# 36 Reasons Why You Should Thank a Union... **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 25, 2014, 11:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/36-reasons-why-you-should-thank-a-union/679683 "2014-01-25T11:57:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2014, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/36-reasons-why-you-should-thank-a-union/679683/81 "2014-01-27T15:10:21Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > The article that accompanies the graph discusses five plausible explanations for the trend, so assuming that it’s due to the state of unions without further evidence is pretty thin soup. I didn’t say it was ONLY due to the decline of unions. But it’s a very strong possibility. Especially since the graph indicates that workers are still producing value. It’s not that there is less to get from employers, it’s that workers are simply getting less of a share of it. Unions are how they have traditionally assured that share. THAT’S the POINT. There are always going to be economic trends that put pressure on wages. Unions push back. > [@](#): > > ETA: It also appears to only be counting wages as compensation, ignoring the role of rising costs of employer-provided health insurance. Sure, but that cost trend would also include the loss of such insurance, or lower benefits. ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2014, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/36-reasons-why-you-should-thank-a-union/679683/82 "2014-01-27T15:15:16Z")
Got no problems thanking them. Got no problems waving bye-bye to them, either. They have long ago outlived their usefulness. They no longer function for the benefit of the worker, they function for the benefit of the union. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2014, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/36-reasons-why-you-should-thank-a-union/679683/83 "2014-01-27T15:25:45Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > Got no problems thanking them. Got no problems waving bye-bye to them, either. They have long ago outlived their usefulness. They no longer function for the benefit of the worker, they function for the benefit of the union. Do you think it’s just the labor union in its current form that has outlived its usefulness, or the entire idea of collective bargaining? ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2014, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/36-reasons-why-you-should-thank-a-union/679683/84 "2014-01-27T15:30:06Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > Got no problems thanking them. Got no problems waving bye-bye to them, either. They have long ago outlived their usefulness. They no longer function for the benefit of the worker, they function for the benefit of the union. LOL. Some people have to learn the hard way. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2014, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/36-reasons-why-you-should-thank-a-union/679683/85 "2014-01-27T15:32:47Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > LOL. Some people have to learn the hard way. Especially if they worked at GM. Or more precisely, used to work. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2014, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/36-reasons-why-you-should-thank-a-union/679683/86 "2014-01-27T15:40:06Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > I didn’t say it was ONLY due to the decline of unions. But it’s a very strong possibility. Especially since the graph indicates that workers are still producing value. It’s not that there is less to get from employers, it’s that workers are simply getting less of a share of it. Unions are how they have traditionally assured that share. THAT’S the POINT. There are always going to be economic trends that put pressure on wages. Unions push back. I’ll stipulate that it’s a possibility, sure. > [@lance strongarm](#): > > Sure, but that cost trend would also include the loss of such insurance, or lower benefits. Since few jobs offer no benefits at all, any serious examination of employee compensation needs to factor in the cost of benefits. From the employer’s perspective, they are no different from wages. When charts of that sort ignore benefits, and especially health benefits, it’s indicative of trying to make a particular point, instead of trying to be accurate. When benefits are counted as compensation, the picture is [dramatically different.](http://www.nber.org/papers/w13953) > [@](#): > > The level of productivity doubled in the U.S. nonfarm business sector between 1970 and 2006. Wages, or more accurately total compensation per hour, increased at approximately the same annual rate during that period if nominal compensation is adjusted for inflation in the same way as the nominal output measure that is used to calculate productivity. > > Total employee compensation as a share of national income was 66 percent of national income in 1970 and 64 percent in 2006. This measure of the labor compensation share has been remarkably stable since the 1970s. It rose from an average of 62 percent in the decade of the 1960s to 66 percent in the decades of the 1970s and 1980s and then declined to 65 percent in the decade of the 1990s where it has again been from 2000 until the most recent quarter. This is an argument for health-care reform, much more so than wage reform, as the explosion in health care costs has eaten what would have been wage increases. ---
