Many non-union workers have lost jobs, lost benefits, and experienced salary reductions over the last 20 years as this nation has exported jobs. One of the consequences of the choice our nation made during the early 1990’s to open its markets to “free” competition with third world countries, while those third world countries continued to pursue mercantilist trade policies, was to ensure the standard of living of the average worker in America would decline. When even $7.50 per hour US minimum wage labor competes with 10 cent per hour Chinese labor, the lower cost labor will ultimately win or the higher cost labor will lower its “price” to compete.
The US middle class has paid dearly for our 20 year infatuation with globalism and theories of free trade while other nations pursue policies that promote their own self interests. By any measure, the US standard of living has declined for the first time in our history. We can blame unions, but non union workers have experienced the same decline or worse. Ask any textile or furniture worker in a southern right to work state about lost pennons, jobs and income. Ask the few that are left if they don’t go to work every morning wondering if the company will be announcing another downsizing or offshoring of another segment of business. Unions can’t be blamed for the shuttered factories in the southeastern US.
For those convinced that union greed is the source of this nation’s economic ills, consider that in 1965 the average CEO earned 24 times the pay of the average worker. By 2005 the average CEO earned 262 times the pay of the average worker. By 2010 it was 343 times the average worker salary. It seems those at the top may be even more greedy than the union workers and much more successful in securing disproportionate increases in compensation.
Per the US Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics in 2011 only 6.9% of private sector US workers were represented by a union while 37% of public sector workers belonged to unions. It is difficult to conceive unions are having a significant impact on either pay or job loss in the private sector given the low rate of union membership.
If one wants to truly look at greed it would likely be illuminating to examine the severance payments of American companies declaring bankruptcy over the past decade. How much more generous were the severance benefits given to the top 5% most highly compensated executives versus the rank and file workers?
We conservatives can dismiss Obama’s class warfare speeches. Unfortunately, there is enough underlying truth to what he says about the upper 1% that his message is resonating with large segments of the public. I know many middle age hourly workers and middle managers who have been kicked to the curb in their mid 50’s due to downsizings and offshoring of jobs. Some have taken new jobs at 30-40% lower pay than before, not to mention loss of benefits. Others are still looking and consuming their retirement savings to put food on the table. When these terminated workers see their former companies report record earnings and management bonus payouts, they blame a corrupt system and not Obama’s economic policies. From their perspective it is not fair for a company to pay out millions in bonuses to its CEO and executives when it is cutting workers and worker benefits.
We can talk all of the free market theories we want but people are going to vote on what they see and experience in their own lives. The reality in this country is the people at the top are taking a larger share of a shrinking pie. Many working people or unemployed middle class workers are beginning to listen and believe Obama’s class warfare rhetoric. I hope Mr. Romney has an better answer than union bashing when Obama starts talking about the jobs cut at companies owned by Bain Capital and the multimillions in bonuses he earned while at Bain.
LOL! You are about as conservative as Andy Stern or any other union hack.
“Per the US Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics in 2011 only 6.9% of private sector US workers were represented by a union while 37% of public sector workers belonged to unions.”
Yeah....but how many of the 6.9% actually could be exported due to union influence? Labor has been as much of the downfall of the economy as the crooked politicians. I”d slit my grandmother’s throat before I’d join a union or vote for a democRAT!
.
Look up how much the CEO of Walmart makes, then look up how many employees Walmart has. Divide employees into CEO pay and see what you get.
The CEOs pay is negligible on making a dent in the average Walmart employees life.
Next, look up the Forbes top 500 CEOs pay, then divide it by WALMARTS employees (its too hard to figure how many employees the top 500 have.)
Next, look up the Forbes top 400 richest Americans and add up all their estimated wealth. How does it compare with this years deficit?
The point being, that for ALL the focus on the evil rich people, They don't have or make enough to truly influence everybody elses life, if all their money were simply given to everybody else.
This became very clear to me a few years ago during a strike by workers at one of the major grocery store chains in California. I read an article about the strike in one of the national financial magazines, and was surprised at how candid the workers on the picket line were. The vast majority of them admitted that they do their grocery shopping at Wal-Mart ... a major retail chain that has taken a big chunk out of the market share of traditional retail chains and employs non-union labor to keep their costs low.
This goes back to a statement that I've made for a long time about most issues related to U.S. labor. The heart of the problem, as I see it, is that there is a huge gap between what a typical American charges for his labor and what he's willing to pay someone else to do the same job. Is there any less "greed" in that than you see in corporate boardrooms all across this country? I don't think so.
I don't know what the solution is, but it is critical for us to keep in mind that the problem isn't a simple one.
I wonder what comparison could be made from two different angles: (1) the comparison of CEO pay to total company compensation (rather than comparing a single CEO with enormous responsibilities with a single employee with much more limited responsibilities); and (2) the ratio of CEO pay to business volume.
Item (2) is an interesting point because it goes to one of the things that is often overlooked in these comparisons from one generation to the next -- namely, the fact that today's companies are much bigger and do far more business than their predecessors.
“[executives] taking a larger share of a shrinking pie.”
“union bashing”
Sorry to burst your ignorant bubbble but unions take many times more than executives do. Every union member pays dues and those dues exceed by 100 times the total salaries of all the executives combined.