Memo to Employers: Lose the Second Yacht

Why is Pace University making it so hard for Chris Williams to get a union contract?

The U.S. House passed legislation last week that would level the playing field for employees trying to form a union—but judging by the reaction in the business community, you’d think the bill is the end of corporate freedom as we know it.

On March 1, the House voted 241–185 for the Employee Free Choice Act, which would establish stronger penalties for violation of employee rights when workers seek to form a union and during first-contract negotiations. It also would allow employees to form unions through a majority verification process, in which workers sign cards to indicate their support for a union.

In attacking the bill, Big Business has misleadingly insisted it would take away the secret ballot election process by which workers now form unions. But that argument is a red herring. First of all, Employee Free Choice Act doesn’t take away the secret ballot process. Workers will have a choice between the ballot process and majority verification.

Second, as currently run by the nation’s labor board, this management-controlled election process is anything but democratic. The long, drawn-out process gives management plenty of time to harass and intimidate workers—and let’s face it, how many people want to join a union if their employer threatens to fire them (which 25 percent of private-sector employers do, even though it is illegal)?

Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich puts it this way:

A secret ballot sounds democratic, but workplaces aren’t democracies because employers have the power to hire and fire. That's where the potential for intimidation lies. And the only way around it is to go with a simple up-or-down vote.

There are many examples of how the so-called “election process” doesn’t work. Chris Williams, an adjunct physics professor at Pace University in New Jersey, shared his story with us at the AFL-CIO. In December 2003, Williams and a majority of his co-workers signed authorization cards saying they wanted to be represented by New York State United Teachers/AFT (NYSUT/AFT). Pace University's administration then went to enormous lengths to block them from winning recognition and a contract. (A majority of workers can sign authorization cards now—but employers are not required to recognize the union. The Employee Free Choice Act would fix that.) Why would Williams, a well-educated professional, want to join a union? Says Williams:

I would starve to death if I had to rely on my wages from Pace. I'd be homeless. The average pay for an adjunct for a three-credit course is just $2,500 for a 15-week course.

While a tenured professor might earn $100,000 per year, an adjunct faculty member in the next classroom with the same qualifications would earn subsistence pay of only $15,000 for the equivalent of a full-time workload. (What was that again from the Bush administration about lack of education behind the nation’s low-wage economy? We’ll address that canard in a future post.)

The adjunct faculty then tried the election process route of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). First, the university tried to delay the election. Then, after the election was held in spring 2004 and the adjunct faculty voted overwhelmingly for the union, the university came up with a bizarre legal argument that hundreds of adjunct faculty members should be excluded from the bargaining unit. It actually refused to include them in negotiations with the union. The director of NLRB's Region 2 found the disputed adjunct faculty members were part of the bargaining unit, and the five-member NLRB in Washington, D.C., rejected a request by the university to have the region's decision overturned. But even now, Pace is appealing the decision to the federal appeals court. That postpones the adjunct faculty's rights even longer. So a staggering two-and-a-half years of negotiations have passed and the adjunct faculty still has no contract.

That's why Williams, who sees firsthand the flaws in the current system, supports the Employee Free Choice Act, which provides for mediation and then arbitration if managements and unions can't work out a contract in 90 days.

So, given that most businesses are not interested in running their workplaces like a democracy (“How many people want a four-week vacation? Raise your hands”), we thinketh they doth protest too much that the bill would take away this nonexistent freedom.

Business interests also say workers would be “coerced” into joining a union through the majority verification process. That presumes most workers don’t want to join a union. That presumption is wrong. In fact, some 60 million U.S. workers say they would join a union if they could, based on research conducted by Peter D. Hart Research Associates in December 2006.

Commenting on the American Chronicle, Stephen Crockett, co-host of Democratic Talk Radio, points out how employer cries of intimidation are directed in the wrong direction.

The intimidation is almost entirely on the side of the companies. Companies are in a position of power over workers. Co-workers are simply not in a similar power situation. Only the company is really in the kind of power position to intimidate workers.

