the things I asked after in my previous comments important issues, or not? Should they be priorities for Congress, or not?
If not, why not? Thanks!
Posted by: Gary Farber | December 22, 2008 at 06:38 PM
My question is: How should the Big Three be structured going forward so that they can be self-sustaining and competitive with Honda, Toyota, BMW, et al AND continue to provide their union labor with a better standard of living than those laborers would otherwise get?
That is a good question. My short answer would be to offload their legacy health care costs onto the govt. as part of the deployment of a single-payer health care system.
IIRC the unions have already negotiated an equivalent transition in offloading legacy pension costs (from the Big 3 to the unions), the problem for the automakers is that this transition isn't scheduled to occur for another couple of years and in the meantime they've been hit with a terrible economic downturn which is impacting foreign and domestic car manufacturers alike. IMHO covering their legacy pension costs during this transition period is where a medium term (i.e., about 5-10 years) govt. bridge loan collateralized by an equity position senior to existing equity and bondholder debt makes sense.
I know that there is little political support here in the US for an explicit (rather than stealth) industrial policy, but ask yourself what our German and Japanese counterparts would do, and if the answer is "save their domestic industry", then is there something they know that we don't? Perhaps something to do with the time scales on which their decision making process is focused, that differs from ours?
To me the larger context is that the US economy has to be rebalanced to bring production and consumption back into balance, which means that we should be sinking our limited resources into saving what we can of our infrastructure which can be used to support future production (e.g. our industrial plant) rather than doing what we are now which is to spend all of our fiscal stimulus dollars on trying to support unsustainable levels of consumption by bailing out the banks.
The whole rationale for the TARP bailout was that if we let the other banks go the way that Lehman went, it would impact Main St. and cause millions of jobs to be lost. Now we have a case where Main St. jobs are on the line directly rather than indirectly, and we chose to do nothing? That makes no sense to me.
Posted by: ThatLeftTurnInABQ | December 22, 2008 at 06:53 PM
tltabq
I agree that the govt will have to take over the past retiree costs in some way. But, that is more a question of how do we get from here to there than it is an expression of what the end state should be. Is the end state wage, benefit and work rule parity with the Transplants? If it is then where is the benefit of the union?
Re: your thought:
"To me the larger context is that the US economy has to be rebalanced to bring production and consumption back into balance, which means that we should be sinking our limited resources into saving what we can of our infrastructure which can be used to support future production (e.g. our industrial plant) rather than doing what we are now which is to spend all of our fiscal stimulus dollars on trying to support unsustainable levels of consumption by bailing out the banks."
Probably a good goal but I don't see how to accomplish it in the current free-trade environment. We could probably push down consumption with tariffs at the same time as we protect vital industrial infrastructure. But isn't that contrary to global peace and progress?
Posted by: d'd'd'dave | December 22, 2008 at 07:18 PM
"Let me ask you in turn if you think that unions are needed by most low-wage employees, and if our society would be better off if we changed our laws and enforcement to make that much easier to occur? Or not?"
I don't know if 'most' need it and I have very little idea what you mean by 'low-wage', but I have absolutely no objection whatsoever to A) enforcing laws against illegal firing that already exist but which are underenforced and B) allowing it to be easier to engage in all sorts of VOLUNTARY organizations of which unions could be an important subset. But 'much easier for that to occur' has a rather broad range. I wouldn't be thrilled with "forced to join a union because the union will kill your family if you don't" for example, so you'd have to be much more specific about you mean. But if you mean, severely punish, including criminal penalties, a company or manager who illegal fires union organizers or something like that I'd have no problem with that whatsoever. If you mean "restrict the 1st amendment rights of company managers to tell truthful information" I'm not going to unexaminedly throw in with it.
"Are the things I asked after in my previous comments important issues, or not? Should they be priorities for Congress, or not?
If not, why not? Thanks!"
You ask so many questions in rapid fire and dismiss so many questions with a 'who knows' that I'm not easily able to answer this. If you can focus on one or two really important ones, I'm always happy to make an attempt at an answer. An I promise it will be at least as much as "I'm perfectly willing to grant that various specific cases of unions can stand improvement in various ways."
Thanks.
Posted by: Sebastian | December 22, 2008 at 07:22 PM
Did Sebastian just suggest that Gary needs to specify that he doesn't mean "forced to join a union because the union will kill your family if you don't" before Sebastian will answer his question?
