Trouble in 777 Overhaul (China)

[Kev3188]

Perhaps the racial underpinnings in RTW laws were really a reflection of the makeup of trade unions?...

http://www.redstate....inues-unabated/

Gotta love Peter List... I wonder why he never cops to how much he makes from fear mongering ,er, "union avoidance" pieces/propaganda. For a guy who cries about accountability from labor, his Kulture LLC is anything but transparent.

 

[WorldTraveler]

I would too, since for years those sorts of jobs served as one of the main paths to the middle class for many African- American families.

which raises the issue of how weakening of union representation among public workers will affect African-Americans.

I'm still not sure what your point regarding RTW laws and race... unless E and Josh noted it... but what they have noted does not seem to a point of pride in the history of the labor movement.

 

[737823]

I'm still unclear on Kev's point too. My beef is unions, especially in the Northeast played a big role in hindering opportunities for advancement for immigrants and minorities because they saw cheaper and potentially more flexible/productive workers as a threat. Today unions pretend to be supporters of immigration reform (DREAM Act), civil rights, LGBT community and other underrepresented groups. The AFL and other unions went to great lengths to impose quotas and job restrictions on certain ethnic groups to hinder their advancement and limit opportunities. I very much believe the labor movement made its contribution segregation in certain trades, some of which remains to this day.

Josh

 

[Kev3188]

I'm still unclear on Kev's point too.

Keep in mind that in the post WWII era, there was a much stronger tie between organized labor and civil rights. In fact, in many places in the south, the union hall or shop was one of the few desegregated places. The CIO launched what was called "Operation Dixie" with the aim of not only organizing unions in the south, but also ending Jim Crow laws. Many in the south saw the positive social change & upswing in civil rights as a threat, and in fairly short order, southern segregationists moved to counter that by creating RTW laws using the Taft-Hartley Act; the goal being to weaken the link between labor and the civil rights movement, as well as suppressing socio-economic progress for both minorities and the poor in the south. Looking at the south today, and the plight of both labor and the poor/minorities, I'd say it's fair to say that RTW laws did well to achieve that aim.


A great quote by MLK:

“In our glorious fight for civil rights, we must guard against being fooled by false slogans, such as ‘right to work.’ It is a law to rob us of our civil rights and job rights.
Its purpose is to destroy labor unions and the freedom of collective bargaining by which unions have improved wages and working conditions of everyone…Wherever these laws have been passed, wages are lower, job opportunities are fewer and there are no civil rights. We do not intend to let them do this to us. We demand this fraud be stopped. Our weapon is our vote.”

 

[unionguy1]

Keep in mind that in the post WWII era, there was a much stronger tie between organized labor and civil rights. In fact, in many places in the south, the union hall or shop was one of the few desegregated places. The CIO launched what was called "Operation Dixie" with the aim of not only organizing unions in the south, but also ending Jim Crow laws. Many in the south saw the positive social change & upswing in civil rights as a threat, and in fairly short order, southern segregationists moved to counter that by creating RTW laws using the Taft-Hartley Act; the goal being to weaken the link between labor and the civil rights movement, as well as suppressing socio-economic progress for both minorities and the poor in the south. Looking at the south today, and the plight of both labor and the poor/minorities, I'd say it's fair to say that RTW laws did well to achieve that aim.


A great quote by MLK:

“In our glorious fight for civil rights, we must guard against being fooled by false slogans, such as ‘right to work.’ It is a law to rob us of our civil rights and job rights.
Its purpose is to destroy labor unions and the freedom of collective bargaining by which unions have improved wages and working conditions of everyone…Wherever these laws have been passed, wages are lower, job opportunities are fewer and there are no civil rights. We do not intend to let them do this to us. We demand this fraud be stopped. Our weapon is our vote.”

Kev3188 I totally agree with your post and the MLK quote is from 1961. Here is the link www.epi.org/publication/martin_luther_king_on_right_to_work

Most true unionist know of this quote. The people who dislike unions will find ways to fault Unions.If the union haters work for a union they will never quit a union job and go work for a non union company. They usually quit those and come and work in a union shop for the pay and benefits and complain constantly about having to pay dues. I do agree that there are some unions that are much better than others but a strong union is only as good as their members want it to be. That is why most of our members within the TWU are going to oust its leaders and vote in another union. Preferably AMFA. We want a strong union that will work for its members and not to gratify themselves. As far as race, our workforce is very diverse and no matter what sex, color, sexual orientation or religion the pay is based on what was negotiated and distributed in steps based on date of hire.That is why we have a contract with articles to help prevent discriminatory practices.

