Union Busting in Wisconsin

Michael Hardner · March 10, 2011

Not really. The relative stagnation of wages in Western countries for workers over the last few decades is a result of globalization, not the "attitude" of corporations. As Western workers come into competition with workers in other parts of the world where labor is much cheaper, it is impractical for our wages to increase when they are already many many times higher. That's just globalization in action, and it should please any true leftist: it decreases inequality on a global scale.

Where are the increases from the wealthiest earners coming from ? Offshore ?

Shady · March 10, 2011

Where are the increases from the wealthiest earners coming from ? Offshore ?

Actually, in many cases yes. Take General Motors for instance. They saw huge sales growth in South America and China. Last year they sold more cars and trucks in China then they did in North America.

Bonam · March 10, 2011

Where are the increases from the wealthiest earners coming from ? Offshore ?

The increases of the wealthiest earners are coming from the same place that the general growth of the economy is coming from. You know, technological progress, increased productivity, population growth, expanding markets, etc. These increases are not immediately shared by workers whose jobs can be easily offshored because they come into competition with people who are willing to work for much much less, although they benefit indirectly by gaining access to cheaper goods and services. People whose line of work requires extensive specialized talent AND cannot be easily offshored have seen exponential growth in earnings comparable with or exceeding the growth of the economy; these include not only executives, but celebrities and performers, doctors, lawyers, professors, athletes, etc.

Western nations are now victims of their own ubiquitous cultural dominance and success: we harped on the rest of the world to adopt freer trade, capitalist market systems, etc. And, beyond our wildest expectations, as the Soviet Union weakened and fell, they actually did. Now we have to try to compete with them. Right now, it is the workers in developing nations like India and China that are seeing the rapid increase in standard of living that we saw here in the West in the first 3/4 of the twentieth century. But, as the gap closes, domestic wage growth will return, because the incentive to offshore labor will diminish. Unfortunately for some, that process of the rest of the world catching up to us will take a few more decades, and meanwhile wages will likely continue to stagnate.

Although, all of these considerations may become irrelevant as we approach and enter into the technological singularity around the 2040s, something that is often ignored but is actually of paramount importance in any attempts to predict future trends further ahead than a decade or two.

Edited March 10, 2011 by Bonam

Pliny · March 10, 2011

Outstanding clarity...I don't know why this point is so easily lost on them.

I must agree. Maybe Michael knows? It's exactly what the left says they want.

pinko · March 10, 2011

Democracy is supposed to be slow. It's supposed to be deliberate. It's supposed to be a process of compromise where neither side gets everything they want nor gives too much.

But what happened on March 9th, 2011 in Madison, Wisconsin was anything but democratic. In a move that is very likely violative of Wisconsin's open records law, Senate Republicans forced a vote to bust the public unions.

http://www.care2.com/causes/politics/blog/madison-birthplace-of-a-labor-movement/

If ever there was any doubt at least it is now apparent what the real agenda is now that this political chicanery has been exposed in the State of Wisconsin.

Michael Hardner · March 10, 2011

The increases of the wealthiest earners are coming from the same place that the general growth of the economy is coming from. You know, technological progress, increased productivity, population growth, expanding markets, etc. These increases are not immediately shared by workers whose jobs can be easily offshored because they come into competition with people who are willing to work for much much less, although they benefit indirectly by gaining access to cheaper goods and services. People whose line of work requires extensive specialized talent AND cannot be easily offshored have seen exponential growth in earnings comparable with or exceeding the growth of the economy; these include not only executives, but celebrities and performers, doctors, lawyers, professors, athletes, etc.

Western nations are now victims of their own ubiquitous cultural dominance and success: we harped on the rest of the world to adopt freer trade, capitalist market systems, etc. And, beyond our wildest expectations, as the Soviet Union weakened and fell, they actually did. Now we have to try to compete with them. Right now, it is the workers in developing nations like India and China that are seeing the rapid increase in standard of living that we saw here in the West in the first 3/4 of the twentieth century. But, as the gap closes, domestic wage growth will return, because the incentive to offshore labor will diminish. Unfortunately for some, that process of the rest of the world catching up to us will take a few more decades, and meanwhile wages will likely continue to stagnate.

Although, all of these considerations may become irrelevant as we approach and enter into the technological singularity around the 2040s, something that is often ignored but is actually of paramount importance in any attempts to predict future trends further ahead than a decade or two.

