• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Union memberships up

A

Anonymous

Guest
Can we thank George W. for this, too? Middle income families are being squeezed by higher prices and stagnant wages. Are they turning to unions?

For the first time in the past quarter of a century, in 2007 U.S. unions increased their share of membership among workers, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) annual union membership report released today. Unions added about 310,000 members last year, raising the unionized share of the workforce to 12.1 percent from 12.0 percent in 2006.

The increase is small, and may well reflect statistical variation rather than an actual increase in the union membership share, but the uptick is striking because it is the first time since the BLS began collecting annual union membership rates in 1983 that the union share has increased.

The small national rise in union membership rates reflected a large increase in union membership in California, partially offset by substantial declines in the Midwest.

Among women, union membership rose from 10.9 percent of women workers in 2006 to 11.1 percent last year. Rates for men remained unchanged at 13.0 percent. This modest narrowing of the gender gap in union membership was primarily driven by gains among white women, whose unionization rate increased from 10.5 percent to 10.8 percent in 2007. African-American men saw their membership rate grow from 15.6 percent to 15.8 percent, but rates for black women fell to 13.0 percent in 2007 from 13.7 percent in 2006.

In the private sector, which accounts for the bulk of employment in the economy, union membership gains varied by industry. Construction unions increased their membership faster than the rate of job growth in that industry, with membership jumping from 13.0 percent in 2006 to 13.9 percent in 2007. Membership in the private health and education sectors grew from 8.3 percent to 8.8 percent. Unions also made headway in the low-paying retail industry, increasing membership rates from 5.0 percent to 5.2 percent.

Manufacturing, however, continued to lose unionized jobs in 2007 faster than the sector's overall decline in employment. Union membership in manufacturing fell to 11.3 percent in 2007 from 11.7 percent in 2006. Although manufacturing jobs were once accurately identified with unionized employment, manufacturing workers are now less likely to be in a union than is the average U.S. worker.

While the US experienced an overall gain in union membership, trends differed by region. Unionization in northeastern states, such as New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, grew modestly from 18.4 percent in 2006 to 18.7 percent last year. Southern union membership remained unchanged at 5.9 percent, less than half of the national average.

Midwestern states, which include Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin, historically have had a higher unionization rate than states in the West. But, for the first time since 1983 when comparable annual data became available, the unionization rate in the West (14.7 percent) exceeded the unionization rate in the Midwest (13.8 percent).

In the West, California added over 200,000 union members in 2007, helping to expand unionization in western states states from 13.9 percent in 2006 to 14.7 percent last year. Meanwhile, Illinois weathered the largest loss of union membership of any state in 2007, as its share of unionized workers fell from 16.4 percent to 14.5 percent. Midwestern union membership in total dropped from 14.4 percent to 13.8 percent.
Although U.S. unions overall saw only a small increase in membership in 2007, this is the only year that unionization has risen in the past quarter of a century. Union membership has declined almost continuously, with occasional pauses, from 20.1 percent in 1983 to 12.1 percent this year. (For complete data from 1983 through 2006, see http://www.unionstats.com/.)

This long-term decline stands in remarkable contrast to worker desire for unionization. According to polls of non-managerial workers, about one-half want to be but are not union members.*

http://www.cepr.net/content/view/1441/220/
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
It isn't just Bush, it's everybody that needs to shoulder some of the blame. Any time anybody buys foreign instead of domestic, you're part of the problem. If you didn't get on your other elected officials who went along with these lame policies, you're part of the problem. If you voted for those sell-outs the next election, you're part of the problem. Sure, Bush was the ram-rod behind our problems, but he couldn't of gotten anything done by himself.
 

Tex

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
It isn't just Bush, it's everybody that needs to shoulder some of the blame. Any time anybody buys foreign instead of domestic, you're part of the problem. If you didn't get on your other elected officials who went along with these lame policies, you're part of the problem. If you voted for those sell-outs the next election, you're part of the problem. Sure, Bush was the ram-rod behind our problems, but he couldn't of gotten anything done by himself.

