11 ms·

Happy to hear workers are standing up for themselves. The anti-union FUD campaign in the US has contributed significantly to the erosion of middle class wages o

Happy to hear workers are standing up for themselves. The anti-union FUD campaign in the US has contributed significantly to the erosion of middle class wages over the past 50 years (check out Thomas Piketty's work if you're curious about this).

colejohnson66 9y ago
It’s not FUD when you literally have unions such as ones for police who fight tooth and nail to keep bad employees working there. Sure, that’s what a union is supposed to do, but there needs to be a line, and no one wants to define it.
- 09094920394314 9y ago
  It's still FUD, it just means some unions are corrupt. Or maybe more whataboutism. Imagine if we all (and not just the left) talked about companies the same way we talk about unions, using the countless examples of managerial abuse, wage theft etc. as examples. Would you say that would be reasonable? And preemptively, this is not a "both sides" question either. Everything is grey, but there are shades of grey. And while neither unions nor companies are perfect, both are at the same time vital to how things work right now and not above criticism. They both are definitely preferable to 1820s style enterprises for example, but worse than the Culture.
  - stale2002 9y ago
    How about we change the laws so that people who support the union are free to join, and people who DON'T are free to leave? If unions are so great, then they should stand on their own 2 feet, instead of forcing everyone to join them.
    - toomuchtodo 9y ago
      Free rider problem. Same as “well, if you want government and society, pay taxes. If not, go ahead and opt out.” Unions are only as good as their governance and oversight. Unions can be good, and work in partnership with management, but it takes time and effort. There is no one click button or app for collective protection of worker rights.
    - c0nducktr 9y ago
      Nobody's forcing you to work for a union shop. Find a place that isn't unionized if you don't want to be part of a union.
      - stale2002 9y ago
        Instead of doing that I am just going to oppose all unions everywhere and try and prevent them from getting any power at all. Why? Because as soon as they get a foothold, it is done. Over. Can't get rid of them. There are literally rules where they can fire you for trying to end the union. If it weren't for attitudes like yours, I wouldn't be opposing unions. But your attitude DOES exist, so my only option is all out war. Fortunately, the rest of my industry (tech) agrees with me and does not support unions. And fortunately, union support is going down massively all across the US.
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
        09094920394314 9y ago
        Posting this here, because I realize this poster is literally spreading FUD: you can not be fired for not joining a union in a unionized shop: http://gotfired.com/blog/2016/04/can-i-be-fired-for-not-joining-the-union/ http://gotfired.com/blog/2016/04/can-i-be-fired-for-not-join... >You are protected by law in all 50 states from being fired from your job for not joining a union. You can be only liable for no more than the requirement to pay either union dues or a reduced amount to work in an agency shop. If you refuse to join the union and refuse to pay the required dues, then you can be fired.
        colejohnson66 9y ago
        Why are you required to pay the dues if you don’t want the benefits?
        35bge57dtjku 9y ago
        You supposedly still get benefits, like wage increases.
    - 09094920394314 9y ago
      > How about we change the laws so that people who support the union are free to join, and people who DON'T are free to leave? >If unions are so great, then they should stand on their own 2 feet, instead of forcing everyone to join them. If you can convince enough people, you can? But if people organize against you, be a good loser. Nobody except the very hardcore is saying: >If private property is so great, then everyone who wants to have it should stand on their own 2 feet, instead of forcing everyone to accomodate them to argue against private property or capitalism. But the same social contract that allows for private property can decide that if you want to have its benefits (e.g. the aforementioned private property) can recognize and protect the hard won rights of unions and workers. Stealing a bit of rhetoric, those who don't like it can go to some warlord ridden backwater, I hear there you are free to not follow any social contract if you are up to it
      - stale2002 9y ago
        And this is why I will never ever support a union in my industry (tech) . Fortunately, the rest of my industry agrees with me. And ALSO, fortunately, union support is massively going down all across the US. It looks like that social contract of yours is changing. Perhaps because of attitudes like yours. I will not "be a good loser". I will oppose union efforts anywhere and everywhere, no matter what, because any power they get anywhere is a massive risk to me and my industry. As soon as they get a foothold, they will implement rules that force me and others to join. It is safer to just stop them in their tracks before they can get even close to taking over.
        09094920394314 9y ago
        What exactly is "my attitude" please? And good on you, others will either agree or disagree with you. But I do wonder, why should you be allowed to stop union efforts if others aren't allowed to force you to join? And with whom would you...organize to stop union efforts?
        stale2002 9y ago
        The attitude of social contracts and not caring about people's free choice to not join unions. And thinking "oh, don't like unions, tough luck, go find another job or move to another country". > But I do wonder, why should you be allowed to stop union efforts if others aren't allowed to force you to join? But they ARE allowed to force me to join, under threat of being fired, in some states. So that's why. If the US had universal right to work laws, where you could not be fired for refusing to join a union, then I wouldnt care and wouldn't bother organizing against unions. The attitude of "screw you for standing up for your right to not join an organization" is very common among union supporters, which is the reason why I oppose them. I organize against unions already, by supporting right to work laws, and supporting politicians who do as well, and donating to these efforts. There are a ton of existing efforts to protect worker's rights of voluntary association, and their right to not join organizations that they don't support.
