OP-ED | Whither Labor? Withering On The Vine?
by Terry Cowgill | Sep 23, 2011 1:25pm
(12) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Opinion
Earlier this month, as is my general practice, I noted the passing of Labor Day without giving it much thought. After all, it would be my last day off for about five weeks, so I didn’t want to exert myself. Then last week I saw what Gov. Dannel P. Malloy said at the annual AFL-CIO convention at Foxwoods Casino. And it got me to thinking, which can be sort of a dangerous thing.
After battling for months with the state’s union workforce over givebacks to help balance the state budget, Malloy sought to make amends:
“Gov. Dannel P. Malloy acknowledged there were ‘sharp elbows’ thrown over the past eight months between state employee unions and his administration, but said Thursday morning ‘please don’t question my commitment to labor.’”
I trust the governor was talking only about his political position on the labor movement. For it should go without saying that it’s not really the governor’s job to be “committed to labor,” but to be committed to getting the best deal possible for both sides the next time the state employees contracts are up for renewal. Taxpayers need “commitment” from the governor, too.
Presumably in the spirit of reconciliation, Larry Dorman, a state employee union boss, made a comment that was laughable on its face:
“It’s the first time in a long time we’ve had a governor that hasn’t actively declared war on the labor movement.”
Really? Wasn’t it the Republican administration of John Rowland that negotiated the unsustainable 20-year labor benefits agreement that helped to put us in this bind in the first place? If Rowland “declared war” on the labor movement, then I’d hate to see what a big sloppy kiss would look like.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not a mindless union basher. I recognize and honor the proud history of organized labor in this country. My wife is a member of a public-sector union and so is my sister. From the coal miners of West Virginia to the teachers in America’s public schools, workers across the country are far better off than they used to be. And the nation is mostly stronger for it.
That having been said, sometimes unions are part of the problem. In the face of resentment from their private-sector colleagues who have seen their wages and benefits stagnate over the last 20 years, it’s easy for public sector workers to say to the privates, “I’ve got mine; now you need to work to get yours.”
Too often there is a failure on the part of public sector workers to understand that the resources to fund the government come from the private sector. And when total compensation packages in government outstrip those in the non-government sector, then the system becomes unsustainable. For an example, check out the deal the Connecticut State Police are still working under. Troopers and prison guards are permitted to retire after 20 years at any age and can jack up their already lengthy pensions by piling on the overtime in their three highest earning years.
Not only are the troopers and others gaming the system, but their insistence that private sector workers should do a better job of negotiating strong compensation packages is absurd. Public-sector unions often fund candidates for local and state offices. Then when its time to negotiate labor contracts, those same public officials are inclined to be generous. So in effect, public sector workers are bargaining from both sides of the table, while private-sector workers must operate in an adversarial environment.
And even in the private sector, when management gives too much ground, as was the case of the U.S. auto manufacturers, markets have a way of exacting punishment. When the United Auto Workers got a series of great labor agreements 30 and 40 years ago, it opened the doors for Japanese companies like Toyota and Honda, which were able to produce better vehicles with lower-paid workers. The resulting competition, along with a lack of visionary leadership at the U.S. companies, caused major fiscal crises in the 1970s and 2000s that could only be remedied with taxpayer-funded bailouts.
So, what has caused the percentage of organized U.S. workers to decline so precipitously? As of 2010, union membership constituted 11.9 percent of the national workforce, down from 20.1 percent in 1983. The only growth in union organization is in the public sector, whose members are now 36.2 percent organized.
Connecticut fares better than the national average in overall union membership, clocking in at 17.3 percent. The Connecticut advantage probably stems from higher union rates, not only of government workers, but of private-sector workers employed by large unionized manufacturers such as Sikorsky and Pratt & Whitney, along with the Dutch-owned Stop & Shop supermarket chain.
So what’s next for labor in the U.S.? Frankly, I don’t think the outlook is terribly bright — even in the public sector. The more this wretched economy stifles economic growth, the less patience taxpayers will have with collective bargaining that drive taxes inexorably up.
In deep-blue Connecticut, however, the outlook is a bit rosier. After reassuring the AFL-CIO of his unflagging fealty to labor, Gov. Malloy just this week made good on his word by signing a pair of executive orders. Bypassing the legislature, Malloy has essentially laid the groundwork for state child care workers and personal care attendants to form unions and bargain collectively.
As for the private sector, things look pretty grim. If big labor, with all its resources, still can’t even organize Walmart, the largest employer in the U.S., then what are the chances of increasing its ranks substantially? Despite the best efforts of the Obama administration to punish right-to-work states such as South Carolina, they’re clearly where the growth is.
Connecticut, on the other hand, has the worst job creation record in the nation over the last two decades. Get the picture?