Most critically, the bill is about economic justice: Full-time workers in unions had median weekly earnings of $833 in 2006, compared with $642 for their nonunion counterparts, and are far more likely to have good health and retirement security. In March 2006, 80 percent of union workers in the private sector had jobs with employer-provided health insurance, compared with only 49 percent of nonunion workers. Union workers also are more likely to have retirement and short-term disability benefits.

And its here—in the dollars and cents—we find the real reason for employer opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act. The past two decades have seen an unprecedented growth in compensation only for top executives and a dramatic increase in the ratio between the compensation of executives and their employees. The average CEO made 411 times the salary of the average worker in 2005. That’s up from 42 times in 1980—a tenfold increase. Meanwhile, average worker's pay increased to about $43,000 in 2004 from about $36,000 in 1980, an 0.8 percent a year increase—about 19 percent total increase—in inflation-adjusted terms.

The average CEO of a Standard & Poor's 500 company made $13.51 million in total compensation in 2005, according to an analysis by The Corporate Library. And that's just the annual take. Seems like what CEOs really fear about the Employee Free Choice Act is that by granting their workers family-supporting wages and health care and retirement security, they might have to forgo that second yacht.

Again, Robert Reich:

America's rising economic tide has been lifting executive yachts, but leaving most working people in leaky boats. Workers need more bargaining power. They should be allowed to form a union when a majority of them wants one. As simple as that.

America's Workers: Boxed In

Committee hearings on Capitol Hill focusing on the abuse of taxpayer funds, Iraq re-construction process and wrangling in the Senate over non-binding resolutions on Bush’s Iraq war have understandably taken center stage in recent media coverage. But there’s another set of congressional hearings under way equally as important for America’s workers.

Rep. George Miller, head of the House Committee on Education and Labor, on Jan. 23 launched hearings on Strengthening America's Middle Class: Finding Economic Solutions to Help America's Families.

The committee is considering three main items:

• Creating a competitive economy that includes good new jobs that pay well.
• Restoring workers' rights—including their freedom to bargain for better wages and benefits.
• Making health care more affordable and accessible.
  

Or, as AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer Richard Trumka summarized when the hearings reconvened Feb. 7:

Why, in the richest country in the world, is it so difficult for so many families to make a living by working?

It’s safe to say that in the Republican-controlled Congress of recent years, this committee—which under Republicans was renamed the Committee on Education and Economic Opportunities, in a deliberate slap at unions—never considered the growing economic distress of the middle class.

When hearings opened Jan. 23, William Spriggs, an economics professor at Howard University in Washington, D.C., told committee members the economic recovery, which began six years ago, has not benefited working families. Instead it has meant more money for the rich while working people and the poor have seen their standard of living stall or drop.

One cause of the widening gap, says Spriggs, is the failure to raise the minimum wage for 10 years. But that’s only one source of the problem. Says Spriggs:

The other source is the redistribution of corporate income, from wages to capital income. The latest data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis shows that the share of corporate-sector income going to wages is down to its lowest share in over 25 years….The latest CBO [Congressional Budget Office] figures show that almost 60 percent of capital income goes to the top 1 percent in the U.S. income distribution.

Behind the unequal distribution of the nation’s wealth is a much more fundamental change in our country’s economic policies, according to Trumka. He told the committee:

The shift in economic policies in the late 1970s from a “Keynesian consensus” to what George Soros has called “free market fundamentalism” explains much, in my view, about changing corporate behavior, the imbalance of power between workers and their employers, stagnating wages and the growing divide between productivity and wages.

Describing “free market fundamentalism” policies as a box that systematically weakens the bargaining power of America’s workers and drives the growing inequality of income and wealth in our country, Trumka continued:

On one side of the box is “globalization,” unbalanced trade agreements that force American workers into direct competition with the most impoverished and oppressed workers in the world, destroy millions of good manufacturing jobs and shift bargaining power toward employers who demand concessions under the threat of off-shoring jobs.