I can't decide whether this is more pitiable (Sebastian's mental world of scary, scary Unions may be real to him) or insulting (what, exactly, has Gary ever said anywhere that leads Sebastian to think he'd support Unions threatening to kill families?)
Posted by: Jesurgislac | December 22, 2008 at 07:42 PM
OK Sebastian:
1) On Jeff Ward and card check, as the Detroit News reported, the union observed that "UAW... noted that a hearing was held at the bus plant and 'not a single worker could be found who said they were coerced into signing a union card.'"
2) On Rod Carter, I'll give you the bare facts, but again point out that the incident took place in the context of a strike, not a union drive. In a strike situation, workers feel, with some justification, that strikebreakers have let them down. In a union drive, you have individuals saying they don't want a union representing them; in a strike with scabs, you have a workplace where the workers (by voting for the union or by continuing to work after a majority of their fellow workers have agreed to organize) have accepted union representation.
3) Eddie York: your account leaves out the way violence around mining strikes has often involved strikers as victims as well as perpetrators.
Posted by: John Spragge | December 22, 2008 at 07:47 PM
Sebastian,
And for like the millionth time (slight exaggeration perhaps) I'm not saying that unions have NO place. Just that forcing their place isn't important enough to say expose workers to violence which could be easily avoided by not making it obvious which ones vote for the union and which ones don't. If you are mad at the company, don't attack it by removing worker protections.
Please google "Walmart workers locked in" and/or "Canada Walmart union", why don´t you?
And then ask yourself why Walmart couldn´t compete - for example - in Germany? A very competitive retail market? They tried for several years. Made three digit million losses every year. In a country who enforces the same rules on every retailer?
You seem a bit too defensive of companies that could hire lots of lawyers, fire lots of workers and have pretty much the upper hand against any single worker?
Mind you, I´m not saying that unions are always right. But if you think that a single worker somehow equals a multi billion dollar company you are - I´m sorry to say - delusional.
Posted by: Detlef | December 22, 2008 at 08:25 PM
I don't know if 'most' need it and I have very little idea what you mean by 'low-wage', but I have absolutely no objection whatsoever to A) enforcing laws against illegal firing that already exist but which are underenforced
Actually, Sebastian, I suspect that you have a lot of objections to doing this. How far are you prepared to go in questioning what an employer says were the reasons for firing an at-will employee? What are you going to do when it seems pretty obvious that they fired them because they were organizing a union, but no one in management will say that that's why they did so, and there is no paper trail?
Posted by: J. Michael Neal | December 22, 2008 at 10:10 PM
"In a union drive, you have individuals saying they don't want a union representing them; in a strike with scabs, you have a workplace where the workers (by voting for the union or by continuing to work after a majority of their fellow workers have agreed to organize) have accepted union representation."
So 'scabs' perhaps want the union representing them. I don't see the enormous difference.
Posted by: Sebastian | December 22, 2008 at 10:59 PM
"I don't know if 'most' need it and I have very little idea what you mean by 'low-wage',"
How about "under $15/hr." It's not a terribly mysterious concept, actually. If you like, we can go down to "under $12/hr," or "under $10/hr." You know, the wages most people who work in retail, or in most (not all, of course) service industry jobs, or in lots of manual factory labor jobs, or as janitors, and similarly elite jobs. My question is whether or not you'd agree that most of these people -- those in similar situations to the two links I gave you, the North Carolina meatpacker, and the janitors -- would benefit from unions, or not?
"I wouldn't be thrilled with 'forced to join a union because the union will kill your family if you don't' for example, so you'd have to be much more specific about you mean."
I, on the other hand, heartily approve of family-killing in the name of unions, so strong are my feelings!
In fact, every blood relative of someone who votes against a union should be killed! And their entire neighborhoods should be laid waste! Unto the fourth generation, verily!
Glad I could clear that up.
Posted by: Gary Farber | December 22, 2008 at 11:13 PM
"So 'scabs' perhaps want the union representing them. I don't see the enormous difference."
I assume you meant "don't want."
The moral difference is that scabs are taking the jobs from the workers: that's bound to incur harsh feelings. The practical difference is that it's bound to incur extremely harsh feelings. It's taking the life of the worker's family, and the ability of workers to support their families, as well as betraying all the workers at the plant/factory/job.
If you don't understand why people would be very very angry at that, well, I'd hope you would. And if you think it's unjustified anger, well, you've never felt the need for a union, or loyalty to your fellow workers in their struggle for a decent life.