Yes you are right, but both Clinton and Bush were the initial gatekeepers to allowing the trade without gaining concessions for the things we believe in like democracy, freedom, freedom of speech, right to assemble, free press, voting for leaders, rule of law........
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Tex said:
Sandhusker said:
It isn't just Bush, it's everybody that needs to shoulder some of the blame. Any time anybody buys foreign instead of domestic, you're part of the problem. If you didn't get on your other elected officials who went along with these lame policies, you're part of the problem. If you voted for those sell-outs the next election, you're part of the problem. Sure, Bush was the ram-rod behind our problems, but he couldn't of gotten anything done by himself.

Yes you are right, but both Clinton and Bush were the initial gatekeepers to allowing the trade without gaining concessions for the things we believe in like democracy, freedom, freedom of speech, right to assemble, free press, voting for leaders, rule of law........

Tex are you suggesting the Clinton had something to do with the current state of our economy? :roll:
 

Tex

Well-known member
hopalong said:
Tex said:
Sandhusker said:
It isn't just Bush, it's everybody that needs to shoulder some of the blame. Any time anybody buys foreign instead of domestic, you're part of the problem. If you didn't get on your other elected officials who went along with these lame policies, you're part of the problem. If you voted for those sell-outs the next election, you're part of the problem. Sure, Bush was the ram-rod behind our problems, but he couldn't of gotten anything done by himself.

Yes you are right, but both Clinton and Bush were the initial gatekeepers to allowing the trade without gaining concessions for the things we believe in like democracy, freedom, freedom of speech, right to assemble, free press, voting for leaders, rule of law........

Tex are you suggesting the Clinton had something to do with the current state of our economy? :roll:

Yes, he has had something to do with our economy right now although more responsibility should be put on the Bush administration for not correcting the problems that were initiated under Clinton that ballooned. I think GW is not a fiscal conservative and has allowed Carl Rove and his political advisers (republican leadership) to sell out govt. policy to interests who are paying them off.

Clinton started the free trade agreements (or at least supported them--Hillary was on the board of Walmart as an attorney) and left no means to monitor their success or failure. Our trade deficits have ballooned which just means we have been exporting our wealth to countries who suppress their people politically and economically (they go hand in hand). Then after our infrastructure in producing goods is gone, we borrow from the Chinese to support our political policies instead asking Americans to support them through balanced budgets. We give our sovereignty over to the Chinese as evidenced by the Chinese's leverage over our actions to act in our best interest.

Money has a multiplier. When money is introduced into the economy, it goes from one hand to another to another, to another. This multiplier effect is zero for the amount of the trade deficit. We are now going to borrow money from China or the world capital to increase this multiplier effect by giving this stimulus package. To me, if we don't change the structural problems underneath, we are doing nothing more than delay the problem with our trade deficits and fiscal deficits into a much bigger problem. As usual, the politicians are not solving the problems in our economy but perpetuating them for the next guy to handle. Hopefully we will have a strong enough economy that we can work out of these problems despite the politician's easy way out. We have in the past but the problems are bigger and the future sacrifice grows and grows.
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
Tex said:
To me, if we don't change the structural problems underneath, we are doing nothing more than delay the problem with our trade deficits and fiscal deficits into a much bigger problem. As usual, the politicians are not solving the problems in our economy but perpetuating them for the next guy to handle.

Tex I like the "we" in your statement. We can choose what we buy.
 

Tex

Well-known member
backhoeboogie said:
Tex said:
To me, if we don't change the structural problems underneath, we are doing nothing more than delay the problem with our trade deficits and fiscal deficits into a much bigger problem. As usual, the politicians are not solving the problems in our economy but perpetuating them for the next guy to handle.

Tex I like the "we" in your statement. We can choose what we buy.

I am not going to excuse a poor national trade policy on what consumers buy or don't buy. We need to control our borders and that includes our trade deals and the balance of trade. Our national politicians have really screwed up by allowing the huge trade imbalances and China having a pegged currency. The U.S. has become a dumping ground for world trade. It is running our industries out of our country and our trade negotiators think they have done a good thing with their free trade mantra. I just wish they had a clue.
 

Tex

Well-known member
Faster horses said:
I think I read where every president since Nixon has been in favor of NAFTA.