    - srtjstjsj 9y ago
      How about we change the laws so that people who support the US Government are free to pay taxes, and people who DON'T are free to renounce their citizenship but keep their residency and protections? See the problem?
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
  - sliverstorm 9y ago
    Maybe 'not all unions' but several very large unions are responsible for some massive, fundamental problems we have today. E.g., cities are going bankrupt in large part tied to unions. I don't think it counts as FUD; even if 'not all unions', I think we have identified issues with the union structure that no one knows yet how to resolve, that will come back if unions come back. It's like trying to argue 'not all cops'. Sure, but we still decided body cams were a good idea. I believe we need to swing back towards unionizing. But I think there are real & legitimate concerns that haven't been fixed & aren't FUD.
    - aperetti 9y ago
      Do we really want to talk about unions bankrupting cities without addressing the corporations? The corps who lobbied for free trade, which opened up the labor market to the world and required Americans to complete with 3rd world level wages? Then, when Americans did not want to compete with rural Chinese farmers pay, those corporations abandoned the area? Leaving cities with huge infrastructure bills and a large population? None of these issue develop in a vacuum. They are complex.
    - srtjstjsj 9y ago
      > E.g., cities are going bankrupt in large part tied to unions. That's simply a libertarian + right-wing claim.
      - sliverstorm 9y ago
        How do you interpret cities going bankrupt due to collosal unfunded pension obligations? It takes two to tango- the city is party, but so is the union.
  - firstplacelast 9y ago
    Thanks for this. Every time unions are mentioned people want to turn it into a black/white issue and won't allow for shades of grey. Unions can be great for workers. They can also fuck up markets and/or workers. What's wrong with taking the good and improving the bad for unions in the 21st century? That's literally what 99% of the start-ups in Silicon Valley are doing in various verticals. The black/white thinking when it comes to discussion of unions always feels like people have more of an agenda to push that being interested in any meaningful discussion.
    - srtjstjsj 9y ago
      SV turning everyone into minimum-wage (or less) earning independent contractors, gutting benefits and worker protections, is fucking up workers.
- ChristianBundy 9y ago
  Police unions aren't labor unions because cops aren't workers.
- c3534l 9y ago
  My favorite was when Twinkies employees went on strike for higher wages, which made the company go out of business. Turns out management wasn't lying when they said they couldn't afford higher wages. The problem with unions is that their interests don't necessarily line up with the company's or even the employees for that matter.
chimeracoder 9y ago
> The anti-union FUD campaign in the US has contributed significantly to the erosion of middle class wages It's way more complicated than that, and it can't simply be dismissed as a "FUD campaign". Union members are actually disproportionately likely to support things like right-to-work laws, which unions dislike because it (more or less) means workers aren't obligated to be members if they choose not to. Similarly, union membership rates have dropped even in states that have very union-friendly laws (like New York and Massachusetts), and unions are having less and less success at the polls, meaning non-unionized workers are rejecting the proposals to unionize their workforces (UAW elections in particular - AFL-CIO elections to a lesser extent). This pattern isn't as simple to dismiss as "anti-union FUD", especially since it's seen among people who are already union members in closed shops. The reasons for this have to do with the history of unionization of closed shops, and the regional economic pressures it creates.
- TulliusCicero 9y ago
  > Union members are actually disproportionately likely to support things like right-to-work laws, which unions dislike because it (more or less) means workers aren't obligated to be members if they choose not to. Right-to-work laws are like prop 13 in California: sounds good on the surface, but hidden terrible impact. On the surface, "I should be able to choose whether or not I join a union" makes sense, Americans love freedom and choice. But of course, in practice people who choose not to join a union get to freeload: they get most of the benefit of the union in how it informs a company's general policies and culture about workers, but don't have to pay any fees. And like most instances of the freeloader problem, the result is the responsible entity getting starved, as everyone wants the others to be the ones paying for the benefits.
  - chimeracoder 9y ago
    > But of course, in practice people who choose not to join a union get to freeload: they get most of the benefit of the union in how it informs a company's general policies and culture about workers, but don't have to pay any fees It doesn't sounds like they want any of those so-called benefits. As explained below, the data suggests that if members could feasibly decertify or deauthorize their unions entirely, they would. Remember that, nationwide, only 7% of union members ever cast a vote in favor of their union. That means less than 7% voted against it, and the remainder never had an opportunity to vote at all. It's not surprising that, in the absence of a safe way to decertify or deauthorize, some portion of the 86+% who never had the opportunity to vote supports laws that give them the next-best thing. (It's not just right-to-work laws, by the way, though that's the most frequently discussed at the national scale and therefore the most frequently polled).
unixhero 9y ago
Yes, agreed. This made me chuckle. :)
ksec 9y ago
Erosion of Middle Class "may" have started long before, but it rapidly took off after 2008. ( There are Middle Class / Level wages, but those wages dont put them in Middle Class anymore )* The way I see it, is either Government protect their Workers and working class with benefits and wages, Like what many parts of Europe have done or they allow Union to do it. And i know this is considered an extremely unpopular opinion in US. * Does any one know if this middle class problem is also a thing in Germany?
