Democrats (Teachers) Behaving Badly
- Thread starter NM Leon
- Start date
Robert Reich's Blog
Robert Reich was the nation's 22nd Secretary of Labor and is a professor at the University of California at Berkeley. His latest book is "Supercapitalism." This is his personal journal.
About Me
Name: Robert Reich
Latest book, "Supercapitalism," is now out in paperback. For copies of articles, books, and public radio commentaries, go to www.robertreich.org. This blog is available as an RSS feed. Public radio commentaries are now available as a podcast.
View my complete profile
How You and I Are Paying Wall Street to Lobby Cong...
An Open Letter to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and...
How America Embraced Lemon Socialism
The Banking Crisis (Continued)
Obama's First Choice
How the Ensure that an Aggregator (or Bad) Bank Is...
Why Citi Turned Around on Mortgage "Cramdowns"
What Should Be Done With The Next $350 Billion of ...
[Respite]
The Stimulus: How to Create Jobs Without Them All ...
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Why We Need Stronger Unions, and How to Get Them
Why is this recession so deep, and what can be done to reverse it?
Hint: Go back about 50 years, when America's middle class was expanding and the economy was soaring. Paychecks were big enough to allow us to buy all the goods and services we produced. It was a virtuous circle. Good pay meant more purchases, and more purchases meant more jobs.
At the center of this virtuous circle were unions. In 1955, more than a third of working Americans belonged to one. Unions gave them the bargaining leverage they needed to get the paychecks that kept the economy going. So many Americans were unionized that wage agreements spilled over to nonunionized workplaces as well. Employers knew they had to match union wages to compete for workers and to recruit the best ones.
Fast forward to a new century. Now, fewer than 8% of private-sector workers are unionized. Corporate opponents argue that Americans no longer want unions. But public opinion surveys, such as a comprehensive poll that Peter D. Hart Research Associates conducted in 2006, suggest that a majority of workers would like to have a union to bargain for better wages, benefits and working conditions. So there must be some other reason for this dramatic decline. But put that question aside for a moment. One point is clear: Smaller numbers of unionized workers mean less bargaining power, and less bargaining power results in lower wages.
It's no wonder middle-class incomes were dropping even before the recession. As our economy grew between 2001 and the start of 2007, most Americans didn't share in the prosperity. By the time the recession began last year, according to an Economic Policy Institute study, the median income of households headed by those under age 65 was below what it was in 2000.Typical families kept buying only by going into debt. This was possible as long as the housing bubble expanded. Home-equity loans and refinancing made up for declining paychecks.
But that's over. American families no longer have the purchasing power to keep the economy going. Lower paychecks, or no paychecks at all, mean fewer purchases, and fewer purchases mean fewer jobs.
The way to get the economy back on track is to boost the purchasing power of the middle class. One major way to do this is to expand the percentage of working Americans in unions. Tax rebates won't work because they don't permanently raise wages. Most families used the rebate last year to pay off debt -- not a bad thing, but it doesn't keep the virtuous circle running. Bank bailouts won't work either. Businesses won't borrow to expand without consumers to buy their goods and services. And Americans themselves can't borrow when they're losing their jobs and their incomes are dropping.
Tax cuts for working families, as President Obama intends, can do more to help because they extend over time. But only higher wages and benefits for the middle class will have a lasting effect.
Unions matter in this equation. According to the Department of Labor, workers in unions earn 30% higher wages -- taking home $863 a week, compared with $663 for the typical nonunion worker -- and are 59% more likely to have employer-provided health insurance than their nonunion counterparts.
Examples abound. In 2007, nearly 12,000 janitors in Providence, R.I., New Hampshire and Boston, represented by the Service Employees International Union, won a contract that raised their wages to $16 an hour, guaranteed more work hours and provided family health insurance. In an industry typically staffed by part-time workers with a high turnover rate, a union contract provided janitors with full-time, sustainable jobs that they could count on to raise their families' -- and their communities' -- standard of living.
In August, 65,000 Verizon workers, represented by the Communications Workers of America, won wage increases totaling nearly 11% and converted temporary jobs to full-time status. Not only did the settlement preserve fully paid healthcare premiums for all active and retired unionized employees, but Verizon also agreed to provide $2 million a year to fund a collaborative campaign with its unions to achieve meaningful national healthcare reform.
Although America and its economy need unions, it's become nearly impossible for employees to form one. The Hart poll I cited tells us that 57 million workers would want to be in a union if they could have one. But those who try to form a union, according to researchers at MIT, have only about a 1 in 5 chance of successfully doing so.
