Future of Unions in America Union Membership

¶ … Future of Unions in America

Union membership has been steadily decreasing since the 1970's. But since the history of union membership has been filled with short, fervent periods of rapid increases in membership, followed by long periods of stagnation and decrease in membership, this may not seem to be cause of worry. However, while the current decrease in the number of union workers may seem to be just another slump, the fact that it has lasted more than thirty years, is disturbing. In that time, the world and it's economy has dramatically changed, and one must ask the question "could this be the twilight of the American labor movement?" If unions are going to, not only survive, but flourish and expand their influence, the entire labor movement must change it's very nature; expanding it's scope of interest, membership, and international relationships. This essay will examine the history of the union movement in America (discovering what has made unions successful in the past), the present state of unions in America (discovering why unions are on the decline), and what, if anything, unions can do to reverse this trend.

The history of labor unions can trace it's way back hundreds of years to the medieval guilds. These were groups of tradesmen who formed close knit organizations which regulated all aspects of the trade involved. A person would start become an apprentice, in order to learn the trade, then become a journeyman and work under the instruction of a master. Only when a person acquired master status did they enjoy the real benefits of wealth and position. This system lasted for hundreds of years until "By the early 1800's, few could anticipate moving up to becoming a master artisan or owning their own establishment." (Freidman)

The onset of industrialization in the 1800's brought about the destruction of the old system and the creation of a new industrialized one. One group of workers who adapted to this new environment were the craftsmen. This group was not based on any class lines or such, they was strictly based on uniting workers with the same skills against the industrialists. "By using their monopoly of knowledge of the work process to restrict access to the trade, craft unions could have a strong bargaining position." (Friedman) But while these organizations only benefited those who were part of the trade and not to workers in general, they would lay the foundation for the rise of unions representing the masses of other workers.

The first organization which attempted to organize workers in general, without regard for a specific trade, came in the Untied States in the 1880's. Beginning with a group of Philadelphia garment cutters in 1869, the "Knights of Labor" expanded their membership to include non-craftsmen. ("The Labor Union Movement") By 1881, membership in the Knight had reached 20,000 and grew, by 1885, to more than 100,000 members. (Friedman) Unfortunately the Knights of Labor became involved in a May Day strike in 1886, in which there was a bombing at Haymaker Square in Chicago. The resulting "red scare" which followed ultimately resulted in the rapid decline of membership.

The history of unions in America is a history of surges and declines. There are times in which the general populace becomes very supportive of organized labor. These periods often coincide with the rapid increase in union membership, which are then often followed by long periods of union stagnation and decline. This cycle has occurred several times in the course of American history, most particularly in the 20th century.

The American Federation of Labor (AFL) originally began as a group of craft workers who wanted to protect themselves from the masses of workers associated with the Knights of Labor. (Labor Union Movement) After the fall of the Knights of Labor, the AFL was the only major organization for workers in America, unfortunately they only represented a small percentage of skilled craft workers, a situation that remained in place until after the First World War.

Another boost for the unions came with the American entry into World War I. "The Wilson administration endorsed unionization and collective bargaining in exchange for union support for the war effort." (Friedman) During this time the AFL used this support to organize industrialized workers involved in shipbuilding, metal work, meatpacking, and steel production. As a result, membership in the AFL doubled in the four-year period between 1915 and 1919. However, the end of the war brought about the loss of government support, and combined with a concerted effort on the part of business owners, which caused a collapse in union membership in the post-war period.

As with other periods of economic expansion, the period after the Great War, known as the Roaring 20's, was a time of both economic expansion and union decline. Opponents of organized labor used the rise of the communism in Russia, and it's association with organized labor, to create a new "red scare" throughout the United States. At the same time employers began to compete for the loyalty of their workers by offering better wages, conditions, and other concessions as a way to undermine the influence of unions. As a result the membership and influence of labor unions saw a remarkable decline in the 1920's.

