I have watched with interest the right to work law in Michigan. In essence the law gives people the right to work without having to pay union dues. This has an obvious impact upon the ability of unions to organize and retain members. As would be expected such laws are not supported by Democrats, who are commonly tied to unionized labor, and are supported by Republicans, who are commonly tied to business.
These easy associations lead to hysterical headlines about Republicans' anti-labor tactics, or how Democrats are the only ones to understand the needs of labor. In an article from New York magazine Jonathan Chait frames this issue as part of Democrats' progressive agenda. Well, let's take a look at that.
No one can reasonably question the power of unionized labor in Michigan. In raw numbers, however, Michigan is only slightly higher in union participation than average. See here. The impact is quite large, however, given the unionization of the major industry in Michigan, automobiles. What has happened to employment and manufacturing under union and Democratic stewardship?
In 1993 Michigan had 793,000 total private sector employees. In 2006, before the recent depression, there were 669,000, or a loss of 16% of private sector jobs over 13 years. At the height of the current depression, their were only 593,000, a loss of more than 25%.
If we look at the auto industry. however. there is no problem with it nationally. There is a problem with it in large, unionized states. Kia, VW, Mercedes, BMW, Toyota and Nissan have all built new plants in the south because of concerns about personnel costs. While this has happened plant numbers and production in the north have fallen.
Let us take a look at Detroit, a city of complete Democratic control. Forty five years of progressive policy have left Detroit a place bereft of jobs and public facilities and crime-ridden. In the 1950s Detroit's population was over 2,000,000, centering a metropolitan statistical area (MSA) of 3,700,000. Today the MSA is 4,200,000, with no growth at all since 1970, and the city's population is just below 700,000.00, a loss of more than 60%. 140 square miles of Detroit now lie vacant, an area large enough to hold all of Boston AND San Francisco with room to spare.
Now, just a thought. In a state with an unfavorable tax and business environment and harsh winter climate, where population and workers are declining and the largest city is a shadow of its former size and glory, wouldn't you want to enact pro-business and pro-employment laws? Or would you want to defend the work rights and wages of unionized employees? Because, if you have not noticed, employers have feet. Ford, GM and Chrysler are stuck with brutal contracts and costs, and plants in unfavorable states. But no one else is, and their plants are in right to work states, and their labor costs are lower, and they are selling more cars.
To me, this fight over a right to work law looks not like Republicans forcing their nefarious will on unions. It looks like a governor trying to save his entire state from suffering the fate of Hostess. As you recall, at Hostess one union steadfastly refused to sign a contract with lower wages and benefits, and as a result all the union members lost their jobs. And 18,000 other people with them. Surely Democrats and organized labor are not protesting to retain the right to commit jobs murder and suicide. Are they?
Ted
These easy associations lead to hysterical headlines about Republicans' anti-labor tactics, or how Democrats are the only ones to understand the needs of labor. In an article from New York magazine Jonathan Chait frames this issue as part of Democrats' progressive agenda. Well, let's take a look at that.
No one can reasonably question the power of unionized labor in Michigan. In raw numbers, however, Michigan is only slightly higher in union participation than average. See here. The impact is quite large, however, given the unionization of the major industry in Michigan, automobiles. What has happened to employment and manufacturing under union and Democratic stewardship?
In 1993 Michigan had 793,000 total private sector employees. In 2006, before the recent depression, there were 669,000, or a loss of 16% of private sector jobs over 13 years. At the height of the current depression, their were only 593,000, a loss of more than 25%.
If we look at the auto industry. however. there is no problem with it nationally. There is a problem with it in large, unionized states. Kia, VW, Mercedes, BMW, Toyota and Nissan have all built new plants in the south because of concerns about personnel costs. While this has happened plant numbers and production in the north have fallen.
Let us take a look at Detroit, a city of complete Democratic control. Forty five years of progressive policy have left Detroit a place bereft of jobs and public facilities and crime-ridden. In the 1950s Detroit's population was over 2,000,000, centering a metropolitan statistical area (MSA) of 3,700,000. Today the MSA is 4,200,000, with no growth at all since 1970, and the city's population is just below 700,000.00, a loss of more than 60%. 140 square miles of Detroit now lie vacant, an area large enough to hold all of Boston AND San Francisco with room to spare.
Now, just a thought. In a state with an unfavorable tax and business environment and harsh winter climate, where population and workers are declining and the largest city is a shadow of its former size and glory, wouldn't you want to enact pro-business and pro-employment laws? Or would you want to defend the work rights and wages of unionized employees? Because, if you have not noticed, employers have feet. Ford, GM and Chrysler are stuck with brutal contracts and costs, and plants in unfavorable states. But no one else is, and their plants are in right to work states, and their labor costs are lower, and they are selling more cars.
To me, this fight over a right to work law looks not like Republicans forcing their nefarious will on unions. It looks like a governor trying to save his entire state from suffering the fate of Hostess. As you recall, at Hostess one union steadfastly refused to sign a contract with lower wages and benefits, and as a result all the union members lost their jobs. And 18,000 other people with them. Surely Democrats and organized labor are not protesting to retain the right to commit jobs murder and suicide. Are they?
Ted
Comments
Post a Comment