 

[737823]

Keep in mind that in the post WWII era, there was a much stronger tie between organized labor and civil rights. In fact, in many places in the south, the union hall or shop was one of the few desegregated places. The CIO launched what was called "Operation Dixie" with the aim of not only organizing unions in the south, but also ending Jim Crow laws. Many in the south saw the positive social change & upswing in civil rights as a threat, and in fairly short order, southern segregationists moved to counter that by creating RTW laws using the Taft-Hartley Act; the goal being to weaken the link between labor and the civil rights movement, as well as suppressing socio-economic progress for both minorities and the poor in the south. Looking at the south today, and the plight of both labor and the poor/minorities, I'd say it's fair to say that RTW laws did well to achieve that aim.


A great quote by MLK:

“In our glorious fight for civil rights, we must guard against being fooled by false slogans, such as ‘right to work.’ It is a law to rob us of our civil rights and job rights.
Its purpose is to destroy labor unions and the freedom of collective bargaining by which unions have improved wages and working conditions of everyone…Wherever these laws have been passed, wages are lower, job opportunities are fewer and there are no civil rights. We do not intend to let them do this to us. We demand this fraud be stopped. Our weapon is our vote.”

That's your interpretation, and that maybe true today but why did the AFL-CIO refuse to support Title VII? You realize that the AFL-CIO was worried more black workers would undermine the seniority system for (white) workers? You realize many of the construction workers unions in New York City resisted anti-discrimination laws?

Race in America: the Struggle for Equality by Herbert Hill, Professor University Wisconsin-Madison available on Google Books preview:

http://books.google....epage&q&f=false

(Start reading at page 312, certain areas are cut this is only a preview).


Is a paper published by a Labor Economics professor at Cornell up to your standards?
Immigration:

Throughout its lengthy history, few issues have caused the American labor movement more agony than immigration. It is ironic this should be the case as most adult immigrants directly enter the labor force. So eventually do most of their family members. But precisely because immigration affects the scale, geographical distribution, and skill composition of the labor force, it affects national, regional, and local labor market conditions. Hence, organized labor can never ignore immigration trends. Immigration has in the past and continues to affect the developmental course of American trade unionism. Labor's responses, in turn, have significantly influenced the actual public policies that have shaped the size and character of immigrant entries.

But in the late 1980s, the leadership of organized labor began to waffle on the issue. By the 1990s, the labor movement was hesitant to support comprehensive reform despite the fact that the nation was in the midst of the largest wave of immigration it had ever experienced and the percentage of the labor force belonging to unions was declining rapidly. In February 2000, the Executive Council of the American Federation of Labor � Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) announced that it was changing its historic position.[sup]2[/sup] It would now support expanded immigration, lenient enforcement of immigration laws, and the legislative agenda of immigrants. In the months that followed, AFL-CIO officials declared that the organization was now "championing immigrant rights as a strategic move to make immigrants more enthusiastic about joining unions."[sup]3[/sup] Thus, the one societal body that had faithfully and consistently supported reasonable and enforceable immigration policies to protect the nation's working people is poised to formally reverse its historic posture at its biannual convention in December 2001. Should this happen, the implications for the future of organized labor and for American workers are far-reaching. Hitherto, the labor movement has been the nation's most effective advocate for the economic advancement of all workers � union members or not. If this change occurs, working people � especially those on the lower rungs of the economic ladder � will have lost the support of the most effective champion they ever had.

http://www.cis.org/a...001.html#author


Another worthwhile read:

In the year 2000 the AFL-CIO announced a historic change in its position on immigration. Reversing a decades-old stance by labor, the federation declared that it would no longer press to reduce high immigration levels or call for rigorous enforcement of immigration laws. Instead, it now supports the repeal of sanctions imposed against employers who hire illegal immigrants as well as a general amnesty for most such workers. In this timely book, Vernon M. Briggs, Jr., challenges labor's recent about-face, charting the disastrous effects that immigration has had on union membership over the course of U.S. history.
Briggs explores the close relationship between immigration and employment trends beginning in the 1780s. Combining the history of labor and of immigration in a new and innovative way, he establishes that over time unionism has thrived when the numbers of newcomers have decreased, and faltered when those figures have risen.
Briggs argues convincingly that the labor movement cannot be revived unless the following steps are taken: immigration levels are reduced, admission categories changed, labor law reformed, and the enforcement of labor protection standards at the worksite enhanced. The survival of American unionism, he asserts, does not rest with the movement's becoming a partner of the pro-immigration lobby. For to do so, organized labor would have to abandon its legacy as the champion of the American worker.

http://www.cornellpr...=80140100851920

Bottom line is unions support underrepresented minorities and immigration when it is financially advantageous for them to do.

