For card check; against Mickey Kaus

By Kathy G.

Sorry I didn't post yesterday. I've been feeling a tad under the weather and somewhat depressed. Probably a bit of blogger burn out as well, to tell you the truth.

But I just finished reading yet another stupefyingly lame and ignorant union-bashing post by Mickey Kaus, and that definitely got my juices flowing. Yes, Ann Coulter's arm candy is at it again, making the same smug, ill-informed arguments he always makes on this topic. And actually, they're not even really arguments -- to describe those verbal burps of his as an "argument" bestows on them a dignity they in no way deserve. They're more like half-assed gestures toward an argument, really. Mickey don't do much intellectual heavy lifting these days, and that's putting it mildly.

When it comes to unions, Kaus's style of "argument" is as follows: he'll seize upon some random news story concerning (almost always) either the schools or the auto industry. If test scores are down or Ford or GM is doing poorly, it's always, always the union's fault -- and that's true whether or not the union was even mentioned in the story. He almost never considers alternative explanations or complicating factors. And he certainly never bothers to get off his lazy ass and look at what the social science research says about the subject.

Case in point: today's post, in which he trashes card check and bashes unions because the UAW is resisting a change in Ford's manufacturing system that apparently would improve efficiency.

And that's it. That's his entire argument. All right, he does throw in some bullshit about how card check destroys the sacredness of the secret ballot. And he extends his anti-union "argument" somewhat by implying that unions are inefficient in general and that "the Wagner Act is not designed for an era of continuous change and improvement."

The Wagner Act took effect in 1935. Is Kaus seriously trying to argue that there was no "change and improvement" -- no technological innovation or efficiency improvements, is what he means, I guess -- between, say, '35 and '45? Or '35 and '55? Or '35 and whatever year it was that we suddenly stopped needing unions?

I know that the wheels in Mickey's brain stopped turning sometime during Reagan's second term, but the dude needs to let a few facts penetrate his thick skull:

1. Anecdote is not argument. Well-chosen anecdotes can illustrate an argument, but they are not the same thing as an argument. If you're making an argument about whether or not a certain policy or institution is effective, your best friend is actual bloody empirical social science research. And that's because social science research doesn't look at one isolated case, it looks at a (hopefully at least a moderately large) sample.  It also attempts to control for confounding factors, so that you don't make the mistake of saying X causes Y, when it's actually Z, which is correlated with X, that is causing Y.

2. Unions do not reduce productivity. So far as the best research can tell, the impact of unions on productivity has been mixed; and it's generally small to nonexistent in any case. In this, it resembles the impact of the minimum wage on employment -- the studies about whether the minimum wage decreases employment show mixed effects. Read the Hirsch and Freeman chapters in this book for a fuller discussion of the research on unions and productivity.

Yes, of course there are cases where unions stubbornly resist innovation and efficiency-enhancing changes. But it's also the case that having a union gives employees a voice at work, which can improve labor relations and increase productivity. The institution of the union can facilitate communication between workers and management, and provide a channel through which workers can suggest improvements in the production process.

Mickey can tell all the horror stories he wants about featherbedding and the like, but he's misleading his readers when he does so. He'll seize on these cherished little chestnuts of his and by doing so, he misses the forest for the trees -- said forest being the fact that there is little demonstrable effect of unions on productivity.

3. And while we're at it, teachers' unions do not reduce teachers' productivity (as measured by student test scores). This goes not only for Kaus but for fellow union-basher Megan McArdle as well, who in this post makes the same kind of mistake Kaus makes, by seizing upon a story about one complex and wildly  atypical situation and acting as if it proves something about teachers' unions.

Again, studies of the impact of unions on test scores have found mixed effects, with no strong pattern overall either way. See the chapter on public sector unions in this book for more. While it's true that teachers' unions have some undeniably negative effects, such as making it harder to fire bad teachers, as Dana Goldstein points out, teachers' unions also advocate for many things that are good for their students, like smaller class sizes, more support staff, better supplies, etc. Not to mention the fact that the teachers' unions are able to negotiate higher pay and better benefits, which probably attracts more talented people into the profession in the first place.