But let me not get ahead of what you've said.
Posted by: Gary Farber | December 22, 2008 at 11:22 PM
dave,
Is the end state wage, benefit and work rule parity with the Transplants? If it is then where is the benefit of the union?
If we could reach parity with the transplants (i.e. our industrial competitors) then that would be sort of the point of the exercise as far as I can see, or at least that seems like such an ambitious goal compared with where we are now that I wasn't really hoping for more than that.
I guess that the benefit of the unions from that point forward would be (1) political pressure to prevent backsliding on what had already been achieved, and (2) to maintain bargaining leverage regarding other issues. After all, the German unions haven't exactly melted away like frost on a sunny day, have they?
Probably a good goal but I don't see how to accomplish it in the current free-trade environment. We could probably push down consumption with tariffs at the same time as we protect vital industrial infrastructure. But isn't that contrary to global peace and progress?
I'm very pessimistic about the likelihood of our current GATT/WTO free trade regime surviving the current crisis. Historically such interludes (such as the late Victorian and Edwardian trade regime) tend to last only a handfull of generations, are vulnerable to free riders, are fragile with respect to major geopolitical events, and they tend to be correlated with the heyday of a dominant hegemon.
On almost all of these fronts, it currently doesn't look good compared with the last couple of decades. If this next decade doesn't prove to be the end of the current round of globalization I will be shocked. Soon, we all will be mercantilists, which is why I think we need to be very careful to preserve our industrial plant (we may need it).
Indeed, the trade wars may already have begun via a race to the bottom on currency devaluations, if the Chinese persist with a hard dollar peg or even devaluation vs. the dollar to boost exports, and our Fed and Treasury keep trying to fight deflation by expanding the monetary base. A number of the folks I've been reading on the econ-blogs think we are in the throes of a bubble in Treasuries which will end in a dollar devaluation crisis, and I'm inclined to believe them.
Posted by: ThatLeftTurnInABQ | December 22, 2008 at 11:29 PM
"Historically such interludes (such as the late Victorian and Edwardian trade regime) tend to last only a handfull of generations,"
That one broke up because of WWI; I hope you don't think something as sweepingly dramatic is coming. That is, I hope nothing like that is coming.
"Soon, we all will be mercantilists, which is why I think we need to be very careful to preserve our industrial plant (we may need it)."
Taking another view for the sake of contrarianism, Japan's industrial plant was flattened by the end of 1945, and they benefited from being able to rebuild with less obsolescent equipment and methods. There are benefits to having to start over. See also poor countries and (mobile) phone systems in the past 20 years.
Posted by: Gary Farber | December 22, 2008 at 11:44 PM
How many of you actually have experience of belonging to an actual trade union? I have been a member of the [a href="http://www.tek.fi/index.php?id=11">trade union of my field ever since I started my studies at university and it's actually very pleasant. The union (or actually, a confederation of unions of academically educated people) negotiates with the employers' federation on the national level.
On the company level, we have the company chapter of the union, and the local union leader is elected in a free election. As a union member, my most important obligation is going on strike, should one ensue. Luckily, those are few and far between. (Our union has actually gone on strike only once. Even then the strike was constrained into a single industry where I did not work.) The union due is cheap, less than 300 euros per year, and gives me benefits much over that.
This is not a closed-shop system: anyone is free not to belong to the union, but as long as 50% of the employees of our industry belong to the union on the national scale, all employees in all companies of the industry are bound by the collective bargaining agreements made by the union. That's the law. At the moment, about 95% of all Finnish engineering professionals with at least a master's degree belong to our union.
The unions do not help only people doing manual labour. They are good for white-collar workers, too. In Finland, the union membership is actually much more wide-spread among the academically educated than among the manual workers. Probably, that's partly because our trade unions are simultaneously the professional bodies of our professions.
Posted by: Lurker | December 23, 2008 at 01:32 AM
Publius, I'll agree with you so far as I don't think the effort to link criticism of the Big Three to criticism of unions is valid. For the same reasons, I think your attempt to link the defense of the Big Three to defense of the unions is a bad idea. Painting with a bit of a broad brush, I think that either the Big Three are companies that play a necessary role in the American economy that needs defended, or they aren't. If they are, take 'em whether or not the unions are slowing them. If they aren't, then I don't care how swell the unions are, the companies deserve to fail. This point of view becomes more compelling when you see the figures--Detroit's labor costs are higher, but that's a pretty small portion of the cost of their vehicles. They'd have profitability problems even if they were paying the same for labor as Toyota et al.
