Politics Matter
from John Schmitt
In a new CEPR report (pdf), Alexandra Mitukiewicz and I argue that the national political environment, not globalization or technology, is the most important factor driving long-run changes in unionization rates in the United States and other rich economies.
Since 1980, changes in union coverage (the share of the workforce covered by a collective bargaining agreement) are strongly correlated with a country’s postwar political tradition. The largely social democratic, Nordic countries, for example, actually saw increases in union coverage over the last three decades. The “continental market economies,” such as France, Germany, and Italy, generally saw small declines in union coverage. But, in the “liberal market economies,” such as the United States and the United Kingdom, coverage rates generally tanked (Canada is an interesting exception).
Source: Schmitt and Mitukiewicz, 2011.
Several bloggers have commented on the paper: Andrew Watt at Social Europe; Jonathan Tasini at Working Life; David Moberg at In These Times; and Mike Hall at the AFL-CIO Now Blog.
Leave a comment
—– look inside —– $5.94 / $20.00
—– look inside —– $4.90 / $8.00
—– look inside —– $15.99
—– look inside —– $5.99 / 12.99
—– look inside —– $5.93 / $12.99
—– look inside —– $4.97 / $9.90
—— Ugarteche, Puyana and Madi ——
Gerson Lima / Maria Alejandra Madi
Edward Fullbrook and Jamie Morgan
————— Michael Hudson ————–
Maria Alejandra Madi / Jack Reardon
————- Edward Fullbrook ————-
—————— Steve Keen —————–
————— Richard Smith —————
————– Gustavo Marques————
– Victor Beker and Beniamino Moro –
————– Lars Pålsson Syll ————-
—————– Stuart Birks —————-
Edward Fullbrook and Jamie Morgan
———— Armando Ochangco ———-
Shimshon Bichler / Jonathan Nitzan
————— Mauro Gallegati ————–
————— Herman Daly —————-
————— Asad Zaman —————
—————– C. T. Kurien —————
————— Robert Locke —————-
Real-World Economics Review Blog 
Anybody familiar with the history of the union movement knows what an enormous struggle it has been to set up and maintain strong,representative unions which have a vital part to play in a civil society.
Of course a civil society is of no interest to the oligarchy where power serves self interest,nothing more.The last 30 years has seen a largely successful attack on unions by this power block.I anticipate the pendulum starting to swing the other way but not without another struggle.I just hope that the workers and that means most of us,have the cojones to carry the day and the century.
The union movement has also stood to one side and in its own stale bureaucratic way…stood back whilst its own ranks have been haemorraghed out as casuals which unions dont protect.
The union movement needs to take a good long look at itself by tolerating a divided workforce of “insiders versus outsiders” / “permanents versus casuals” and only fighting for “insiders/ permanents” – it hasnt moved with the times, (and nor have the “permanents encouraged it to” and it hasnt attracted casual members, It hasnt offered discounts on membership and it hasnt fought for casuals. So barely anyone joins now because they get jack from membership, as casuals and each year more permanents joing the ranks of casual workers.
The union movement forgot to keep up with the legislation that has kneecapped it.
The struggle hasnt even started and the work situation will get far worse before it gets better. Many unions have no power and no influence any more. The damage has already been done. So looking to unions is silly. Unions are vestiges of their former selves and are not adaptable at all to the modern working environment.
We need brand new unions willing to work for all employees.