We romanticize manufacturing jobs when what we really miss are unions.

[kpete]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/americans-dont-miss-manufacturing-they-miss-unions/

[6chars]

1. provocative statement

and interesting to think about. probably there is some truth in it.

BUT in manufacturing, there is naturally more power for unions because capital needs labor. If you have a $1B factory and you need it to run or lose your investment, it doesn't make that big a difference if you pay $10/hr or $30/hr just as long as workers are reliable and there is no strike. If you have a MerryMaids franchise and someone wants $30, you can just say screw it, and do one less house and pay one less employee and you don't lose any investment.

[1StrongBlackMan]

3. But, if EVERYONE wants $30/hr, you pay it ...

Or, you clean (and get paid for) only the houses that YOU can clean. That's the point of the piece.

[6chars]

27. Unions help but so does manufacturing

Its about supply and demand and equilibrium prices for labor. Unions shift the labor supply curve up, but the demand curve is higher when the task is critical.

[Hortensis]

62. In theory only these days. The OP is RIGHT!

How many people do any of us know who long for a nice job in a factory, although no doubt some work can be satisfying? People want security and a degree of prosperity, the annual family vacation, and many would be happy to work in factories if that was how to achieve those goals.

When politicians pledge to protect manufacturing jobs, they really mean a certain kind of job: well-paid, long-lasting, with opportunities for advancement. Those aren’t qualities associated with working on a factory floor; they’re qualities associated with being a member of a union.

Btw, ultraconservatives like the people behind the Olin and Bradley foundations endowed their own schools of economics in most major universities (i.e., bribed them to let them in). These schools have made once-outrageous concepts mainstream by the simple method of training thousands of economists in them, who went on to work at every level of government, as well as business and education. Keep that in mind these days when articles say things like, " And while unions benefit their members, economists disagree over whether they are good for the economy as a whole." You bet they do--now. Big time.

Thanks for a good post, Kpete.

[6chars]

68. Unions + manufacturing = Germany

works pretty well

[Hortensis]

69. Yes. But should ONLY manufacturing jobs pay well?

How about...teaching? Teachers produce a product.

Medicine? Medical practitioners produce health.

Janitorial services and garbage disposal? Their workers may not produce a product you can hold in your hand either, but their work is critical to public health.

Why, when the post is about jobs with GOOD PAY AND BENEFITS, all this emphasis on only manufacturing jobs? Do we imagine an affluent class of grommet pounders wondering why all the poor little IT supervisors and loan officers don't better themselves by getting a job in a factory?

[6chars]

70. not disagreeing at all

unions level the playing field. otherwise it's one big party on the other side playing all the workers off against each other.

[Hortensis]

71. Sorry, 6chars. Good point. My mind's in a

"What's this fixation with manufacturing jobs?" fixation. Given hat the article is pointing out that good pay's NOT about manufacturing per se, responses to this thread are making me wonder.

Since everyone knows the old manufacturing jobs are gone or going and not coming back (and most are not training for the new ones), could there be a sinister plot to make people think "manufacturing jobs" whenever the issue of good pay is raised? As in also gone and not coming back?

"Unions + manufacturing = Germany." One of my classes once posited that the reason unions did so much more poorly here than in Europe was that here the relationship has always been basically adversarial, while in Europe a far better degree of cooperation was the norm.

[Baobab]

93. Service jobs are slated for globalization.

Manufacturing jobs for automation.

[arikara]

80. Years ago when I could afford it

I had one of those maid services for awhile. In the course of talking to the woman who came to the house doing the piece work, I found out she only made $3 for 4 hrs work cleaning my place-- that was $3 for 4 hrs work, not $3 per hour-- and she was rightfully fed up. I was union and was very pissed to hear how she was being abused, I fired the service and hired her for the $10 hr I was paying them.

[truedelphi]

35. It is not simply a provocative statement - it is untrue.

Yet it is being repeated a whole lot, every other day, whenever and wherever the neo-con end leadership of the Democratic Party feels they can mesmerize the loyalists to believe all things proclaimed by them.

Read my post down thread, reply # 18, that shows statistics based on what is happening in
Germany. That nation has a strong manufacturing base. The Germans succeed many times over us in terms of wages, lifetime earnings, and trade deficits. Those stats put the USA to shame. (George R Tyler's book, What Went Wrong" is my source.)

[Hortensis]

64. Perhaps but here is the point: Jobs with union benefits.

When politicians pledge to protect manufacturing jobs, they really mean a certain kind of job: well-paid, long-lasting, with opportunities for advancement. Those aren’t qualities associated with working on a factory floor; they’re qualities associated with being a member of a union.

This is a simple but hugely important point. We want and need jobs with good pay and benefits.

Which industries, effects of technology and so on should not distract us from the importance of that central goal, yet we are constantly being distracted. We live in a hugely wealthy nation, but the prosperous working/middle class is shrinking not because its people aren't working but because they gave away their say in what they would work for.

[truedelphi]

103. Then why doesn't the Democrtic Neo Con Leadership actually say that?

If they can talk about unions, then they can talk about jobs, I imagine.