Another big increase in union power and membership came during the Great Depression and the presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Between 1929 and 1933 unemployment in the United States rose from 2 million to more than 13 million. With so many Americans out of work, union membership declined in the same period, but with the election of the liberal Democrat Roosevelt, and his New Deal programs, union membership would rise by more than 150% in the five years between 1933 to 1938.

If there was one piece of legislation that exemplified Roosevelt's support for the labor movement in the United States, it was the "National Industrial Recovery Act." While the act covered many different aspects of industry, workers were given "the right to organize and bargain collectively and could not be required, as a condition of employment, to join or refrain from joining a labor organization." ("National Industrial Recovery Act") But a few years later the U.S. Supreme Court struck down this law as unconstitutional, and Roosevelt was forced to try again. The result was the Wagner Act, or the National Labor Relations Act, which not only restricted the actions employers could take against organized workers, but it also set up the National Labor Relations Board, which would police the employer-employee relationship and make certain that the rights of workers were respected.

However, the inability of the AFL to capitalize on the New Deal union surge cause a rift in the leadership of the organization. In 1935, John Lewis, leader of the United Mine Workers Union, became so embroiled in the dispute that he actually assaulted another union leader and formed the Committee for Industrial Organization (CIO). Three years later, in 1938, the CIO held a constitutional convention and officially became the independent Congress of Industrial Organizations. The CIO, which included many open communists, then embarked on a surge of growth for the new labor organization. Between the years 1935 and 1941, the number of union members grew from 3.5 million to more than 10 million. ("The Labor Union Movement") The late 1930's saw another upswing in union membership, but the onset of World War II put internal conflicts on hold as the entire nation mobilized for war.

While the total number of union workers increased during the war, adding 4 million workers to the ranks of the union, the influence of the unions was beginning to wane. After the war, a CIO strategy to expand union membership in the southern part of the United States met with dismal failure. The election of a Republican majority in Congress in 1946, ironically set the stage for what would become the "Golden Age" of unions in America. This congress was strongly anti-union, amending the Wagner Act and passing the Taft-Hartley Act of 1847; which "outlawed union practices like closed shops and secondary boycotts, allowed states to pass 'right to work' laws, and gave the federal government the power to block or end strikes." (Hirsch, 2008) The law also required union leaders to sign a non-communist oath which stated that they were not associated with the communist party. The CIO, which had begun with an alliance of laborers and communists, in 1949, expelled all communists in their ranks. In 1955, the CIO merged with the more traditional AFL, becoming the AFL-CIO.

Once the AFL and CIO merged, they began a policy which bargained with management over issues like wages, conditions, and retirement, but left the decisions over prices, production, and investment up to the management. The workers and their conditions once again became the focus of the union, not the larger economic and business policies of the companies. And by concentrating on the workers and avoiding interference in the running of the companies, the unions created what is commonly called the "Golden Age" of American unions.

The period from the mid-1950's to 1980 formed the greatest period of influence and prosperity for the labor movement in America. Unions were recognized as bargaining organizations in the auto, steel, trucking, and chemical industries. Wages rose by over 2% per year and workers began to receive an ever expanding list of benefits; including medical and dental programs, paid holidays and vacations, supplemental unemployment insurance and retirement packages. While the strength of the unions in terms of bargaining power was at it's greatest, the numbers of unionized workers continued to decline. In the period from 1953 to 1983, for instance, "the unionization rate fell from 42% to 28% in manufacturing, by nearly half in transportation, and by over half in construction and mining." (Friedman) The number of industrialized union workers has steadily decrease since the end of World War II, however, since the 1960's, the number of public sector workers that have become unionized has steadily increased. And these public sector workers are disproportionately comprised of women and minorities, which has changed the racial and gender makeup of unions. The needs of women and minorities have become a major influence in union negotiations.