The reason? Most of the time, employees who want to form a union are threatened and intimidated by their employers. And all too often, if they don't heed the warnings, they're fired, even though that's illegal. I saw this when I was secretary of Labor over a decade ago. We tried to penalize employers that broke the law, but the fines are minuscule. Too many employers consider them a cost of doing business.
This isn't right. The most important feature of the Employee Free Choice Act, which will be considered by the just-seated 111th Congress, toughens penalties against companies that violate their workers' rights. The sooner it's enacted, the better -- for U.S. workers and for the U.S. economy.
The American middle class isn't looking for a bailout or a handout. Most people just want a chance to share in the success of the companies they help to prosper. Making it easier for all Americans to form unions would give the middle class the bargaining power it needs for better wages and benefits. And a strong and prosperous middle class is necessary if our economy is to succeed.
posted by Robert Reich | 10:56 AM
Robert Reich was the nation's 22nd Secretary of Labor and is a professor at the University of California at Berkeley. His latest book is "Supercapitalism." This is his personal journal.
About Me
Name: Robert Reich
Latest book, "Supercapitalism," is now out in paperback. For copies of articles, books, and public radio commentaries, go to www.robertreich.org. This blog is available as an RSS feed. Public radio commentaries are now available as a podcast.
View my complete profile
How You and I Are Paying Wall Street to Lobby Cong...
An Open Letter to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and...
How America Embraced Lemon Socialism
The Banking Crisis (Continued)
Obama's First Choice
How the Ensure that an Aggregator (or Bad) Bank Is...
Why Citi Turned Around on Mortgage "Cramdowns"
What Should Be Done With The Next $350 Billion of ...
[Respite]
The Stimulus: How to Create Jobs Without Them All ...
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Why We Need Stronger Unions, and How to Get Them
Why is this recession so deep, and what can be done to reverse it?
Hint: Go back about 50 years, when America's middle class was expanding and the economy was soaring. Paychecks were big enough to allow us to buy all the goods and services we produced. It was a virtuous circle. Good pay meant more purchases, and more purchases meant more jobs.
At the center of this virtuous circle were unions. In 1955, more than a third of working Americans belonged to one. Unions gave them the bargaining leverage they needed to get the paychecks that kept the economy going. So many Americans were unionized that wage agreements spilled over to nonunionized workplaces as well. Employers knew they had to match union wages to compete for workers and to recruit the best ones.
Fast forward to a new century. Now, fewer than 8% of private-sector workers are unionized. Corporate opponents argue that Americans no longer want unions. But public opinion surveys, such as a comprehensive poll that Peter D. Hart Research Associates conducted in 2006, suggest that a majority of workers would like to have a union to bargain for better wages, benefits and working conditions. So there must be some other reason for this dramatic decline. But put that question aside for a moment. One point is clear: Smaller numbers of unionized workers mean less bargaining power, and less bargaining power results in lower wages.
It's no wonder middle-class incomes were dropping even before the recession. As our economy grew between 2001 and the start of 2007, most Americans didn't share in the prosperity. By the time the recession began last year, according to an Economic Policy Institute study, the median income of households headed by those under age 65 was below what it was in 2000.Typical families kept buying only by going into debt. This was possible as long as the housing bubble expanded. Home-equity loans and refinancing made up for declining paychecks.
But that's over. American families no longer have the purchasing power to keep the economy going. Lower paychecks, or no paychecks at all, mean fewer purchases, and fewer purchases mean fewer jobs.
The way to get the economy back on track is to boost the purchasing power of the middle class. One major way to do this is to expand the percentage of working Americans in unions. Tax rebates won't work because they don't permanently raise wages. Most families used the rebate last year to pay off debt -- not a bad thing, but it doesn't keep the virtuous circle running. Bank bailouts won't work either. Businesses won't borrow to expand without consumers to buy their goods and services. And Americans themselves can't borrow when they're losing their jobs and their incomes are dropping.
Tax cuts for working families, as President Obama intends, can do more to help because they extend over time. But only higher wages and benefits for the middle class will have a lasting effect.
Unions matter in this equation. According to the Department of Labor, workers in unions earn 30% higher wages -- taking home $863 a week, compared with $663 for the typical nonunion worker -- and are 59% more likely to have employer-provided health insurance than their nonunion counterparts.
Examples abound. In 2007, nearly 12,000 janitors in Providence, R.I., New Hampshire and Boston, represented by the Service Employees International Union, won a contract that raised their wages to $16 an hour, guaranteed more work hours and provided family health insurance. In an industry typically staffed by part-time workers with a high turnover rate, a union contract provided janitors with full-time, sustainable jobs that they could count on to raise their families' -- and their communities' -- standard of living.
