I do not believe that eliminating unions will save Michigan. Liz Kersjes argues that the brief UAW strike last week benefited the UAW workers, but “in the end … they severely undercut the company paying them at an eventual disadvantage to themselves.” (Eliminate unions to save Michigan, SN 10/1). She then launched on a history of labor unions, implying that they were needed for workers in the past, but are no longer needed now.
Let me offer the following:
The Big Three lost some 600,000 jobs since 1980. Michigan alone lost 100,000 since the late 1970s, according to Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, U.S. Automotive Industry & Recent History, (4/25/05). Since Michigan is highly dependent on the auto industry, it stands to reason the state is hurting more than most. Indeed, according to University of Michigan economist George Fulton, Michigan’s current job-loss streak is the longest since the Great Depression. But since there’s been loss all over, I don’t believe we can just blame the unions for Michigan’s problems.
Ms. Kersjes claims that unions improve wages and conditions for their members at the expense of nonunionized workers and the broader economy, citing a World Bank 2005 World Development Report. However, in 2003, the Economic Policy Institute issued in a ‘Briefing Paper’ facts indicating the exact opposite: “a high school graduate whose workplace is not unionized but whose industry is 25 percent unionized is paid 5 percent more than similar workers in less unionized industries.” “The impact of unions on total nonunion wages is almost as large as the impact on total union wages.” This report also cites, “ ... in industries and occupations where a strong core of workplaces are unionized, nonunion employers will frequently meet union standards, or, at least, improve their compensation and labor practices beyond what they would have provided if there were no union presence.” How can that be at the expense of nonunionized workers? Sounds to me like the unions benefit everyone.
As to unions undermining the competitiveness of companies, that is also debatable. In the Feb. 22 edition of “The Economist,” the author argues that union workers are often more productive than nonunion workers, for a variety of reasons. In fact, the article cites a conservative corporate law blogger, Steven Bainbridge, who “avers that, at the very least, unions do not decrease productivity.” If the companies are at least as competitive with a unionized workforce and probably more so, how does that hurt the corporation? It doesn’t seem to me to hurt corporations any more than the average CEO taking home compensation that is 458 times the pay of an average worker
Janet Roe-Darden
assistant for graduate studies for College of Arts and Letters
Support student media! Please consider donating to The State News and help fund the future of journalism.