**Author:** ![chappachula](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/d2c977/32.png) [@chappachula](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chappachula)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2014, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/36-reasons-why-you-should-thank-a-union/679683/87 "2014-01-27T15:51:46Z")
Okay, folks…after all the shouting and insults, may I suggest that we turn this thread towards a more useful discussion? Instead of talking about unions in general…I’d like to suggest that we talk about one specific union–(or the lack thereof.) Let’s talk about everybody’s favorite company to hate: Walmart. And my specific quesiton is– **would the workers at Walmart benefit from being unionized?** I’d like to hear from previiousr posters…both lovers of unions, and especially from the haters of unions–(and there seem to be plenty of posters in this thread like that 🙂 ). My opinion: this thread started on the wrong track (i.e.the OP was wrong about his 35 reasons we must all worship unions), but there is still plenty of good that can be done by organized labor in specific cases. I would say that Walmart workers need a union…but the auto workers do not (Back in 2001, Walmart closed down its meat department when the butchers tried to unionize.So the management is clearly afraid that a union would be good for the workers.) . ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2014, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/36-reasons-why-you-should-thank-a-union/679683/88 "2014-01-27T15:54:25Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Especially if they worked at GM. Or more precisely, used to work. > > Regards, > Shodan You post alot of cute comments. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2014, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/36-reasons-why-you-should-thank-a-union/679683/89 "2014-01-27T15:59:39Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > I’ll stipulate that it’s a possibility, sure. A pretty strong one, I’d say, since the others are simply economic forces that unions have always dealt with. > [@](#): > > Since few jobs offer no benefits at all, any serious examination of employee compensation needs to factor in the cost of benefits. From the employer’s perspective, they are no different from wages. Agreed. > [@](#): > > When charts of that sort ignore benefits, and especially health benefits, it’s indicative of trying to make a particular point, instead of trying to be accurate. No, I don’t believe it’s fair to say that. > [@](#): > > When benefits are counted as compensation, the picture is [dramatically different.](http://www.nber.org/papers/w13953) Interesting, thanks. But this is in aggregate. It doesn’t break down the problem by class (perhaps the paper as a whole does). When you look at just wages, the same thing happens, because the top 10 percent have certainly seen their wages grow. The bottom 90 percent haven’t. So I’d like to know if this holds true when you break it out by percentiles. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2014, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/36-reasons-why-you-should-thank-a-union/679683/90 "2014-01-27T16:13:58Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > A pretty strong one, I’d say, since the others are simply economic forces that unions have always dealt with. It doesn’t follow that unions can guarantee x % of productivity growth go to their members, regardless of those economic forces. That is, even if union membership had increased rather than decreased over the last ~50 years, the gap between wage growth and productivity growth (such as there is) might well still have occured, as a result of technological changes that required fewer workers (and often lower-skilled workers) to acheive more productivity, more women in the work force, and etc. [QUOTE=lance strongarm] No, I don’t believe it’s fair to say that. [/quote] Why does it make sense to make charts of wage growth versus productivity, and not include benefits, when they are just another form of wages? Perhaps there’s a reason I’ve overlooked. > [@lance strongarm](#): > > Interesting, thanks. But this is in aggregate. It doesn’t break down the problem by class (perhaps the paper as a whole does). When you look at just wages, the same thing happens, because the top 10 percent have certainly seen their wages grow. The bottom 90 percent haven’t. So I’d like to know if this holds true when you break it out by percentiles. I offered this in contrast to the chart(s) in the other cite, which is also an aggreggate. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2014, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/36-reasons-why-you-should-thank-a-union/679683/91 "2014-01-27T16:20:36Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > It doesn’t follow that unions can guarantee x % of productivity growth go to their members, regardless of those economic forces. That is, even if union membership had increased rather than decreased over the last ~50 years, the gap between wage growth and productivity growth (such as there is) might well still have occured, as a result of technological changes that required fewer workers (and often lower-skilled workers) to acheive more productivity, more women in the work force, and etc. I’m not saying that. It’s probably safe to say it would be more than zero growth though. > [@](#): > > Why does it make sense to make charts of wage growth versus productivity, and not include benefits, when they are just another form of wages? Perhaps there’s a reason I’ve overlooked. The data are easier to get? > [@](#): > > I offered this in contrast to the chart(s) in the other cite, which is also an aggreggate. Fair enough. But now I’m offering a new point, which is that pretty much all of what little wage growth has happened has been for the top 10%. This may be true when you include compensation. I rather doubt the average McDonald’s or Walmart worker has seen big boosts in health insurance that make up for stagnant wages. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2014, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/36-reasons-why-you-should-thank-a-union/679683/92 "2014-01-27T16:21:49Z")