On another note, there needs to be a rule that none of Gary Farber, John Spragge or Sebastian should be allowed to post more than once an hour. You are collectively doing such a good job of shitting on this comment thread. Maybe I'm too optimistic, but I think the signal to noise ratio might be a bit better if you took a moment to cool down.
Posted by: Justin | December 23, 2008 at 01:49 AM
"You are collectively doing such a good job of shitting on this comment thread."
I suggest using your scroll keys.
Posted by: Gary Farber | December 23, 2008 at 02:23 AM
If you don't like what I (or Sebastian, or Gary) write, don't read it. Number one basis for the freedom of speech: nobody has to read, listen to, or believe anything they don't want to.
Sebastian: Let me say that I don't condone violence in any form against strikebreakers, strikers, or anyone. I believe that labour gains pursued non-violently have far greater moral force, and thus more potential to last, than any temporary gains through violence.
But predicting one form of violence, the harassment of workers into signing union cards, or harassment of workers for simply refusing to sign a union card, the perceived difference between rejecting a union and strikebreaking does matter. An employee working at a union shop accepts the support of the union and the benefit of having a collective voice. When such an employee turns around and deliberately acts to weaken that voice, for the individual's own short-term gain, their fellow workers have a reason to get upset that, in my opinion, does not generally come into play in the case of a worker who simply declines to agree that a union makes sense for their workplace.
Posted by: John Spragge | December 23, 2008 at 04:23 AM
"I suggest using your scroll keys."
Yes, our version here of changing the channel.
I read Justin's comment before going to bed late last night and was simply too tired to make a coherent remark. But I wanted to say that the intimacy of this blog -- as opposed to, say, Huffington or Kos -- is what makes such back-and-forth that Seb, GF and JS have been engaging in all the more vibrant and real. I have never met either gentleman, but find myself developing a mental picture of them and almost everyone who participates here in threads that, when they work, take on the life of good conversation. Plus you get to read words like "bullpuckey."
Now it would be kind of neat if, say, John Thullen or ObWi's Big Russ could referee every thread, but I dare say they might have day jobs.
I am often surprised at how these threads make me think when I'd otherwise prefer a lazier option. In the neighboring economic post to this one, I linked a great New York magazine article that I otherwise would not have found if Sebastian and others had not "provoked" me into going on a google hunt for CEO excess; I was not prepared to read something that put a human face on the seemingly inhuman Richard Fuld, the disgraced Lehman honcho, making him more than a one-dimensional villain in my eyes.
Anyhow, I see that Justin is studying in Pittsburgh, where I attended school, and where, if you have never had a sandwhich from Primanti Bros. -- trust me, you won't eat just one -- it is almost worth the trip itself.
Good morning.
Now back to your regularly scheduled debate.
Posted by: bedtimeforbonzo | December 23, 2008 at 09:46 AM
How many of you actually have experience of belonging to an actual trade union?
Check.
Posted by: Anarch | December 23, 2008 at 12:16 PM
"The moral difference is that scabs are taking the jobs from the workers: that's bound to incur harsh feelings. The practical difference is that it's bound to incur extremely harsh feelings. It's taking the life of the worker's family, and the ability of workers to support their families, as well as betraying all the workers at the plant/factory/job.
If you don't understand why people would be very very angry at that, well, I'd hope you would. And if you think it's unjustified anger, well, you've never felt the need for a union, or loyalty to your fellow workers in their struggle for a decent life. "
No, I understand it just fine. My argument wouldn't make sense if I didn't understand that was how people would feel. Union organizers feel a similar way about the need to organize the union in the first place. It is ironic that you would write so passionately about the emotions aroused in a strike situation, write so passionately earlier about the 12 year struggle to form a union, and refuse to believe that there could be a connection between the passions such that what you write about as understandable violence in the first situation is almost unthinkable to you in the second.
Also it severely weakens the argument against the "well they can wait a year and then vote to get rid of it". That is sure to be tension free event. So instead of allowing the workers to focus around an election, and than debate it, and then vote on it, you would prefer that they have to set themselves up as union breakers, akin to the scabs who "accepts the support of the union and the benefit of having a collective voice. When such an employee turns around and deliberately acts to weaken that voice, for the individual's own short-term gain, their fellow workers have a reason to get upset...."