On the opposite side of the box are “small government” policies that privatize and de-regulate public services and provide tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy, all to “get government off our backs.”

The bottom of the box is “price stability.” Unbalanced macro-economic policies that focus exclusively on inflation and ignore the federal government’s responsibility to “maximize employment,” even out the business cycle and assure rapid economic growth.

The top of the box is “labor market flexibility,” policies that erode the minimum wage and other labor standards, fail to enforce workers’ right to organize and bargain collectively and strip workers of social protection, particularly in the areas of health care and retirement security.

Climbing out of this box won’t be easy.

Bottom line, Trumka told committee members: We need to follow three important economic values that resonate powerfully with all Americans:

• Anyone who wants to work in America should have a job.
• Anyone who works every day should not live in poverty, should have access to quality health care for themselves and their family and should be able to stop working at some point in their lives and enjoy a dignified and secure retirement.
• American workers should enjoy the fundamental freedom to associate with their fellow workers and, if they wish, organize unions at their workplace and bargain collectively for dignity at work and a fair share in the value they help create.
  

We took a step in recent days toward achieving the last goal with the introduction of the Employee Free Choice Act in the House, which I discussed here in detail last week.

And in coming weeks, we are looking forward to a robust discussion on creating policies that encourage family-supporting jobs stay in this country and developing new strategies for ensuring working families have access to quality, affordable health care. Economists in a new progressive network, the Agenda for Shared Prosperity, will publish issue papers on these and other critical topics for America’s working families.

In its debut media conference, the Agenda for Shared Prosperity, a project spearheaded by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), highlighted a paper by EPI economist Jeff Faux on globalization and economist Jacob Hacker’s plan for health care reform. The next series of papers will be released Feb. 22 in an event that may include New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, and we’ll be back here with the details.

Jobs and Wages Are Up. But There's More to the Story

So, the latest jobs report released Friday by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) showed more job growth than analysts anticipated, and you practically could hear the champagne corks go off at the White House. The same report that found jobs increased by 167,000 in December also reported that average hourly earnings rose 4.2 percent in December.

Must mean America’s workers are sitting pretty, right?

Unfortunately for the economy and U.S. workers, such short-term trends are misleading.

Looking at long-term wage growth, Jared Bernstein, senior economist for the nonprofit Economic Policy Institute (EPI), puts it this way:

Real wages for most workers, after rising for the first few years of the 2000s, have fallen lately, and despite 14 percent higher productivity, a typical worker’s real weekly earnings are down 3 percent over this expansion. Median family income is down about $1,500 since 2000, and more than 5 million people have been added to the poverty rolls.

Wages and salaries today account for the smallest percentage of our gross domestic product on record, while corporate profits are at their highest level since the 1960s.

In touting his economic policies in the months before the elections, Bush frequently referred to the 6.3 percent rise in the average net worth of an American family between 2001 and 2004, a statistic from the Federal Reserve Board’s Survey of Consumer Finances. But the law of averages here isn’t in favor of working families. For families at the bottom 40 percent of income, the median net worth actually fell.

Another long-term trend is the separation of worker productivity from wage growth. Up to the early 1970s, the two grew together, with productivity 10 percent to 15 percent higher than wage growth. But since that time, workers have sped up their rates of productivity—but their employers have not similarly increased what they pay their employees. Wages now lag by more than 50 percent behind productivity.

Bob Herbert in his New York Times column yesterday highlighted the perversity of a system in which employees work harder but see no correlative increase in their paychecks—not the best incentive for long-term productivity and certainly no benefit to workers. Herbert sums it up this way:

The productivity gains in the go-go decades that followed World War II were broadly shared, and the result was a dramatic, sustained increase in the quality of life for most Americans. Nowadays workers have to be more productive just to maintain their economic status quo. Productivity gains are no longer broadly shared. They’re barely shared at all.