Because after all, having unions without jobs is a ridiculous concept.

It is rather like having a cart without a horse.

But the Democratic Neo Con Leadership is not about jobs. Those people are in fact continually pursuing policies that decimate small businesses, which happens to be the source where right now, most jobs are created for the work force.

Try dealing with the ACA if you are a small business. Try dealing with employment laws. Try dealing with any of a number of matters, if you' re small you get crushed. Look at how the Democratic Majority in Spring 2007, turned the US Postal service over to Amazon, while forcing the smaller businesses to pay more for shipping.

That had a huge negative effect on my business. Huge. Not only do we now pay more for shipping,we cannot sell our product without going through Amazon. After all, why would anyone order books from our website and then pay for shipping if they can order our books from Amazon and have free shipping?

[Hortensis]

105. I'm really sorry to hear how the Amazon-USPS deal

is affecting your business and really hate the idea that you are forced into a position of your own dependence on and subservience to Amazon. I worry that things like this are leading to privatization of our wonderful old USPS too.

I'm afraid we are guilty Amazon Prime customers. We don't live near stores, driving to products has become out of the question, and, frankly, I love it. For all its scary faults, it is serving our curren needs wonderfully. I'd definitely rather attempt to boycott Koch Industries than give it up, which makes me very much an enabler.

We really need to fix all this, and if it isn't quite that wonderful after, oh well. Big solutions for big problems, designed to serve the people, of whom Jeff Bezos and you and I are each one.

[dreamnightwind]

2. Good point

Interesting to look at this re Trump and Hillary (Bernie is all good on this issue).

Trump says he wants to bring back or keep manufacturing jobs in this country, but will likely make sure they aren't union jobs, they'll be mind-numbing jobs with poor pay and poor benefits, not careers.

Hillary does her level best to enable corporations access to the cheapest, least regulated labor pools anywhere on the globe, rather than focus on having good career jobs for Americans.

We're screwed either way.

[1StrongBlackMan]

4. Half true ...

you are spot on with respect to Trump; but, off base with respect to HRC (TPP).

[Urchin]

8. Mind numbing?

What's wrong with mind numbing? People often like repetitive tasks, even to the point of doing such tasks for enjoyment, like knitting or telescope lens polishing, or making jewelry, or making model ships, or fishing.

Even though I'm a white collar worker, I find repetitive work relaxing, during which my mind is free to daydream or think about what I enjoy thinking about.

It's a chauvinistic conceit when people who are knowledge workers put-down manual labor as being work that is somehow undesirable and inferior to knowledge work.

As if there were something noble and worthy about working with your mind, while working with your body was for animals like horses and oxen and not humans.

[lunatica]

9. And he runs screaming as he jumps off the cliff

[scscholar]

54. The cliff is all many of us have left

It's so depressing.

[dreamnightwind]

18. OK, beside the main point though

which is that neither Trump nor Hillary is likely to work to provide U.S. workers with well-compensated careers in the manufacturing industry.

I personally don't find mind-numbing work to be particularly rewarding, YMMV of course. I can get into the zen of a calm mind enjoying repetition, but unless it's an intrinsically rewarding craft or trade, I wouldn't find much enjoyment from doing the same mundane task all day everyday, and I assume many (not all) others feel the same.

Again, though, it's a distraction from the main point, which is to have well compensated jobs that can be careers and provide for individuals and families with dignified jobs.

[truedelphi]

34. Why is it that the German people and their government stubbornly kept their manufacturing

Industries? And they seem to have really reaped quite a bit by doing so.

Especially if you define "quite a bit" by these stats:

The German worker has received a 172% wage increase between 1985 and now. Meanwhile in the USA, we have "noticed" a one half of one percent wage increase. (Not sure what a person would do with that much of a raise? Buy a piece of penny candy, if there still was any.)

Due to manufacturing being so big there, a HS drop out will probably find a relevant apprenticeship program and then they will earn over their lifetime only 15% less annually when compared to a four year college student's earnings!

When adjusted for per capita, Germany has the world's highest export rate. And that means the German government does not have to worry about a deficit that is owed to some other nation. Meanwhile the USA continues to owe China an exorbitant amount of money.

[dreamnightwind]

36. I'm curious, what mechanism do they use to prevent offshoring?

Tariffs (VAT)? Unions? We have had little success stopping manufacturing from leaving, how did the Germans do it?

[Fantastic Anarchist]

58. My guess is that they didn't pass trade agreements ...

... that was harmful to labor.

[Baobab]

94. Thats true, German unions are very strong so even with T1SA and T*IP coming they are

expected to do significantly better than far-less-unionized countries like the United States.

However, lots of German manufacturers - like the US - are investing heavily in automation. Automation is the future of both manufacturing and services.

Germany is also part of the European Union which has had labor mobility since the 1990s, so the employers in some countries like Germany focused on very high skill, high value type manufacturing, not low wage manufacturing which is basically a race to the bottom.

Also, in some areas governments are very corrupt and people are very poor and increasingly, everybody who has been able to has left.

