We’re facing the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression, as most everyone likes to remind us when discussing our economic situation. The specters of that mark in American history – the bread lines, sky-high unemployment, black-and-white photographs showing desperate faces – are enough to inspire fear and action to avoid another such catastrophe.
Business interests are taking advantage of the Great Depression to demand they have their way on critical policy issues. They remind us that more jobs can will be lost, more businesses will go under, and more economic havoc will ensue should they not get their way.
Now that Wall Street’s been bailed out, there are plenty of plans in play for a middle class bailout – be it a new economic stimulus package, help for homeowners, or a new era for working families – there are lots of ways a lame duck Congress, or at worst, the new Congress in 2009, can help the rest of America that doesn’t work on Wall Street.
In particular, working people and union members are being scapegoated in new attacks against solutions for America’s economic woes. Wealthy conservative interests are going back to the 1930s and blaming union members for prolonging the Great Depression, and then turning around to accuse Barack Obama of wanting to do the same today because he wants to pass the Employee Free Choice Act.
So let’s dismantle this argument. It seems today’s coordinated message among conservatives is to blame union members not only for the Great Depression, but for the possibility of landing us in one when Obama is president. There’s an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, a blog post at the National Review, and the peanut gallery chimes in at the National Association of Manufacturers’ blog, all saying the same thing.
The main thrust of conservatives’ complaints is that when our country has more union members, we’re worse off; they point to the Wagner Act of the 1930s, a key component of FDR’s New Deal that allowed unions to represent workers in negotiations with businesses over wages, benefits, and the like. The connection drawn by conservatives is that the Employee Free Choice Act, a bill supported by almost every single Democrat in Congress that makes it easier for people to form or join unions, will bring economic disaster akin to what the Wagner Act supposedly did during the Depression.
Business groups’ fight against the Wagner Act was “the largest lobbying campaign in American history by business organizations” at the time. Not unlike today, employers described themselves as 1) advocates for employees, protecting them from "union goons," and 2) patriots fighting unions who wanted to undermine national economic well-being and democracy.
Except the Wagner Act did not bring economic disaster as businesses predicted at the time. Instead of hampering economic recovery, the New Deal, of which the Wagner Act was a key part, got the country out of the Great Depression and ushered in a prolonged era of prosperity that built the American middle class. The WSJ op-ed this morning tries to draw a connection between the Supreme Court upholding the bill and a short period of economic downturn thereafter. Except that in the years between when it was passed and upheld, workers were joining unions and negotiating with their employers anyway. This is a red herring argument designed to provoke unfounded fears and hold down working families.
Then, as now, unions helped to increase consumers’ purchasing power by raising wages, and by passing the Employee Free Choice Act we will likely see the same effects.
During the Great Depression, America had enormously high levels of economic inequality much akin to what we see today. And after the New Deal was passed, along with the Wagner Act, America saw the birth of its middle class, borne on the backs of higher wages and benefits from an increased ability for workers to join unions. Stewart Acuff explains the benefits:
Why is collective bargaining so effective at reducing extreme economic inequality? There are several reasons, but heading the list is greater bargaining power for workers in dealing with the corporations that employ them. During the quarter century after World War II when union density and collective bargaining coverage in the United States were far higher than today, wages rose in step with productivity, and the gains from economic growth were distributed proportionately across the income spectrum. Indeed, during this period, those at the bottom of the economic ladder achieved a modest increase in their share of the pie. [...]
Collective bargaining lifts wages of all workers, but is especially effective in raising wages for low-wage workers–as economist John Schmitt, among others, has shown. Under the banner of equal pay for equal work, collective bargaining also attacks inequality by giving wages of women and workers of color an extra boost. Economists at the London School of Economics have found that collective bargaining even restrains CEO pay.
More people in unions means higher wages, equal pay for equal work, less inequality, and economic growth. But when we see fewer people in unions, we see economic inequality rise again.
Increasingly, economists are looking at other factors to explain the steep rise in economic inequality. Political and institutional factors are getting renewed scrutiny. Several studies show that deunionization has played a major role. That’s not surprising, because unions not only increase the wages of their members, but often have a spillover effect that pulls up the wages of other workers as well.
So, despite this conservative coordination to blame union members for Great Depressions past and future, the facts fly in the face of that argument. These falsehoods being pushed by wealthy business interests show that their concerns are only to keep their veto power in the workplace at all costs.
When we have President Obama and a solid pro-worker majority in the Senate, the Employee Free Choice Act is going to be a big battle. We’re encountering a well-funded opposition that’s muddying the media’s waters with false characterizations and misinformation.
Progressives should be proud to support the Employee Free Choice Act, not only because it will help rebuild the middle class created by the New Deal, but because it will get our whole country back on track.



34 Comments





Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
I personally believe the unions should be the default proceedure and laborers would have to vote OUT a union rather then vote in a union
I just thought of that right now in my own head and I like it tons
the ironic thing? all the people in a tizzy over the employee free choice act using “majority sign-up,” or “carch check” to join unions have absolutely no problem with using the same procedure to decertify unions. the hypocrisy: it’s endless.
*”card check” not “carch check”
Hello Michael.
I hope people factor in the fact that conservatives have lost tons of credibility. One nutter was claiming that unemployment has risen due to raising the minimum wage vs. shipping jobs overseas. So ridiculous.
However, education has also declined and folks may or may not know where the bread is buttered.
Thanks for the awesome post.
