http://www.salon.com/2013/12/30/the_middle_class_myth_heres_why_wages_are_really_so_low_today/
https://archive.is/sVvSu
Not surprisingly, especially for an article dealing with the wages of low paid workers, the article does nothing to explain what it purports to, instead offering the trite rationalization that the decline of union participation is the root of every worker's problems.
This paragraph quoted below gives the main premise of the article, and is the only real substance the article contains. The bulk of the article gives examples of various union employees who earned higher wages than similar non-unionized workers, as if that alone proves this premise --
http://www.salon.com/2013/12/30/the_middle_class_myth_heres_why_wages_are_really_so_low_today/
https://archive.is/sVvSu
The “middle class” myth: Here’s why wages are really so low today
EDWARD MCCLELLAND MONDAY, DEC 30, 2013 10:00 AM PST
...
The argument given against paying a living wage in fast-food restaurants is that workers are paid according to their skills, and if the teenager cleaning the grease trap wants more money, he should get an education. Like most conservative arguments, it makes sense logically, but has little connection to economic reality. Workers are not simply paid according to their skills, they’re paid according to what they can negotiate with their employers. And in an era when only 6 percent of private-sector workers belong to a union, and when going on strike is almost certain to result in losing your job, low-skill workers have no negotiating power whatsoever.
...
The argument given against paying a living wage in fast-food restaurants is that workers are paid according to their skills, and if the teenager cleaning the grease trap wants more money, he should get an education. Like most conservative arguments, it makes sense logically, but has little connection to economic reality. Workers are not simply paid according to their skills, they’re paid according to what they can negotiate with their employers. And in an era when only 6 percent of private-sector workers belong to a union, and when going on strike is almost certain to result in losing your job, low-skill workers have no negotiating power whatsoever.
...
The fallacy here is obvious — this statement from the author: 'they're paid according to what they can negotiate with their employers', is simply an assumption by the author that employers face no competition for workers, and can pay them as little as they choose, regardless of the value of their labor, unless the workers join a union.
Of course, it's obvious that in conditions of high unemployment, when there are often many applicants for the same job, an employer can sometimes fill positions for a very low wage, since job applicants that are having difficulty finding a job will be willing to accept a lower wage (it's better than nothing). But how will joining a union in this situation give a job applicant more negotiating power? As long as there are a large number of unemployed workers, even employed union members will have little bargaining power with employers, since every worker is more easily replaced when unemployment is high.
When there are many more job seekers than jobs, the majority of employers are not attempting to hire at all, and for those employers that are, the only way for applicants to be competitive is to be willing to accept a lower wage than other workers with the same skills.
Recall that in August 1981, former President Ronald Reagan refused to negotiate with the striking 'Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO)', citing the oath those employees took not to strike. Over 11,000 air traffic controllers refused to return to their jobs and were replaced. Here's Reagan reading a statement to the press on August 4, 1981, giving air traffic controllers 48 hours to return to their jobs —
http://www.history.com/speeches/reagan-fires-striking-air-traffic-controllers
How one views Reagan's action isn't relevant here — the point is that being a member of the union did nothing to give the air traffic controllers more bargaining power. They were replaceable because there were a large number of people who were willing and able to do their job without the pay increase the union was demanding.
And by definition, in periods of low unemployment there will be few (if any) applicants for a particular job, so in this situation the only choice employers have, if they wish to attract applicants, is to offer an above market wage.
But as much as people want to pretend that low-skilled workers can have high paying jobs — if they can just force an employer to pay them enough — there is no escaping the obvious fact that no one is willing to pay a lot for something that anyone can do. And this is the root of this absurdity that labor unions can make low-skilled workers well off by increasing their negotiating power, rather than by increasing the value of their work to those who are willing to purchase it.
Since low-skilled workers can't produce anything of great value (hence the term, low-skill), they are worth very little to anyone looking to purchase their services — if such workers attempt to charge a high wage, while knowing that there are many others who can provide the same service, and possibly for less, such workers risk unemployment. But ultimately, it is the prices that customers are willing to pay for a particular good or service that determines wages, rather than the greed or generosity of employers.
A labor union may be able to achieve above market wage rates for its members for some period of time (even years), but ultimately the end result is that the affected industries become less competitive, increasing the incentives to customers to switch to alternative products, or to companies that are able to eliminate the inefficiencies of union labor.
In that regard, consider this ironic quote from the same article quoted above regarding the loss of jobs in an industry that was traditionally unionized --
http://http://www.salon.com/2013/12/30/the_middle_class_myth_heres_why_wages_are_really_so_low_today/
...
The greatest victory of the anti-labor movement has not been in busting industries traditionally organized by unions. That’s unnecessary. Those jobs have disappeared as a result of automation and outsourcing to foreign countries. In the U.S., steel industry employment has declined from 521,000 in 1974 to 150,000 today.
“When I joined the company, it had 28,000 employees,” said George Ranney, a former executive at Inland Steel, an Indiana mill that was bought out by ArcelorMittal in 1998. “When I left, it had between 5,000 and 6,000. We were making the same amount of steel, 5 million tons a year, with higher quality and lower cost.”
...
The greatest victory of the anti-labor movement has not been in busting industries traditionally organized by unions. That’s unnecessary. Those jobs have disappeared as a result of automation and outsourcing to foreign countries. In the U.S., steel industry employment has declined from 521,000 in 1974 to 150,000 today.
“When I joined the company, it had 28,000 employees,” said George Ranney, a former executive at Inland Steel, an Indiana mill that was bought out by ArcelorMittal in 1998. “When I left, it had between 5,000 and 6,000. We were making the same amount of steel, 5 million tons a year, with higher quality and lower cost.”
...
It's strange that in an article praising the supposed benefits of labor unions, the author would acknowledge a productivity and quality increase that resulted from a massive elimination of union labor — and at the same time fail to acknowledge the role the union had in making the business less competitive, and the even more obvious point, that every business should be striving to eliminate such inefficiencies.
The author used the term 'anti-labor movement', as if there is some group of people that do nothing but attack labor, but in the most fundamental sense we are all anti-labor, because we are all trying to purchase the highest quality goods and services for the lowest possible price — and as demonstrated by ArcelorMittal, the steel company the author mentioned above, high quality at a low price isn't easily achieved with union labor.
No comments:
Post a Comment