On Labor Day, September 3, 2012, Wilma B. Liebman writes in the Los Angeles Times that we need a labor policy that builds on the values of existing law but better fits today’s complex economy and labor market.
In the midst of the Great Depression, Congress enacted the Wagner Act in 1935 to guarantee the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively with their employers. The express purpose of the law was to equalize the bargaining power of labor and capital and thereby to increase the purchasing power of workers and return the nation to economic prosperity. The act was not intended as a favor to labor, but rather as a way of saving the market economy from its own excesses.
It succeeded in replacing violent labor conflict with orderly procedures established by the law. And for decades, millions of American workers sought union representation and achieved a middle class way of life through collective bargaining.
In recent years, union membership has fallen sharply, and organized labor now represents less than 7% of the private sector workforce. At the same time, income inequality is at levels not seen since the Gilded Age. Opponents of the law dismiss it as a “New Deal relic,” and even supporters question its continuing effectiveness.
The last significant amendments to the law were in 1947, although our economy has changed dramatically since then. Still, efforts over the last 35 years to amend the law have failed. While many would agree that labor law is outdated and needs revision, there is little consensus about how to fix it. The last effort — the Employee Free Choice Act of 2009 — stalled after an all-out campaign by the business lobby.
Today, collective bargaining rights are under attack — in Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana and other states, on Capitol Hill, on the presidential campaign trail and in the Republican Party platform. And the National Labor Relations Board has become a political lightning rod.
As with countless other articles on the subject of JOB CREATION, Wilma Liebman fails to offer ANY solutions and never addresses the obvious solution to the tectonic shifts in the technologies of production that are destroying the opportunities for labor workers to be employed in future economic growth––that is, broadened OWNERSHIP CREATION to empower EVERY American to no longer be dependent on their labor but to accumulate a viable income-producing capital estate to become financially independent.
America is blinded by limiting policies to CREATE JOBS rather than the inclusive policy objective of broadened OWNERSHIP CREATION, which will result in real job growth. We need to focus on OWNERSHIP CREATION paid for out of the earnings of productive capital investment, the primary source of income for the wealthyInstead we continue to focus on JOB CREATION, which is the opposite objective of technological innovation and invention as tectonic shifts in the technologies of production destroy jobs and degrade jobs. Thus, the earnings necessary to become self-sufficient and pay for one’s advanced education and to support a family in relative affluence are just not there for the American majority. Those seeking higher education and to purchase higher ticket consumer items within that majority have had to pursue such with borrowed moneys. And the reality is that with the human-intelligent “machine age” exponentially destroying good jobs, even for those with engineering and science degrees, the pay back will be decades if at all, and we will simply end up with a society of millions of educated unemployed if not bankrupted, dependent on government welfare, open and concealed. The solution is to consciously and purposely broaden private, individual ownership in future income-producing productive capital assets simultaneously with the growth of the economy.The labor union movement should transform to a producers’ ownership union movement and embrace and fight for this new democratic capitalism. They should play the part that they have always aspired to––that is, a better and easier life through participation in the nation’s economic growth and progress. As a result, labor unions will be able to broaden their functions, revitalize their constituency, and reverse their decline. This is their ONLY salvation.