- petre 9y ago
  Well, companies will just use more robots, fire more workets. Robots don't get unionized, they don't need health insurance or the gov't to step and protect them. European economy is slow compared to the US due to high taxes, too much social protection and needless state meddling in the economy. If they introduce a tax on robots it will only get worse.
  - ntsplnkv2 9y ago
    And then no one will have jobs and be able to buy any of the goods produced by robots.
  - pjc50 9y ago
    > European economy is slow compared to the US Define "slow". Growth rates are comparable everywhere with France and Germany fractionally ahead of the US: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/may/31/uk-comes-bottom-of-the-g7-growth-league-as-canada-takes-the-lead https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/may/31/uk-comes-bo... (of course all of those are pretty low at the moment, which may be a more general post-2008 problem) "Too much social protection" and "high taxes" seem to me to be memes aimed at benefiting the top 1-10%, with little grounding in truth. If you look at marginal tax rates faced by median families, and compensate for the ways in which this includes things like healthcare which aren't included in the US, it's much less of a difference.
    - petre 9y ago
      Slow as in not robust enough. It's essentially on life support since the EU crisis of 2011. The US has pretty much recovered after 2008. Euroscepticism is just a symptom of things going south just about everywhere in Europe except maybe Germany and Switzerland. Just look at the failed ECB stimulus policy with negative interest rates. The US is at the opposite pole, meaning too little social protection. I was thinking about some kind of middle ground, like in Canada or the UK.
bogomipz 9y ago
>" The anti-union FUD campaign in the US has contributed significantly to the erosion of middle class wages over the past 50 years." That's quite a claim, do you have any data to back that up? That just sounds like another claim intended to politicize things in some binary fashion - left vs right. Which is ironic because it is this same FUD tactic that politicians use to get people to react with their gut rather than their brain. You seem to be propagating this divisive tactic. There are many reason for a shrinking middle class in the US - loss of the manufacturing sector, an aging population, the decline in marriage rates, a more unequal income distribution and changing demographics such as an increase in racial and ethnic diversity.[1] Also the majority of of union members are now in public sector jobs and not private sector jobs.[2] The past 50 years has overall seen an increase in the public sector union jobs, trending slightly downward recently. Public-sector workers have a union membership rate (34.4 percent) more than five times higher than that of private-sector workers (6.4 percent).[3] [1] http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/12/09/the-american-middle-class-is-losing-ground/ http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/12/09/the-american-middl... [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/23/business/23labor.html http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/23/business/23labor.html [3] https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/union2.pdf https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/union2.pdf
- specialist 9y ago
  You're correct that the battle lines are not cleanly left vs right. Rather it's corporations vs labor, capital vs democracy. Same as it's ever been.
chrisco255 9y ago
Unions and expensive pensions contributed significantly to the bankruptcy of General Motors. If not for a government bail out we'd barely have an American auto industry.
- tryingagainbro 9y ago
  Exec salaries, golden parachutes, mistakes in management, dividends etc over the decades played no role right?
  - sliverstorm 9y ago
    As unfair & objectionable as those things might be, quite a lot of companies seem to manage to pay their execs excessive salaries, provide golden parachutes, and pay out dividends without requiring government bailout.
    - johnvonneumann 9y ago
      However this hardly makes it ok to continue this sort of behaviour, the top boys manage to wrangle huge bonuses, yet when a group of workers asks for 5% per year, they're a bunch of monsters.
    - Barrin92 9y ago
      All car manufacturers except Ford were bailed out, and Ford is about as unionised as anybody else. Not to mention the bank bailouts, and I don't remember banks being known for their exceptionally strong labour organisation. The bailouts were the reaction to an exogenous shock, the recession, and have not much to say about labour politics. In fact unions have the ability to collectively negotiate wage stalls, like in Germany in the early 2000s or Scandinavia in the 80s. Which is a positive in recessions to maintain employment and liquidity.
      - coredog64 9y ago
        Ford didn't take a bailout for two reasons. First, they had borrowed a bunch of money before the GFC and so had capital that GM and Chrysler didn't. Second (and more important), taking a bailout would have meant no dividends. Many Ford family members rely on dividends as primary income.
good-econ1351 9y ago
Really we need workers to stand up against socialists and commies trying to create an over bearing regulatory environment which will crush our economy, we must prevent the FUD from socialists, communists and other detractors of a prosperous society who claim to be 'friends of the workers'.
specialist 9y ago
The decline of Labor is directly correlated to the current glut of labor, accelerated by the anti-labor rhetoric and aggression: * salary fixing * wage theft * shift of tax burden from capital to labor * raiding pensions, defunding retirement plans * denying collective bargaining * tying healthcare insurance to employment * etc, etc
dizzystar 9y ago
As someone who's worked union, paid dues, and was thrown under the bus, I question the FUD here. My story is far from atypical.
chiefalchemist 9y ago
And that as in turn led to the current "political climate." Inconic that the union busting party now have a leader they can't control and could also lead to the party imploding. A classic case of be careful what you wish for.