[pampango]

98. Through the EU Germany has trade agreements with 19 countries in Central/South America,

Last edited Sun May 15, 2016, 07:04 AM - Edit history (1)

6 in Africa, 9 in the Middle East, 3 in Asia, 11 countries in Europe not in the EU and the other 27 countries in the EU.

http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/agreements/#_other-countries

IOW, a whole lot more than the US has. And, of course, Germany is in the WTO.

[6chars]

38. Good post

[passiveporcupine]

22. It's known that the more control and decision making you give a worker,

the more challenging the job, if it's manual and repetetive, the more they enjoy it and feel invested in it. They will often work harder and won't require the "time standards" cracking a whip over their head to move faster faster faster.

I've done repetitive manufacturing work (I've also worked as an Industrial Engineer, setting time standards), and some jobs were so numbing it was hard to stay focused. Others were more challenging and it made them easier to not only stay focused, but it was fun to try to break my own time record, while still doing good work.

The really mind numbing ones are not good for people's initiative and drive, while the better ones are. The more skill required to do the job, the better it is.

Some of the things you are referring to, like knitting, making jewelry...they involve creativity, which is not an option in really repetitive thoughtless jobs. And fishing is a challenge. Not everyone can catch a fish and there are days a good fisherman can't catch one. It takes skill and technique (especially if you fly fish).

If you are trying to meet a time standard, which most repetitive jobs require, it's harder to let you mind wander...you start to lose speed...it's something you need to keep pushing.

I think any time they can make a job more challenging, it's better for the worker and the company.

[Urchin]

33. There's plenty of knowledge work that people naturally hate

Otherwise there'd be no such thing as a knowledge worker who shirks his job responsibilities or a kid who hates studying math or English composition.

Work can be "mind-numbing" whether done with your hands or your head.

[LiberalLovinLug]

88. That's a good point

At the risk of generalizing, there are two types of jobs. Ones that require more brain power, decision making, creativity, and ones that .....don't. Many dream of the idea of being boss, or foreman, or a professor, a clever entrepreneur etc.. but in reality do not have the fortitude. And so resign themselves to mundane labor or factory work.

But there is a silver lining to that kind of work as you say. Because when one is in that position, they can shift their priorities from job to their life outside of the job. You can think of that outside life as you stare into the abyss and insert buttons onto widgets. And when you are not working, there is no need to drag your work life into your non-work life as is the case with many of the brain power jobs. It can be much more stress free life. And many, like my own brother for instance, prefer even not to work towards management advancements because he'd rather give his energy to his off-work activities. Where work is regarded as a chore to get done so he can get on with his real life. When you are working with an expectation of authoritative responsibility, work life and non-work life can get muddled and more stressful.

[Cryptoad]

10. More Hillary Hate

that is total bullshit either by ignorance or design. Thank Goodness that She won the nomination over Bern. She has stood with and fought for Unions and if u can not tell the differences between Hillary and Trump , u have a serious problem

[ScreamingMeemie]

20. The people of Michigan disagree with you.

Thanks to ClintonCo's NAFTA my husband trained his Asian counterpart to do the jobs that were eventually outsourced. Sorry. I am so glad Bernie is sticking in the still-undecided primary race to give us little blue-collar people a voice.

[Cryptoad]

50. Oh,,,,,

so Hillary passed Nafta when she was not even an elected goverment offical? yall make me laugh!

[ScreamingMeemie]

51. Did I say Hillary? Just like I didnt want a second Bush,

I don't want a second Clinton. No more dynasties. These people are completely out of touch with the working class. They can't even fake it anymore.

[Cryptoad]

79. No u,,,,

"inferred Hillary" and confirmed that with this post. Since Bern has lost the 2 Hillary, ur song may sound better on a more Conservative site. No need to beat down our Democratic Nominee here.

[tammywammy]

85. Was the "Asian counterpart" in Canada or Mexico? n/t

[Mnpaul]

28. When Bill Clinton used tax payer dollars to help companies move jobs overseas

you should expect this. Sorry, not buying Hillary's concern for American manufacturing. If she was truly concerned, she would distance herself from Larry Summers.

[Hortensis]

42. Absolutely. How people could have lived through

8 years of W, seen the incredible difference competence makes with Obama, now have the dreadful specter of Trump as the ultimate incompetent, and still dismiss simple competence as a critical asset is appallingly dismaying.

Bernie couldn't put together a 6-pack of superdelegate support among his colleagues and has no idea what laws already in place might be useful to him. That's reality.

[marle35]

16. Mind-numbing jobs

Won't even have those soon - they'll be replaced by machine.

[dreamnightwind]

19. Yes, automation is coming rapidly

This hasn't been receiving enough attention. We either need a way to resist automation of jobs, or we need to start providing a guaranteed minimum income floor for all citizens, since there won't be enough jobs when the next wave of automation is ramped up.

[Mnpaul]

29. Are you aware

that the US is well down the list of countries adopting more automation?

[dreamnightwind]

31. Think it will stay that way?

I recently read a terrifying and very detailed article about the many different industries and professions that will soon be replaced with automation. I looked for the link but must not have saved it. anyway this is a huge problem that is just around the corner. It doesn't HAVE to be a problem, but with our current economic system, it is. The owners of the automated manufacturing will reap all the benefits and there will not be enough jobs to support ourselves.