Unfortunately, at the present time the movement is built on one-factor economics––the labor worker. The insufficiency of labor worker earnings to purchase increasingly capital-produced products and services gave rise to labor laws and labor unions designed to coerce higher and higher prices for the same or reduced labor input. With government assistance, unions have gradually converted productive enterprises in the private and public sectors into welfare institutions. Kelso stated: “The myth of the ‘rising productivity’ of labor is used to conceal the increasing productiveness of capital and the decreasing productiveness of labor, and to disguise income redistribution by making it seem morally acceptable.”Kelso argued that unions “must adopt a sound strategy that conforms to the economic facts of life. If under free-market conditions, 90 percent of the goods and services are produced by capital input, then 90 percent of the earnings of working people must flow to them as wages of their capital and the remainder as wages of their labor work…If there are in reality two ways for people to participate in production and earn income, then tomorrow’s producers’ union must take cognizance of both…The question is only whether the labor union will help lead this movement or, refusing to learn, to change, and to innovate, become irrelevant.”Unions are the only group of people in the whole world who can demand a real Kelso-designed ESOP, who can demand the right to participate in the expansion of their employer by asserting their constitutional preferential rights to become capital owners, be productive, and succeed. The ESOP can give employees access to credit so that they can purchase the employer’s stock, pay for it in pre-tax dollars out of the assets that underlie that stock, and after the stock is paid for earn and collect the capital worker income from it, and accumulate it in a tax haven until they retire, whereby they continue to be capital workers receiving income from their capital ownership stakes. This is a viable route to individual self-sufficiency needing significantly less or no government redistributive assistance.The unions should reassess their role of bargaining for more and more income for the same work or less and less work, and embrace a cooperative approach to survival, whereby they redefine “more” income for their workers in terms of the combined wages of labor and capital on the part of the workforce. They should continue to represent the workers as labor workers in all the aspects that are represented today––wages, hours, and working conditions––and, in addition, represent workers as full voting stockowners as capital ownership is built into the workforce. What is needed is leadership to define “more” as two ways to earn income.
If we continue with the past’s unworkable trickle-down economic policies, governments will have to continue to use the coercive power of taxation to redistribute income that is made by people who earn it and give it to those who need it. This results in ever deepening massive debt on local, state, and national government levels, which leads to the citizenry becoming parasites instead of enabling people to become productive in the way that products and services are actually produced.
When labor unions transform to producers’ ownership unions, opportunity will be created for the unions to reach out to all shareholders (stock owners) who are not adequately represented on corporate boards, and eventually all labor workers will want to join an ownership union in order to be effectively represented as an aspiring capital owner. The overall strategy should assure that the labor compensation of the union’s members does not exceed the labor costs of the employer’s competitors, and that capital earnings of its members are built up to a level that optimizes their combined labor-capital worker earnings. A producers’ ownership union would work collaboratively with management to secure financing of advanced technologies and other new capital investments and broaden ownership. This will enable American companies to become more cost-competitive in global markets and to reduce the outsourcing of jobs to workers willing or forced to take lower wages.
Kelso stated, “Working conditions for the labor force have, of course, improved over the years. But the economic quality of life for the majority of Americans has trailed far behind the technical capabilities of the economy to produce creature comforts, and even further behind the desires of consumers to live economically better lives. The missing link is that most of those unproduced goods and services can be produced only through capital, and the people who need them have no opportunity to earn income from capital ownership.”
Walter Reuther, President of the United Auto Workers, expressed his open-mindedness to the goal of democratic worker ownership in his 1967 testimony to the Joint Economic Committee of Congress as a strategy for saving manufacturing jobs in America from being outcompeted by Japan and eventual outsourcing to other Asian countries with far lower wage costs: “Profit sharing in the form of stock distributions to workers would help to democratize the ownership of America’s vast corporate wealth, which is today appallingly undemocratic and unhealthy.
“If workers had definite assurance of equitable shares in the profits of the corporations that employ them, they would see less need to seek an equitable balance between their gains and soaring profits through augmented increases in basic wage rates. This would be a desirable result from the standpoint of stabilization policy because profit sharing does not increase costs. Since profits are a residual, after all costs have been met, and since their size is not determinable until after customers have paid the prices charged for the firm’s products, profit sharing [through wider share ownership] cannot be said to have any inflationary impact on costs and prices.”
Unfortunately for democratic unionism, the United Auto Workers, American manufacturing workers, and American citizens generally, Reuther was killed in an airplane crash in 1970 before his idea was implemented. Leonard Woodcock, his successor, never followed through.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-oe-liebman-labor-day-20120903,0,3026232.story