Getting back to card check: there's one thing Mickey Kaus and I both agree on, and it's this: as he says, "This [i.e., card check] is a much more significant issue than the manufactured debate over a gas tax holiday." Indeed, card check would modify labor law in this country in a significant way: it would require an employer to recognize a union if a majority of employees at the workplace sign cards saying they want a union. Under the current process, under which union elections are overseen by the NLRB, the deck is heavily stacked in favor of management.

Why? For one thing, management has a virtually unlimited right to subject employees to anti-union propaganda. And though it's illegal to fire workers for trying to organize a union, in practice it happens all the time, because employers are rarely held legally accountable. Even when they are, penalties are weak, because literally all the employer has to do is pay back the employee's lost wages, minus whatever she's earned in the interim. From a cost/benefit standpoint, firing an employee who's trying to start a union makes a lot of sense, from management's point of view.

Card check would be an entirely salutary thing for this country, and I hope it passes. It would make it significantly easier to form a union, and that would be a very good thing indeed. Labor law in this country is a disgrace to the human race. Indeed, I think we'd be better off if we just tore up Wagner, Taft-Hartley, and the rest and start all over again.

Card check would be a helpful reform, but it won't fix the many deep problems of labor law in this country. Management, for example, will still be able to hire permanent replacements for striking workers, which continues to be a knife to the heart of union power. The NLRB will still have statutory authority over many labor issues, which sucketh mightily due to its being stacked to the gills with Republican appointees who are labor-busting hacks. But card check would be a big step in the right direction.

Basically, if you think unions are a good thing, you should support card check. Unions do far more than just provide their employees with better pay, benefits, and working conditions. There's also strong evidence that they help reduce wage inequality in this country (again, see the chapter by Card et al. in this book for a literature review on the subject). Unions strongly support much legislation that helps workers and other non-rich folks, such as the minimum wage and universal health care.

Perhaps most important of all, unions in this country support the Democratic party. They do this in two ways. First of all, as Matt Stoller explains here, labor unions provide crucial support in political campaigns. They provide candidates with money, field and GOTV operations, media surrogates, and more. Even though, in numbers and influence, organized labor has declined dramatically over the past couple of decades, they are still, as Stoller says, "the single most reliable, organized and powerful segment of the Democratic political coalition."

Secondly, union members tend to vote overwhelmingly in favor of the Democrats, even when, demographically, they belong to groups that tend to go Republican. As Tom Geoghegan pointed out in his classic memoir about being a labor lawyer, Which Side Are You On? (and if you haven't read it yet, you must -- it's beautifully written, heartfelt, hilarious, and brilliant), in 2000, George W. Bush won nonunion white men by 41 points, but lost union white men by 24 points!

More union members mean more Democrats elected to higher office. And more Democrats elected to higher office mean a freer, more just, more sane, and more peaceful America.

Now, Mickey Kaus argues that we don't need unions to get union-type benefits:

It seems to me that a) a tight 90s-style labor market and b) direct government provision of benefits (e.g. health care, OSHA) accomplishes what we want traditional unions to accomplish, but on a broader basis and without encouraging a sclerotic, adversarial bureaucracy that gets in the way of the productive organization of work.

Dude, here, I'll buy you a clue -- it doesn't work that way. Without unions, you're not gonna get "direct government provision" of shit. There is a substantial political science literature about how powerful unions and social programs and regulations of the type Kaus says he wants -- like health care and OSHA -- go hand in hand. (See this book for an extended version of this argument in the context of a globalized world). And that makes sense -- unions create social democrats, provide indispensable support to social democrat political parties, and then, once those parties get elected, the unions apply political pressure to get social programs, labor regulations, and the like enacted.