Now, back to job growth. While the superficial BLS stats show the quantity of jobs created, behind that data a darker picture lurks—the quality of salary and benefit levels. What counts is not just the number of jobs created but how well those jobs provide a middle-class standard of living. (There’s a lot we can do about all this—and future posts will highlight elements of a populist economic agenda spearheaded by EPI that we in the progressive movement can rally behind in coming months.)

Jobs are increasing in sectors such as service and health care that, for the most part, offer low wages and unaffordable or no health care and pension plans. Meanwhile, jobs in industries such as manufacturing are in free fall: Between 2000 and 2003, annual manufacturing employment in the United States declined by nearly 3 million jobs and has been largely flat since then. The level of manufacturing employment in 2003 was 14.3 million, the lowest since 1950. It’s easy to pooh-pooh manufacturing jobs as part of the “old economy,” but the fact is that manufacturing jobs provide solid salaries and health and retirement security rarely offered in the industries where we see rapid job growth.

And as Jacob Hacker has shown in The Great Risk Shift, the unemployment rates we hear about omit what Hacker calls “shadow unemployment,” which includes the length of time workers now are unemployed. Writes Hacker:

Statistics on the long-term unemployed tell an equally worrisome story. Despite the sunny job statistics that most of us are familiar with, the share of the labor force experiencing unemployment for a half year or more—the standard definition of long-term unemployment—has in fact grown dramatically over the last generation. Indeed, compared with the late 1960s, the share of workers who experience long-term unemployment during the peak of the business cycle has more than tripled.

Short-term upticks won’t solve these long-term problems, and they won’t go very far to help working families dig out of debt and pay their mortgages on time. As Bonddad reported in December:

The Mortgage Bankers Association, in its quarterly snapshot of the mortgage market released Wednesday, reported that the percentage of mortgage payments that were 30 or more days past due for all loans tracked jumped to 4.67 percent in the July-to-September quarter.

That marked a sharp rise from the second quarter’s delinquency rate of 4.39 percent and was the worst showing since the final quarter of last year, when delinquent payments climbed to a 2-1/2-year high in the aftermath of the devastating Gulf Coast hurricanes.

A recent Center for American Progress report showed the nation’s middle class is in worse shape than ever. Some of the report’s findings:

• From 2001 to 2004, the proportion of middle-class families that has saved three months’ worth of income dropped to 18.3 percent from 28.8 percent.
• To maintain day-to-day consumption, families have taken on a record amount of debt, equal to 126.4 percent of disposable income in the first quarter of 2006, according to the study.
  

In Election Day exit polling for the AFL-CIO, Peter D. Hart Research Associates found only 31 percent of voters felt they and their families could get ahead financially in the current economy—the rest report that they are just keeping up or falling behind. As pollster Geoff Garin summarized:

Among the total electorate, 39 percent of voters said the economy was an extremely important issue for them in this election. These voters broke solidly for the Democrats—voting for a Democratic candidate in House races by a margin of 59 percent to 39 percent.

Or, as economist Paul Krugman says:

The reason most Americans think the economy is fair to poor is simple: For most Americans, it really is fair to poor.

It’s been the pattern of the Bush administration to cherry-pick a few good stats to plump up its failed economic policies. But short-term data seldom work to describe long-term trends—and certainly don’t describe working families’ day-to-day reality of trying to pay the bills.

Contract Settlement at Goodyear Sets the Pattern for 2007 Bargaining

Days before health care benefits ran out for nearly 15,000 workers at 12 Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. plants across the nation, members of the United Steelworkers (USW) union approved a three-year contract that USW Executive Vice President Ron Hoover calls “a fair and equitable contract that protects quality health care for active and retired members.” Workers are back on the job today.

The settlement at Goodyear marks the beginning of contract expirations at major U.S. industries, including the Big Three automakers, General Electric, the Las Vegas hotel industry, grocery stores in northern and southern California and Disney World in Orlando, Fla. Major public-sector contracts also will be up for New York City teachers and state workers in Connecticut, Hawaii, Iowa, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Washington and Wisconsin.

