Yglesias Union History

"Matt," asks commenter Fletch, "Do you have any immediate family that were actually union members?" Nothing beats the old challenge to authenticity. But, actually, yes. My immediate family contains three people. My younger brother is a college student and not a union member. My late mother was, however, a member of the Newspaper Guild for a time (itself a sector of the CWA) as was my father's mother. My father's been a member of the Writer's Guild of America - East (an AFL-CIO affiliate, unlike the other Hollywood unions) for many years and has held union offices, participated in collective bargaining, etc.

Arguably, none of this is especially "blue collar" but one can also argue that it's experience with these sort of unions -- unions for professional workers in information age industry -- that makes me well-aware that the union concept isn't a dinosaur of a past era, but a vital part of the quest for a democratic economy. My father's father, meanwhile, eventually became a writer but when he was young was deeply involved (as was his entire family) in labor agitation in the cigar factories of Tampa, Florida. Studs Turkel recorded some of him talking about this for his books on the Depression and I believe the oral history is available here.

Comments

"Matt," asks commenter Fletch, "Do you have any immediate family that were actually union members?" Nothing beats the old challenge to authenticity.

Sorry, Yglesias. Unless you personally have hollowed out a coal mine with your bare hands, I'm afraid I can't take your labor analysis seriously.

Posted by Christmas | September 4, 2007 8:30 AM

Good to see you finally acting like a good union man and endorsing Edwards, Matthew.

Better late than never.

Posted by Petey | September 4, 2007 8:33 AM

What drives me crazy is the tendency for people to act as though the fact that unions are riddled with problems means that the correct response for society is to abandon unions. Sure, there's many problems with unions, and from a PR standpoint they are about as low down as you can imagine. But there has to be some structure in place in our society that represents workers' interests. Recent history has proven that government is not going to do it. (This is unsurprising, considering just how little of a wall there is between the government and corporate interests.) You simply can't and shouldn't expect corporations to protect the interests of their own workers. No one can be expected to audit themselves. I think in an ideal world unions and corporations are a classic example of counter-balancing forces in a democracy.

Now can you please give me the inside scoop on this new JJ Abrams movies?

Posted by Freddie | September 4, 2007 8:47 AM

Now can you please give me the inside scoop on this new JJ Abrams movies?

No!

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | September 4, 2007 8:49 AM

So not only is your father a union member, he might actually be about to go on strike. Or is that just WGA-West?

Posted by Mac | September 4, 2007 8:55 AM

Grandma Helen is probably my favorite Yglesias.

Posted by John Emerson | September 4, 2007 8:56 AM

If scriptwriters strike, they'll just make movies without scripts. They're halfway there already.

Posted by John Emerson | September 4, 2007 8:58 AM

One correction to Matt's post...

The entertainment industry unions -- the Screen Actors Guild; the American Federation of Radio and Television Artists; the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Moving Picture Technicians, Artists and Allied Crafts (IATSE); the American Federation of Musicians; and others -- are part of the AFL-CIO.

Freddie's comment is well put. The oft heard argument that "[name of multinational] moved it's factories to China and Mexico. Therefore it is necessary to abandon unions" makes as much sense as "I had a lousy the Big Mac the other day. It is time to do away with restaurants."

Posted by Brendan Sexton | September 4, 2007 9:03 AM

"But there has to be some structure in place in our society that represents workers' interests."

One of the reasons unions got such a "PR problem" (aside from histories of corruption and racism) is their tendency to advocate for current employees in the short term at the expense of future employees and the viability of their industries. The UAW, for example, has hobbled the big-three domestic automakers, while Toyota, Honda and others are able to profitably manufacture better cars in America (and still pay high wages).

Another reason is the unions' usefulness, or lack thereof. Consider a few examples. The unions that get the most generous wages and benefits for the most members today are public sector unions. Instead of achieving this at the expense of greedy corporations, they achieve it at the expense of ordinary tax-payers stupid enough to not have their own government jobs. On the other hand, the effectiveness of private sector unions in securing better pay for workers is limited. If they are too successful in their bargaining, they strangle the golden geese, as the UAW has. If their members have highly marketable skills (e.g., Matt's screenwriter father), then they would be well-remunerated without the union (I'm sure Raphael Yglesias is making more than the Guild minimums).

On the other hand, if the union members don't have marketable skills, even super-smart union heads like Andrew Stern can only get them negligible salary increases.

Posted by Fred | September 4, 2007 9:13 AM

The UAW, for example, has hobbled the big-three domestic automakers, while Toyota, Honda and others are able to profitably manufacture better cars in America (and still pay high wages).

And Mercedes, BMW, Volvo and Volkswagen continue to make some the most reliable, highest rated and most profitable cars in the world, with a much more powerful set of equivalent unions.