Just how, I would like to know, are we going to get universal health care in this country without the support of unions? What other constituency of the Democratic party is as well-organized, as powerful, and as committed to social and economic justice as the labor movement is? And tell me, Mickey, if labor unions went out of existence tomorrow, do you think the employers, who fight OSHA-style regulations tooth and nail, would be more powerful, or less?

Yes, unions are imperfect institutions. They sometimes lower productivity (although overall they have little or no effect on productivity). They sometimes take stands on the issues that are good in terms of the self-interest of the union but bad for society as a whole. Occasionally, they are corrupt.

But being against unions because they sometimes fail is like being against democracy because it's given us George W. Bush. Human beings are fallen creatures, and our institutions are bound to reflect our own failings and imperfections. But although all institutions are flawed, some of them are, on balance, far better for society than the alternative would be.  Without unions, this would be a much more rotten, unfair, unfree, and unequal society. Workers, union and nonunion alike, would have lower wages, poorer working conditions, and fewer rights. Corporate interests would dominate our politics and our lives even more than they do already. And the Republican party would enjoy an even stronger presence in our government than they do already.

Mickey Kaus would do well to stop repeating faux-clever New Republic neoliberal talking points circa 1981 and start acquainting himself with the research of what the political and economic effects of unions actually are. And while he's at it, I say it's long past time that Mickey give up the ghost about how he's a "Democrat" and a "centrist." You're not fooling anyone with that tired old act, Mickey. Except, I suppose, Jacob Weisberg.

But then again, Weisberg is convinced that John McCain is not really a conservative.

Oy, where do they find these people?

Comments

[arbitrista]

Thanks for writing about teachers unions. I've started doing some work in that area myself, and I must say I'm shocked at how weak and slanted much of it is. It seems that most people who do labor research (at least in education) come in with a chip on their shoulder rather than a desire to figure out what's going on. For example, there's a lot of talk about "restrictive collective bargaining contracts" but precious little evidence that weaker union protections leads to higher student achievement or graduation rates. It's just ASSUMED that it does.

[arbitrista]

By the way, sorry you're feeling down? Is there something specific happening, or is it just a generic case of the blues? I hope you feel better soon!

[DrDick]

"Smug, ill-informed arguments" are Kaus's hallmark. He would be fully incapacitated (OK, more fully incapacitated) without them. The truth is that he is simply another Republican oligarchist who desperately wants to totally disenfranchise the great unwashed.

[SDM]

Awesome. Thanks for writing this.

[Kathy G.]

arbitrista, thanks for asking, but I'm okay. By nature I'm a melancholic sort, and I have my good days and bad days. But today I feel fine. All hail pharmaceuticals!

[Sir Charles]

Kathy,

Thanks again for another great piece. Kaus is infuriating on this topic -- even more so than he generally is.

Unions were in their strongest position ever while this country went through the remarkable productivy booms of the 1940s and 50s. Indeed, they were instrumental in helping to bring it about. But the Goat Blower is never one to let facts get in the way of his ignorant opinions.

Card check would be an incredibly good step to counteract the ability of employer's to circumvent the NLRB process through intimidation and relenless propaganda. Let's hope President Obama is able to sign such a bill next year.

[David Nieporent]

Just how, I would like to know, are we going to get universal health care in this country without the support of unions?

That's sort of a puzzling argument, since we didn't get so-called "universal health care" in the heyday of the union movement; we've gotten closer to it as unions have gotten weaker in recent decades. (I'm not implying that there's a negative causation; I'm saying that they're unrelated.) We'll get "universal health care" when liberals demagogue and fearmonger enough to convince enough people that they're "freer" when the government takes away their freedom.

[ShelbSpeaks]

Ann Coulter speaks with Newsmax.TV

[Sir Charles]

Yes, it's important that people be free not to get the health care they need or to be raped by insurance companies. I think that's part of the emanations and penumbras embedded in the Constitution.