Josh

 

[WorldTraveler]

A good post and on track until you made this statement:

Looking at the south today, and the plight of both labor and the poor/minorities, I'd say it's fair to say that RTW laws did well to achieve that aim.

You do realize that there is no statistical correlation between the percent of union membership and average household income, don't you?

Alabama has one of the highest union representation ratios in the south and on par w/ many midwest states and yet their household income is one of the lowest.
Meanwhile, Georgia has higher household income than several midwest states yet is in the lowest percentage group of union representation.

Note also that the cost of living in the south is less than in the midwest and NE and in most states, the lower cost of living more than offsets lower wage rates. Tax rates in the South are also lower.

It is not accurate to say that unions have resulted in a higher current standard of living in more heavily unionized state and it is certainly not accurate to say that lower union representation rates have resulted in lower real standards of living.

Note also that the largest drops in income have been in the most heavily unionized states in the midwest, NE, and CA.

http://www.census.go...ta/statemedian/

http://en.wikipedia....tates_by_income

http://www.missourie...iving/index.stm

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

You do realize that there is no statistical correlation between the percent of union membership and average household income, don't you?

Alabama has one of the highest union representation ratios in the south and on par w/ many midwest states and yet their household income is one of the lowest.

Of course you have selected your data...well...selectively. Of course you know this.

Alabama is one of the most impoverished states. Percentage of union membership cannot overcome the poverty ratio and to use union representation as a measure of household income is misleading at best.

That is the case in several southern states.

Maybe we are attempting to say the same thing?

 

[737823]

Since when is Indiana, Idaho, or Iowa considered part of the South?

And there are bills in Michigan and New Hampshire to add RTW legislation.

Josh

 

[FWAAA]

100 posts in this thread and only a small fraction of them are on-topic: AA's recent outsourcing of 777s to HAECO in Hong Kong.

The RTW v "Unions do nothing but good" bullshit belongs in the Water Cooler.

 

[WorldTraveler]

face it.... there was nothing more to say about the topic that could not be summed up in one post - workers demand higher pay even in Asia.

There are people who apparently want to discuss the value of labor as well as make statements about what labor has done or not done.

When statements are made that the south is poor because labor has been unable to make inroads, that will be addressed.

If labor could help bring wage rates up, then Alabama would not be as poor as they are since it has one of the highest labor representation rates in the south.
If labor representation was necessary to obtain higher incomes, then Georgia and Texas average incomes should not be near as high as they are.
If labor representation results in increased pay, then data would not show the highest decreases in household pay would not be in the most heavily unionized states.

Labor representation may have resulted in higher pay at one time but there is no correlation between household salary levels and union representation precisely because the labor movement has shrunk to such a size that there are enough other ways for people to succeed financially.
The fact that most of the new immigrants to the US - Asians and Hispanics - shun participation in the labor union validates why labor representation rates among adults entering the workforce is a fraction of the rate of older workers even among whites and blacks.

Labor doesn't deliver an economic benefit to members enough for Americans to choose to participate which is why labor representation rates continue to shrink.

If labor was more effective at retaining jobs in the US, we wouldn't be seeing such massive outsourcing of jobs throughout the US, but esp. in the transportation industries which remain some of the most heavily unionized in the US.

Since when is Indiana, Idaho, or Iowa considered part of the South?

And there are bills in Michigan and New Hampshire to add RTW legislation.

Josh

which says that Americans even in historically strong union states are not willing to continue to pay the bill for above market rates.

 

[Kev3188]

You do realize that there is no statistical correlation between the percent of union membership and average household income, don't you?

You do realize that using the term "household" is a misnomer, right? Same as when people attempt to say "union households" instead of "union member."

Alabama has one of the highest union representation ratios in the south and on par w/ many midwest states and yet their household income is one of the lowest.

For the former, it's all relative. For the latter, that just shows the income disparity in the state. Since you want to use "household income," the question that should be asked is why is it so low?

Note also that the cost of living in the south is less than in the midwest and NE and in most states, the lower cost of living more than offsets lower wage rates. Tax rates in the South are also lower.

Not necessarily, and it certainly doesn't explain why the south tends to lag the nation in most socio-economic categories.