Bonham, you have done a good job of articulating the economic reality that unions have to deal with. They have to contend with the fact that the world market for their services, in many cases, have challenged their wages.

Unlike a lot of posters here, I am for globalization and I do think that it helps the poorest peoples of the world get a better life. Many of the arguments I read about low wages in developing countries don't take into account that the people who work for those wages had far worse options before industry came to their countries.

However, there are still things that bother me about the situation in Wisconsin. The rhetoric ignores the facts that you state - that taxes for the wealthiest earners continue to fall despite the fact that they are doing better and better. And the worst thing is that this rhetoric is being used to renege on contracts, and to justify taking away benefits that were previously agreed to - that ordinary working people have planned their retirement around.

Generally, government should be looking to improve the economic lot of all its citizens, and I don't see that in the rhetoric at all. I don't know how this could be done, but to be straight with people would be a start. And, of course, governments have to MANAGE - to put aside future money if they agree to contracts, to keep services in line with taxes - and not just during boom times.

There's too much politics and grandstanding today and not enough management.

GWiz · March 10, 2011

I sure hope so....the funny thing about the rah-rah united workers types is that they abandon such principles when the jobs go to workers in other states, provinces, or countries, whether they be organized or not.

Nobody owes them a job....never did.

Hmmm, let's do the "math"

No jobs = no income = poor = no taxes = no social services = starvation = revolt = no USA

Too simplistic?

bush_cheney2004 · March 10, 2011

Hmmm, let's do the "math"

No jobs = no income = poor = no taxes = no social services = starvation = revolt = no USA

Too simplistic?

Yes...go unionize Somalia and let us know how that works out for jobs, income, social services, and starvation. I hear that the pirate business is booming...start there.

bush_cheney2004 · March 10, 2011

....However, there are still things that bother me about the situation in Wisconsin. The rhetoric ignores the facts that you state - that taxes for the wealthiest earners continue to fall despite the fact that they are doing better and better. And the worst thing is that this rhetoric is being used to renege on contracts, and to justify taking away benefits that were previously agreed to - that ordinary working people have planned their retirement around.

This is the formula for class warfare...."rich people" lose retirement benefits too. The rich still pay more of the taxes by a very wide margin. Lastly, there is a difference between being rich and wealthy. "Ordinary working people" are not a protected class....nor should they be.

pinko · March 10, 2011

This is the formula for class warfare...."rich people" lose retirement benefits too. The rich still pay more of the taxes by a very wide margin. Lastly, there is a difference between being rich and wealthy. "Ordinary working people" are not a protected class....nor should they be.

That might be why the rich live in gated communities.

Michael Hardner · March 10, 2011

This is the formula for class warfare...."rich people" lose retirement benefits too. The rich still pay more of the taxes by a very wide margin. Lastly, there is a difference between being rich and wealthy. "Ordinary working people" are not a protected class....nor should they be.

Everyone should be protected by the law, and by contracts. Do you support Cuba seizing foreign corporate assets because "they had no choice" or "the system as it was is unsustainable" ?

I think that there is a case for extreme actions by government in emergencies - suspension of rights, seizure of assets may be needed sometimes. You may want to declare martial law or take other emergency measures. But to do so because we need to support lowering taxes for high earners who are doing better than ever strikes me as an abuse.

The social safety net, for what it is, was created as a response to a growing atmosphere of class warfare in the early 20th century and challenges from other systems. These happened as a result of the industrial revolution and large changes to the economy that reverberated to that time. People forget history sometimes.

Pliny · March 10, 2011

Everyone should be protected by the law, and by contracts. Do you support Cuba seizing foreign corporate assets because "they had no choice" or "the system as it was is unsustainable" ?

I think that there is a case for extreme actions by government in emergencies - suspension of rights, seizure of assets may be needed sometimes. You may want to declare martial law or take other emergency measures. But to do so because we need to support lowering taxes for high earners who are doing better than ever strikes me as an abuse.

The social safety net, for what it is, was created as a response to a growing atmosphere of class warfare in the early 20th century and challenges from other systems. These happened as a result of the industrial revolution and large changes to the economy that reverberated to that time. People forget history sometimes.

oooohhhh....ewwww. What we need is a benevolent dictatorship. I think you would like a monarchy perhaps - no?

Is someone decalring martial law because we need to support lowering taxes for the rich?

You should be glad that all the money printed up is going to big banks and the rich and isn't finding it's way into circulation, which it eventually will, and then we will experience some inflation further hobbling the middle class and poor by reducing their purchasing power.

