Lessons from Canada: Union membership in the US and Canada 1920 – 2009 (2 graphics)
from John Schmitt
My CEPR colleague, Kris Warner, has a new paper on what we can learn about labor law here in the United States from the experience of our neighbors in Canada.
The whole paper is worth a read, but I particularly like two of the graphs.
The first shows that Canada and the United States were on a very similar unionization path from about 1920 through the 1960s. At that point, unionization rates in the two countries diverged sharply.
Source: Warner (2012).
The second graph presents the overall union coverage rates in each of the U.S. states and Canadian provinces. All but one of the Canadian provinces lie entirely above all of the U.S. states. Only New York and Alaska edge out the least unionized Canadian province of Alberta.
Source: Warner (2012).
Kris emphasizes two important differences between the Canada and the United States. The first is that, in the private sector, it is generally much easier for workers to form a union in Canada, primarily because most workers there can form a legally recognized union based on collecting verified signatures. In the United States, of course, even after workers sign cards asking for recognition, they then face a second hurdle in the form of a National Labor Relations Board election (unless the employer decides to recognize the union based on the collected cards). As John Logan and others have documented (pdf), an entire “union avoidance” industry of consultants and lawyers has arisen in the United States over the last several decades to intimidate workers during the NLRB election process, and this industry has generally been highly effective.
The second key structural difference between Canada and the United States, says Kris, is that Canadian workers can rely on first-contract arbitration to ensure that they will secure a contract after legal recognition. In the United States, even after workers win an election, they only reach a contract in a bit over half cases (see John-Paul Ferguson excellent paper (pdf)).
A lot to think about this Labor Day.
It all hangs together. With low union participation, and no legal representation in firm governance for employees, the managers maldistribute the rewards of enterprise to the top 1% as so many of the graphs reproduced on this blog demonstrate. There is nothing to stop them, certainly not economists or financial experts. Hard to believe that the vibrant, confidant, democracy that emerged from WWII could go so wrong. The leadeship class in Ameerica has a lot to answer for.
Call that leadership or self interest robert?
Call it stupid self-interest because intelligent self-interest implies that the elites who run the country have to promote the common good if they want to hang on to power. One can make a case that the business and corporate elites did this up to 1980 in the US, then pursued a policy of ruthless self-inerest, union busting, elimination of legacy costs (pension and medical plans)that improvished those who worked for them. Romney and Bain Capital were part of this volte-face of the US business elite.