You and Mickey Kaus need to take a course on intellectual honesty.

Posted by Freddie | September 4, 2007 9:32 AM

Shouldn't it at least be noted that the reason Toyota and Honda pay high wages and offer generous benefits at their nonunion American facilities to discourage their workers from forming a union with the UAW? In this sense, the UAW has been quite successful in helping workers at Toyota and Honda achieve middle class standards.

Now that the UAW has been weakened, Toyota -- despite growing into the world's dominant automaker -- is signaling that it plans to stop paying workers wages similar to other (union) auto industry jobs and instead begin pegging wages to nonunion wages in the areas where it builds plants.

Talk about killing the goose: many Southern Republican state governors and legislatures have offered massive subsidies to Toyota and other companies to attract high-wage auto jobs to their communities. Doing so dramatically weakened the power of UAW members that had pushed Toyota/Honda/others to pay high wages in the first place. Toyota is now asking the obvious question: what's the point of building a plant in Mississippi and paying UAW-like wages when Wal-Mart sets the standard across the South and, increasingly, across the country?

Posted by Brendan Sexton | September 4, 2007 9:45 AM

I'm sorry, Freddie, I thought it was implicit that we were talking about the relative merits of unionism here in America. In this context, it's worth noting that Mercedes and BMW don't seem eager to hire UAW workers when they manufacture cars here.

Posted by Fred | September 4, 2007 9:48 AM

Just out of curiosity, do broadcast & cable journalist types (like, say, Bill O'Reilly) belong to AFTRA?- I can't remember.

And of course unions have problems-- any institution that has membership in the double digits and has been around more than a few years does. It doesn't mean they shouldn't exist... if it did, we could argue for abolishment of churches.

Posted by latts | September 4, 2007 9:50 AM

So not only is your father a union member, he might actually be about to go on strike. Or is that just WGA-West?

No, WGA-East and WGA-West will go on strike together, if at all, most likely in coordination with the Screen Actors Guild.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | September 4, 2007 9:56 AM

"Shouldn't it at least be noted that the reason Toyota and Honda pay high wages and offer generous benefits at their nonunion American facilities to discourage their workers from forming a union with the UAW?"

That's an interesting question. Another would be what at what point it becomes pound-foolish to be too niggardly with auto worker wages: after all, if shoddy workmanship leads to poor reliability, recalls, etc., that can be more expensive than decent wages. Theoretically, a responsible American auto union could help insure quality and help obtain higher wages for auto workers over the long term. But after bleeding the Big Three white, the UAW isn't in a position to do this.

Posted by Fred | September 4, 2007 9:59 AM

But after bleeding the Big Three white, the UAW isn't in a position to do this.

And, yet, I don't see you calling for pay cuts for those in management positions in Detroit, of whom there are thousands, who make many, many times what the average UAW worker makes. Why is it always the people on the bottom who are expected to absorb the cuts?

Posted by Freddie | September 4, 2007 10:14 AM

I was a union member. For two and a half years I worked in a NY State psychiatric hospital and was a member of CSEA, Civil Service Employees Union - AFSME local 1000.

Posted by Chuchundra | September 4, 2007 10:37 AM

Freddie,

Do you even follow the news on this? If you did, you would know that managers and other white collar workers have borne the brunt of job cuts by the Big Three. A lot of folks who did their homework in high school so they could go to college and become managers and professionals got canned because the guys who majored in lunch in high school imposed $90 per-hour (including benefits) labor costs on the the Big Three.

"Why is it always the people on the bottom who are expected to absorb the cuts?"

Ask a union negotiator. To consider a recent example from the public sector, the NYPD's union just negotiated cuts in the pay of newly-hired cops to something like $25k. Why did they do that to the "people on the bottom"? I'm guessing because tomorrow's newly-hired cops can't vote today, and the current union members won't be affected by the pay cuts.

Posted by Fred | September 4, 2007 10:39 AM

Freddie wrote:

"And, yet, I don't see you calling for pay cuts for those in management positions in Detroit, of whom there are thousands, who make many, many times what the average UAW worker makes. Why is it always the people on the bottom who are expected to absorb the cuts?"

This is simply false. The average UAW worker in Michigan makes a very comfortable income - with a reasonable amount of overtime upwards or in excess of $100K per year. There are not "thousands" of management positions that pay "many many times" the average UAW wage. There are a handful of upper executive positions which pay in excess of $1M per year. If that offends you, fine. But cut all these salaries back to the average UAW wage and you wouldn't make a dent in the auto makers' cost structures.

There are thousands of white collar jobs in Detroit - middle managers, finance professionals, engineers, technicians, production planners, etc. These folks generally make more than production workers, but not by a wide margin. Maybe $100-150K total comp.