Economically, government is the only agency that is supposed to come out ahead but but monetary policy will only result in economic collapse which perhaps we will learn some lessons from and perhaps have to go through the same thing over and over until we do.

pinko · March 10, 2011

oooohhhh....ewwww. What we need is a benevolent dictatorship. I think you would like a monarchy perhaps - no?

Is someone decalring martial law because we need to support lowering taxes for the rich?

You should be glad that all the money printed up is going to big banks and the rich and isn't finding it's way into circulation, which it eventually will, and then we will experience some inflation further hobbling the middle class and poor by reducing their purchasing power.

Economically, government is the only agency that is supposed to come out ahead but but monetary policy will only result in economic collapse which perhaps we will learn some lessons from and perhaps have to go through the same thing over and over until we do.

Revolution. Maybe you should start taking precautions.

Oleg Bach · March 10, 2011

Privatization might be the only option left other than global socialism...which will create equality in the sense we will all be equally poor. TTC's union is being busted....unions regarding the "poverty industry" are being busted...and righfully so...it's all about huge buracracy..where the collective becomes parasitic. My father told me when he saw soviet style buracracy and unionization...."ten per cent of the people were actually working while the rest were bureacrats" - you can not have true wealth unless real wealth is being created and allowed to be created...at present....even corporate socialism is starting to tetter.. Talent must be allowed to do it's work and not be oppressed...unions have given those with out abilty to much power. The majority is always wrong as was said.

Michael Hardner · March 10, 2011

oooohhhh....ewwww. What we need is a benevolent dictatorship. I think you would like a monarchy perhaps - no?

Is someone decalring martial law because we need to support lowering taxes for the rich?

No, but if they change existing contracts then they are seizing assets.

Economically, government is the only agency that is supposed to come out ahead but but monetary policy will only result in economic collapse which perhaps we will learn some lessons from and perhaps have to go through the same thing over and over until we do.

The money is also going to the wealthiest earners too, and I would submit that that has something to do with deficit spending, as George W. Bush did it as well. Isn't he a conservative ?

Oleg Bach · March 10, 2011

No, but if they change existing contracts then they are seizing assets.

The money is also going to the wealthiest earners too, and I would submit that that has something to do with deficit spending, as George W. Bush did it as well. Isn't he a conservative ?

Conservatives conserve - pirates plunder...Bush was a smiling pirate.

Bonam · March 10, 2011

Bonham, you have done a good job of articulating the economic reality that unions have to deal with. They have to contend with the fact that the world market for their services, in many cases, have challenged their wages.

It's not "unions" that have to deal with it, but individual workers. Unions are a collective entity, meaningless in and of itself; it is the individuals who comprise them that are of importance. There are different options for people to deal with competition from overseas workers. Collective bargaining is one of those options, though as we have seen with examples like the American automakers, it appears to be often unsustainable in the long term, since it compromises the competitiveness of their employer. A better option for an individual is upgrading one's skills to the point where they are no longer a commodity (cannot be easily replaced by another worker) and choosing a field that cannot be easily offshored.

Unlike a lot of posters here, I am for globalization and I do think that it helps the poorest peoples of the world get a better life. Many of the arguments I read about low wages in developing countries don't take into account that the people who work for those wages had far worse options before industry came to their countries.

I agree... developing countries and the workers in them certainly benefit immensely.

However, there are still things that bother me about the situation in Wisconsin. The rhetoric ignores the facts that you state - that taxes for the wealthiest earners continue to fall despite the fact that they are doing better and better. And the worst thing is that this rhetoric is being used to renege on contracts, and to justify taking away benefits that were previously agreed to - that ordinary working people have planned their retirement around.

I agree that contracts should be honored, as a matter of principle. I do not think the government should be able to renege on already agreed to obligations unless it literally goes bankrupt or unless it can get the people it owes the obligations to to voluntarily agree to changes in the obligations. However, I also think those obligations are too high and unreasonable, and that the government is well within its rights to try to reduce the extent to which unions will be able to bargain up their salaries and benefits in the future.

Generally, government should be looking to improve the economic lot of all its citizens, and I don't see that in the rhetoric at all.

I tend to disagree. As a proponent of small government, I do not think it is the government's job to look after anyone's "economic lot". The economy is the domain of the private sector, or should be.

I don't know how this could be done, but to be straight with people would be a start. And, of course, governments have to MANAGE - to put aside future money if they agree to contracts, to keep services in line with taxes - and not just during boom times.

