« National Commission on ICE Misconduct Holds First Hearing | Main | CtW Leaders Stand With Obama on Trade »

Providing a Bridge to the Middle Class

A few days ago, the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) released a fascinating report that confirms a lot of what we've been seeing in our American Dream Surveys -- namely, that disturbingly large numbers of working men and women in America have seen economic security slip out of reach, and are worried that it will never come back.

Over the past few decades, American workers powered the economy to new heights. Between 1973 and 2006, the size of the economy on a per person basis—real gross domestic product (GDP) per capita—increased by more than 150 percent. Productivity—a measure of the amount that workers produce per hour on average—increased by almost 50 percent. During the decades following World War II, similar increases in economic growth and productivity helped to strengthen and expand the middle class, and reduce the economic distance between Americans in different income classes. By contrast, the gains in growth and productivity since the 1970s have not contributed to greater economic security for all, and inequality has returned to levels not seen since the years before the Great Depression. Recent polls show that the usually optimistic American public has become increasingly concerned about the future of the American middle class.

The study finds that only one in four jobs in America can be described as "good jobs" -- where good jobs is defined as a job that offers health insurance, a retirement plan, and that pays at least an amount in inflation-adjusted dollars equal to the median male worker's wage in 1979 (!). (Nearly a third -- 29% -- of workers surveyed hold jobs that meet none of these three criteria.)

To fix things, the report calls for several improvements that would make workers' lives easier, including removing barriers that unfairly keep workers from joining together in unions:

Evidence suggests the decline in unionization is due in large part to aggressive and often illegal employer behavior that has undermined the ability of U.S. workers to create unions at their work places. While the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) makes it illegal for employers to fire workers involved in union-organizing campaigns, the penalties associated with discriminatory discharges are small. As a result, employers have a powerful anti-union strategy: fire one or more prominent pro-union employees—typically workers involved in organizing the union—with the hope of disrupting the internal workings of the union's campaign, while intimidating the rest of the potential bargaining unit in advance of a vote on whether to unionize.

Research conducted by CEPR in 2007 found a steep rise in the 2000s relative to the last half of the 1990s in illegal firings of pro-union workers. Our estimates suggest that almost one-in-five union organizers or activists can expect to be fired as a result of their activities in a union authorization campaign. Even after we adjust for the increase in organizing campaigns not built around NLRB elections, our calculations suggest that about one-in-seven union organizers and activists are illegally fired while trying to organize unions at their place of work.

These problems could be avoided by reforming the union certification process in a way that reduces the opportunities that anti-union employers have to intimidate pro-union workers. Under the current process, even if 100 percent of employees have formally requested union representation, employers can refuse to recognize a union and require a separate vote by employees on unionization. This separate vote usually takes place a month or two after employees have requested union representation, which allows time for employers to engage in coercive anti-union campaigns. If at least 50 percent of employees authorize union representation, employers should be required to automatically recognize unions, without being able to unilaterally force workers to go through the additional step of a separate election process. In addition, penalties for illegal acts by employers during organizing campaigns should be enforced and enhanced, and employers should be required to bargain for a first union contract in good faith.

In other words: pass the Employee Free Choice Act.

Comments (1)

Comments posted to CtW Connect are the sole property of the individual posting them, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Change to Win, its affiliated unions, or its leadership.

Tom Verso said on March 2, 2008 at 7:17 AM:

You report: "By contrast, the gains in growth and productivity since the 1970s have not contributed to greater economic security for all, and inequality has returned to levels not seen since the years before the Great Depression. Recent polls show that the usually optimistic American public has become increasingly concerned about the future of the American middle class."

And all this time organized labor has had great debates about which Democrate to give labors' money to. The great debate recently Obama or Hillary; when neither offer anything that will reverse the post 1970 trend.

CtW was suppose to offer an alternative to AFofL. Have I missed something?