colejohnson66 9y ago

It’s not FUD when you literally have unions such as ones for police who fight tooth and nail to keep bad employees working there. Sure, that’s what a union is supposed to do, but there needs to be a line, and no one wants to define it.

09094920394314 9y ago
It's still FUD, it just means some unions are corrupt. Or maybe more whataboutism. Imagine if we all (and not just the left) talked about companies the same way we talk about unions, using the countless examples of managerial abuse, wage theft etc. as examples. Would you say that would be reasonable? And preemptively, this is not a "both sides" question either. Everything is grey, but there are shades of grey. And while neither unions nor companies are perfect, both are at the same time vital to how things work right now and not above criticism. They both are definitely preferable to 1820s style enterprises for example, but worse than the Culture.
- stale2002 9y ago
  How about we change the laws so that people who support the union are free to join, and people who DON'T are free to leave? If unions are so great, then they should stand on their own 2 feet, instead of forcing everyone to join them.
  - toomuchtodo 9y ago
    Free rider problem. Same as “well, if you want government and society, pay taxes. If not, go ahead and opt out.” Unions are only as good as their governance and oversight. Unions can be good, and work in partnership with management, but it takes time and effort. There is no one click button or app for collective protection of worker rights.
  - c0nducktr 9y ago
    Nobody's forcing you to work for a union shop. Find a place that isn't unionized if you don't want to be part of a union.
    - stale2002 9y ago
      Instead of doing that I am just going to oppose all unions everywhere and try and prevent them from getting any power at all. Why? Because as soon as they get a foothold, it is done. Over. Can't get rid of them. There are literally rules where they can fire you for trying to end the union. If it weren't for attitudes like yours, I wouldn't be opposing unions. But your attitude DOES exist, so my only option is all out war. Fortunately, the rest of my industry (tech) agrees with me and does not support unions. And fortunately, union support is going down massively all across the US.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - 09094920394314 9y ago
        Posting this here, because I realize this poster is literally spreading FUD: you can not be fired for not joining a union in a unionized shop: http://gotfired.com/blog/2016/04/can-i-be-fired-for-not-joining-the-union/ http://gotfired.com/blog/2016/04/can-i-be-fired-for-not-join... >You are protected by law in all 50 states from being fired from your job for not joining a union. You can be only liable for no more than the requirement to pay either union dues or a reduced amount to work in an agency shop. If you refuse to join the union and refuse to pay the required dues, then you can be fired.
        colejohnson66 9y ago
        Why are you required to pay the dues if you don’t want the benefits?
        35bge57dtjku 9y ago
        You supposedly still get benefits, like wage increases.
  - 09094920394314 9y ago
    > How about we change the laws so that people who support the union are free to join, and people who DON'T are free to leave? >If unions are so great, then they should stand on their own 2 feet, instead of forcing everyone to join them. If you can convince enough people, you can? But if people organize against you, be a good loser. Nobody except the very hardcore is saying: >If private property is so great, then everyone who wants to have it should stand on their own 2 feet, instead of forcing everyone to accomodate them to argue against private property or capitalism. But the same social contract that allows for private property can decide that if you want to have its benefits (e.g. the aforementioned private property) can recognize and protect the hard won rights of unions and workers. Stealing a bit of rhetoric, those who don't like it can go to some warlord ridden backwater, I hear there you are free to not follow any social contract if you are up to it
    - stale2002 9y ago
      And this is why I will never ever support a union in my industry (tech) . Fortunately, the rest of my industry agrees with me. And ALSO, fortunately, union support is massively going down all across the US. It looks like that social contract of yours is changing. Perhaps because of attitudes like yours. I will not "be a good loser". I will oppose union efforts anywhere and everywhere, no matter what, because any power they get anywhere is a massive risk to me and my industry. As soon as they get a foothold, they will implement rules that force me and others to join. It is safer to just stop them in their tracks before they can get even close to taking over.
