U.S. Union Membership
So by something like 2030 there may not be any union members in the private sector – Here’s a few highlights…
1948 – 34.7% of the private sector
1964 – 31.0%
1974 – 26.2%
1984 – 15.5%
1994 – 10.9%
2004 – 7.9%
Link via Newmark’s Door
It tells something about macroeconomic trends in the U.S. Typically the manufacturing industy is unionized. General Motors = unions. Wal-Mart = no unions. I can’t remember when I last time bought something that actually was manufactured in the U.S. And no doubt there will be independent unions in China in 2030.
Comment by N. Siinistö — Tue, Mar 14th, 2006 @ 5:45 pm
Maybe it’s just better that they don’t join unions. Country must be pretty fucked up when mobsters control unions.
Comment by dude — Tue, Mar 14th, 2006 @ 5:54 pm
It was funny that most people were in unions in Finland. Even managers and consultants.
Small problem with that is that everyone get paid the same. From my experience that only benefits those who deserve the pay the least. Then everyone else decides not to work as hard because they can see how those who f-off all day, get away with it.
Unions can be good, but not exactly the way it’s done in Finland. Negotiating with all the paper companies at the same time? That’s crazy. It should be by employer. But it’s not because industries have created their own ‘unions’ to deal with the employer unions.
Comment by Fred Fry — Tue, Mar 14th, 2006 @ 6:24 pm
Unions = jobs for life. That style of life, has gone away with the lifestyles of today and tomorrow.
Your Mom’s and Dads had 1-3 jobs in their lifetime, so Unions made sense.
Today’s generation of workers will have 5 or so jobs (I am at number 6 now).
My kids will have 8 or more jobs before they retire.
Thus, the Unions = jobs for life link is now gone.
Comment by winter — Tue, Mar 14th, 2006 @ 11:45 pm
Male employees -> Strong paper union -> high salary -> big raises -> unemployment.
Female employees -> weak nurse or teacher union -> low salary -> small raises -> unemployment.
Who’s better of?
Comment by Dazzle — Wed, Mar 15th, 2006 @ 1:04 am
Dazzle,
Must correct you there a bit. The paper union’s contract covers all employees, including women. It might surprise you to know how much a cleaning lady in a paper mill makes a month.
As for teachers, their union is Akava, mainly led by Kokoomus orientated people.
As for nurses, their union leadershop is also Kokoomus orientated. Now one might start to find a certain pattern here.
Comment by Anna — Wed, Mar 15th, 2006 @ 1:10 am
Dazzle
Unemployment is not such a bad thing. Twice I have been laid off, and both times i got a higher wage in the next job.
Go figure?? As I figure that Unions hold folks back from higher wages.
Comment by winter — Wed, Mar 15th, 2006 @ 1:44 am
Yup. People getting laid off is a pretty normal phenomenon in any country that has flexible labor laws. Although it may suck from an individual’s perspective, there is nothing wrong with it… it’s a part of modern business. Since the labor laws in Finland are so unflexible, especially when it comes to laying off unneeded employees, employers are much more reluctant to hire new employees. At the same time, since its relatively more difficult to lose your job in Finland, those who do have to suffer from the stigma/negative connotation that surrounds being let go…. even though losing your job may have nothing to do with your performance as an employee.
Comment by The Dude — Wed, Mar 15th, 2006 @ 2:18 am
I can’t remember when I last time bought something that actually was manufactured in the U.S.
Again, exports are not a sign of economic strength, but of economic dependency on a buyer with more cash to spend. Finnish and European pride in export surplus dependencies are rather misplaced, as the export consumer, – mainly, the US – can find replacements to European goods all over the world.
The dependence becomes all the more apparent when you see that Eurpopeans cannot even control the value of their own currency: the euro just winds up responding to fiscal policies set by the US government.
A consumer society rules the world, as it should: consumers are the ultimate democrats.
Comment by Finnpundit — Wed, Mar 15th, 2006 @ 5:35 am
unions blow. they waste money, invaraibly make whatever the employees manufacture more expensive and/or worse (you can’t fire a union worker, so how hard would you work?), and they are undomocratic. they had their place in the early 20th century- making work environments safe, garaunteeing breaks, etc., but all of that is the law now. totally a waste of money. you’ll note that toyota, honda, and hyandai car plants are all selling great, inexpensive cars right now, meanwhile ford and gm practically have to give their cars away. take a wild guess as to which of those car plants are unionised or not…
Comment by jimmmy — Wed, Mar 15th, 2006 @ 7:15 am
Fred Fry , jimmy … It’s a fine theory but the las time I checked Finland’s industry was more productive than that of the USA. It’s common knwledge that unionized employees tend to be more productive, although, on the other hand, if a crisis hit they can be a serious hinder to what has to be done – not necessarily, though.
On national economy level the degree of unionization (is that a word?) doesn’t seem to have any clear effect on economical growth, but on levelling the income distribution it has, as well as on making the labor markets more rigid.
Comment by TomiA — Wed, Mar 15th, 2006 @ 12:18 pm
Unioniszed labor drive up costs which are passed onto consumers through higher prices– this shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone. However to work at GM or even be a public school teacher in my state, you have to join the union and pay dues. Its mandatory if you want to work there. As US unions collect about $17 billion a year, all tax free, a good portion of it [$500 million in 2004] is funnelled into politcal action committees– overwhelmingly the democrat party even though 40% of unionized workers are registered republicans.
As a poster stated, unions have outlived their purpose and the free market will force them to either change drastically or die out.
Comment by Buckeye Abroad — Wed, Mar 15th, 2006 @ 7:31 pm
Unioniszed labor drive up costs which are passed onto consumers through higher prices– this shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone.
That would be the general argument.
Of course, if you look at the case that Finland’s discussing atm, UPM sacking 3000 employees, we might find something else as well. Competetiveness is not just about wages. Wages account for roughly 4-5% per cent or UPM’s total costs (2005). My guess is if the paper union in Finland would agree to a wage of 2 euros a day, they still would move things to Brazil.
Comment by Anna — Wed, Mar 15th, 2006 @ 8:00 pm
Yay, I still get to automatically imposter as the Freerider.
But, anyway. Unions in the US mean something else than unions in Finland. In the US, you have to join and pay dues, if the majority is unionized – what’s that for democracy? And you can’t get personal benefits, which is patently absurd and entirely unsuitable if the quality, rather than quantity or time is the goal.
– sepisp
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Sun, Mar 19th, 2006 @ 5:08 am