In August, 65,000 Verizon workers, represented by the Communications Workers of America, won wage increases totaling nearly 11% and converted temporary jobs to full-time status. Not only did the settlement preserve fully paid healthcare premiums for all active and retired unionized employees, but Verizon also agreed to provide $2 million a year to fund a collaborative campaign with its unions to achieve meaningful national healthcare reform.
Although America and its economy need unions, it's become nearly impossible for employees to form one. The Hart poll I cited tells us that 57 million workers would want to be in a union if they could have one. But those who try to form a union, according to researchers at MIT, have only about a 1 in 5 chance of successfully doing so.
The reason? Most of the time, employees who want to form a union are threatened and intimidated by their employers. And all too often, if they don't heed the warnings, they're fired, even though that's illegal. I saw this when I was secretary of Labor over a decade ago. We tried to penalize employers that broke the law, but the fines are minuscule. Too many employers consider them a cost of doing business.
This isn't right. The most important feature of the Employee Free Choice Act, which will be considered by the just-seated 111th Congress, toughens penalties against companies that violate their workers' rights. The sooner it's enacted, the better -- for U.S. workers and for the U.S. economy.
The American middle class isn't looking for a bailout or a handout. Most people just want a chance to share in the success of the companies they help to prosper. Making it easier for all Americans to form unions would give the middle class the bargaining power it needs for better wages and benefits. And a strong and prosperous middle class is necessary if our economy is to succeed.
posted by Robert Reich | 10:56 AM
The Midwest Contagion: Teachers Revolt
Teachers in the Midwest (and elsewhere) are rejecting benefit plans that most workers in the private economy would love to have.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...IDDLETopOpinion
Teachers in the Midwest (and elsewhere) are rejecting benefit plans that most workers in the private economy would love to have.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...IDDLETopOpinion
coyote6974
New member
I'm thinking that these public employees who have shut down schools and other state business have badly misread the mood of the electorate that have been taxed enough. I believe this is the beginning of the end of public employee unions, and hopefully the Dem party. People across the nation are watching this fiasco and are shaking their heads. You don't bite the hand that feeds you.
Originally Posted By: coyote6974I'm thinking that these public employees who have shut down schools and other state business have badly misread the mood of the electorate that have been taxed enough. I believe this is the beginning of the end of public employee unions, and hopefully the Dem party. People across the nation are watching this fiasco and are shaking their heads. You don't bite the hand that feeds you.
Then you should be thankful. Isn't shutting down public education what you guys wanted all along? And you're right, having only one party will certainly improve things. Competition is highly overrated.
Then you should be thankful. Isn't shutting down public education what you guys wanted all along? And you're right, having only one party will certainly improve things. Competition is highly overrated.
Smackem223
New member
Jeffo, my wife works at a school and I hear all the BS. The days of money to burn are long past. It's time to pay up or fade away. By.
Originally Posted By: Smackem223Jeffo, my wife works at a school and I hear all the BS. The days of money to burn are long past. It's time to pay up or fade away. By.
I take it your wife is not a teacher. When did teachers have "money to burn"? Been fun sparring with you guys. When you start to understand how this all really works, what teachers really do, we'll chat again.
I take it your wife is not a teacher. When did teachers have "money to burn"? Been fun sparring with you guys. When you start to understand how this all really works, what teachers really do, we'll chat again.
Smackem223
New member
Jeffo, I've paid dearly for my kids to go to New York, Florida and Mexico. When I went to school we got to clean the ditches on earth day between caseys and Zip Mart. It's time to live within our means. Sorry no more free rides.
this isn't about what teachers do, it's about unsustainable dealers brokered by unions.
we're broke. the federal govt is broke. most of the states are broke. people are out of work & losing their homes.
bummer for you in the unions, but public sympathy isn't with you any more.
we're broke. the federal govt is broke. most of the states are broke. people are out of work & losing their homes.
bummer for you in the unions, but public sympathy isn't with you any more.
obama gets up & says nice things about living within our means, but then submits a budget with > $1 TRILLION in deficit spending. people ain't buying that any more.
I have 2 of them living next door to me. Rich, no. Doing well, yes.
Unfortunately for you, reality is sitting out here.
Unfortunately for you, reality is sitting out here.
waterweasle
Member
Originally Posted By: jeffoOriginally Posted By: NM LeonQuote:Because that's the path you chose.
No, that's the path that a guy elected with union funding "negotiated" for us non-government union taxpayers. What's wrong with this picture?
If you're talking about Walker the teachers unions did not endorse him. That's why he's retaliating.
Quote:It will be interesting. Wait and see what this governor has in store for the private sector. Those who are singing his praises now will be crying foul when he unveils his new budget.