You clearly believe that you mission is pure. But that doesn't justify weakening the protections of the people you claim to advocate for. Secret ballot is a protection of the voter. The voter is the worker. Starting out the relationship with the worker by stripping him of the protection to vote without anyone being certain of how he voted absolutely opens the door to a violence that is completely unnecessary and suggests an instrumental useage of workers that unions allege they want to fight. If the company engages in illegal pressuring, I have repeatedly been open to enforcing the law against that and stiffening such penalties. That has been brushed off by you. I am not for removing voting protection from people.
You want to believe that unions have declined largely through corporate pressure. I think that may have been a factor, but I suspect that unions have declined for the same reason as defined benefit pensions--as currently structured they make little sense in an environment where you aren't working at some one place for most of your life. I'm not sure we've seen the 401k of unions yet. The Screen Actor's Guild may point to part of the answer though its treatment of non-members and its highly restricted access to become members makes it look not that attractive as a model.
I'm not against organized labor nearly so much as I am against making the rules as if its best future is UAW style.
Posted by: Sebastian | December 23, 2008 at 12:18 PM
And when I said 'understandable violence' I don't mean that you were supporting or defending the violence.
Posted by: Sebastian | December 23, 2008 at 12:19 PM
The most significant component of one's views regarding unions is genetic. Some of us are genetically inclined toward collective and group activities and that generally results in support for unions. These same people like to stay attached to groups and to stay in familiar and supportive surroundings, e.g. remaining in Michigan even though employment prospects are dim. In the states that have 'right to work', management and ownership of enterprises are not the only strong supporters of that concept, but 'workers' support it as well. Genes, every time, and they are a meaningful component of politics, as well.
Posted by: GoodOleBoy | December 23, 2008 at 03:18 PM
GOB: Am I a huge dog lover because I am genetically inclined to be part of pack?
Posted by: bedtimeforbonzo | December 23, 2008 at 03:24 PM
No, bonzo, that's because of emotional affinity.
Posted by: GoodOleBoy | December 23, 2008 at 03:31 PM
"The most significant component of one's views regarding unions is genetic."
I'm a touch skeptical, but while I haven't been a union member myself, my parents were (United Federation of Teachers), and my sweetie of eight years was (1199, and an elected delegate).
Sebastian, I don't really have any argument with your last comment, so I'll let you have the last word there, save to note that, to be clear, I in no way condone union violence any more than I condone management or any other violence. I do see it as often being done in a better cause then the profitablility and greed of a corporation, but in no way do I condone or agree with it.
Posted by: Gary Farber | December 23, 2008 at 03:33 PM
Oh, and I've moved bunches of times in my life, including from NYC to Seattle (eight years), back to NYC (four out of five boroughs), to Boston for a year, to Long Island for two years, to Boulder, Colorado for six years, to North Carolina. And I strongly tend to be a loner.
If we want to discuss "genetic inclinations."
I believe strongly in the good of unions because I read history that way; not because I feel a desire to join a group.
Posted by: Gary Farber | December 23, 2008 at 03:37 PM
How is it that a worker (who does not necessarily support unionization) taking employment in a firm that operates under union shop rules is accepting the benefits of union membership? Is there a way to decline?
Posted by: GoodOleBoy | December 23, 2008 at 04:04 PM
I don't buy the genetics thing at all, GOB.
Whether one belongs to a union or not seems tied to one's life experience and a simple matter of circumstance -- or need.
I was raised in a union household, my dad an iron worker his whole life, and won a small scholarship from Local 451 for a pro-union essay I wrote.
Yet I've never been part of a union in my working life; the three newspapers I wrote for in a previous career were non-union, although I could have just as easily worked for a guild newspaper if circumstances had taken me to one. And as for my current standing, I can't think of a union that represents commissioned salespeople, although there probably is one somewhere.
Life experience.
Circumstance.
Genetics?
Hogwash.
You're quite right about the emotional affinity toward dogs, though.
Maybe something we both can agree on. Click on "Here is grandaughter looking a little concerned" and I dare you not to smile.
Posted by: bedtimeforbonzo | December 23, 2008 at 04:32 PM
How is it that a worker (who does not necessarily support unionization) taking employment in a firm that operates under union shop rules is accepting the benefits of union membership? Is there a way to decline?