It is one of the main reasons that concepts such as guaranteed minimum income are getting a look.

[Mnpaul]

32. I don't expect it to accelerate that much in manufacturing

Why invest in the equipment when you can just have the work done by children in a third world nation. My boss just invested in a machine that automates a undesirable job but no jobs were lost. Quality went up, noise went down.

[dreamnightwind]

37. I think you're missing the big picture re the coming wave of automation

I'd love to be wrong.

[Mnpaul]

41. I've worked in manufacturing for almost 40 years

Most of the automation being adopted allows products that can't be done by humans or is dangerous for humans. You may want to look up that report and check out who is behind it. It is often used as an excuse to take attention away from companies shipping our jobs away. The driving force behind automation in other sectors is Wall St. In the past, companies only had to make enough to keep the boss happy and pay the bills. Now we have to turn a profit for investors as well.

[dreamnightwind]

43. I think I found it

Here, I think it was this. The author has an odd insistency to look for the bright side (people will be able to pursue their interests rather than be wage slaves) but doesn't do enough to explore the political realities of keeping people secure and fed without jobs they can count on. A very interesting article regardless. Its focus is broad, not just manufacturing but other industries as well.

A World Without Work

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/07/world-without-work/395294/

Then there's this:

Our Jobs Are Disappearing​: We Need a Guaranteed Income​

http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/our-jobs-are-disappearing-we-need-a-guaranteed-income

Countless other articles also write about the same need.

I hear you on your experience, but technology is maturing and the coming changes will not mirror the past 40 years, there is a huge job in automation on the horizon.

[Mnpaul]

45. I looked into this claim before

and found this:

Don’t blame the robots for lost manufacturing jobs
http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/the-avenue/posts/2015/04/29-robots-manufacturing-jobs-andes-muro

[dreamnightwind]

46. No surprise that the neoliberals at Brookings love it

I am beginning to suspect that we come to our conclusions about this from very different political perspectives.

Here's an example of your article's reasoning:

Despite the installation of far more robots between 1993 and 2007, Germany lost just 19 percent of its manufacturing jobs between 1996 and 2012 compared to a 33 percent drop in the United States. (We introduce a three-year time lag to allow for robots to influence the labor market and continued with the most recent data, 2012). Korea, France, and Italy also lost fewer manufacturing jobs than the United States even as they introduced more industrial robots. On the other hand, countries like the United Kingdom and Australia invested less in robots but saw faster declines in their manufacturing sectors.

The oversimplification there is mind-boggling. It ignores so many other factors and dynamics, and is obvious that they are proving the point they set out to prove.

[Mnpaul]

48. I don't see it as a political issue

Automation is what pays my bills and don't see robots doing my job anytime in the future. Robots can't spot engineering mistakes(a big problem). Automation makes the computers we are using right now possible. In my two previous jobs I built the equipment that makes them possible. I don't want to see humans doing the work of creating semiconductors. The chemicals used are extremely dangerous. One third of a thimble full of these chemicals can kill you. This is a job that only robots should be doing. I have also built equipment that makes Harleys, jet engines, car parts and more. Automated machines require people to run them, fix them, program them but they do require that the engineering be 100% correct and I don't see that happening anytime soon.

[dreamnightwind]

49. Well you're personally entirely invested in this industry

so I must submit that your perspective is informed largely from that.

I don't disagree with all of your points, but I do see it as a huge problem. The problem isn't the automation, it's that, rather than workers being given robots or whatever to make their jobs easier, the worker's employers are buying the machines and none of that benefit goes to workers.

Even that could be mitigated if we guaranteed everyone the necessities of a good life without depending on their ability to win at the employment musical chairs game as the chairs are increasingly occupied by robots.

But this is a huge coming problem that will radically realign labor.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

5. Yup

[pampango]

6. Good point. Manufacturing jobs have declined everywhere but progressive countries have strong unions

and other progressive policies to cushion the transition. What we need are strong unions (like they have in progressive countries that trade much more than we do). What we don't need (and progressive countries don't have) is 'right-to-work' laws and other legal measures that weaken unions.

Without strong unions, modern manufacturing will not provide the pay and benefits that nostalgia tells us should be the case. With strong unions, jobs provide pay and benefits whether they are in manufacturing or some other sector of the economy.

[Thespian2]

7. Since unions have been squashed...

those well-paid, long-lasting jobs with advancement are now being done by children throughout the world who work for pennies, have no childhood, and no possibility for a comfortable adult life...

Thanks, Ron Raygun, and all the GREEDY BASTARDS who created this America...

[marble falls]

11. Bingo and for exactly all the reasons you stated.

[Kall]

12. Well, agreements like NAFTA, MFN for China and TPP

are what really take a bat to unions' bargaining position, so my candidate support goes accordingly. And it's not looking good for Hillary Clinton, I've got to tell you.

