America is in the midst of the biggest surge in labor activity in a quarter-century.
The United Auto Workers (UAW), the Writers Guild of America, the actors’ union known as Sag-Aftra, Starbucks workers, Amazon workers, the Teamsters and UPS, flight attendants. The list goes on.
More than 4.1m workdays were lost to stoppages last month, according to the labor department. That’s the most since 2000. And this was before the UAW struck the big three.
Some worry about the effect of all this labor activism on the US economy, and view organized labor as a “special interest” demanding more than it deserves.
Rubbish. Labor activism is good for the economy in the long run. And organized labor isn’t a special interest. It’s the leading edge of the American workforce.
What accounts for this extraordinary moment of labor activity?
Not that workers enjoy striking. Even where unions have funds to help striking workers offset lost wages, they rarely make up even half of what’s forgone. Large corporations whose operations are hobbled by strikes often lay off other workers, as the big three and their suppliers are now threatening to do.
The reason workers go on strike is their expectation that the longer-term gains will be worth the sacrifices.
Today’s labor market continues to be tight, despite efforts by the Fed to slow the economy and make it harder for workers to get raises. So employers (like UPS) are more inclined to give ground to avoid a prolonged strike.
But something far more basic is going on here. As I travel around the country, I hear from average working people an anger and bitterness I haven’t heard for decades. It centers on several things.
The first is that wages have barely increased while corporate profits are in the stratosphere.
Average weekly non-supervisory wages, a measure of blue-collar earnings, were higher in 1969 (adjusted for inflation) than they are now.
The American dream of upward mobility has turned into a nightmare of falling behind. Whereas 90% of American adults born in the early 1940s were earning more than their parents by the time they reached their prime earning years, this has steadily declined. Only half of adults born in the mid-1980s are now earning more than their parents by their prime earning years.
Nearly one out of every five American workers is in a part-time job. Two-thirds are living paycheck to paycheck.
Meanwhile, executive compensation has gone through the roof. In 1965, CEOs of America’s largest corporations were paid, on average, 20 times the pay of average workers. Today, the ratio is over 398 to 1.
Not only has CEO pay exploded. So has the pay of top executives just below them. The share of corporate income devoted to compensating the five highest-paid executives of large corporations ballooned from an average of 5% in 1993 to more than 15% today.
Corporate apologists claim CEOs and other top executives are worth these staggering sums because their corporations have performed so well. They compare star CEOs to star baseball players or movie stars.
But most CEOs have simply ridden the stock market wave. Even if a company’s CEO had done nothing but play online solitaire, the company’s stock price would have soared.
Stock buybacks have also soared – a huge subsidy to investors that further tips the scales against working people. The richest 1% of Americans owns about half the value of all shares of stock. The richest 10%, over 90%.
Why don’t corporations devote more of their income to research and development, or to higher wages and benefits for average workers? In a word, greed.
Small wonder that unions are more popular than they’ve been in a generation. A Gallup poll published in August found that 67% of Americans approve of unions, the fifth straight year such support has exceeded the long-term polling average of 62%.
Joe Biden has pitched himself as the most pro-union president in recent history. More surprisingly, Republican politicians are trying to curry favor with union workers as well. Both parties know that much of the working class is up for grabs in 2024.
American workers still have little to no countervailing power relative to large American corporations. Unionized workers now comprise only 6% of private-sector workforce – down from over a third in the 1960s.
Which is why the activism of the UAW, the Writers Guild, Sag-Aftra, the Teamsters, flight attendants, Amazon warehouse workers and Starbucks workers is so important.
In a very real sense, these workers are representing all American workers. If they win, they’ll energize other workers, even those who are not unionized. They’ll mobilize some to form or join unions.
They’ll push non-union employers to raise wages and benefits out of a fear of becoming unionized if they don’t. They’ll galvanize other workers to stage wildcat strikes for better pay and working conditions.
For far too long, America’s top executives, Wall Street traders and biggest investors have siphoned off almost all the economic gains. This is unsustainable, economically and politically.
It’s not economically sustainable because the only way businesses can sell the goods and services American workers produce is if workers have enough money to buy them. If most gains continue to go to the top, the economy will become ever more susceptible to downdrafts and crashes.
Today’s mainstream media emphasize the feared negative effects of the current wave of strike on the US economy, forgetting that the wave of strikes in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s helped create the largest middle class the world had ever seen – the key to America’s postwar prosperity.
Stagnant wages and widening inequality are politically unsustainable because they foster anger and bitterness that’s easily channeled by demagogic politicians (re: Donald Trump and his enablers in the Republican party) into bigotry, paranoia, xenophobia and authoritarianism.
The current wave of strikes isn’t bad for America. It’s good for America.
Labor is not a “special interest”. It is, in a real sense, all of us.
As a reminder, a primary job of business management is to direct resources to manage risks to the business.
If you’re concerned about the effects a labor strike would have on your business, consider mitigating those risks by directing resources to address the concerns the workers have, e.g. wages, hours, and working conditions.
In other words, it’s good business to treat all your employees like human beings who are entitled to a dignified life.
No one working full time should ever have to worry about not being able to afford essential life services. I think that grace should extend to absolutely everyone, regardless of employment status, but I realize I’m a crazy liberal who cares too much about the less fortunate and the overall health of our society.
it’s good business to treat all your employees like human beings who are entitled to a dignified life
This is only true when the employees are empowered to defend themselves and their dignity. In most cases, it’s pretty inconsequential for an employer to treat their employees like shit. The only thing that keeps employers accountable is worker solidarity.
