Issue link: https://www.e-digitaleditions.com/i/131821
Editor's Letter Labor's Love Lost In his second inaugural address, President Obama signaled a new alignment of his political constituency, giving poetic nods to the iconic moments in the advancement of civil rights for women, minorities, and gays. "We, the people, declare today that the most evident of truths— that all of us are created equal—is the star that guides us still," he said, "just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall." Note the absence of any reference to, say, auto workers in Flint, Michigan, or farm workers in California's Central Valley. Those totemic locales of the union and workers' rights movements have become borderline quaint. Last year, union membership (or total labor union "density") in the United States fell to 11.3 percent of the workforce, its lowest mark in almost a century. That compared to 18.6 percent in Germany, 27.5 percent in Canada, and 71 percent in Sweden. Union membership in the American private sector has plummeted below 7 percent—a level not seen since 1932. Among the largest economies besides the U.S. that are represented within the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)—meaning Britain, Germany, France, and Japan—total union density has slid consistently, to about half its level in 1980. Unions, whose members typically have enjoyed wage premiums that are 10-to-30 percent higher than their non-organized counterparts, would have you believe that employers are the main culprit behind this decline in their rolls. It is undeniably true that business interests helped push through "right to work" legislation in many states (outlawing obligatory union membership) and that those are the locales that have seen union density drop the fastest and furthest. Indeed, that list now even includes Michigan, the cradle of so much historic activism by organized labor. But the causes of organized labor's decline are many and varied. Data has pretty strongly correlated lower union-wage premiums with foreign direct investment and outsourcing. (See Minsik Choi's Threat Effect of Foreign Direct Investment on Labor Union Wage Premium, published by the Political Economy Research Institute.) Broader sociological forces have been at work, too. The move away from manufacturing and toward services has had a huge effect. Compare the bargaining power of a well-trained machine tool operator with, say, a sales clerk or even a rudimentary computer code writer. What's more, the declines create something of a vicious circle. Organizing ain't cheap, and membership shrinkage hurts economies of scale. It's tough to get some to join the Teamster's, America's largest private-sector union, when some enlistees must pony up the equivalent of 30 hours' worth of pay to meet their annual dues. Nor are all wedges forged from the political opportunism of labor's opponents. Today, the most prominent unions are among public sector employees, such as teachers and police, and resentments of them among some private sector workers—union and non-union alike—were evident during last year's election cycle even before the sentiments were exploited by labor bashers. Demographics is now playing a role, too. Members of unions are disproportionately older and male. They don't profile so well for Generation Y and the Millenials. In the wake of 9/11, the Iraq War, the Great Recession, and the continuing food fight hosted by the U.S. Congress, those younger cohorts had already descended into deep valleys of cynicism. Now, having embraced the free agent economy, they are less inclined to believe that some other institution will channel an abstraction such as solidarity into greater insurance, much less inspiration, for them. Last, the labor movement is also a victim of its own success. From benefits to health and safety, most workplaces are just plain healthier organisms than in the old days, which weakens the purchase that organizers have on the average worker's state of mind. All of which should point toward a new business model for organized labor. To recalibrate the movement's value proposition for the 21st century, leaders need to treat members and potential members as the consumers of goods and services that they are. Union programs should be designed for the post-industrial (and neo-industrial) economies—think training, retraining, and more retraining. Last, at least in the states, they should also consider taking a page from Scandinavian unions that are more collaborative—and less confrontational—than their American progenitors. Organized labor's leaders could arguably make greater gains with both those on the other side of the negotiating table and the public at large if they aligned more of their agenda with the competitiveness of their employers. It's hard to picket a closed factory. Dirk Olin, Editor-in-Chief [6] HRO TODAY MAGAZINE | APRIL 2013