Those of us in the private sector understand the economic reality that we are BROKE!!
Lot's of rich teachers, are there?
What we decry is that in addition to the pain we are going to endure to fix the situation, there are greedy government unions who are in large part the cause of our troubles wanting us non-government taxpayers to continue to carry them on our backs.
The voters finally woke up and spoke last NOV, saying..."NO MORE!!"
Quote:It's called the 1st amendment. For someone so gung-ho on the constitution and American rights I'm surprised you take exception to this.
The 1st amendment doesn't give you the right to abrogate your contract and walk off the job. It dang sure doesn't give you the right to drag my child to your protest.
The penalty for illegally walking off a job is/should be... you get fired. Then you can exercise your 1st amendment rights on the capitol steps to your hearts content.
No one illegally walked off his/her job.
I think (hope) that you government union folks are about to come to the realization that you have lived off of the backs of the rest of us too long and that your collective greed has killed the goose that laid the golden egg.
So, essentially, you're saying that teachers don't earn their pay? Is your problem with teachers or with unions? You've never really been clear on that.
heard on the radio that wisconsin schools are like 44th out of 50.......so yeah they arent earning thier pay
No, that's the path that a guy elected with union funding "negotiated" for us non-government union taxpayers. What's wrong with this picture?
If you're talking about Walker the teachers unions did not endorse him. That's why he's retaliating.
Quote:It will be interesting. Wait and see what this governor has in store for the private sector. Those who are singing his praises now will be crying foul when he unveils his new budget.
Those of us in the private sector understand the economic reality that we are BROKE!!
Lot's of rich teachers, are there?
What we decry is that in addition to the pain we are going to endure to fix the situation, there are greedy government unions who are in large part the cause of our troubles wanting us non-government taxpayers to continue to carry them on our backs.
The voters finally woke up and spoke last NOV, saying..."NO MORE!!"
Quote:It's called the 1st amendment. For someone so gung-ho on the constitution and American rights I'm surprised you take exception to this.
The 1st amendment doesn't give you the right to abrogate your contract and walk off the job. It dang sure doesn't give you the right to drag my child to your protest.
The penalty for illegally walking off a job is/should be... you get fired. Then you can exercise your 1st amendment rights on the capitol steps to your hearts content.
No one illegally walked off his/her job.
I think (hope) that you government union folks are about to come to the realization that you have lived off of the backs of the rest of us too long and that your collective greed has killed the goose that laid the golden egg.
So, essentially, you're saying that teachers don't earn their pay? Is your problem with teachers or with unions? You've never really been clear on that.
heard on the radio that wisconsin schools are like 44th out of 50.......so yeah they arent earning thier pay
Smackem223
New member
Originally Posted By: jeffoOriginally Posted By: Smackem223Jeffo, my wife works at a school and I hear all the BS. The days of money to burn are long past. It's time to pay up or fade away. By.
I take it your wife is not a teacher. When did teachers have "money to burn"? Been fun sparring with you guys. When you start to understand how this all really works, what teachers really do, we'll chat again.
Sorry to burst your bubble bud but 70 or 80 grand a year is to much for this day and age. The public doesn't have that kind of money.
I take it your wife is not a teacher. When did teachers have "money to burn"? Been fun sparring with you guys. When you start to understand how this all really works, what teachers really do, we'll chat again.
Sorry to burst your bubble bud but 70 or 80 grand a year is to much for this day and age. The public doesn't have that kind of money.
NM Leon
New member
Quote:Have you ever been involved in collective bargaining in the public sphere?
Thankfully no, I've always been able to negotiate for myself one on one with whoever I've worked for, and have too much pride to feed at the public trough. On the other side I would rather eat coyote 5 times a week than run for elected office as a union funded candidate.
Have YOU ever been involved in collective bargaining in the public sphere? Are you one of the union bigwig "negotiators"?
If so, perhaps you could educate us. Did you negotiate with government officials or not? Were the wages and benefits you were negotiating for paid for with tax dollars or not?
As a union official (or just being awake) I'd assume you were (and are) aware of the extent that your union spent your union dues in political contributions to elect the folks you were "negotiating" with. Kind of made the atmosphere and outcome of those "negotiations" pretty friendly didn't it?
Quote:Are you speaking from experience here or just spewing diatribe?
Are you speaking from your experience as a union boss/negotiator, or just frothing at the mouth?
Seriously, you might check out "Labor Relations in Education (International"), "Collective Bargaining in State and Local Government", and of course the real classic, "Collective Bargaining as an Instrument of Social Change" paying special attention to chapter 6 "Teachers and
Transformational Bargaining".