Manufacturing jobs were just the first ones to be done away with in the name of Bill Clinton's New Economy, wherein China could have those "bad jobs" that weren't going to be needed anymore, because everyone in America was going to get advanced degrees and have the high-knowledge "good jobs" (as if that were ever a realistic proposition.) Well, now along with manufacturing, medical technology, IT, accounting, clerical jobs, etc. have no barrier to being shipped to the place with the lowest bid, and wages in America are kept low because that threat to workers is always there, and this Clinton/Bush-built boat is starting to look pretty leaky.

[appalachiablue]

14. +10. Didn't work out so well afterall...drip, drip..

[pampango]

24. None of that is the real problem. Progressive countries all belong to the WTO (MFN for China),

have their own 'NAFTA' (the EU) and they all trade much more than the US does. FYI, their unions are very strong and seem to be resisting the 'bats to their bargaining position'.

Wages in Sweden and Germany are not 'kept low because that threat to workers is always there ...". Funny how strong labor policies make for strong unions in progressive countries. Imagine what strong legal support for labor unions - think FDR - might do for American labor.

[1939]

25. Most of the European countries have had a shortage of labor

and have had to recruit "guest workers"

The US has had a surplus of workers thanks to uncontrolled immigration.

It is hard for a union to control the supply of labor (which is the power of the union) when there are too many hungry workers around willing to undercut the union.

[pampango]

30. Immigrants are 13% of the US population, 16% in Sweden, 13% in Germany,

14% in Norway, 20% in Canada. The level of immigration in progressive countries is similar to or higher than it is in the US.

https://data.oecd.org/migration/foreign-born-population.htm

Unions are much stronger in progressive countries because they have legal support from their governments - no 'right-to-work' law that weakens unions - and moral support from their populations.

[dreamnightwind]

40. How does a union stop offshoring?

Unions are good at leveraging concessions from management. Their leverage is work stoppage. When employers can just move the entire facility to a foreign country rather than negotiate with our unions, they have no leverage.

[pampango]

44. That would be a good question to ask unions in Sweden and Germany where they are very strong

despite the high amount of trade their countries engage in. What seems impossible to American liberals probably does not look the same to liberals in those countries.

American unions seem to blame (rightly or wrongly) offshoring for their problems rather than the actions of our own government like 'right-to-work' which harms unions without the companies even having to leave the comfort of US' laws and infrastructure. Swedish and German unions don't have to worry about their companies moving to 'non-union' states or provinces where they can continue to function in their home market with laws, regulations and transportation networks they know and are comfortable with.

Not knowing what unions in progressive countries would say, my own opinion is that we should negotiate agreements with other countries - like the EU today or FDR's ITO back in the day - which protect labor rights in the signatory countries. Cooperation between countries seems preferable to multinational corporations playing one country off against another.

[dreamnightwind]

100. OK, but what keeps German, or Swedish, companies from moving jobs to China or other such? - eom

I'm pretty sure it isn't unions, who have no say whatsoever when a company takes its workforce overseas.

Our trade agreements are negotiated by corporate interests with only token participation by labor and environmental interests. Maybe that isn't the case in Germany?

You can't compare relations between EU nations in a similar way to relations between the U.S. and China, for example, the economies and labor markets are radically different.

Relations between EU nations is closer to relations between different states in our country, where as you say the Republicans have weakened labor in right-to-work-for-less states, allowing the corporations to move to the least regulated state (Texas runs ads on northern California TV stations encouraging our tech businesses to leave for their state and its friendlier business environment).

Someone here must know what keeps German companies hiring Germans instead of moving their shops to hire Chinese, Indians, Indonesians, Vietnamese, South Korean, etc.

[pampango]

101. Our imports from China are 2.6% of our economy. In Germany it is 2.4% so they probably

have lost jobs to China, too. Germany belongs to the same WTO that everyone else belongs to. It has trade agreements with 48 non-EU countries in addition to the 27 other EU countries compared to the 20 countries with which we have trade agreements.

And in the past 30 years their manufacturing employment has declined by about the same percentage that it has declined in the US.

Yet somehow their unions remain strong, their wages are higher than ours, their safety net much stronger than ours and their income equality is among the best in the world.

I too would like to know how they do it.

[taught_me_patience]

13. I have almost nothing but disdain for unions

I mostly see them as corrupt, nepotistic, organizations.

[Denis 11]

47. I wish I was represented by a union now.

I feel exploited by my employer, but I think unions will be outlawed soon when the fascists finally completely take charge.

[Hortensis]

65. Well, gee. That doesn't sound good at all.

I recommend just saying no to that.

[Denis 11]

73. The trend is awful especially in private sector employment

The union membership rate--the percent of wage and salary workers who were members of
unions--was 11.1 percent in 2015, unchanged from 2014, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
reported today. The number of wage and salary workers belonging to unions, at 14.8
million in 2015, was little different from 2014. In 1983, the first year for which
comparable union data are available, the union membership rate was 20.1 percent, and
there were 17.7 million union workers.