Posted by sd | September 4, 2007 10:52 AM

Fred: I'm impressed by your concern for rookie NYPD officers, but I sort of get the feeling that when the NYC subway workers went on strike several years ago over the principle that there should not be an inferior tier of benefits for rookie subway workers, you were not marching on their picket line or arguing on their behalf with friends and neighbors.

I'm getting the sense that you a Kausian view of these matters: union members are greedy and selfish if they take a stand for the "people on the bottom" and, at the same time, they are also greedy and selfish if they do NOT take a stand for the "people and the bottom."

You dislike unions and blame them for many bad things. I get it. It's a viewpoint that is not unheard of in the American media, particularly in the business press.

But it gets to be a little much to blame public sector union members for bleeding the taxpayers while also complaining NYPD union members did not win high enough taxpayer-paid salaries for their coworkers.

Posted by Brendan Sexton | September 4, 2007 11:03 AM

You guys may have a point there. My apologies for misrepresenting anything.

But I do want to ask, what is the endgame of your views? How little is just right? I don't understand why it is a failure for uneducated (not unskilled) workers to be able to secure a living wage, one that gives them the chance to own a home, raise a family, and maybe send some kids to college (so that maybe their kids don't have to major in lunch, Fred.) I understand; you guys think the unions are responsible for ruining Detroit's ability to be profitable. But I don't agree that the problem is all the union's, and I think too often the evidence for that is "The management says so." Of course management says so! They aren't going to blame themselves. I think the example of Mercedes and BMW are important, because it demonstrates that an auto company can have a healthy union and high worker wages and still be extremely successful.

Posted by Freddie | September 4, 2007 11:07 AM

Now can you please give me the inside scoop on this new JJ Abrams movies?

No!

Okay, well then, while we're on the subject of employment, use your Ivy League juice to get me a job at a college. I'll, uh, buy fifty copies of your book.

Posted by Freddie | September 4, 2007 11:20 AM

Pah, Fred is nothing against my beloved late grandma: we had to go without cranberry sauce for our christmas dinner once, because she refused walk into a union owned store to make a last-minute purchase and then she kept on ranting about the unions all the way home - same old, same old.

Posted by novakant | September 4, 2007 11:35 AM

Novakant,

Unlike your grandmother, I assume, I actually worked in a union grocery store and was a member of the UFCW.

Posted by Fred | September 4, 2007 11:40 AM

Fred's criticism of the UAW's responsibility for the financial condition of the Big Three should instead be directed at the US health care system. The automakers' commitments to retirees health plans are what are "bleeding them white". What does Fred advocate? Ice floes for the elderly?

Posted by bemused | September 4, 2007 11:51 AM

Bemused,

Toyota, Mercedes, Honda, BMW, Suburu, all manufacture cars profitably in America.

Posted by Fred | September 4, 2007 12:19 PM

Fred: But Toyota, Mercedes, Honda, BMW, Subaru all built their US plants in the 1980s and 1990s and hired young workforces. They support only a tiny handful of retirees in comparison to the Big Three, who of course have been employing Americans for generations.

Because auto assembly can be physically demanding, auto workers who retire before they are eligible for Medicare tend to need more medical care than someone who worked in an office environment. To their credit, Ford and GM don't make these folks fend for themselves.

Retiree health costs are where the health care cost gap really exists between Toyota and the others versus the Big Three. Toyota, Honda, etc matche UAW health benefits for its workers to discourage unionization. They doesn't have to worry about retiree health costs for their retirees because they have almost no retirees.

As bemused notes, this is a problem stemming from how the US provides health care. Even Toyota will have to face up to this issue at some point as their workers get older.

What's really sad about this is that the UAW fought for years to create a national health system, even before the rise of the Asian and European competitors. The management braintrust of the American auto industry opposed the idea, but now that the chickens have come to roost folks like Fred blame the UAW.

It should be noted that not every Japanese-based company that makes cars and trucks in the US is profitable. Nonunion Nissan has been struggling for some time:
http://tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070725/BUSINESS01/707250438/1164/COUNTY09

Posted by Brendan Sexton | September 4, 2007 12:45 PM

My great grandfather was a goat ball licker.
http://tinyurl.com/2b4hcx

Posted by Colbert | September 4, 2007 12:49 PM

Brandon Sexton,

If the lack of socialized medicine is the reason for the Big Three auto makers' problems, why hasn't this prevented other American manufacturing companies from succeeding? John Deere, United Technologies (which includes Sikorsky), Boeing, and others have all been earning record profits.

Posted by Fred | September 4, 2007 1:43 PM

The big three car makes have done a valuable service for the country -- they have shown what happens when everyone gets gold-plated, no cost health care. The institutions paying can't compete and teeter on the edge of bankruptcy. After what this has done to the big three, do we really want to see the whole country share the same fate?