The problem is that the trade negotiators allowed NAFTA to expand to all importing from all the countries that the NAFTA countries allowed. There were no or not enough provisions to make sure what we wanted to happen to happen. Namely that is an increase in wages in the economy of Mexico. Wages didn't increase much but the corporations made a killing off of bringing in goods with cheap labor. It helped displace domestic production and put price pressure on U.S. labor without making sure Mexican labor was any better off. Mexico has almost unlimited labor compared to the U.S. In short, it was a great deal for the globalists, but not good for the small producers.
The Lessons of NAFTA
by Marcela Valente
Inter Press Service (international news agency), Rome,Italy, April 20,2001
World Press Review, July 2001


As countries negotiate the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), analysts are looking to Mexico's ~ experience in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) as a litmus test of how a hemisphere-wide agreement could function among economies with wide variations in size and wealth.
The model on which NAFTA was created is not like the one that prevailed in the European Union, which favored the free movement of workers and transferred funds from the wealthier countries to the least-advanced nations to reduce the disparities between members. There is an enormous development gap between Mexico and the United States and Canada, its two NAFTA partners, and any assessment of the impact of the trade bloc in that Latin American nation of 100 million will depend on the lens through which it is observed.
Since NAFTA went into effect in 1994, employment, foreign investment, economic activity, and exports-especially to the United States, the leading market for Mexican products-have all grown in Mexico. According to statistics of the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, open unemployment in Mexico currently stands at just 2 percent of the economically active population, while Mexico's gross domestic product (GDP) grew 7 percent in 1997,4.9 percent in 1998,3.7 percent in 1999, and 7 percent last year.
Mexico's indicators on GDP growth and investment flows are enviable to Argentina, for example, whose government has failed to pull the economy out of its slump and to reduce unemployment, which has been characterized by two-digit figures for more than 10 years. The investment-grade status that credit-rating agencies assigned Mexico's debt bonds, meanwhile, remains a distant dream for Argentina and many Latin American countries that are heavily dependent on foreign capital.
However, other statistics paint the dark side of Mexico's recent development. Annual reports by United Nations agencies indicate that the number of Mexicans living in poverty climbed from 32 million to 43 million between 1990 and 1998, while the number of malnourished Mexicans- half of them under 5-rose from 4.4 million to 5.1 million.
On the employment front, not everyone who has a job is grateful to NAFTA. The informal economy, in which workers enjoy no health or pension benefits, accounts for 29 percent of employment, while 30 percent of jobs are found in the controversial maquila or export assembly sector.
"In the maquilas, there are no labor rights or health protections, workdays stretch out 12 hours or more, and if you are a woman, you could be forced to take a pregnancy test when applying for a job," Hector de la Cueva, executive secretary of the Continental Social Alliance, a Mexico-based nongovernmental organization, told Inter Press Service. The alliance is comprised of civil society groups from throughout the Americas that advocate a model of economic development alternative to the one adopted by Mexico.
"If what the FTAA wants is a NAFTA extended to the entire continent, we say 'be careful' and warn the people of the Americas against believing that this was beneficial for Mexico," De la Cueva said on a visit to Buenos Aires. "On the contrary, it was a social disaster, and we don't want any more of those precarious jobs."
Environmentalists also are on the alert. Activists point out that various rulings by NAFTA trade-dispute panels have demonstrated that the interests of business are set above the damages that investment can cause to the environment. In several cases, member governments were ordered to pay compensation to private companies whose business endeavors faced obstacles-even in cases involving exports of toxic waste-because NAFTA rules protect investment from sanctions or claims by states. Those who complain about the heavy emphasis put on business at the expense of the environment also note that the companies investing in the maquila sector are merely seeking cheap labor and low taxes, benefits that transnational corporations cannot obtain in the countries where their head offices are located.
However, political analysts like Mexican economist Luis Rubio, director of the Research Center for Development, say that blaming NAFTA for the problems facing Mexico's economy does not reflect reality. "It is a fad to accuse NAFTA of all the ills of the Mexican economy: the rise in poverty among a large part of the population, the unemployment plaguing millions of Mexicans, and the profound decline of industry in the central region of the country. But the reality is precisely the opposite," Rubio maintained.