[Hortensis]

74. I disagree. The trend is AWFUL. :)

What we did so foolishly, though, we can undo and rebuild better, but it will take years. The good part is that we have already started. The official beginning was with Obama's election in 2008. We are no longer in the conservative-dominance tearing-down era but in the next progressive struggle to rebuild era.

This reminds me of when the mostly conservative workers at the new VW plant in Chattanooga (barely) rejected joining the UAW. Of course it seemed bad because it was a rejection. But those workers could not have rejected what was not offered, and in this case actually recommended by VW. As a German firm, it knew how to work cooperatively with unions and supported unionizing.

[Denis 11]

75. The shop I work in failed to join the teamsters last year.

I wasn't there to see it, but I heard management got very ugly during the vote. They intimidated the women to accept the status quo and the vote wasn't even close. I regret I wasn't there to sell the pro union argument.

[Hortensis]

82. It is a shame you weren't there, but since it

worked out that way you also missed the extra heartache and what must be a really sickening frustration.

[dmosh42]

81. I lived through the period when the unions were most powerful, in the 50s through 70s.....

Then with Reagan, the country went through a lot of anti-union attitudes, allowing us to "see the management side' on issues. That started the sending jobs overseas with the government helping with writeoffs and other benefits along with slave labor. I worked in communications with the CWA and made it to retirement and a pension. This has become a rare thing anymore, with many poorly paid workers thinking they can back a Republican Congress and hope the 'rich' will help them gain some equality. I grew up in an area of Irish and other ethnic immigrants, most of whom did not have much education. But they were smart enough to know who was on their side and regularly voted Democratic. These people today, are so dumb, it's unbelievable! They wait for their pastor or some imbecile celebrity to tell them who to hate and vote for. And they hate unions too! I remember a movie called "Elmer Gantry", with Burt Lancaster playing a fire-breathing minister in the south, manipulating his flock for his purposes. I thought it couldn't be made up, but where I live now, it's very real and is a way of life.

[doc03]

52. I worked 40 plus years in a union shop the unions are only as corrupt as the people you elect to run

them. I thank god I worked in union shop I now have a decent pension and a excellent health care plan.

[Hortensis]

66. Good input, doc03.

Also a nice offset to the all the kvetching and whining.

(And, yes, all the complaints about how awful everything is and "they're" doing stuff to "us" are whining. Moms have ears for that.)

[kwassa]

99. I think you know little about unions or the history of labor.

Says this proud union member.

[NickB79]

15. I work in a Teamster-unionized factory. It's nothing glamorous, and often horribly stressful work

Making dairy products like cheese, yogurt and sour cream isn't sexy or cool; it's hot, smells bad much of the time, you work with caustic cleaning chemicals a lot, and it requires a lot of attention to detail and cleanliness since you have a facility that is accepting raw milk (and all the associated dangerous bacteria it may carry) on one end and spitting out clean, quality food on the other end. You have to be able to work fast to keep up with demand, follow directions well, and not cut corners or you'll junk a $10,000 vat of yogurt and get your ass fired.

But on the other hand, the fact that we're unionized means that I get paid better than almost all of my friends I went to college with, even those who went on to get their master's degrees. Hell, guys on the production floor with nothing more than a HS diploma start at $40K a year, with a $2700/yr deductible on a family health care plan ($900 per spouse and $900 for the kids, then 80/20 split after that), a 401K and a pension plan. Overtime is relatively easy to come by, so most guys make $50K a year or more; I've known guys there who worked 6 days a week, 12-hr shifts, and broke $100K in a year!

For all the bitching that goes on about how poor our union is (and plenty of people there bitch about it), no one ever suggests we get out of the union because we all realize deep down how much worse our lives would be without it.

[diane in sf]

17. You're correct. I had one during college, it was toxic and horrible. Anyone making less than

$350K a year needs a union.

[zentrum]

21. K&R

[wcast]

23. +1000. NT

[Mnpaul]

26. This was probably written by someone

who never spent a day working in manufacturing. I have been a member of a good union and a bad one. What these people fail to understand is that when you move these manufacturing jobs overseas, you also lose the jobs that supply components to these companies. You also lose the jobs created by spending by the workers in manufacturing. I like working in manufacturing. I like to build things. Unions aren't the issue to me.

[Alkene]

72. +1 n/t

[swale44]

39. There will be Unions when

There will be real Unions with power when we repeal Taft-Hartley.

[Agnosticsherbet]

53. Manufacturing jobs that moved away today will be nothing like those that might move back.

Technology has changed and new factories would hire a fraction of the workers they would have used even a decade ago due to intense automation.

The emphasis should be on unionization so that workers benefits and wages are equal to what they contribute to the products they make.

[snot]

55. Wonderful point!

[AdHocSolver]

56. Manufacturing jobs are vital for the economic wealth of a country.

When goods purchased within a country are manufactured in that country, the money spent to purchase those goods stays within that country and circulates within that country's economy providing the funds to create more jobs.

When most of the goods purchased in a country are imported from other countries, the money spent to purchase those goods leaves the local economy, and is not available to circulate within the local economy to pay the workers of the local economy.

The unions have no bargaining power when there are no jobs, and the money to sustain local jobs has left the country.