      - 09094920394314 9y ago
        What exactly is "my attitude" please? And good on you, others will either agree or disagree with you. But I do wonder, why should you be allowed to stop union efforts if others aren't allowed to force you to join? And with whom would you...organize to stop union efforts?
        stale2002 9y ago
        The attitude of social contracts and not caring about people's free choice to not join unions. And thinking "oh, don't like unions, tough luck, go find another job or move to another country". > But I do wonder, why should you be allowed to stop union efforts if others aren't allowed to force you to join? But they ARE allowed to force me to join, under threat of being fired, in some states. So that's why. If the US had universal right to work laws, where you could not be fired for refusing to join a union, then I wouldnt care and wouldn't bother organizing against unions. The attitude of "screw you for standing up for your right to not join an organization" is very common among union supporters, which is the reason why I oppose them. I organize against unions already, by supporting right to work laws, and supporting politicians who do as well, and donating to these efforts. There are a ton of existing efforts to protect worker's rights of voluntary association, and their right to not join organizations that they don't support.
  - srtjstjsj 9y ago
    How about we change the laws so that people who support the US Government are free to pay taxes, and people who DON'T are free to renounce their citizenship but keep their residency and protections? See the problem?
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
- sliverstorm 9y ago
  Maybe 'not all unions' but several very large unions are responsible for some massive, fundamental problems we have today. E.g., cities are going bankrupt in large part tied to unions. I don't think it counts as FUD; even if 'not all unions', I think we have identified issues with the union structure that no one knows yet how to resolve, that will come back if unions come back. It's like trying to argue 'not all cops'. Sure, but we still decided body cams were a good idea. I believe we need to swing back towards unionizing. But I think there are real & legitimate concerns that haven't been fixed & aren't FUD.
  - aperetti 9y ago
    Do we really want to talk about unions bankrupting cities without addressing the corporations? The corps who lobbied for free trade, which opened up the labor market to the world and required Americans to complete with 3rd world level wages? Then, when Americans did not want to compete with rural Chinese farmers pay, those corporations abandoned the area? Leaving cities with huge infrastructure bills and a large population? None of these issue develop in a vacuum. They are complex.
  - srtjstjsj 9y ago
    > E.g., cities are going bankrupt in large part tied to unions. That's simply a libertarian + right-wing claim.
    - sliverstorm 9y ago
      How do you interpret cities going bankrupt due to collosal unfunded pension obligations? It takes two to tango- the city is party, but so is the union.
- firstplacelast 9y ago
  Thanks for this. Every time unions are mentioned people want to turn it into a black/white issue and won't allow for shades of grey. Unions can be great for workers. They can also fuck up markets and/or workers. What's wrong with taking the good and improving the bad for unions in the 21st century? That's literally what 99% of the start-ups in Silicon Valley are doing in various verticals. The black/white thinking when it comes to discussion of unions always feels like people have more of an agenda to push that being interested in any meaningful discussion.
  - srtjstjsj 9y ago
    SV turning everyone into minimum-wage (or less) earning independent contractors, gutting benefits and worker protections, is fucking up workers.
ChristianBundy 9y ago
Police unions aren't labor unions because cops aren't workers.
c3534l 9y ago
My favorite was when Twinkies employees went on strike for higher wages, which made the company go out of business. Turns out management wasn't lying when they said they couldn't afford higher wages. The problem with unions is that their interests don't necessarily line up with the company's or even the employees for that matter.

