I wanted to explain what I was saying concerning the Toledo Blade and their union workers. The union workers did not go on strike--they were locked out. From what I understand, the Blade wanted their union workers to continue to make concessions on wages and healthcare, which they did, however, the Blade continued to demand a different contract that union workers did not agree with (See Cleveland Plain Dealer). Therefore, when a new contract was not reached, the old contract expired and the workers could not return to work.
Because of the contract dispute, the Blade has started a “Toledo Can Compete” advertising campaign stating that Toledo should imitate the employment practices of such countries like China to help stimulate economic growth. However, considering that workers in China work with little job protection and have no rights when it comes time to negotiate a contract, the union workers in Toledo do not want to give into these concessions...the same goes for auto workers in Detroit, where similar changes in contracts have been made. Therefore, the whole issue boils down over whether or not workers should be able to unionize. Corporations like Wal-Mart have already used this “economic growth” campaign and have shut out many major manufacturing (e.g. Rubbermaid, General Electric, and Dial Soap) firms and workers in the United States by forcing these corporations to send their operations overseas. Once in countries like China, the corporations employ low-wage workers, which in return allows Wal-Mart to sell the corporation's products cheaply.
While the Blade cannot really ship their newspaper production overseas, they could take advantage of the automated factories that Sony and Toyota have already used in the US and employ very few people...see Reich's comments on page 425. Basically, it all comes down to the workers/unions versus the corporations. Do workers have the right to unionize so they can have a group to help protect their jobs? Or do the corporations have the right to minimize production costs by shipping jobs overseas or simply eliminate the job all together? I think this issue is going to be a big topic in the 2008 Presidential Election, with candidates like John Edwards championing worker's rights and ways to ease poverty by framing the issues as "moral values."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I also agree that workers' rights and the right to unionization will be a hot topic for the '08 elections. There was an article in Friday's New York Times about the steep drop in union membership in 2006. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that union membership fell by 326,000 workers in 2006, to 15.4 million total, meaning that only 12 percent of employees are now in unions. This figure is down from 20 percent in 1983 and 35 percent in the 1950s.
In the article, the AFL-CIO's organizing directore claimed that 60 million Americans say they would join a union tomorrow if they could, but what's stopping them is "employer resistance".
This anti-union trend is clearly linked to the trend of our economy moving away from a strong industrial and manufacturing base to a service centered economy. The big box stores like Wal-Mart and Target are way stronger than any union in this country and have the power to block unions from coming to their stores.
In July 2002, average hourly earnings among all union workers were $20.65, compared with $16.42 for nonunion workers. The sharp decline in union membership is fueling inequality and serving to prove John Edwards right when he said, "there are 2 Americas."
Post a Comment