No surprise: Health care and retirement security will be prominent issues in most or all of these negotiations.

The USW action at Goodyear is an indication that union workers are ready to go on strike and do whatever it takes to maintain decent health benefits and job security, while Steelworkers at Goodyear have set a standard of commitment that other employers must live up to at the bargaining table this year.

Union members approved the settlement Dec. 29 by a more than 2–1 margin, following an 86-day strike. The walkout began Oct. 5, after the company refused to budge on its plans to close a 1,100-worker plant in Tyler, Texas, and sought to abandon its obligation to provide health care benefits for 30,000 retirees.

As a result of the strike and the nationwide support of the union and progressive movements, workers won an agreement that requires Goodyear to rescind its demand for immediate closure of its Tyler, Texas, plant and instead provide for a one-year period of transition, during which workers will have the opportunity to take advantage of sizeable retirement buyouts.

Significantly, the contract also requires Goodyear to create a $1 billion health care fund for retirees that will secure medical and prescription drug benefits for current and future retirees and dramatically increases Goodyear’s investments in union facilities. In addition, the contract:

• Enhances the ability of USW-represented plants to meet the challenges of global competition by having Goodyear triple its capital investments to at least $550 million in those plants.
• Maintains affordable, high-quality medical and prescription drug coverage for active members and retirees.
  

Goodyear says the pact will help reduce its costs by $610 million over three years and $300 million a year thereafter—and isn’t the first time workers helped out the giant tire maker. Goodyear sought to close the Tyler plant—its third plant closure in four years—despite making nearly $500 million in profit last year. In moving to close the plant, Goodyear tried to walk away from promises the company made to work in partnership with the USW and not cut jobs after union members came to Goodyear’s aid several years ago by taking wage and benefit freezes when the company experienced financial hardship.

On Dec. 16, thousands of union members and allies rallied in support of the striking workers at Goodyear tire sales outlets across the country, publicly highlighting how Goodyear planned to send jobs to China and abandon its obligation to provide health care benefits for 30,000 retirees. Many gave generously to the USW Strike Fund to help workers and their families through the holidays.

Next up for the USW are negotiations with Bridgestone-Firestone. The Steelworkers represent some 6,000 workers at eight Bridgestone-Firestone plants, including one in Oklahoma City that the tire maker closed earlier this month, putting 1,400 people out of work. No dates have been set for the next round.

Although the union is ”not entirely happy with the outcome at Tyler,” says Thomas Conway, USW vice president and chairman of the union’s Goodyear negotiations:

We were able to ensure that as long as Goodyear stays in the market for the tires built at Tyler, those tires will have to be produced at USW-represented plants in the U.S. The company simply won’t be able to outsource that work or service this market segment with imports from China or anywhere other than a USW facility.

After the ratification vote, USW President Leo W. Gerard said “credit really belongs to our members and their families, whose solidarity prevented the company from short-changing them, despite all its attempts. Gerard also said:

Special thanks go out again to all of our AFL-CIO union affiliates, activist groups, community organizations, businesses and public officials who not only understood our struggle, but stood shoulder to shoulder with us.

Negotiations between the USW and Goodyear began in June 2006, and after the July 22 expiration, USW and Goodyear reached a day-to-day extension agreement in which either party could terminate the agreement after a 72-hour notice. Lack of progress in bargaining talks forced the USW to deliver notice on Oct. 2 and 15,000 USW members in 16 plants throughout North America struck on Oct. 5.

The U.S. contract covers workers at Goodyear plants in Akron, St. Mary’s and Marysville, Ohio; Gadsden, Ala.; Buffalo, N.Y.; Lincoln, Neb.; Topeka, Kan.; Fayetteville, N.C.; Danville, Va.; Sun Prairie, Wis.; Union City, Tenn.; and Tyler.