E-mail a friendMichael D. Yates
original airdate May 3, 2005
Michael Yates is an economist, a longtime labor educator and a former University of Pittsburgh economics professor. He's the author of numerous books, including Naming the System: Inequality and Work in the Global Economy and Why Unions Matter. He's also the associate editor of Monthly Review. After becoming disillusioned with academic life, he took early retirement in '01 and, with his wife, has traveled the country. His new book, Cheap Motels and a Hot Plate examines life in contemporary America.
Michael D. Yates
Tavis: Michael Yates is a respected labor economist and former professor at the University of Pittsburgh. He's also the author of several books, including 'Why Unions Matter.' His most recent is 'Naming the System: Inequality and Work in the Global Economy. He joins us tonight from Tallahassee, Florida. Mr. Yates, nice to have you on, sir.
Michael Yates: Thanks. Glad to be here.
Tavis: Glad to have you. Let me start with that simple question, although the answer may be a bit more complex. Why do unions-- Let me put it this way, why do unions still matter? How about that?
Yates: Well, I think the best thing that can happen to a worker is to be in a union and part of labor movement. And there are just so many things that unions do for workers, or that workers do for themselves through forming unions may be a better way to put it. I mean, just the obvious things.
Union workers make a much higher wage than non-union workers do. They have better benefits, especially healthcare and pensions, and more benefits in terms of leave and sick leave and that sort of thing. Unions mean that employers can no longer treat workers in the arbitrary manner that they're often used to. Unions mean that workers gain a lot more respect on the job. The workers always say that one of the things that a union means for them is respect.
In addition, on a broader, more social, more national scale, unions, especially when there's a movement, when there's significant number of workers in unions, unions mean better legislation for workers. Especially in terms of their security, like social security, like occupational safety and health, unemployment compensation, things that make workers more secure against what might happen to them at work if they get sick or injured or what have you. Union members are more attuned to the law. They know more about them. They know their rights, and they're more likely to use those rights for their own benefit.
So I think unions mean a lot of good things, not only for workers, but for society as a whole. For example, unions bring about greater equality and income, for example, and that's a big problem in the United States where incomes have gotten so much more unequal than they were even 30 or 40 years ago.
Tavis: You answered the question brilliantly. Of course, this is what you do every day for a living. A brilliant answer to why unions matter. Let me ask the question slightly differently. I think you'll follow me on this. Unions, in your mind, still matter, but are unions still relevant in this global economy? Are they still relevant?
Yates: Oh, I think unions are very relevant. I think one reason--one way you can see that they're relevant is how strongly employers fight against them whenever workers try to form unions. You can see that employers know that they'd be relevant, not in a way that might be in their interest, but in a way that might be in the interest of the mass of workers. I think unions are as relevant as they ever were. The problems that they face are very grave, that's for sure. But they're as relevant as they ever were, I think.
Tavis: Let's talk about what those grave challenges are that unions face as we speak.
Yates: Well, I think unions face challenges externally, and they face challenges internally. By external, what I mean by that is, is that the context in which unions now operate is one which is a very difficult one. For example, union strongholds in manufacturing, for example, have been decimated, much less employment in manufacturing. That's been a big problem, too, for minority workers who were finally getting a foothold in manufacturing in the seventies, for example. And now manufacturing's kaput in all the big cities, and that's been detrimental for minority workers.
In addition, the labor laws in the United States leave a lot to be desired in terms of workers' rights, and employers have taken advantage of quota interpretation and National Labor Board interpretation of these laws to really make it difficult for workers to form unions. Probably about one out of every 10 or so workers actively involved in a union organizing campaign is illegally fired. Workers are routinely transferred to less desirable jobs. Workers are routinely threatened, faced with constant harassment by their bosses and so on. So the climate in which unions operate externally is a very difficult one.
You mentioned, of course, global competition, and that's a difficult problem, too. But internally, there are a lot of problems, as well.
Unions still, believe it or not, devote very little of their budgets to organizing new workers, with some exceptions. There are a few unions that do, but a lot of unions don't. So they don't even try to organize new workers and if you don't organize new workers, how can you have a labor movement? For example, in the 1930s and 1940s, tremendous strides were made in organizing black workers in the South and, to some extent, Hispanic workers in the Southwest. Those efforts ultimately didn't succeed, I think, to a large extent because the labor movement kicked out all the progressives in the late 1940s and early 1950s who were most committed to that kind of organizing. It was possible in the 1940s to organize even unions made up of black and white workers across the country. And that's... The unions didn't take advantage of what they had then. Instead they got rid of the people who were best able to do that.
Tavis: When you mentioned the internal struggle that unions face, I read a piece the other day in one paper that was actually picked up on the wire by a number of other papers, I noted. John Sweeney, who most of us in politics or certainly who follow politics know, has been the longtime head of the AFL-CIO, the big union in this country. I read of late that Mr. Sweeney's in trouble over how unions should organize and how they should spend their money. Talk to me about what's happening internally with their leadership in the coming months and years.