I'm sure employers would be happy for an employee to insist on being hired at a lower wage with no employee benefits. This hypothetical employee could also insist on working a six-day week, 12-hour day, and for their employer to have the right to sack them on the spot with a day's wages for any reason or none. It would be difficult to exempt this one employee from safety regulations hammered out by unions without making work more dangerous for everyone else.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | December 23, 2008 at 04:47 PM
"I do see it as often being done in a better cause then...."
Eek. In a better cause than.
Posted by: Gary Farber | December 23, 2008 at 04:51 PM
Is there a way to decline?
No, and why would you want to?
Posted by: Anarch | December 23, 2008 at 11:45 PM
To the person who asked how they can decline the benefits of union membership: easy, don't take the job, or else quit.
Sebastian: here we have a problem of assumed good faith (or the lack thereof). People appoint others to represent us all the time, and nobody insists on the "protection" of a secret ballot. I have a broker to whom I have entrusted considerable assets. I suppose regulators could insist on "protecting" me by demanding all of the brokerage customers take a secret ballot vote to determine whether, absent slick sales tactics and peer or family pressure, I "really" want my broker representing me. But they don't, because they assume brokers will act in good faith and that customers will make responsible, adult decisions. In fact, it seems that Americans have continued to make these basic assumptions about Wall Street and investing even since Bernie Madoff, Lehman Brothers, etc..
We could expand this perceived need for the protection of a secret ballot vote considerably: for example, despite the incredible scope the "corporate veil" offers for evading personal responsibility, I or anyone else, in my own country or yours, can incorporate as a purely ex parte procedure. I don't have to give notice to anyone: family, associates, or the public. I could have bilked people out of millions, I could have extensive connections with enterprise crime, and none of it would matter. Because we assume (dangerously so) that people conducting corporate business will conduct it in good faith. By the same token, your sources seem to start from the premise that unions operate in a morally dubious manner; that the rare instances of violence by union members somehow define the essence of the union movement, and thus society ought to "protect" workers from potential coercion rather than assume them capable of making their own decisions.
Ironically, the "protection" of elections, in addition to rules that require unions to organize one location at a time, make it easier to companies to intimidate workers by closing down any location where the organizers successfully hold a union vote. They can do this, because the requirement to run a vote gives them notice well before a union drive can complete. With card check, a company that decides to close one location for organizing cannot know that three others close by do not have their card drives almost completed; the organizers and workers do not have to tell them, and an in an adversarial situation, why should they? We don't impose such disclosure requirements, for example, when someone files for a patent; why should workers have to tell employers they intend to organize so the employer can plan to thwart them? After the past year, indeed, after the past thirty years, have you really managed to retain a mental image of corporate business as a wholly innocent and positive activity?
Posted by: John Spragge | December 24, 2008 at 05:07 AM
To the person who asked how they can decline the benefits of union membership: easy, don't take the job, or else quit.
Something we can agree on. I think that’s called “at will employment”. Consider the reaction here though if I had posted: “Don’t like the pay or work conditions? Easy, don't take the job, or else quit.” How many folks here would have piled on? But it’s perfectly acceptable to tell me to just shove off if I don’t want to be represented by a union.
There is a built in assumption that a union is always the right thing. It’s assumed that when workers vote down a union it was due to employer intimidation. But guess what? In reality there are actually people who don’t want anything to do with a union.
Seriously though, this is part of my beef. It’s not enough that unions want to represent those workers who want their representation – they insist on representing all workers. What exactly is wrong with “right to work”?
No, and why would you want to?
Why would you want someone else negotiating your salary? Why would you work hard and strive to be the best knowing that your pay rate is in someone else’s hands, and you are going to be paid the negotiated rate in any case?
Why would you want silly work rules that say your job is A, B, and C – but you can never ever do D even if you know how because that is someone else’s job – you have to wait for this other person to do D. Because the next thing you know everyone will be doing D and it will be clear that the person responsible for D should probably be doing something else. Why would you want 22 pounds of work rules?
Why would you want “job banks”? You’re busting you’re a** and someone else comes in and reads the papers and watches TV all day – and they get the same pay as you?
Why would you want a union fighting hard to keep employees you know are a problem and should be fired?
Why would you want your company to lose business because of ridiculous rules that drive away customers? (google “Philadelphia Convention Center” unions)
Why would you want to pay dues to an organization that uses the money to support politics you don’t agree with?