Terry Cowgill blogs at terrycowgill.blogspot.com and was an award-winning editor and senior writer for The Lakeville Journal Company. He is host of Conversations with Terry Cowgill, an hour-long monthly interview program on CATV6 on Comcast’s northwest Connecticut system.
(12) Comments
posted by: ctguy | September 23, 2011 3:55pm
Hey Terry Thanks for the sharp insight that things look rosier in CT. How does that jibe with South Carolina is where it’s at? Secondly, haven’t we had a Republican in charge of the state for most of the last two decades? We have tried lax regulation and lowering taxes, I don’t recall that working so well. Can you offer some facts on wages in South Carolina? Show me how tax paying residents are ahead and the services are top notch?
posted by: NOW What? | September 23, 2011 4:21pm
There is SO much wrong and incorrect within this op-ed that I honestly am not sure where to begin in response to it. So I guess I’ll just point out just a few things:
1) South Carolina is one of the POOREST states in the nation.
2) There is no such thing as a “right” to work state.
3) Among all states, on average those that are GOP-controlled “right-to-work” states have the greatest percentages of poverty-stricken households.
So-called “right to work” laws do NOT offer “growth” as the author claims, only a “right” to POVERTY.
posted by: gompers | September 23, 2011 4:23pm
It is a shame that Terry Cowgill goes in for the same tired old public employee bashing that is so prevalent in the mainstream corporate media. Cowgill doesn’t use a single fact or figure to back up his argument. The average CT state employee makes about $55,000 per year - yet, that is the problem? Perhaps Cowgill should look at the recent census figures showing that the middle class is dying and that poverty is growing, and compare that to the ghastly shift in wealth away from the middle class and toward a corporate elite few. Unionization is the only thing that will bring back a middle class.
posted by: Terry D. Cowgill | September 23, 2011 6:07pm
@ctguy, RTW states such as South Carolina tend to be poorer. But ironically, if not for the Obama administration’s knuckle-headed actions, thousands of good-paying manufacturing jobs would have come to the Palmetto State courtesy of Boeing.
@Now What, states that have legislation prohibiting compulsory union membership as a condition of employment are typically called “right-to-work” states. Sorry you don’t like the term. If you can think of a better one, let me know. BTW, never once did I even imply that South Carolina isn’t poor, but it does have better job growth than we do. Oh, I forgot. EVERY state has better job growth than we do over the last 20 years.
@gompers, look at my column again. I’m talking about total compensation packages, not wages alone, when I compare the public sector to the private. As you can see, average pay in the private sector is slightly higher, but the employment security, benefits and retirement legacy costs in the public sector are far greater. If you’re looking for data on that subject, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has released numbers:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/02/working-in-america-public-vs-private-sector/
It never fails to amaze me how so many people reflexively call me anti-labor for raising questions about how we spend taxpayer money. And if you really think I’m engaging in “the same tired old public employee bashing that is so prevalent in the mainstream corporate media,” read my 8th paragraph. I guess you missed it as you grew angry.
posted by: gutbomb86 | September 24, 2011 11:33am
One of CT’s biggest problems with respect to business growth has nothing to with unions. It’s local rule. I’ve seen it time and again - the same people who blame unions for the problems with growing new businesses in CT will show up at every PZC meeting to oppose even the most benign application for a construction permit. It’s the self-centered, hypocritical not-in-my-back-yard crowd. Throw in the ridiculously high cost of real estate and healthcare insurance, and that leaves union wages a long way down the list. Off the top of my head I don’t know of a single unionized small business in CT. If I am about to start a business that’s not going to have more than me and a half dozen others on the payroll, I’m simply not remotely concerned about unions. Most of the criticism of CT’s biz climate comes from partisans. In many cases it’s from people whose professions are no longer in demand - the result of free market forces.
posted by: smallcarp | September 24, 2011 5:57pm
Wow!
First @gutbomb86—- you are absolutely RIGHT!!! (as in CORRECT) PZC is one of the most powerful and dangerous local government boards that has ever existed! Many businesses and technological advances are stifled by small groups of people with limited political agendas … Good for you!!
As for this ‘lite’ analysis of economics … someone pass me a watered down brew!
Many of the poverty stats are based on Federal Standards. Each State, even sections of a State, are different considering factors such as Cost of Living and Housing. What is poverty in one area is ‘good living’ in another.
Wages adjust from area to area based on what it costs to live there (at least in the NON Government sector). The Government sector prefers to work on some over studied (and often outdated) statistics that will prove their point. It is simply NOT living in the REAL world.
To imply that Unions (especially Government employee unions) are insuring that people do not live in poverty is a joke at best. Often those who are paying for all of this are struggling to make ends meet and only dream of having a benefit package that is 20% of what many Government unionized employees receive. Many times those who pay for these benefits live on the edge and are powerless to change it since they don’t have the money that Organized Government Employee Unions have to contribute to those who determine their compensation packages (nor the connected ones to meet in the backrooms with the ‘money givers’).