It is not accurate to say that unions have resulted in a higher current standard of living in more heavily unionized state and it is certainly not accurate to say that lower union representation rates have resulted in lower real standards of living.

Sure it is.

Note also that the largest drops in income have been in the most heavily unionized states in the midwest, NE, and CA.

Maybe those states had the furthest to fall.

Of course you have selected your data...well...selectively. Of course you know this.

Alabama is one of the most impoverished states. Percentage of union membership cannot overcome the poverty ratio and to use union representation as a measure of household income is misleading at best.

That is the case in several southern states.

Of course...

Since when is Indiana, Idaho, or Iowa considered part of the South?

And there are bills in Michigan and New Hampshire to add RTW legislation.

Josh

I know. Corporate interests in those states (perhaps accurately) sensed a weakness in labor, and finally felt the time is/was right to try and capitalize on it.

 

[WorldTraveler]

Yes, I know the difference between household income and income for a particular job. But Census data is collected on a household basis and that is the type of data that must be used to compare wealth between states.

The union document by the BLS compares salaries by industry but it does not provide detail by state by industry... thus it is impossible to determine the validity of any statement about the effect of union representation compared to state wealth.

No one doubts that many states in the south suffered from enormous economic oppression of large parts of the population and that has not been corrected despite decades of effort.
But as has been noted, the labor movement did its fair share to exclude some of those same economically oppressed groups, even in regions of the country where labor unions historically did obtain significant economic benefits for their members.

There is abundant data to compare tax rates and cost of living in the south and show that they are much less than in other parts of the country. You can debate the reasons, but it doesn't change the fact that higher average salaries or household incomes in the north parallel higher costs of living.

But the reality is that union representation does not translate into increased wealth on any type of macro basis nor does not having union representation have any influence on whether communities or regions of the country have succeeded or not.

Union representation among private sector workers has shrunk to such low levels that it is not a large enough force to influence communities on a macroeconomic basis one way or the other.

Among public sector workers, there remains a clear benefit from union representation - but the fact that legislative efforts have succeeded in several historically strong union states indicates that the benefits of union representation for public sector workers is likely to diminish that advantage.

The fact that the airline industry has been highly successful in attacking the strengths of labor shows that labor representation has been no more successful in stemming job loss than have unions in manufacturing sectors of the economy. Historically manufacturing states are losing because compensation levels in those states were well above the global rates for industries in which those workers compete. The same is true of airline workers with jobs such as maintenance that do compete w/ the global market.

You can accurately talk about the effect of unionization on supporting pay levels in the past but you cannot accurately say that unions have any lasting effect on the wealth of states or even large cities.

There are too many other factors that are at play and have been more influential than the relatively small remaining number of union jobs.

Bias and preference aside, statements can only be made based on data that actually support that statement. There is real data that exists to defend or deny the accuracy of your statement.
There is no data that can support that income levels in the south on an aggregate basis are currently influenced by levels of union representation there or in any other part of the country.

 

[737823]

You guys can keep saying that workers in non-RTW states have higher earnings on average and that is true. However, correlation does not equal causality. You have to consider the fact that there are different industries in California or New Jersey compared to Mississippi or Tennessee. It shouldn't come at a surprise that earnings differentials exist, for this reason, different demographics, different cost of living index and different economic conditions. To do an accurate and comprehensive study you would need to identify several control factors such as comparing similar industries in states with similar economic conditions, and then conduct a differences in differences comparison on earnings. Much like RTW proponents tout that RTW states have lower unemployment statistics, it's equally unscientific to cite higher median incomes, lower poverty rates, etc in non-RTW states. Go to NBER.org, there is plenty of research on this topic and see for yourself.

Josh

 

[WorldTraveler]

good set of resources, Josh, but much of the data is still sourced from government data which I have cited a number of times.

There is no correlation between the rates of unionization by US state and poverty or wealth levels, in part because each of the states started from very different places economically.
But the reason why there is no impact today is because union representation is too low relative to the total workforce; there are other factors that influence economic growth and success far more than labor representation rates.

That is not to say that union representation didn't have a significant effect in maintaining higher wage rates in the past but labor representation is not high at high enough rates today to have a meaningful impact in the US.

The fact that even in the airline industry there is no consistency in wage rates between unionized and unionized carriers for jobs like AMTs which is a well-defined and limited workgroup says that attempting to argue for the effect of unions is not valid any more.

Then you have to consider the rate of job retention between union and non-union carriers and the claims that unions have been more successful is even harder to support.