The main power of the unions rested in the fact that they could stop production and cause a company to lose sales and profits. When most products are manufactured elsewhere and imported, what bargaining power does a union have with manufacturers?

Moreover, one of the arguments for agreeing to sign the the TPP so-called "trade agreement" is that "there is a potential for "exponential growth" of U.S. exports into the TPP markets."

However, if the Chinese can manufacture goods in there own country more cheaply than the U.S. can manufacture them, why would the Chinese buy goods from the U.S. that they could make themselves at a lower cost?

[w4rma]

57. No union has leverage when these 'free' trade agreements allow their jobs to be shipped overseas. nt

[TheFrenchRazor]

59. Yes, there IS something special about manufacturing jobs! they are inherently more profitable

more profitable than service type jobs, on average, and they are essential for national security. i can't believe that so few people here realize this. when you take a raw material, such as rocks or wood (or related materials) and through a manufacturing process, turn it into a finished a product, the potential for profitability is much greater than say, taking ground beef and turning it into a hamburger. the most basic raw materials have relatively little value in their natural state, but when turned into a useful, high-demand product, they can be worth many times their original cost, hence the potential for high profitability. an economy based on service industries is starting from a much lower lever of potential profitability, regardless of how these profits are shared with workers. yes, unions help with gaining workers their fair share of the profits, but that's a whole different issue. secondly, manufacturing is absolutely essential for national security on so many levels, it should hardly need mentioning; the US civil war showed exactly what happened to a "nation" that did not own and control its own means of production. in the final analysis, manufacturing is the basis of everything else, and an economy with no foundation will not be strong, regardless of how well it is managed.

[Recursion]

60. But we manufacture a lot in the US. More than at any point in the past

So I think the national security argument is kind of bogus. We just don't employ nearly as many people as we used to for high output.

And, anyways, the service sector pays on average somewhat better than the manufacturing sector (the article gets into that) so your money argument doesn't really work either.

[TheFrenchRazor]

91. total manufacturing may or may not be up; population definitely is, so show me some per capita

per capita numbers. i'm old enough to remember seeing all kinds of products with Made in USA stamped on them; don't see it so often anymore. as far as national security goes, it makes a difference *what* we manufacture; have fun calling China when we need literally anything essential to make this country operate. also, current pay rates are neither here nor there; i said manufacturing industries are more profitable on average; i never said those profits were distributed fairly among the workers, especially in today's economic climate. that's a completely different issue. so you're wrong, sorry.

[Hortensis]

67. Of course many of us realize it. Manufacturing is one of

the ways a town or region can bring money in by selling to people outside it. Bringing money in is necessary in kind of the way putting gas in a car is.

That's not the point of the post, though.

For all of the glow that surrounds manufacturing jobs in political rhetoric, there is nothing inherently special about them. Some pay well; others don’t. They are not immune from the forces that have led to slow wage growth in other sectors of the economy. When politicians pledge to protect manufacturing jobs, they really mean a certain kind of job: well-paid, long-lasting, with opportunities for advancement. Those aren’t qualities associated with working on a factory floor; they’re qualities associated with being a member of a union.

[TheFrenchRazor]

89. your quote says there's nothing special about manufacturing jobs. i disagree. nt

[Hortensis]

90. No, I said that is not the point.

Have a nice evening.

[TheFrenchRazor]

92. it's not either/or !! we need manufacturing AND unions, as i alluded to. good evening. nt

[eridani]

61. Poor Wages Send a Third of US Manufacturing Workers to Welfare Lines in Order to Pay for--

--Food, Healthcare, Data Show

http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/36840-poor-wages-send-a-third-of-us-manufacturing-workers-to-welfare-lines-in-order-to-pay-for-food-healthcare-data-show

U.S. manufacturing jobs used to be a path to the middle class for Americans who couldn’t or didn’t dive into the comfort provided by higher education degrees. But now many skilled, working Americans need some form of public assistance because their wages don’t pay for basic living expenses.

Just over 2 million supervised manufacturing workers, or about a third of the total, need food stamps, Medicaid, tax credits for the poor or other forms of publicly subsided assistance while they work on goods that can carry the tag “Made in the U.S.A.,” according to research of official government wage and welfare data relased Tuesday by the University of California, Berkeley.

The cost of these benefits to the U.S. taxpayer? From 2009 to 2013, federal and state governments subsidized the low manufacturing wages paid by the private sector to the tune of $10.2 million per year.

Oregon led the nation on the number of manufacturing workers – 1 in 4 – that needed food stamps during that period of time, while 1 in 5 factory workers in Mississippi and Illinois needed healthcare assistance for both adults (Medicaid) and children (CHIP). Taking into account all major social welfare, including the earned income tax credit and temporary assistance to needy families (TANF), Mississippi topped the list, followed by Georgia, California and Texas.

“In decades past, production workers employed in manufacturing earned wages significantly higher than the U.S. average, but by 2013 the typical manufacturing production worker made 7.7 percent below the median wage for all occupations,” said the paper by a team headed by Ken Jacobs, chair of the UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education.

[pansypoo53219]

63. duh. why reagan is still god to the GOP.