> [@chappachula](#): > > (Back in 2001, Walmart closed down its meat department when the butchers tried to unionize.So the management is clearly afraid that a union would be good for the workers.) > > . I’m not contradicting the general thrust of your post, but your last sentence does not follow. Opposition to unionization means Walmart fears it would be bad for them and their ownership. There’s no reason to think they are “afraid that a union would be good for the workers.” ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2014, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/36-reasons-why-you-should-thank-a-union/679683/93 "2014-01-27T16:29:43Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > I’m not saying that. It’s probably safe to say it would be more than zero growth though. Possibly, though I of course dispute that the growth has been zero. > [@lance strongarm](#): > > The data are easier to get? Maybe, but I’ve seen enough studies that include total compensation to conclude that the data is available. Only using wages as compensation is fundamentally inaccurate, so only using that data is worse than not doing the study/making the chart at all. > [@lance strongarm](#): > > Fair enough. But now I’m offering a new point, which is that pretty much all of what little wage growth has happened has been for the top 10%. This may be true when you include compensation. I rather doubt the average McDonald’s or Walmart worker has seen big boosts in health insurance that make up for stagnant wages. I may or may not be able to find that sort of data. Can you define exactly what data you’re suggesting be sought out? Is it the bottom 90% for both wages and total compensation, contrasted to productivity growth for the same group, over the period 1970-present? ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2014, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/36-reasons-why-you-should-thank-a-union/679683/94 "2014-01-27T16:30:55Z")
Found a graph with wage AND benefit growth shown over time. [Boy, Is There Ever No Wage Inflation in This Economy | Jared Bernstein | On the Economy](http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/boy-is-there-ever-no-wage-inflation-in-this-economy/) (scroll down) I think it shows that benefit growth hasn’t compensated (no pun intended) for lack of wage growth. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2014, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/36-reasons-why-you-should-thank-a-union/679683/95 "2014-01-27T16:32:17Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > I may or may not be able to find that sort of data. Can you define exactly what data you’re suggesting be sought out? Is it the bottom 90% for both wages and total compensation, contrasted to productivity growth for the same group, over the period 1970-present? Well, ideally it would be for all percentiles, since the split might not be right at 90. But yeah. That’d be cool. ---
**Author:** ![A\_Lethargic\_Prawn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecae2f/32.png) [@A\_Lethargic\_Prawn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/A_Lethargic_Prawn)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2014, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/36-reasons-why-you-should-thank-a-union/679683/96 "2014-01-27T16:38:40Z")
Did anyone else open this thread, with the intention to show gratitude to the unicorns, only to be thoroughly disappointed? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2014, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/36-reasons-why-you-should-thank-a-union/679683/97 "2014-01-27T16:41:35Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Found a graph with wage AND benefit growth shown over time. > > [Pg slot สล็อตเว็บตรง ฝากถอนไม่มีขั้นต่ำ เริ่ม 1 บาท ใหม่ล่าสุด](http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/boy-is-there-ever-no-wage-inflation-in-this-economy/) (scroll down) > > I think it shows that benefit growth hasn’t compensated (no pun intended) for lack of wage growth. Your graph shows that both benefits and wages have grown every year that the graph is for. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2014, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/36-reasons-why-you-should-thank-a-union/679683/98 "2014-01-27T16:46:00Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Your graph shows that both benefits and wages have grown every year that the graph is for. Sure, but by a much smaller margin than before the decline of unions in the 1970s. And it includes all earnings and benefits, including those of the top income levels. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2014, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/36-reasons-why-you-should-thank-a-union/679683/99 "2014-01-27T16:47:13Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Found a graph with wage AND benefit growth shown over time. > > [Pg slot สล็อตเว็บตรง ฝากถอนไม่มีขั้นต่ำ เริ่ม 1 บาท ใหม่ล่าสุด](http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/boy-is-there-ever-no-wage-inflation-in-this-economy/) (scroll down) > > I think it shows that benefit growth hasn’t compensated (no pun intended) for lack of wage growth. That’s not applicable to this particular discussion, because: 1. It’s just for 2005-2013 2. It uses the growth rates of wages and benefits, not the actual values. The fact that the growth rate of benefits is higher than the growth rate for wages supports what I’ve been arguing, that wage growth appears flat because benefits have become so costly for employers, though, again, it’s only for 2005-13. 3. It doesn’t include productivity growth, which is essential for the argument that compensation has lagged productivity. > [@lance strongarm](#): > > Well, ideally it would be for all percentiles, since the split might not be right at 90. But yeah. That’d be cool. That may or may not be possible, but I’ll take a look-see. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2014, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/36-reasons-why-you-should-thank-a-union/679683/100 "2014-01-27T16:48:17Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > 1. It’s just for 2005-2013 Oops, sorry. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/36-reasons-why-you-should-thank-a-union/679683.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/36-reasons-why-you-should-thank-a-union/679683.md?page=6)