The unions in the 21st century find themselves in the position of having a greater membership among the public sector than the private sector. For example, the unionization rate in the private sector in 2006 was only 7.4%, while almost half (48%) of public sector employees were unionized. (Hirsch, 2008) This drop in industrialized union workers can be explained by increasingly competitive markets. Unionized workers receive more in the way of payment and benefits than non-union workers, increasing the costs of the company. At the same time, the unionized workers have not increase their level of production. And in a competitive environment where the increased costs cannot be passed on to the consumer, "union gains can be thought of as a 'tax' on firm profits." (Hirsch, 2008) Studies have demonstrated that union manufacturing companies are close to 5% less profitable that similar non-union companies, and tend to have higher debt and less growth, decreasing the overall investment in the company. (Hirsch, 2008)

Another problem facing the unions is the fact that union pay rates are higher than their non-union competitors. While in the past this was a point of pride for the unions, in fact union wages set the standard for all wages during the "Golden Age" of unions, this has become a problem for modern union workers. The problem begins with the fact that union pay rates are determined by a collective bargaining process, involving the preferences of union members, and not influenced by market factors. In the years from the 1980's to the beginning of the 21st century, union wages had increased faster than the overall profits of companies; cutting into the bottom line. At the same time non-union workers pay rates have not increased at the same rate, creating an ever widening gap between what union and non-union companies expend in payroll. (Hirsch, 2008)

The way individual Americans feel about the unions and their influence on American society is highly dependent upon the age of the individual. Whether or not a person supports unions turns out to be a generational issue. For instance, the "baby-boomer" generation is highly supportive of union and the rights of union workers. Studies have demonstrated that "the unionization rate regarding baby-boomers is higher…," and for those baby-boomers who are not unionized, absence of a union is the reason cited. (Sato, 2007) This pro-union attitude continues with this generation of Americans even after retirement, as many baby-boomers participate in labor unions during their "old-age" employment. In other words, the baby-boomer generation is highly unionized, very supportive of unions, and continue this support into old age. (Sato, 2007)

On the other hand is the next generation, often called "slackers," or simply Generation X, who seems to have the opposing view of the baby-boomers. Generation X, the 80 million Americans born between 1961 and 1981, "embody the traditional American virtue of self-reliance." (Miller, 1999) "Gen Xers," as they are called, have no need for government interference in their lives, are too independent to be satisfied as being a member of a larger group, and reject the notion that a union is necessary. "They don't trust government, corporations, or labor unions to bail them out of anything. They've seen too many lies and outright failures." (Miller, 1999) The inability of Generation X to come to terms with the unions has resulted in a significant drop in membership among this generation as opposed to the previous baby-boomer generation.

While the Gen Xers exhibit traditional American values of self-reliance and a distrust of large institutions, the next generation, the so called "millennials," or the generation born after 1981, have demonstrated they possess more trust in government than the previous generation. Millennials are those persons who are currently between the ages of 18 and 29, and generally believe that the government can be a force for good in the economy, and that government spending on "healthcare, education, and other areas are necessary to ensure strong and sustainable economic growth." (Madland, 2008) Studies have indicated that the millennials are very similar in their political beliefs to the baby-boomer generation, but for different reasons. The current millennial generation must face significant economic challenges; such as lack of job prospects, lower rates of health care coverage, and higher levels of student loan debt.

While the millennials may be more politically akin to the baby-boomer generation, they are also much like the Generation Xers in the way that they do not need unions. For unions to successfully exist requires that workers be dissatisfied with their current working conditions, and have a desire to want to stay. Millennials, when faced with dissatisfaction in their workplace are far more likely to simply find a new job than to try to organize with a union. (Haeberle, 2011) Because of this generational dynamic it is "likely to cause further diminishment of the perceived benefit of unions in the workplace." (Haeberle, 2011) As the millennial generation becomes more prominent in the workplace, their views toward the uselessness of unions will become a more significant element in the future of the labor movement in general.

One of the most prominent problems in the current union movement is the fact that in the past the unions have "emphasized servicing its current members rather than planting the seeds for future growth." (Fletcher, 2011) Union leadership, as well as rank and file members, have come to see themselves as a separate class among workers, and no longer champion the rights of the entire working class. Instead the union movement, in the years following the "Golden Age" have hunkered down and tried to protect what they have instead of expanding outward to incorporate new membership. In some cases the unions have been quite successful, especially among the public sector unions where those who the unions negotiate with are those who need the support of the unions to get elected. However, this has led to the increased amount of benefits for union workers at the expense of the taxpayer. The compensation received by union workers has far outpaced that of the non-union worker, causing resentment among the general populace.