[MichMan]

76. Was Reagan the most powerful POTUS ever?

I have had trouble understanding Reagan completely as I was in my 20's and not very political then.

I often see comment after comment on how his policies led to big declines for our country.

Here's the part that perplexes me; he has been out of office for nearly 30 years. How is it that his destructive policies couldn't' be reversed or overcome by two terms of Bill Clinton & two of Barack Obama?

[saidsimplesimon]

78. Ronnie Raygun

was another performance master, a b rated actor who was first a Democrat, then a Republican.

You can find all the background you need to answer your questions using your search engine. Not trying to be flippant, just helpful:

how clintons like reagan and republicans

[stevenleser]

97. It's a perception issue. This is one of my favorite topics so PM me if you want to hear more.

To understand Reagan you have to understand one important thing that happened before him. During Carter's Presidency, the Iranian revolution of 1979 caused a drop in the production of oil that sparked a panic and an energy crisis. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_energy_crisis

This caused a nasty stagflation where prices increased and inflation hit double digits at the same time the supply of goods decreased.

This was crushing to the economy and painted Carter as bad with the economy and Republicans used that to convince the public that all Democratic Presidents would be bad for the economy. As the new Iranian government began to understand how to deal with its oil sector, the flow of oil resumed its normal levels. Unfortunately this did not happen until Reagan was President. The price of oil and gas dropped nearly 50% during Reagan's first two years in office due to absolutely nothing that he did. Anytime you see oil and gas drop that much the economy takes off like a rocket ship, so Reagan's economic policies got the credit even though they did nothing and in fact caused a lot of long term damage. He is the first President since the second world war to run a massive deficit. He increased government spending by a huge amount, mostly on the military and decreased government revenue by decreasing taxes.

The Federal government has mostly been running deficits ever since. That is Reagan's legacy. Unfortunately, the perception of what happened under Reagan is that lowering taxes improved the economy. No Republican President since has been successful with those policies.

Republicans, who before Reagan used to be for lower taxes and lower spending (just look at the federal budgets of Nixon and Eisenhower, give lip service to low spending and try to lower taxes.

[MichMan]

102. Thanks for the reply

That makes sense, but the price of oil had nothing to do with Reagan decimating the union movement thus ruining the middle class.

Why couldn't succeeding presidents have reversed those policies that were so damaging in the 30 years afterwards?

[saidsimplesimon]

77. thank you for sharing this

I checked out the front page of fivethirtyeight.com and find they also have made predictions for the California Democratic Primary. As a Senator Sanders' supporter, it was most discouraging.

Are they affiliated with Nate Silver? Do they have a solid reputation for polling predictions? I'll look around for answers.

[fleabiscuit]

83. “Manufacturing Jobs Are Never Coming Back”

“… Here’s the problem: Whether or not those manufacturing jobs could have been saved, they aren’t coming back, at least not most of them. How do we know? Because in recent years, factories have been coming back, but the jobs haven’t. Because of rising wages in China, the need for shorter supply chains and other factors, a small but growing group of companies are shifting production back to the U.S. But the factories they build here are heavily automated, employing a small fraction of the workers they would have a generation ago….”

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/manufacturing-jobs-are-never-coming-back/

We need to think STEM and American “Fraunhofer.”

http://www.therobotreport.com

[librechik]

84. Sadly, my husband's union (Bakers) is worse than useless locally.

They never do anything management wouldn't like, and they turn a blind eye to scheduling abuses like 7 day 12 hr shift and then oh surprise you can turn that around and do seven more, or take a (1) day off but come in extra early your next shift (effective time off less than 24 hours)

What can get them to stand up for us? Right now hubby is just saying thank god I'm getting paid time and a half, but they treat everybody at the shop the same way. Shit without warning--no alerts when they radically change your coming- in time, combined with brutal rules about being late or calling in. Days off have to be scheduled a year in advance.

This union is AFL-CIO, BTW. Yeah, you'd think, right? We get nada from the union. They used to be GREAT back in the 70s.The benefits were actually human. They have fallen off considerably.
I wish that era would return, but hubby says, yeah--that's when we were run by the Mafia.

[Hekate]

86. BINGO! Make America "Union" Again!

[PufPuf23]

87. One of the "problems" of the modern world is that "full" employment

is no longer necessary because of mechanization and efficiency.

Managers and capitalists still look to maximize profit and management complexity by minimizing labor.

The social problem is then how to distribute income and wealth to the unemployed and under employed.

Some vanity stars would send excess folks off to war or let the "useless eaters" effectively live a stark life and die prematurely.

The obvious way around the social problem of lack of "good" jobs is a guarantee of comfortable income, health care, child care, education, shelter, freedom of movement, healthy environment, retirement, etc.; a guarantee to be part of society itself.

The nation (and world) has the resources and creativity but not the will nor empathy

Unions once solved the social problem of fair compensation and still do to a lesser extent.

No one asks to be born. Once born a life worth living seems warranted and possible for nearly all to have.

[sarcasmo]

96. Kick

[Maru Kitteh]

104. K & R. Great post!