Robert Reich...is a professor at the University of California at Berkeley.
Which about says it all. Still it's better than the pure Marxist crap you spouted in the last debate I guess.
At the center of this virtuous circle were unions. In 1955, more than a third of working Americans belonged to one.
Do you really want to go down this road jeffo? I can provide compelling evidence that the reasons for the destruction of the "virtuous circle" are grounded in the increased size of government and the corresponding deterioration of the quality of government education.
Rich teachers? No, but most do pretty darned well compared to the people who pay for their wages and benefits (the taxpayers).
Thankfully no, I've always been able to negotiate for myself one on one with whoever I've worked for, and have too much pride to feed at the public trough. On the other side I would rather eat coyote 5 times a week than run for elected office as a union funded candidate.
Have YOU ever been involved in collective bargaining in the public sphere? Are you one of the union bigwig "negotiators"?
If so, perhaps you could educate us. Did you negotiate with government officials or not? Were the wages and benefits you were negotiating for paid for with tax dollars or not?
As a union official (or just being awake) I'd assume you were (and are) aware of the extent that your union spent your union dues in political contributions to elect the folks you were "negotiating" with. Kind of made the atmosphere and outcome of those "negotiations" pretty friendly didn't it?
Quote:Are you speaking from experience here or just spewing diatribe?
Are you speaking from your experience as a union boss/negotiator, or just frothing at the mouth?
Seriously, you might check out "Labor Relations in Education (International"), "Collective Bargaining in State and Local Government", and of course the real classic, "Collective Bargaining as an Instrument of Social Change" paying special attention to chapter 6 "Teachers and
Transformational Bargaining".
Robert Reich...is a professor at the University of California at Berkeley.
Which about says it all. Still it's better than the pure Marxist crap you spouted in the last debate I guess.
At the center of this virtuous circle were unions. In 1955, more than a third of working Americans belonged to one.
Do you really want to go down this road jeffo? I can provide compelling evidence that the reasons for the destruction of the "virtuous circle" are grounded in the increased size of government and the corresponding deterioration of the quality of government education.
Rich teachers? No, but most do pretty darned well compared to the people who pay for their wages and benefits (the taxpayers).
coyote6974
New member
What I'm told is that the AVERAGE teacher's salary in the state of Wisconsin is $89,000. That's just salary not including benefits. I wouldn't say that's rich.. But pretty comfortable.
NM Leon
New member
I missed this Marxist/Leninist screed:
Quote:If government needs more money, don't take it from the middleclass who cannot afford the loss. Take it from the wealthy - they can afford it easily.
Just who the heck do you think is paying your wages and benefits jeffo? IT'S THE MIDDLE CLASS TAXPAYER!! (and the average person who you are sucking off isn't doing nearly as well you are).
Quote:If government needs more money, don't take it from the middleclass who cannot afford the loss. Take it from the wealthy - they can afford it easily.
Just who the heck do you think is paying your wages and benefits jeffo? IT'S THE MIDDLE CLASS TAXPAYER!! (and the average person who you are sucking off isn't doing nearly as well you are).
larr
New member
Originally Posted By: jeffoThere is both the upside and downside of unions. Unions, as most of us know, came into existence because of the abuses of workers by capitalists. Later, unions became the bad guy due to well-publicized corruption (illegal capitalism) AND too many unions just became dues collectors and couldn't really care less about helping its members. The members of the various unions in modern-day Wisconsin are not corrupt or useless. They are honorable - looking out for their middleclass members. Bottom line: If government needs more money, don't take it from the middleclass who cannot afford the loss. Take it from the wealthy - they can afford it easily.
spoken like a true socialist.
i know all about teachers unions, i got to take another pay cut because the unions want their teachers to have a pay raise for the next 3 years! besides that now they want the counties to pay for the teachers pensions,if that happens the county that i live and work in will not only have to reduce the workforce but will have to eliminate complete departments! yea i know all about your greedy corrupt teacher unions, while i work my a$$ off and pay taxes the teachers are sitting back and enjoying the fruits of my labor thanks to the unions! you can talk all of your socialist crap but i know about your precious teacher unions.
spoken like a true socialist.
i know all about teachers unions, i got to take another pay cut because the unions want their teachers to have a pay raise for the next 3 years! besides that now they want the counties to pay for the teachers pensions,if that happens the county that i live and work in will not only have to reduce the workforce but will have to eliminate complete departments! yea i know all about your greedy corrupt teacher unions, while i work my a$$ off and pay taxes the teachers are sitting back and enjoying the fruits of my labor thanks to the unions! you can talk all of your socialist crap but i know about your precious teacher unions.