You want a union? That’s cool. Just don’t force it on me. If I’m in a situation where I think a union would be helpful then I’ll vote in favor of a union. And in any case I’ll vote by secret ballot thank you very much. If I take a job where a union already exists then I’ll be the one to decide if I want to join the union or not. They just have to convince me that they would do a better job representing my interests than I could do myself. That should be easy right?
Posted by: OCSteve | December 24, 2008 at 06:39 AM
"There is a built in assumption that a union is always the right thing."
There's a presumption that, in circumstances where workers would objectively greatly benefit from a union, that a union is a good idea. That's somewhat different.
For instance, that North Carolina meat-packing plant I posted about here the other day.
It's the world's largest pork slaughterhouse.
How is this not objective a good thing for workers?Similarly, it's a safe presumption that any exceptions to the proposition that most people who work in these kinds of conditions are exceptions to a general statement that they would objectively benefit from a union:
I can imagine some exceptional case where the owner pays everyone wonderfully well and is a fanatic about making sure working conditions are safe and good, and that everyone has good health benefits, but, y'know, I don't think we'll find that that's the case, absent a union, very often.So why shouldn't we hold that presumption of such kinds of work, given that it reflects reality?
Similarly most service jobs, and most low-paid wage jobs in general.
Because, for the umpteenth time, most poor people don't work under the conditions you do.
Posted by: Gary Farber | December 24, 2008 at 07:32 PM
"Why would you want someone else negotiating your salary?"
Because people in low-wage jobs aren't in a position to bargain: what's so hard to understand about this? Why do you persist in judging jobs that are nothing like yours as if they are? Why do you generalize from your own circumstances, which are entirely unlike that of a janitor's, or a clerk at 7/11, etc.?
"Why would you want a union fighting hard to keep employees you know are a problem and should be fired?"
That has problems, I agree, but the reason for the demand is to prevent companies from being free to fire employees who are too pro-union, to prevent retaliation. This is historically absolutely necessary. But there should be ways to find mutually acceptable methodology on something like this.
"Why would you want your company to lose business because of ridiculous rules that drive away customers? (google 'Piladelphia Convention Center' unions)"
That's never good, of course, and I won't deny that there can be union abuses in that way, because it's true. Unions aren't perfect; generally speaking, if a rule is "ridiculous," or more specifically, if a contract calls for more workers than truly necessary, I agree that shouldn't be the case.
But it's also the case that many employers will, left to their own resources, demand that insufficient number of workers do an unreasonable amount of work. That's the abuse that specifying workers is designed to counter, and, again, there should be some reasonable mechanism to reach a mutally acceptable reasonable solution to this. It's certainly nothing that obviates the need for unions.
Posted by: Gary Farber | December 24, 2008 at 07:41 PM
"Why would you want someone else negotiating your salary?"
Because people in low-wage jobs aren't in a position to bargain: what's so hard to understand about this? Why do you persist in judging jobs that are nothing like yours as if they are? Why do you generalize from your own circumstances, which are entirely unlike that of a janitor's, or a clerk at 7/11, etc.?
"Why would you want a union fighting hard to keep employees you know are a problem and should be fired?"
That has problems, I agree, but the reason for the demand is to prevent companies from being free to fire employees who are too pro-union, to prevent retaliation. This is historically absolutely necessary. But there should be ways to find mutually acceptable methodology on something like this.
"Why would you want your company to lose business because of ridiculous rules that drive away customers? (google 'Piladelphia Convention Center' unions)"
That's never good, of course, and I won't deny that there can be union abuses in that way, because it's true. Unions aren't perfect; generally speaking, if a rule is "ridiculous," or more specifically, if a contract calls for more workers than truly necessary, I agree that shouldn't be the case.
But it's also the case that many employers will, left to their own resources, demand that insufficient number of workers do an unreasonable amount of work. That's the abuse that specifying workers is designed to counter, and, again, there should be some reasonable mechanism to reach a mutally acceptable reasonable solution to this. It's certainly nothing that obviates the need for unions.
Posted by: Gary Farber | December 24, 2008 at 07:48 PM
This discussion has now produced some balance with regard to the pros and cons of unions. I also think it is self-evident that the current system (including secret ballot) has not prevented the introduction of unions in places where unions did not exist before.
Posted by: GoodOleBoy | December 25, 2008 at 03:02 PM
Sebastian, is this really a current post (Jan. 12, 2009)?
"The success of Silicon Valley" is a thing of the past for quite a large number of workers. Outsourcing has seen to that.
Posted by: ral | January 12, 2009 at 11:48 AM