Become a digitalPLUS subscriber. 99¢ for 4 weeks.
NewsOpinionReaders Respond

Unions are not the answer

AgricultureUnionsProductivityGlobalizationWorld War II (1939-1945)

I take issue with much of Lane Windham's recent commentary ("If not labor unions, then what?" Jan. 29) beginning with the fundamental premise that it was the unions that provided us with economic redistribution. Like many other academicians, Ms. Windham confuses correlation with causation throughout her thought process. The simple presence of unions in the United States during our rise as the undisputed economic world leader does not establish them as the cause of a better or fairer distribution of wealth.

From 1947 to 1973, there are some other factors besides unions involved, not the least of which is the lack of any serious manufacturing competition throughout the entire world. Additionally, U.S. manufacturing capabilities were on steroids following World War II while other traditional manufacturing competitors were either devastated or in great disarray. Effectively, the world was clamoring for U.S. products and services while they were rebuilding their domestic production capabilities. These conditions gave the nation a tremendous base of both blue-collar and white-collar employment that resulted in the world's largest and most affluent middle class. Throughout this period, there never was a majority of unionized labor, yet somehow in spite of that, the world's largest middle class grew.

The writer also asserts that falling union membership caused an increase in the income divide. What is undoubtedly more significant is that since 1973 the U.S. started to lose much of its manufacturing advantage to foreign competition such as Japan and the upstart Asian economies.

The loss of manufacturing competitive advantage was due to higher wage and benefit costs and the lack of agility and flexibility due to rigid work rules negotiated by the unions. These challenges led to companies closing their non-competitive facilities, in many cases because they could not negotiate union concessions that would have led to improved productivity. Often, the union stance was they'd rather lose jobs than accept concessions on wages, benefits and work rules, and so they did. As these jobs disappeared, so did our middle class and a more even distribution of wealth.

It's probably true that America's citizens never got the kinds of universal health care programs, job insurance, or wage guarantees that benefited European workers, but they also haven't inherited the accompanying debt of these nations. It's also true that even today foreigners still prefer to immigrate to the U.S. than any other country in the world, and we still have people coming from all over the world to seek our medical services and skills. That being the case, I'm not sure why anyone would want to hold up the European socialist experience as desirous.

As to your closing question about what alternative to unions might temper the inequalities of the global economy, I suggest something she and others in academia just do not understand. To be a leader, even a survivor, in a global economy a country must be globally competitive and agile through constantly increased productivity. Only the creation of wealth through the transformation of natural resources into products of perceived value, and the provision of demanded services, provides economic redistribution. It seems to me that, as their membership roles suggest, the American working public is telling the unions that they do not believe they have the answer.

Michael P. Maturo, North Haven, Conn.

  • Text NEWS to 70701 to get Baltimore Sun local news text alerts
  • Copyright © 2014, The Baltimore Sun
    Related Content
    AgricultureUnionsProductivityGlobalizationWorld War II (1939-1945)
    • In a time of Ebola, we must crack down on illegal bush meat imports
      In a time of Ebola, we must crack down on illegal bush meat imports

      Bush meat, derived from monkeys, chimpanzees, rats and other animals, is widely consumed in West Africa and is known to be a source of Ebola. Ebola can be transferred in secretions and blood from bush meat to humans.

    • Brown's pre-K promises don't add up
      Brown's pre-K promises don't add up

      Throughout the last two months, the Anthony Brown campaign has accused Larry Hogan of being "extreme" and "dangerous" in regard to his views on two volatile issues — a woman's right to choose and the regulation of assault weapons. Time and again, in a variety of...

    • Balto. Co. wrong on animal shelter photos
      Balto. Co. wrong on animal shelter photos

      The response by Don Mohler, chief of staff for County Executive Kevin Kamenetz, to the ACLU's lawsuit concerning photography at the Baltimore County animal shelter is disingenuous at best ("ACLU says Balto. Co. has squelched criticism of animal shelter," Oct. 19).

    • Low hiring standards lead to police brutality
      Low hiring standards lead to police brutality

      I've lived in and around Baltimore for all of my 73 years. My opinion on the problems with our police and fire departments lies with recruiting practices ("U.S. Dept. of Justice reveals plans to review Baltimore Police Dept.," Oct. 21). As a young man I never heard of the...

    • Hogan should learn from Connie Morella
      Hogan should learn from Connie Morella

      Tom Schaller's Oct. 20 column, "The Connie Morella effect," was most interesting. I knew Connie Morella well. She was an English professor at Montgomery College when I was teaching Political Science there. We continued our friendship over the years when she was in Congress and...

    • Moms want answers from Hogan on guns
      Moms want answers from Hogan on guns

      Despite gubernatorial candidate Larry Hogan's public flip-flopping on guns and the Maryland Firearms Safety Act — he must have some of a stance on guns. He completed a questionnaire for National Rifle Association that earned him an "A-" rating from the Washington gun...

    Comments
    Loading