chimeracoder 9y ago

> The anti-union FUD campaign in the US has contributed significantly to the erosion of middle class wages It's way more complicated than that, and it can't simply be dismissed as a "FUD campaign". Union members are actually disproportionately likely to support things like right-to-work laws, which unions dislike because it (more or less) means workers aren't obligated to be members if they choose not to. Similarly, union membership rates have dropped even in states that have very union-friendly laws (like New York and Massachusetts), and unions are having less and less success at the polls, meaning non-unionized workers are rejecting the proposals to unionize their workforces (UAW elections in particular - AFL-CIO elections to a lesser extent). This pattern isn't as simple to dismiss as "anti-union FUD", especially since it's seen among people who are already union members in closed shops. The reasons for this have to do with the history of unionization of closed shops, and the regional economic pressures it creates.

TulliusCicero 9y ago
> Union members are actually disproportionately likely to support things like right-to-work laws, which unions dislike because it (more or less) means workers aren't obligated to be members if they choose not to. Right-to-work laws are like prop 13 in California: sounds good on the surface, but hidden terrible impact. On the surface, "I should be able to choose whether or not I join a union" makes sense, Americans love freedom and choice. But of course, in practice people who choose not to join a union get to freeload: they get most of the benefit of the union in how it informs a company's general policies and culture about workers, but don't have to pay any fees. And like most instances of the freeloader problem, the result is the responsible entity getting starved, as everyone wants the others to be the ones paying for the benefits.
- chimeracoder 9y ago
  > But of course, in practice people who choose not to join a union get to freeload: they get most of the benefit of the union in how it informs a company's general policies and culture about workers, but don't have to pay any fees It doesn't sounds like they want any of those so-called benefits. As explained below, the data suggests that if members could feasibly decertify or deauthorize their unions entirely, they would. Remember that, nationwide, only 7% of union members ever cast a vote in favor of their union. That means less than 7% voted against it, and the remainder never had an opportunity to vote at all. It's not surprising that, in the absence of a safe way to decertify or deauthorize, some portion of the 86+% who never had the opportunity to vote supports laws that give them the next-best thing. (It's not just right-to-work laws, by the way, though that's the most frequently discussed at the national scale and therefore the most frequently polled).

unixhero 9y ago

Yes, agreed. This made me chuckle. :)

ksec 9y ago

Erosion of Middle Class "may" have started long before, but it rapidly took off after 2008. ( There are Middle Class / Level wages, but those wages dont put them in Middle Class anymore )* The way I see it, is either Government protect their Workers and working class with benefits and wages, Like what many parts of Europe have done or they allow Union to do it. And i know this is considered an extremely unpopular opinion in US. * Does any one know if this middle class problem is also a thing in Germany?