Agreed... they should. But governments are irresponsible by their inherent nature. By the time that it comes to pay up on a promise that was made, the person that promised it has long since been replaced by someone else, who may have no intention of honoring it and will seek every possible way to get out of it. Someone on a 4 year term can make all kinds of promises if they think it will help them win the next election, even if the reality is that there is no funding to carry these promises out in the long term. That problem is left to his successors, which he cares nothing about.

There's too much politics and grandstanding today and not enough management.

Yes well that is the problem with democracy. Democracy is the worst form of government - except for all the others that have been tried.

Edited March 10, 2011 by Bonam

bush_cheney2004 · March 10, 2011

Everyone should be protected by the law, and by contracts. Do you support Cuba seizing foreign corporate assets because "they had no choice" or "the system as it was is unsustainable" ?

You explicitly described protections for one "working" class over another....which I do not support. Government seizures are sanctioned by the US constitution with compensation, something that Fidel didn't do.

I think that there is a case for extreme actions by government in emergencies - suspension of rights, seizure of assets may be needed sometimes. You may want to declare martial law or take other emergency measures. But to do so because we need to support lowering taxes for high earners who are doing better than ever strikes me as an abuse.

Taxpayers are taxpayers...there is no nor should there be any such distinction. One set of "rights" for each citizen...and that includes the unionized labor.

The social safety net, for what it is, was created as a response to a growing atmosphere of class warfare in the early 20th century and challenges from other systems. These happened as a result of the industrial revolution and large changes to the economy that reverberated to that time. People forget history sometimes.

Nope...the social safety nets was driven by a political imperative, to point that now the cost growth represents the biggest threat to their own existence. "Rich people" could all die tomorrow and you would still have a huge entitlement problem.

Michael Hardner · March 10, 2011

It's not "unions" that have to deal with it, but individual workers. Unions are a collective entity, meaningless in and of itself; it is the individuals who comprise them that are of importance. There are different options for people to deal with competition from overseas workers. Collective bargaining is one of those options, though as we have seen with examples like the American automakers, it appears to be often unsustainable in the long term, since it compromises the competitiveness of their employer. A better option for an individual is upgrading one's skills to the point where they are no longer a commodity (cannot be easily replaced by another worker) and choosing a field that cannot be easily offshored.

That's a good suggestion for an individual, but it can't be done for the mass of workers obviously.

People without specialized skills are going to continue to fall behind.

I agree that contracts should be honored, as a matter of principle. I do not think the government should be able to renege on already agreed to obligations unless it literally goes bankrupt or unless it can get the people it owes the obligations to to voluntarily agree to changes in the obligations. However, I also think those obligations are too high and unreasonable, and that the government is well within its rights to try to reduce the extent to which unions will be able to bargain up their salaries and benefits in the future.

It's not clear to me now whether the final bill cut back on existing agreements, but for your other point - the public workers union saw the writing on the wall and agreed to some major concessions.

I tend to disagree. As a proponent of small government, I do not think it is the government's job to look after anyone's "economic lot". The economy is the domain of the private sector, or should be.

Power and wealth accumulate, and you don't have to look too far back in history to see how laissez faire "faired" with the masses. They (the masses) tend to behave much as their governments do: they overspend, fail to plan and get in trouble when the bubble bursts. It's a lot easier to blame people for their misfortunes when there are only a few affected by the results, not millions as is the case today.

Agreed... they should. But governments are irresponsible by their inherent nature. By the time that it comes to pay up on a promise that was made, the person that promised it has long since been replaced by someone else, who may have no intention of honoring it and will seek every possible way to get out of it. Someone on a 4 year term can make all kinds of promises if they think it will help them win the next election, even if the reality is that there is no funding to carry these promises out in the long term. That problem is left to his successors, which he cares nothing about.

Then we the public have to get better about talking about things. It seems to me that political discussion has devolved into a sideshow and the mass marketing of heated arguments has replaced responsible journalism and reasoned debate.

I have always maintained that the problems of government are problems that we the public have caused. If we don't improve the debate, things will only get worse.

Yes well that is the problem with democracy. Democracy is the worst form of government - except for all the others that have been tried.

Except for China's maybe. I suppose we'll see. Every successful system is still doomed to fail when it meets the challenge that it wasn't designed for. Our system wasn't designed for the public to become so mollified that we'd rather have our legislators mud wrestle on TV because it's more fun to watch.

