January 25, 2008
Government Reports First Rise in Union Membership in 25 Years
According to the annual BLS Union Membership News Release, the number of workers belonging to unions rose for the first time in 25 years.
In 2007, the number of workers belonging to a union rose by 311,000 to
15.7 million, the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics
reported today. Union members accounted for 12.1 percent of employed wage
and salary workers, essentially unchanged from 12.0 percent in 2006. In
1983, the first year for which comparable union data are available, the
union membership rate was 20.1 percent. Some highlights from the 2007
--Workers in the public sector had a union membership rate nearly five
times that of private sector employees.
--Education, training, and library occupations had the highest unioniz-
ation rate among all occupations, at 37.2 percent, followed closely
by protective service occupations at 35.2 percent.
--Among demographic groups, the union membership rate was highest for
black men and lowest for Hispanic women.
--Wage and salary workers ages 45 to 54 (15.7 percent) and ages 55 to
64 (16.1 percent) were more likely to be union members than were
workers ages 16 to 24 (4.8 percent).
Read the entire news release HERE
January 19, 2008
Writers Guild Strike
The Writers Guild strike is entering its 12th week and the union leadership is finding itself faced with a difficult decision - end the strike with a settlement similar to that of the recent Directors Guilds negotiations or to bunker down and prolong the strike.
This is not a fork in the road the union leadership expected to reach. If it is true that every action we take as individuals or as institutions opens the door for more choices then the labor action by the Writers Guild has brought them to a point where either choice they make at this juncture is problematic.
The recent Directors Guild settlement falls short of the demands of the Writers Guild, particularly in addressing the primary issue of new media. Jonathan Tasini, Executive Director of the Labor Research Association points out several problems with the Director's Guild settlement on his blog Working Life:
My take: I think this is really a problem. It goes to the very question of union jurisdiction and what kind of world we will see in ten and twenty years. The DGA only gets jurisdiction over product currently under contract. That means that all non-union work--such as reality shows--will remain outside the new media jurisdiction.
And any work done under those thresholds will not be covered. The industry is precisely moving to a lower-cost structure--doesn't that sound familiar? It's the "kid-in-the-garage" problem--content coming from everywhere and everyone. As I described it in a panel discussion I just spoke at this week, it's similar to the off-shoring of work in manufacturing. You have the world of the WGA, where the standards are decent, with wages, health care and pensions. And, then, you have Big Mediastan--that would be the world where there is no union, where there are no residuals, no pensions, no health care. The above provision agreed to by the DGA seems--seems--to allow the growth of Big Mediastan. As an aside: it is one reason I believe that a critical component of the WGA's future--and that of the Screen Actors Guild--is to focus intensely on organizing the young kids today who are cranking out material using IMovie and other software. The unions have to get those younger--and older people--who are now producing content into the union now so that they don't become this mass of unorganized, low-wage labor that has no connection to the labor movement.
If the WGA agreed to those terms, it would basically be giving up on an important issue: union jurisdiction.
On the other hand, if the Writers Guilds' leadership prolongs the strike they face a serious risk of losing the dispute. As today's NY Times and LA Times articles point out there is pressure within the WGA to put an end to the strike. Some members are beginning to feel that if they can't win in 12 weeks they wont win by holding out one day more.
There are a couple of fascinating aspects to this strike that force us to ask some questions. For one, the Chief Negotiator for the Writers Guild is David Young who was profiled in a Wall Street Journal article a few weeks back:
Mr. Young worked for a time as a plumber after he graduated from college in San Diego. As a union organizer, one of his highest-profile jobs came in the mid-1990s, when he worked for Unite, the garment workers union. Mr. Young helped lead an organizing drive against Los Angeles-based clothing manufacturer Guess Inc. Trying to unionize thousands of low-wage workers, many of them illegal immigrants, Mr. Young led an effort targeting Guess and its local suppliers that continued for several years.
After a series of setbacks the Writers Guild hired Mr. Young to bring his experience in leading aggressive, creative and strategic campaigns pioneered by service & industrial unions in the late 80's, a style of organizing and bargaining that has increased manifold within these unions and now appears to be spilling over to the professional unions.
By all accounts Mr. Young has done a tremendous job in following the "strategic campaign" play book and many have been surprised at the result - The result being great PR, high profile supporters, impressive rank-and-file mobilization and unity between Guild members who are often separated by a wide gulf in terms of pay & prominence. Unfortunately none of this will get the result that is most important - a contract settlement with the types of gains sought by the Guild.
This type of union campaigning has been a real step forward by service and industrial unions because they signify Labor's willingness to retool in the face of new challenges and that when pushed Labor can mount a serious response. Yet the results of these type of campaigns have been mixed, in fact if we use 1990 as a starting point labor union membership has continued to decline in the ensuing 17 years and there have not been many breakthrough collective bargaining agreements or new organizing in that time, despite pockets of success in certain geographic locations and specific industries.