Here in Connecticut we have the wonderment of Binding Arbitration, a practice that is unfair at best. Those who negotiate control those they negotiate with and have managed to set up a scenario that always makes them the winner … Real fair in my eyes!
My fingers are blue … so I must go … Greetings to all of you!
posted by: Terry D. Cowgill | September 25, 2011 8:29am
Here’s a comment on Facebook about this column from an old friend—a businessman who has lived in South Carolina for several years:
“Good column. One thing none of your detractors mention about the SC economy is the basis from which it is growing. SC has been a sparsely populated, rural state with an agriculture-based economy for its whole history. To think that the relatively low GDP of SC has anything to do with not having a union organized labor force is just silly.”
posted by: victim's revenge | September 25, 2011 12:19pm
Terry Cowgill says in his Blog “The Devil’s Advocate”
“I’m getting hammered in the comment thread by union trolls. No surprise there.”
It’s as if he believes, or is trying to make us believe that he’s actually standing up to these scary union thugs, (and I know first hand just how scary they really are.) by saying things like,
“I recognize and honor the proud history of organized labor in this country. My wife is a member of a public-sector union and so is my sister.” and goes on to say, “That having been said, sometimes unions are part of the problem. In the face of resentment from their private-sector colleagues who have seen their wages and benefits stagnate over the last 20 years, it’s easy for public sector workers to say to the privates, “I’ve got mine; now you need to work to get yours.”
Maybe in Terry’s world this is bold courageous stuff, but in my world it’s wishy washy middle of the road, please don’t get mad at me trash, that has become the status quo for the majority of the so called journalists of today. They can rip apart the right at will, but they have to tip toe around all of the factions and groups that typically support the Democrat leftist machine.
Since Terry doesn’t have the stones to say it, then I’ll say it. Unions are a problem, a BIG PROBLEM!! They were formed to correct a problem, and that’s true, but now they have become the problem, and that’s even more true!!
posted by: Terry D. Cowgill | September 25, 2011 8:37pm
BTW, lest you think only state workers are padding pensions, how about those Republican state lawmakers in South Carolina? This, too, is disgraceful.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-10-11/1A-state-lawmakers-pump-pensions/50522036/1
posted by: Terry D. Cowgill | September 26, 2011 1:01pm
Well, VR. If I’m not “standing up to these scary union thugs,” then why did pro-union types push back so swiftly against this column?
Usually it takes a day or two for my column to generate comments. But the first three in this thread went up almost immediately after the op-ed went live on Friday.
One of the commenters branded the column “the same tired old public employee bashing.”
Can’t win for losing, I guess ...
posted by: Mansfield1 | September 26, 2011 3:06pm
Terry, I think your conclusion about union folks (I’m one) withering on the vine is, sadly, correct. Money has been so tightly aggregated on Wall Street that there is no countervaliing force that will be able to keep good jobs in America. There will always be some third world hell hole that will make labor available for 20-30 cents an hour so why would anyone bother to do anything here? And since the multinationals can make more selling into those new markets all that remains for them here is to pick the bones of the American goose.
Then of course the gated communities, private corporate armies and cooperative nature of the local gendarmes (To wit: NYC cops beating up Wall Street demonstrators on a SATURDAY yet) the only real challenge will be to keep the rabble under control. Things are going to get ugly in this country when 80% of the boomers find out they can never retire, young folks find out that there aren’t going to be any jobs beyond 6-8 bucks an hour and that government at any level is not interested.
And no, I don’t think the John Rowland 20 year deal put us in the place we’re at. Twenty years of NOT paying attention to building the infrastructure needed to compete in the modern world did us in just fine.
And Johnny Rotten’s work to “deregulate” energy costs made us a high cost State to do business in. Corporate taxes too high? How can that be? They don’t pay any or just the $250. alternate tax.
And Obama’s hamhanded move in South Carolina? Those jobs came from Washington State so I appreciate his trying not to let those lousy crackers steal them.
posted by: NOW What? | October 1, 2011 12:17am
Mansfield1 - You are RIGHT ON THE MONEY. Unfortunately. We - and especially Connecticut - need(s) to produce goods and services - RIGHT HERE - that *cannot* be as effectively and/or efficiently produced and/or delivered from elsewhere. Business’s purchasing and the costs of consumers’ purchased goods and services, again especially in CT, need to be driven down but NOT by relying on out-of-state or out-of-country companies’ employees.
So far it appears that the Malloy administration “gets it” AND is acting upon its understanding of the complexities of the situations step-by-step. But it will take a number of years to get so many things under better control, given that they’ve been allowed to spiral OUT of control in Connecticut for *so* long.