OT but this vid is worth taking a look at.
http://dailykos.com/
I would also like to tariff any good that came from a company overseas that does not have collective bargaining for their labor force
I would tariff any product that had more then a 40 hour work week, did not provide health care and did not provide a retirement plan
I would make the “decertification vote” a yearly proceedure, without the vote the union would be automatically re-certified
if a company does not provide enough wage for the provider to put food on the table, rest at night and end of the week, health care for the entire family, vacation at the end of a year and education through college then they are litterally stealing from the rest of us
when product is sold in this country from those companies that do not provide these bare minimum requirements, that product has to face a tariff
conservatives don’t have creditability, so much of the fight against the employee free choice act will come from business-allied front groups and even brand name retailers. same people, but the connection won’t be as evident to the general population.
I like your ideas. Do an Oxdown diary for each one, or for one at least, please?
Oops, that was for Perris.
I was just watching Hardball and the talk about PA.
Have any of you bloggers thought about the irony of McCain/Obama being decided in PA , where Pickett’s charge contained the South and ended slavery?
I see. I think I have this prejudice that most businesses are conservative GOP quasi-management plantation master perspective. It’s all mashed up in my head from the Reagan trickle down years. some exceptions of course.
but the old school conservative in my life spins the pro business stance in terms of entrepreneurship & opportunity. Then again, he saw his own kids as little cost centers, too.
IOW, it isn’t too hard to ferret out the motivations here.
Um, Gettysburg was the turning point. Pickett was on the confederate side, I do believe.
Digg this
well, if you want to know who’s leading the charge against the bill from a couple of front groups, his name is Richard Berman, and he calls himself Dr. Evil. Here’s some of what you need to know about him. Click here for the rest.
and
Oh yes, conservatives are soooo good at running teh economy.
Excuse me for focusing on a single issue without reading the links. If the answer is found there, just tell me to go do the research & I’ll shut up.
The issue is the secret ballot. My friend who owns a significant manufacturing firm in VT tells me that the Employee Free Choice Act forbids secret ballots. Is that so, & if so, why?
Dugg your Digg Neuro!!
How is your new baby coming??
OT – McCain D-AZed and confused
1,809 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND…
Citizen Michael Whitney and the Firepup Freedom Fighters:
The future of the EFCA and, indeed, Obama’s entire reconstruction program from tax restructuring to securing Social Security , to healthcare and medicare reform and expansion, to ending the war in Iraq, to ending the world oil economy, and to doing war on global warming…all this runs smack dab into the reactionary leadership of the Democratic Party in Congress. Unless there is a complete change in the House Democratic leadership and at least a quiet and respectful euthanizing of Harry Reid’s political career, there will not be ANY change in ANYthing and the fascists will be back in power with a vengence in 2012.
KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE AMMUNITION, THE REAL BATTLES HAVEN’T EVEN BEGUN YET!!
Union membership was and should be the point of entry to the middle class for millions. And (clean, democratic) unions have other benefits: political awareness and activism, inhouse literacy and other training programmes, a political counterweight to the dead mass of conservatism. Sign up, brothers, this machine (like Woody’s guitar) kills fascists.
O dear, you’ve drawn me out of my shell!
you pollyanna you
Citizen Raven:
“You pollyanna you.”
Yeah…I gotta work on bein’ a bit more realistic…Mrs. Norske’s always sayin that too…LOL
Agree completely Norske. Now treat yourself to this video if you haven’t seen it.
http://dailykos.com/
John McCain has added anti-EFCA rhetoric to his stump speech. Sheldon Adelstein calls EFCA “one of the fundamental threats to society.” The corporatecrats are scared to death of EFCA, with good reason.
Great post, Michael.
Please Digg!
But…but…BUT Grandpa says:
Employee Free Choice Act Is A ‘Threat’ To ‘Democracy’
Unions have been busted ever since Ronnie RayGun broke the Airline Controllers Union by Presidential fiat in the 80’s. And ever since the wages of the middle class has lost ground if adjusted for inflation. All these increases in productivity has only benefited the CEO’s and the stock owners of the companies! Unions are good for the middle class, they forced non union companies to pay competitive wages!
I was looking around for this passage from Faulkner’s Intruder in the Dust and the google kept coming up with some idiot piece by George Will. Anyway this is the passage and I found it in good old wiki:
What a lovely person! /s
I found this on him to educate myself. yikes!
Wow. Just in time for Halloween! Thanks again, Michael. I learn a lot here at the Lake.
The unions started going downhill in the 40’s & 50’s when they purged their best leaders and organizers who just happened to be socialists and communists.
lol. that kinda captures the essence of the moment, doesn’t it. beautiful.
And thanks. I forgot how much work it is to crawl through a sentence by Faulkner!
:]
Does US law have the equivalent of the Rand Formula? Will the EFCA provide or buttress this?
You raise an old old issue that both Maggie Thatcher in the UK and John Howard in Australia championed. When labour unions were struggling against the odds dating back to 19th century England and became more of a force to reckon with in the early 20th century, open ballots, ie, not secret, were regarded as a mark of solidarity. Both Howard and Thatcher forced through secret ballots. I remember, however, as late as the early 1990s in Australia when we had an open show of hands at union meetings. Secret ballots take a lot more organisation, time and expense and when you consider union members as productive employees, including union organisers and shop stewards, it saves time. To this day in Australia, an open show of hands is far more popular. It provides a forum for discussion of issues face to face, often during unpaid personal times, not working hours – it’s a question of solidarity rather than divide and rule strategy where every man/woman is for him/herself. It does not, in my experience, discourage dissent or encourage a herd mentality.