In fact, there was a time in my more naive youth when I truly felt that unions, like horses and buggies, were little more than nostalgic reminders of what we'd left behind. I valued OSHA and the worker's rights rules unions helped create. I had deep respect for the sweat shops they'd helped destroy, the child labor and unsafe working conditions they'd done away with, but their time had come. I thought. To this day I can't quite wrap my brain around the notion of a union employee, even a union executive making more than the people they represent (from those peoples' DUES!)
But the more I looked into Ronald Reagan's pro-union past, the more I learned about the current U.S. meat packing industry, in other words, the more I learned about that vast world around me I'd spent most of my life insulated from, the more I started to think differently. In fact, you might even say unions went from "outlived their usefulness" all the way to "necessary evil" in my opinion.
Of course, as my perspective expanded, my thoughts about unions changed even more. Ohio Senate Bill 5 served as my latest wake up call. In examining the ridiculously convoluted wording of the bill, searching the text and my feeble mind for how it could possibly save the state any money, and brainstorming what could possibly motivate anyone to propose such lunacy, it dawned on me that Gov. Kasich is the ideal stand in for billionaire CEOs and Ohio's public employees are the equivalents of labor - or as we're known these days, the 99%.
I continue to be amazed at my own capacity to learn as I get older, lazier, fatter. I also continue to be amazed at how many of my fellow Ohioans in the 99% inexplicably favor and vocally support rules that even further favor the 1%. I find that sometimes it helps to use pictures rather than our native language to explain how I arrive at some of my conclusions.
Take this picture, for instance:
It's a graph showing the disconnect between worker productivity and wages. Note the two used to be pretty good pals up until about 3rd quarter 1990. (if you're really curious, you can check out the EPI Analysis of BLS Labor Cost Indexes, or Issue Brief 297 from March 2011) Here's what the pictures tell us: While worker productivity went up 62.5% from 1989-2010, wages grew... wait for it... 12%.
Here's another way to look at it: corporate profits are up 20.2% above pre-recession figures while workers (from public and private sectors) now make 3% less than they did pre-recession.
How could this happen? Well, my simple mind would like to say that CEOs have abandonded all pretense of sharing the wealth with the employees who make them rich. In fact, the graph kind of shows just that, but I'm an idiot no one should ever believe. Let's use the EPI reports explanation as a starting point:
The answers lie in an economy that is designed to work for the well off and not to produce good jobs and improved living standards.
OK, that sounds kind of shitty too. So let's turn to the argument so many of my fellow 99%ers make when defending the drivel spewed by Fox news 99%ers: "That's why I went to college"
or "That's why I'm grateful I was raised with a strong work ethic."
These are admirable goals/traits, but they don't indicate an understanding of the most basic math. What the EPI report goes on to say in about a hundred different ways, is that none of that matters. It doesn't matter how hard you work, how many jobs you have, or how much education you have. Our economy is currently designed to favor the 1% of American earners who claimed 56% of the NATION's economic growth from 1998-2007. The bottom 90% of American households shared just 16% of that pie.
That bears repeating. Prior to our current recession, the top 1% of Americans claimed 56% of economic growth while the bottom 90% of Americans claimed 16% of that growth.
As long as we're repeating unbelievable figures, throughout the recession, the top 1% continue to prosper, posting profits 22% higher than pre-recession levels while employees now earn 3% LESS.
We 99%ers have to accept some of the blame for this. Over the past 30 years, we've enjoyed lower priced goods as a result of this economic policy design, but at what cost? In our quest for Wal-Mart prices, we've set the following as our priorities:
-deregulation of industries
-privatization of public services
-the weakening of labor standards including the minimum wage
-erosion of the social safety net
-expanding globalization and... wait for it...
-the move toward fewer and weaker unions
(EPI issue brief #297 page 2)
Or, to put it in a phrase: The Republican (and to a lesser degree, The Clinton) Way.
So that's where we stand today. It took 30 years to create this system and the public, private, and corporate debt that has come with it. We enjoyed it during more prosperous times. It sucks when it catches up with us, and the 99% are the ones who suffer.
The thing that many of our fellow 99%ers seem to forget is that this affects all of us, not just the folks on unemployment, not just the folks who march on Wall Street, and not just folks who didn't go to college. 99% is 99%, and unless you earn over a million a year, you're with me. More importantly, the reason this should call for change rather than just inspiring us to work harder or get another degree is that first chart. A 30 year trend of working harder that resulted only in our CEOs getting richer while they paid us less and less. A more shocking reason for a better response is that this gap in income distribution is approaching the levels that preceded the Great Depression. Ever heard of that economics experiment about income distribution on the island? Once it all lands in the hands of the tiny top percentage, everything grinds to a halt.
Those of you who oppose all manner of tax increases need to check the math again. Whenever you join the "anti-Death Tax" argument, you're arguing in favor of a gigantic cut in revenues for the benefit of about .06% of all Americans. And if Ayn Rand is your inspiration, why shouldn't inheritance be taxed? The heir didn't EARN that wealth. Hell, maybe ALL of it should be surrendered to the state! We should also point out that the top marginal rates haven't been lower since the direct aftermath of the Great Depression. Do we really want to wait until it comes to that to even out the tax burden again?
For more optimistic reading, check out Who Rules America at
or 15 Mind Blowing Fact about Wealth and Inequality in America from BusinessInsider.com at
So, to sum it up, if we continue to weaken unions and empower CEOs who have clearly lost the moral imperative to share the wealth their workforces bring them with their workforces, then who will speak up for us? What possible say will we ever have over our conditions. As employees, we won't even have the option of leaving a job 'cuz they'll all pay unlivable wages. Without the collective power of a national workforce, we are absolutely powerless to direct our own fates and conditions. Without unions, having any kind of say means some kind of revolution. Wouldn't it better just to stand up for negotiating power again?
And now for the Jerry Springer moment: Before you go criticizing the World War 2, Vietnam, Desert Storm, OEF and OIF vets (that Rush called parasites), the local bank managers, the college students, the bums, the nurses, firefighters, factory workers, sales professionals and the rest of your friends and neighbors who have joined the OWS gatherings, remember that you're probably one of them - one of the 99%, whether you can do the math or not. And for the life of me, would someone please explain why so many 99%ers continue to deride our cohort, and defend pro 1% policy?
Reminds me a lot of the old bumper sticker: "If you're a Republican and you're not rich, you're stupid." But that's a little harsh. In the interest of bipartisan peace and harmony, maybe we should update it to "If you're a Republican and you're not in the top 1%, you're stupid."
Hmmm, that doesn't really sound much better. I'll work on it some more.
Luth
Out