petre 9y ago
Well, companies will just use more robots, fire more workets. Robots don't get unionized, they don't need health insurance or the gov't to step and protect them. European economy is slow compared to the US due to high taxes, too much social protection and needless state meddling in the economy. If they introduce a tax on robots it will only get worse.
- ntsplnkv2 9y ago
  And then no one will have jobs and be able to buy any of the goods produced by robots.
- pjc50 9y ago
  > European economy is slow compared to the US Define "slow". Growth rates are comparable everywhere with France and Germany fractionally ahead of the US: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/may/31/uk-comes-bottom-of-the-g7-growth-league-as-canada-takes-the-lead https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/may/31/uk-comes-bo... (of course all of those are pretty low at the moment, which may be a more general post-2008 problem) "Too much social protection" and "high taxes" seem to me to be memes aimed at benefiting the top 1-10%, with little grounding in truth. If you look at marginal tax rates faced by median families, and compensate for the ways in which this includes things like healthcare which aren't included in the US, it's much less of a difference.
  - petre 9y ago
    Slow as in not robust enough. It's essentially on life support since the EU crisis of 2011. The US has pretty much recovered after 2008. Euroscepticism is just a symptom of things going south just about everywhere in Europe except maybe Germany and Switzerland. Just look at the failed ECB stimulus policy with negative interest rates. The US is at the opposite pole, meaning too little social protection. I was thinking about some kind of middle ground, like in Canada or the UK.

bogomipz 9y ago

>" The anti-union FUD campaign in the US has contributed significantly to the erosion of middle class wages over the past 50 years." That's quite a claim, do you have any data to back that up? That just sounds like another claim intended to politicize things in some binary fashion - left vs right. Which is ironic because it is this same FUD tactic that politicians use to get people to react with their gut rather than their brain. You seem to be propagating this divisive tactic. There are many reason for a shrinking middle class in the US - loss of the manufacturing sector, an aging population, the decline in marriage rates, a more unequal income distribution and changing demographics such as an increase in racial and ethnic diversity.[1] Also the majority of of union members are now in public sector jobs and not private sector jobs.[2] The past 50 years has overall seen an increase in the public sector union jobs, trending slightly downward recently. Public-sector workers have a union membership rate (34.4 percent) more than five times higher than that of private-sector workers (6.4 percent).[3] [1] http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/12/09/the-american-middle-class-is-losing-ground/ http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/12/09/the-american-middl... [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/23/business/23labor.html http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/23/business/23labor.html [3] https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/union2.pdf https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/union2.pdf

specialist 9y ago
You're correct that the battle lines are not cleanly left vs right. Rather it's corporations vs labor, capital vs democracy. Same as it's ever been.

chrisco255 9y ago

Unions and expensive pensions contributed significantly to the bankruptcy of General Motors. If not for a government bail out we'd barely have an American auto industry.

tryingagainbro 9y ago
Exec salaries, golden parachutes, mistakes in management, dividends etc over the decades played no role right?
- sliverstorm 9y ago
  As unfair & objectionable as those things might be, quite a lot of companies seem to manage to pay their execs excessive salaries, provide golden parachutes, and pay out dividends without requiring government bailout.
  - johnvonneumann 9y ago
    However this hardly makes it ok to continue this sort of behaviour, the top boys manage to wrangle huge bonuses, yet when a group of workers asks for 5% per year, they're a bunch of monsters.
  - Barrin92 9y ago
    All car manufacturers except Ford were bailed out, and Ford is about as unionised as anybody else. Not to mention the bank bailouts, and I don't remember banks being known for their exceptionally strong labour organisation. The bailouts were the reaction to an exogenous shock, the recession, and have not much to say about labour politics. In fact unions have the ability to collectively negotiate wage stalls, like in Germany in the early 2000s or Scandinavia in the 80s. Which is a positive in recessions to maintain employment and liquidity.
    - coredog64 9y ago
      Ford didn't take a bailout for two reasons. First, they had borrowed a bunch of money before the GFC and so had capital that GM and Chrysler didn't. Second (and more important), taking a bailout would have meant no dividends. Many Ford family members rely on dividends as primary income.

good-econ1351 9y ago

Really we need workers to stand up against socialists and commies trying to create an over bearing regulatory environment which will crush our economy, we must prevent the FUD from socialists, communists and other detractors of a prosperous society who claim to be 'friends of the workers'.

specialist 9y ago

The decline of Labor is directly correlated to the current glut of labor, accelerated by the anti-labor rhetoric and aggression: * salary fixing * wage theft * shift of tax burden from capital to labor * raiding pensions, defunding retirement plans * denying collective bargaining * tying healthcare insurance to employment * etc, etc

dizzystar 9y ago

As someone who's worked union, paid dues, and was thrown under the bus, I question the FUD here. My story is far from atypical.

chiefalchemist 9y ago

And that as in turn led to the current "political climate." Inconic that the union busting party now have a leader they can't control and could also lead to the party imploding. A classic case of be careful what you wish for.