It's not unreasonable to expect individuals to share at least some of the cost of their health care (through insurance premiums and co-pays) and make some effort to avoid largely preventable diseases (adult onset diabetes, obesity, emphysema, etc.).

Posted by Juan | September 4, 2007 2:19 PM

Fred: I think that retiree costs are the most important labor cost disadvantage that the Big Three face. GM has 519,000 retirees in the US and it supports pensions and health care for them, while Toyota has 269 retirees in the US. It's also relevant that Airbus did not build a plant in Alabama in 1997 and hire a younger, healthier workforce there.

That said, it's true that retiree health costs are not only reason the Big Three are struggling. Their leaders also made some very poor strategic decisions, like assuming that gas would cost $1.25 for the next few decades and putting too much emphasis on trucks and SUVs. Not updating profitable, high-quality cars they were making, like the Taurus and the Town Car, in Ford's case. Starving the Saturn arm for new products, in GM's case. Using their truck and SUV profits to buy Saab, Volvo, and Jaguar instead of investing in R&D for the next generation of great American cars. Poor marketing all around. Allowing Toyota to get an advantage on hybrid technology, although, to its credit, GM's upcoming Volt is big leap ahead of the Prius.

These are all serious errors and for a long time Detroit execs certainly found it easier to blame the UAW rather than face up to these problems.

Another factor the Big Three are struggling with is a too big and unwieldy brand and dealership structure. There are too many Ford and GM brands and far too many dealerships -- far more than Toyota -- but closing down brands requires costly buyouts of the franchisees. It cost GM roughly $1B to buy out the dealers when it closed Oldsmobile. But you rarely hear about this issue because it's more politically correct within the financial media to bash unions.

I guess the flip side of your question is also worth pondering: if unions are making Ford and GM inherently uncompetitive, why haven't unions made Boeing uncompetitive? The Machinists and engineers at Boeing have gone on strike far more often in the last ten years than UAW members at GM or Ford.

Posted by Brendan Sexton | September 4, 2007 2:27 PM

Brendon,

It's true that the UAW isn't the only reason for the troubles of the Big Three, but it is probably the most significant reason. The Big Three managements can be faulted for agreeing to the onerous deals with the UAW in the first place, but many of their subsequent decisions (e.g., focusing on higher-margin trucks and SUVs) have been motivated by their UAW-imposed labor costs, which make lower-margin cars uncompetitive for them. It's true that the politically-connected dealers have opposed much-needed brand consolidations as well.

As for your question about why unions haven't made Boeing (or by implication other) manufacturers uncompetitive: All unions aren't the same. The UAW has been an especially harmful union. Boeing was able to reduce its headcount as needed after the last cyclical aerospace bust, and it has been judicious about adding capacity during the current boom -- wanting to meet soaring demand for its new Dreamliner, but not wanting to over hire and be forced to layoff tens of thousands of workers when the cycle turns.

The auto companies haven't had the same flexibility because of their agreements with the UAW; instead they are forced to literally pay UAW workers not to work -- they pay them union wages to show up and play cards at the "Jobs Bank".

As for the Chevy Volt, it will be interesting to see what comes of it. I'm also looking forward to seeing what Tesla Motors's White Star sedan does.

Posted by Fred | September 4, 2007 2:59 PM

The Machinists may be considered a different kind of union now, but I distinctly remember that during the early 2000s, when Airbus briefly pulled ahead of Boeing, there was a whole lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth the aero industry--particularly in the Pacific Northwest--about how SPEEA and the Machinists were going to destroy Boeing.

If the Airbus jumboliner takes hold and the Dreamliner fades, I suspect that the Machinists and SPEEA will quickly become "harmful" again.

Also, I think that anyone who has watched what's happened in the US auto industry in the past several years will have a hard time finding much evidence that UAW members are not being flexible. They agreed to massive and painful cutbacks and Delphi, and the union agreed to take over responsibility for retiree health care. The same thing will probably happen in the new Big Three agreements, and UAW members at Ford and GM have already voted to accept massive buyouts and major new cost sharing on health benefits. UAW workers did not oppose the Cerberus takeover of Chrysler. The last Harbour consulting group report on the industry showed some UAW plants operating more efficiently than Japanese plants and quickly closing the gap otherwise. Etc.

Posted by Brendan Sexton | September 4, 2007 3:33 PM

Can we bust unions in Hotel meeting/Convention center first? As mentioned before, the restrictive work rule/feather bedding is unconscionable.

That will reduce a lot of ill will toward union movement.

Posted by Kanchou | September 4, 2007 4:51 PM