Except rail strikes, which would instantly kill the entire US economy forever.
If a company can’t weather one little strike without the sky falling and the Holy Economy suffering damage so severe and irreparable that we have no choice but to undercut labor’s right to strike, that company is too big to exist and it should be broken up or nationalized.
Can u explain why would a rail strike be so damaging? I feel like it’s so so needed.
I believe it may be a reference to Biden’s measure making rail strikes illegal.
I agree, looking in from the outside, that another strike is warranted. But it would be damaging because such a large percentage of our goods are moved by rail.
It wouldn’t have killed the economy, but it would’ve driven up inflation during a period of already high inflation.
We literally just saw what limited air and sea throughput did to inflation. Not being able to get supplies means less stuff, and scarcity increased prices. Supply and demand 101.
My guess is that a rail strike now wouldn’t have everyone shitting the bed, but at a period of extra high inflation, politicians were freaked out. They feared inflation would get worse and they’d get blamed… because they were already being blamed.
It wouldn’t have killed the economy, but it would’ve driven up inflation during a period of already high inflation.
That’s not the narrative from the time. The narrative from the time was that if a rail strike happened, all the nation’s water would be instantly toxic and everyone would starve:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/economics/rail-strike-upend-economy-rcna59305
And dear fucking GOD, did centrists love accusing anyone who was even slightly less than ecstatic about strikebreaking of wanting everyone to starve and have bad water.
They feared inflation would get worse and they’d get blamed… because they were already being blamed.
And now they’re being blamed for anti-union action, which is arguably much bigger. They had a chance to attribute the blame to corporate greed and stand with the union, but instead they broke the strike and very much framed the economic situation as “stock economy vs worker economy”. They’ve fed the flames of worker discontent and now they have to deal with placating a voter base dissatisfied with our economic system. Biden and the Dem party has to deal with a voter base that’s fracturing between the middle class “bourgeoisie” and the more animated working class.
I’m a bit biased but I think this is all a good thing.
I’m mostly replying to this:
That’s not the narrative from the time.
It was very much a prominent headline. I felt I like couldn’t get away from it. If you search for “inflation rail strike” you’ll stumble upon piles and piles of major outlets talking about this.
The thought was inflation increases the risk of a recession, and higher inflation increases that risk.
And I’m saying even if that’s the case, they’ve inadvertently positioned “the economy” against working-class conditions. Seemed like you were defending their decision to break the strike, and I’m just pointing out the dialectics intrinsic to that defense.
I think “the economy” is oppositional to working class conditions, and by siding with the economy, dems showed their priorities. I think a lot of people didn’t already have that framing, and so by breaking the strike, dems have gassed their own internal opposition within the party and must now defend their economic record against declining working class conditions. This is still very bad news for them (and IMO far worse than if they allowed the strike to happen)
Basically what I’m saying is that it wasn’t as simple as pro-labor people = pro-strike, pro-corpos = anti strike.
For this one specific strike, at this veeery specific time, there were pro-labor folks that were worried this would hurt more working class people than it helped.
The debate around this was nuanced.
Not sure what you’re trying to prove here. Some people were pretending to care about inflation, and centrists were screaming about water. Both just wanted to undercut labor.
We’re already hearing fretting about car prices from news outlets that didn’t give a shit about already high car prices a week ago. Pretty soon, it’ll be “do you WANT no one to be able to afford a car?!?!”
deleted by creator
Here ya go. Note how it quotes the rail association like they were God and the perspective of the workers isn’t even entertained.
https://abcnews.go.com/Business/rail-strike-finances/story?id=94216634
If workers getting paid fairly hurts the economy I think we should hurt the economy as much as possible
its only bad for the execs that get bonuses. thats a good thing.
I think strikes can hurt the economy in the very short term, but they help the economy in the long term.
Take the UAW strike for example. If this strike spreads (as seems likely), then car prices might rise as cars become here to come by. This could hurt the economy.
To be clear, the damage to the economy wouldn’t be major and it wouldn’t be long lasting. As soon as the strike ended, the price of cars would come back down.
On the other hand, looking at the long term, strikes mean that workers will get better working conditions and better wages. This will mean that they can afford to buy more things which helps the economy.
In a perfect world, employers would give the workers what they need without any strikes. Then, you’d get the long term benefit without the short term pain. Unfortunately, we don’t live in a perfect world and sometimes that short term pain is needed to win better treatment/pay for workers in the long term.
“So you’re telling that the guy that wrote ‘somehow, Palpatine returned’ deserves a living wage?”
More so than those that approved the line.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Even where unions have funds to help striking workers offset lost wages, they rarely make up even half of what’s forgone.
Today’s labor market continues to be tight, despite efforts by the Fed to slow the economy and make it harder for workers to get raises.
As I travel around the country, I hear from average working people an anger and bitterness I haven’t heard for decades.
Why don’t corporations devote more of their income to research and development, or to higher wages and benefits for average workers?
For far too long, America’s top executives, Wall Street traders and biggest investors have siphoned off almost all the economic gains.
Stagnant wages and widening inequality are politically unsustainable because they foster anger and bitterness that’s easily channeled by demagogic politicians (re: Donald Trump and his enablers in the Republican party) into bigotry, paranoia, xenophobia and authoritarianism.
The original article contains 993 words, the summary contains 145 words. Saved 85%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!