[JB]

Awesome!! Maybe we should force unionization on every industry to counteract those mean 'ol work rules and Republican labor-busting hacks. Of course, we should only unionize proper "workers." Clearly there's no need to boost productivity for managers (even low-level ones), nor even attempt to make their lives less rotten. (As we all know, managers deserve more rotten lives compared to proper workers.) That this might lower profitability of newly unionized firms won't matter because this will be forced and nationwide, so every firm will be less profitable. Trade with less-union-friendly countries could be a problem (since their competing industries will not be straddled with higher costs and lower profitability), but we can always lift trade barriers, raise tariffs or put in quotas (but only on the right industries and source countries, of course). Lower returns to stockholders will be fine because owners are mostly rich people who deserve less. The prices on those stocks which are held by, say, workers' retirement accounts, can be kept from falling by just the right government intervention (e.g., targeted government stock purchases). Of course, lower returns to stockholders will mean raising capital (and boosting workers productivity further still) will be more expensive. So we'll need to subsidized that for the right industries (and the right sorts of capital--we don't want any government largess ending up in the hands of management). And prices might rise--since, after all, unions serve the role of raising wages and benefits (read: raising costs)--but some smartly identified and enacted price controls can always counterbalance that. Luckily, there won't be any problems implementing all that--plenty of government bureaucrats are ready and waiting to make the necessary calls (and we can always hire more)--and the world can be more free and fair (and, of course, less rotten).

[Yuri Rennenkampf]

Super idea! An even better one would be to mandate by law that all manufacturing workers' wages are to be doubled.

Not so fast you might say ... until I point out that when capital is substituted for labour, the result - with mathematical certainty - is an increase in the marginal productivity of labour.

Just think, when employers replace the bulk of their workforce with machines, the productivity of those still with jobs will skyrocket! Someone call the AFL-CIO and Billary.

[Sir Charles]

Who left the door open and let the idiot brigade in?

[scottreads]

Re the idiot brigade, I love it when people make purely speculative arguments about the parade of horribles that will follow if management has to answer to anyone regarding the welfare of their employees. Set aside the unsupported assertions and what you'll find is a pure unalloyed love of authority for authority's sake. God bless America!

[Sir Charles]

scottreads,

So true. Simply because employees join a union and win the right to bargain collectively does not mean that their wishes then are automatically fulfilled. You then get to negotiate with the employer -- and guess what? They are allowed to say no -- indeed that's all many of them do, which is why so many successful organizing campaigns do not result in obtaining a first contract.

Even in well established union-management relationships, market realities limit and constrain union behavior. Trust me on this -- I've bargained a lot of contracts over the course of 20 plus years, and rare is the moment when one is able to push for really substantial wage increases, absent some unusual condition in the markets -- a big labor shortage coupled with plentiful work or the like. What unions can do is assure that some increases flow to their members in almost all settings and, most crucially, they are generally able to make sure that employers provide decent pension and medical coverage to their employees.

[scottreads]

I'm much more familiar with labor law in the federal sector, where management and unions can bargain to impasse (ie, management can say no) and then go to the Federal Service Impasses Panel. At FSIP, management can make arguments about costs and efficiency which (in this administration) often win the day. What's the remedy in the private sector? Binding arbitration?

[Sir Charles]

scottreads,

Striking. Seriously. It's economic warfare -- and guess what. It's pretty damn hard to get people to strike nowadays. I am afraid that the proletariat tend to have mortgages, car loans and credit card debt, so a couple of missed paychecks is pretty daunting.

Strikes are nowadays almost always deliberately provoked by management or the product of management severely overreaching.

Every now and again the unions get the whip hand and get a chance to use the strike offensively, but it is a rare experience these days.

Not to blogwhore, but see this on strike activity:

http://www.cogitamusblog.com/2007/12/strikes-my-fanc.html