What these types of labor campaigns are missing is economic analysis. By that term I am not implying number crunching. What I mean is that these types of campaigns need to also look at the context & institutional incentive regime within which the campaign takes place. An example - in the WSJ article that profiles Mr. Young they speak about a campaign he worked on for the garment workers union in the 90s:
Trying to unionize thousands of low-wage workers, many of them illegal immigrants, Mr. Young led an effort targeting Guess and its local suppliers that continued for several years.
But the move backfired. The organizing effort failed, and Guess moved most of its California manufacturing jobs to Mexico, costing thousands of jobs. "It's a story of American manufacturing over the last 30 years: If workers try to organize, their jobs are taken away. They're fired by globalization," Mr. Young said last week, reflecting on that effort.
A serious "economic analysis" of this campaign, I believe, would have revealed that the incentives in place for Guess to move were so great that any pressure applied on them would have only hastened the move. An understanding of this could have led to a much different strategy or at least the saving of a lot of time and money.
The same questions can be asked of the Writers Guild's current strategy. There is no question they have built the perfect campaign but have they assessed the incentive regime that is in place which will determine which forks in the road their campaign will lead them to?
January 18, 2008
New Book on Union Global Campaigns
Quitting Nurses Vindicated
The NY State Department of Health has found that 10 nurses who quit en masse did not jeopardize patients.
A state Department of Health inquiry has found that residents at a Smithtown nursing home "were not placed in jeopardy" by the mass resignation of 10 nurses in 2006, a spokesman said.
The health department's findings come less than two weeks before the nurses - all Filipino immigrants - are scheduled for a Jan. 28 trial in Suffolk County on charges of conspiracy and endangering patients in a pediatric ventilation unit at Avalon Gardens Rehabilitation and Health Care Center.
Should workers have the right to quit their jobs? This is ostensibly a free country and supports free markets so how is it that private sector workers who quit their job could be brought up on charges? Is this a form of slavery? If the nurses were unionized could this have been avoided?
January 15, 2008
The New State Capitalism
Two articles today highlighting the "New State Capitalism."
From the Financial Times: The Unsettling Zeitgeist of State Capitalism
How can it be that Merrill Lynch, Citigroup, Morgan Stanleyand other big banks have been turning to foreign governments for financial lifelines with so little public controversy? Perhaps it is because the dangerous broader context of what is happening - the rise of "state capitalism" - is not sufficiently recognised. Indeed, the reality may be that the era of free markets unleashed by Margaret Thatcher and reinforced by Ronald Reagan in the 1980s is fading away. In place of deregulation and privatisation are government efforts to reassert control over their economies and to use this to enhance their global influence. It is an ill wind that blows.
From the WSJ: Davos Event Reflects Shifts in Power
When the elite of global business gather in Davos, Switzerland, for their annual retreat next week, the mood will be dramatically darker than just a year ago.
Since the World Economic Forum last met in Davos, fallout from the global credit crunch has transformed the outlook for the U.S. and global economies for the worse. Power and wealth have shifted from West to East, from major oil companies to petro-governments, and from U.S. banks and hedge funds to the state-controlled investment funds of the Middle East and Asia.
January 14, 2008
Berlin Moves to Block Soveriegn Wealth Funds
To counter the potential of foreign companies influencing the German state today's WSJ reports that Berlin is moving to pass a law which would allow the German state to intervene when foreign-state investors seek to take control of a German company.
Chancellor Angela Merkel wants a law that Germany could invoke in cases where it believes foreign-state investors are trying to buy German companies for what it considers mischievous reasons, such as to gain political influence. German law now allows the government to veto foreign investors only in the defense and cryptography sectors. Berlin wants to expand takeover defenses to cover any foreign investment that could threaten "public order or security," criteria that German officials contend are strict but critics call nebulous.
Ms. Merkel says she is aiming only at exceptional cases. Critics worry she is drafting a law so broad that it could block any investment by foreign sovereign-wealth funds or state-owned companies. The draft law doesn't limit intervention to only specific sectors. It also covers EU-based companies in which foreign governments control significant stakes. A spokesman for Ms. Merkel said only that the proposal is a work in progress.
The size of sovereign-wealth funds is one reason for Western angst. Private-sector economists estimate these funds control about $2.5 trillion of assets globally and are growing fast. German politicians worry that foreign states could effectively renationalize sectors Germany has privatized, such as energy utilities.
As mentioned in a previous post the rise of political actors in capital markets is a growing phenomenon both domestically and internationally. Will other EU nations follow Germany on this?
January 11, 2008
Starbucks Anti-Union Campaign Revealed in E-Mails
From the Wall Street Journal
A series of emails by Starbucks Corp. managers sheds light on the company's efforts to thwart union organizing among its baristas.
The emails, which are part of a labor-dispute proceeding in New York and were reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, open a rare window onto the company's labor relations practices. Labor experts not involved with the case said the activity is not illegal. But the emails could prove embarrassing because they show managers using various methods to identify pro-union employees.
In other emails, managers discuss employee relationships to discern their union preferences. In one case, managers sought information about a Halloween party employees attended, and noted that a discussion about the union between two employees ended in part because they "were attracted to each other and this became the focus of their evening."