Yates: Well, Sweeney came to power in 1995, overthrew the old guard of the AFL-CIO, and gave us a lot of hope that the labor movement would rejuvenate itself. And some good things were done. Labor had always supported the most reactionary kind of United States foreign policy in the rest of the world, and that changed a little bit. There were unions that were in league with the CIA to defeat the progressive labor unions all around the world.
But under Sweeney's watch, labor union membership has continued to decline both in terms of absolute numbers and as a proportion of the workforce. So he's facing a lot of challenges. He used to be the head of the Service Employees International Union and the current president, Andy Stern, is leading a charge saying that there ought to be a lot fewer unions, that there ought to be mergers and the unions that do best in a field ought to take over that field and not be faced with competition from other smaller unions. He and some others also think that the dues money that a member pays that goes directly to the AFL-CIO, which is not itself a union but a federation of unions, should be greatly reduced so that the local unions have more money to spend on organizing.
Tavis: Let me jump in right quick. Is Stern's idea--for lack of a better word--about consolidation a good idea or a bad idea for unions long-term?
Yates: Well, it might be a good idea if some other things went along with it. It's a bad idea in the sense that sometimes some of the smaller unions are good and democratic unions and sometimes they've had great success. So I'm not sure about the specifics of his plan, but I just wonder if it might not mean more bureaucratic running of the unions and less democracy, which is a big problem in the unions as it is.
Tavis: There's no secret that this particular White House--the Bush White House, that is--has no love affair with labor unions in this country. No secret there. I wonder, though, whether it's just me, or am I also sensing that the body politic--that is to say, politicians in particular--are not as responsive, not as concerned, don't fight as hard as they once did for union workers in this country. Is that me, or am I missing something?
Yates: No, I think that's true. Of course, one of the problems is there's not enough mass base of union members and a real movement to force politicians to take action. But one thing that really struck me--the AFL-CIO and its member unions, they funneled tens of millions of dollars into John Kerry's recent presidential campaign, and yet I don't remember in any of the three debates Kerry specifically mentioning the benefits that unions mean for workers. He talked a lot about working families and raising the minimum wage. But you would think that the labor movement could command enough respect and power to at least get Mr. Kerry to say in a public forum on national TV that unions meant a lot of good things for workers. So I think it tells you, really, how weak the labor movement is that they couldn't even get a candidate to whom they were funneling tens of millions of dollars to say anything positive about them. It was quite remarkable.
Tavis: Maybe it also means that the Democratic Party doesn't deserve labor support.
Yates: Well, that's probably true, too, and some people have said--a lot of people have said, I've said--that labor has to be a lot more independent in its politics. But above and beyond that independence in politics, a think that labor should really take a lesson from the right.
I remember back in 1964, a lot of people thought that the ideas of Barry Goldwater were crackbrained. But now Barry Goldwater seems relatively conservative in terms of his ideas on the right. The right hit on a few key ideas and they pushed them and they pushed them and they pushed them and they pushed them. They took the high road, so to speak, though I don't agree with their principles, and said, 'Let's fight for what we believe in, and if we lose a few elections, if we lose a few battles, let's keep to the struggle in terms of principles.'
The labor movement, it seems to me, has lost that idea. Back in the thirties and forties, they had principles. They had principles saying that workers should have rights. They should have the right to a job. They should have the right to better ways. They should have the right to dignity, that there should be equality between blacks and whites and Hispanics. That we shouldn't be supporting a government that supports anti-labor governments all around the world. In other words, they had some high ground in, but they lost that high ground. They took a more pragmatic view and said, 'Well, let's think of unions as insurance policies for workers.' That's the worst possible thing you can do. For example, Wal-Mart will never be organized unless there's a labor movement, unless there's something where people say, 'I'm committed to this because it's something bigger than myself.' Do you understand what I'm saying?
Tavis: Sure. Let me close with this. I hear that last point. Let me close with this right quick. Never mind the problems they're facing right now, I take it though it is your belief that unions do matter, that they are relevant, and that as Americans, as a society, we will always need unions and the labor movement, yes?
Yates: Yes, absolutely. The best example I can give, if you look at workers in Western Europe, which, you know, there's a lot of economic problems in Western Europe, my goodness, in Germany, and so on. And yet, because they have stronger labor movements, workers have been better able to withstand the attack of employers and governments than they have been in the United States and in England, for example, where they've just been beaten down for the last 30 years. I mean, it's really just a terrible thing, in my view.
Tavis: Michael Yates, the author of a couple good books. The first one, his most recent book, 'Naming the System: Inequality and Work in the Global Economy,' and another book, 'Why Unions Matter.' Mr. Yates, thank you for coming on, sir. I appreciate your time.
Yates: Oh, thanks a lot. Glad to be here.
Tavis: All the best to you.
Back to May 3, 2005