Exacerbating this situation is the fact that the United States has increasingly become part of a much larger global community of economic. With the expansion of free trade zones, and other international trade agreements, the economy of the United States has become more dependent on foreign nations. American businesses, seeking ways to increase profits, have begun looking overseas for their workforce. By locating production facilities outside the United States, companies avoid the costly expense of a unionized workforce. Other nations do not have the same requirements regarding working conditions, workman's compensation, retirement, etc., which increases the possibility for greater profits. It is important to remember that unions have forced the business community to respect their rights, against the will of that very community. According to the American business model, businesses exist to make money for their owners, not to provide benefits for their employees, and therefore, when businesses can escape the demands of the American union movement, they have.

The American labor movement has seen it's influence and membership rise and fall over the decades. The "Golden Age" of unions set a standard for union workers which allowed for the rise of the industrialized union middle class in America, but this level of benefits for union workers was based upon the negotiating pressure of the union and not on the productivity of the union worker. Therefore, the benefits of the union workers continued to expand at a greater rate than both non-union workers and what the companies could afford to pay.

Added to this equation is the fact that three separate generations of Americans are all competing for jobs, and all three generations have differing views on unionization. While baby-boomers have long supported the union movement, and continue to do so, both the next generations have lost their trust in government and large institutions; including unions. These workers have more of the traditional American self-reliance, and less of a need for job security than previous generations, and the union's concentration on the protection of current members, at the expense of new ones, have come back to bite them. And as the American economy becomes more global in its outlook, the problems faced by the unions will only grow. The lack of unions in undeveloped countries have created an environment for the exploitation of foreign workers by American companies. And the increase in profits, a benefit of not paying American union worker's pay rates, has become a major incentive for American companies to relocate to other parts of the world. This decreasing American union membership has had a significant impact on the union's influence on American political life.

If unions are going to survive this period of decreasing union membership and influence, and if unions are to be a significant force in the global economy, then they are going to need to exert influence on the international trade agreement process. ("International Industrial Relations") Unions can, through political influence, guide the ways treaties are made between the United States and other nations. These treaties will need to have provisions in them for the unionization of the foreign workforce. Unions can then replace their declining membership in the United States by expanding membership to include foreign workers. Unions must also then capitalize on these agreements and actually follow through and organize the workers of these countries. The situation foreign workers find themselves in is often atrocious and the conditions life threatening. Companies must not be allowed to undermine the advances made by unions in the United States by simply moving their production to a country that allows them to exploit the workers.

In the United States however, the membership of unions continues to decline, and if unions are to survive in America they must change it's relationship to it's members, employers, government, and society as a whole. American unions must rise to the challenge of being a means to confront injustice and not simply be a means to shield their members from the pain of economic uncertainty. (Fletcher, 2011) One way to do this is to transform the image of the union from a monolithic organization design to protect the rights of a lucky few union workers, into a dynamic organization that is focused on fighting against injustices; economic, social and political. Unions must once again become the defender of the ordinary American, not just the union worker, and make alliances with other organizations usually not considered part of the labor movement but which could bring considerable influence onto the side of the unions. Issues like civil rights, protection of children and the elderly, the environment, and international relations must all become part of the overall union strategy.

A second way to save the unions from oblivion is to expand membership in the areas where they can, primarily in the public sector. Public sector employees are those who work for government, whether it be at the federal, state, county, or local level, all make up the public sector. This would include groups like police, teachers, prison guards, maintenance workers, secretaries and assistants, and anyone who ultimately draws their pay from the public trough. And to support those in the public sector, unions must publicly oppose "privatization, cuts in social services, and right-wing proposals that reduce taxes on the wealthy." (Fletcher, 2011) Anything that decreases either the amount of money the government spends or the number of people employed must be opposed by the unions, no matter what.