Michael Hardner · March 10, 2011

You explicitly described protections for one "working" class over another....which I do not support. Government seizures are sanctioned by the US constitution with compensation, something that Fidel didn't do.

No. Everyone deserves to have their contracts honoured - fake emergency or no fake emergency.

I'm sure he'd throw a couple of bucks your way if you asked. When Coca Cola et al finally get their stuff back, it will be a negotiation just as it always is.

Nope...the social safety nets was driven by a political imperative, to point that now the cost growth represents the biggest threat to their own existence. "Rich people" could all die tomorrow and you would still have a huge entitlement problem.

I don't believe that. With the 4th lowest tax rate in the OECD 30 the US could afford much more. The threat is a threat to the pocketbooks of investors, and we have been hearing about that threat for 30+ years now, and will continue to do so even as the wealthiest continue to thrive.

Pliny · March 10, 2011

No, but if they change existing contracts then they are seizing assets.

Contractual obligations should be met or you will never be trusted to write another contract. Contracts do expire. As for seizing assets, that is illegal unless you are the government.

The money is also going to the wealthiest earners too, and I would submit that that has something to do with deficit spending, as George W. Bush did it as well. Isn't he a conservative ?

This doesn't make any sense to me.

Edited March 10, 2011 by Pliny

Pliny · March 10, 2011

A better option for an individual is upgrading one's skills to the point where they are no longer a commodity (cannot be easily replaced by another worker) and choosing a field that cannot be easily offshored.

That's a good suggestion for an individual, but it can't be done for the mass of workers obviously.

People without specialized skills are going to continue to fall behind.

You mean people who don't upgrade their skills or continually look to how they can be of service or useful to society are going to fall behind. When you say "the mass of workers" then you are talking about a group. The problem with the mass of workers idea is that the individuals then depend upon the force of the masses to improve their lot. This may be necessary in the face of oppression or exploitation but to become dependent upon acting as a "mass of workers" and using force to get your way is barbaric. Each individual has an obligation to himself to improve his skills, upgrade his education, to be continually learning.

Becoming dependent upon acting as a "mob" or demanding benefits and privileges as a right en masse is self-defeating and demoralizing. An individual who feels he can only accomplish things by being part of a mob begins to feel ineffectual as a person. Certainly some things can only can be accompished collectively and if there is exploitation or abuse that is reason to use force. Things like demanding viagra be supplied to workers and considereing it a right are just plain idiotic.

Power and wealth accumulate, and you don't have to look too far back in history to see how laissez faire "faired" with the masses. They (the masses) tend to behave much as their governments do: they overspend, fail to plan and get in trouble when the bubble bursts. It's a lot easier to blame people for their misfortunes when there are only a few affected by the results, not millions as is the case today.

Where did you look to see how laissez-faire "faired"?

Edited March 10, 2011 by Pliny

bush_cheney2004 · March 10, 2011

No. Everyone deserves to have their contracts honoured - fake emergency or no fake emergency.

Contracts only exist as enforceable instruments within a legal framework, the same one used to execute bankruptcy and payments to secured creditors over all others.

I'm sure he'd throw a couple of bucks your way if you asked. When Coca Cola et al finally get their stuff back, it will be a negotiation just as it always is.

That isn't the point...government takings follow an established legal protocol, just like any abrogating of union contracts.

I don't believe that. With the 4th lowest tax rate in the OECD 30 the US could afford much more. The threat is a threat to the pocketbooks of investors, and we have been hearing about that threat for 30+ years now, and will continue to do so even as the wealthiest continue to thrive.

Well, it would be no more appropriate for me to believe what the proper level of taxation would be in Canada, regardless of OECD ranking. The US cannot tax its way out of the problem...there must be concurrent limits and cuts on the spending side, and that includes entitlements.

Scotty · March 10, 2011

Not really. The relative stagnation of wages in Western countries for workers over the last few decades is a result of globalization, not the "attitude" of corporations. As Western workers come into competition with workers in other parts of the world where labor is much cheaper, it is impractical for our wages to increase when they are already many many times higher. That's just globalization in action, and it should please any true leftist: it decreases inequality on a global scale.

And yet, this economic damage from globalization has had no effects on higher wage earners. They've been taking higher and higher profits. Funny how that works, eh?

Scotty · March 10, 2011

What a bogus argument, not to mention you contradict yourself by admitting that Union benefits are strong which you earlier denied. Make up your mind.

I didn't say unionization didn't result in better benefits. I said they weren't "amazing".