The maquiladora factories, which import materials or parts to assemble goods for re-export, constitute a highly developed model of production that offers broad job opportunities, said Rubio, who criticized the Mexican business community for demanding subsidies that would enable it to compete. "The only thing that really works in the Mexican economy is the sector linked to NAFTA, which is the modernized, dynamic area that draws investment. Without the trade agreement, poverty, unemployment, and the crisis would be even worse," Rubio stated in Voces, a magazine published by the Autonomous University of Mexico.
But in the view of Mexican parliamentary Deputy Carlos Heredia Zubieta of the center-left opposition Party of the Democratic Revolution, it is precisely the idea of a "dual" economy characterized by growth in some areas and backwardness in so many others that provides a complete picture of the impact of NAFTA. "There are many people in Latin America who say, 'the Mexican economy is doing great, it grew 7 percent over the past year.' But I always clarify that the real question here is, 'good for whom?' " the lawmaker stated at a conference held in Washington, D.C., in February, organized by the Economic Policy Institute and The Development GAP.
"If you look at the macroeconomic figures, it's true: Inflation is under control, the deficit is manageable, there is fiscal and monetary discipline, and exports are growing," Heredia Zubieta said. "But the beneficiaries are only a small circle of corporations with ties to the international economy, to the detriment of the majority of small and medium-sized local companies and workers and citizens in general," he argued. Domestic firms have registered zero growth or worse, while only the export sector, represented by local subsidiaries of transnational corporations, has expanded. "The domestic market is not growing. On the contrary, the buying power of Mexicans has fallen steadily over the years.
"Here we have a dual economy," the legislator added, "which is growing on one side and slipping behind on the other: Exports to the United States are rising, thanks to the output of the maquilas-which account for 53 percent of Mexico's exports-while grain imports have driven Mexican farmers into a deep crisis."
Heredia Zubieta stressed that the crisis facing farmers was of such magnitude that the Mexican parliament voted unanimously this year in favor of a resolution that slapped a 30 percent tariff on imports of grains from the United States that exceeded the agreed-on quota. "NAFTA aggravated the imbalances between the export sector and the rest of the Mexican economy, as signaled by an unprecedented report released in December by the trade committee of our Congress, which for the first time criticized the executive branch's initiative," he added.
The lawmaker's warnings are particularly relevant at a time when Mexico finds itself negotiating free trade agreements with other regions-the European Union and Southeast Asia-and when the talks for the creation of an FTAA, modeled largely on NAFTA, are moving full steam ahead. Heredia Zubieta clarified that he was not calling for the hemispheric trade agreement to be abandoned, but urging that it be reformulated in such a way that it would benefit the entire economy. He proposed, for instance, incorporating the highly charged issues of migration and environmental protection standards into the FTAA talks. "Labor power is our main export product," the congressman pointed out. "Every year, hundreds of thousands of Mexicans emigrate to the United States in search of work-a factor that the trade agreement fails to contemplate."
With respect to the belief that the countries of Latin America could gain new markets for their farm products, the legislator said that may be merely an illusion, stressing that while sales of agricultural products rose substantially within NAFTA, the increase was not from Mexico to the United States, but the other way around.
Economist Uziel Nogueira of the Inter-American Development Bank commented in Buenos Aires, meanwhile, that any assessment of NAFTA's performance would depend on the school of thought to which whoever was carrying out the evaluation subscribed. But in any case, he said, there was one reality that could not be denied. "For the first time, an underdeveloped country accepted an integration agreement with more advanced economies, without receiving differentiated treatment." NAFTA "was the first time the model of economic integration and free trade proposed these days for the entire hemisphere, through an FTAA, was accepted," Nogueira observed.

The promises of NAFTA were not realized by the little guy. THEY ARE STILL TRYING TO COME OVER TO THE U.S.
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
NAFTA and China are two different things.

We choose to buy American and shop at Maw and Paw stores at every opportunity. If you want the government to mandate everyone else to that, it won't curb my lifestyle one iota.
 

Latest posts

Top