Decline of unions has cost everyone else $3K in pay

[applegrove]

by Joseph F. Pete at nwi Times

http://www.nwitimes.com/business/local/decline-of-unions-has-cost-everyone-else-k-in-pay/article_288ff0a4-0a64-52b0-969f-a51af9b8cd6c.html

"SNIP.............


Even if you're a man who doesn't belong to a union, you're $3,000 a year poorer because unions are not as strong as they use to be, a new study found.

An Economic Policy Institute study found wages would be $2,700 to $3,000 higher a year for male employees if unions still represented as much of the workforce as they did in 1979. The liberal Washington D.C.-based think tank found non-union workers lose about $133 billion annually due to the decline in unions and that it's "the overlooked reason why wages are stuck and inequality is growing."

Authors Jake Rosenfeld, Patrick Denice and Jennifer Laird found the effect was not as substantial on non-union women, who were not as unionized as men in 1979. They would be making about 2 percent to 3 percent more today if union membership were at the level it was in the late 1970s.

About 11.1 percent of the workforce belonged to unions last year, down from about 35 percent in the 1950s, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.


...............SNIP"

Hope Hillary gets on this quick!

[BigDemVoter]

1. Good point.

I work in a VERY strong union environment. Everybody has benefited--even those NOT in the union. Wages across the entire city are much higher, as my city supports unions, and MOST healthcare facilities here are unionized. Even the facilities that are non-union are forced to pay higher wages to attract employees. Fringe benefits tend to be quite good, thanks to the wonders of collective bargaining.

I just smile when I think of my colleagues in say. . . . Arkansas? They are paid a fraction of what we are (even accounting for cost-of-living), and they pay big bucks for co-pays for meds, and their retirement "benefits" are pure shit. Those Arkansas colleagues who make shitty money & benefits? They're mostly voting for the Orange Shit Gibbon. Go figure.

[MichMan]

2. What does 1979 have to do with anything???

Love to see the math on how they came up with the dollar amounts. Not challenging the general premise of course, but totally confused at what 1979 has to do with it.

The part in the OP about women only losing 2 to 3% because they were not as unionized in 1979; what does that have to do with where wages would be today???

[applegrove]

3. Reagan won the election in 1980 and fired the air traffic controllers a while later ushering in

the war on labor.

[catnhatnh]

5. Because 1980 was the start of the demise of union strength...

as marked by Reagan firing the air traffic contollers of the PATCO strike and subsequent deregulation of major industries.

[MichMan]

6. My question had nothng to do with Reagan

You didn't understand my question. The authors of the study determined that male wages would be $3000 a year higher across the board in union and non union jobs if unions were as strong now as they were in 1979.

Yet they concluded that women would have only gone up 2-3% in the same time period since less women were unionized back then.

Just didn't understand why men would have twice the % income gains over women over that time period. Why would income inequality be accelerated if unions were stronger?????

Just didn't understand if their methodology made any sense.

[Laffy Kat]

4. My union just got my job raised a level.

That ends up being major $$$ for so many of us. This is why I give extra in my dues every paycheck. Goddess love my union.