Let's talk about unions

[Havet]

The following is a conversation I saw on reddit. There was an initial topic and a particularly well sourced reply. I'm looking forward anyone coming up with some better data.

Original claim:


"Unions are a powerful, necessary, often imperfect, at-times-corrupt counterbalance to extremely powerful, necessary, often imperfect, at-times-corrupt, highly organized corporate and public employers."

Well sourced reply:


"Neccesary for what?

Certainly not for high wages or standards of living.

If you compare the Human Development index of nations in Europe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index#Europ e), with the level of unionization, you will find, precisely fuck all correlation between level of Unionisation and the HDI.

France has around 10% of its work force in Unions. (http://www.worker-participation.eu/National-Industrial-Relations/Countries/France)

Finland has around 74% of its work force in Unions. (http://www.worker-participation.eu/National-Industrial-Relations/Countries/Finland)

Yet France still places above Finland in the HDI. France places 14th and Finland places 16th. However, the GDP per capita of Finland is $44,000, whereas the GDP per cap in France is $41,000. (http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=ny_gdp_pcap_cd&idim=country:FIN&dl=en&hl=en&q=gdp+per+capita+of+finland#met=ny_gdp_pcap_cd&idim=country:FIN:FRA)

Other countries that have higher hdi, but lower GDP per capita and union rates than Finland include the Germany and Australia.

In fact in the case of Australia, there is a strong correlation between the decrease in union membership (http://www.census.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/b4005c38619c665aca25709000203b8d/592d2f759d9d38a9ca256ec1000766f7/Body/0.FBA!OpenElement&FieldElemFormat=gif) and the increase of GDP per capita (http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=ny_gdp_pcap_cd&idim=country:AUS&dl=en&hl=en&q=gdp+per+capita+australia).

And for all Finlands Unionisation, Teachers and doctors get paid less (http://www.worldsalaries.org/finland.shtml) in raw PPP than teachers and doctors in France (http://www.worldsalaries.org/france.shtml).

Now its possible that theres a 3rd factor that means Unions really are having a huge increase in standard of living in Finland, and something else is reducing Standards of living in Finland, however, I have yet to see such and example and would welcome hearing it.

While there are some nations where high levels of unionisation correspond with high standards of living, there are enough counter examples to put the efficacy of Unions into question, and to utterly destroy the concept of them being "neccesary".

In fact, if you track the economic development of nations such as China, you'll find that Unionisation comes AFTER increases in wages and standards of living, not before. In other words, Unions are the result of economic development, not the cause.

Original discussion board can be found here (http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/ft8a5/unions_are_a_powerful_necessary_often_imperfect/)

So, what thoughs have thee?

[Thug Lessons]

That argument is stupid as hell for a number of reasons, not the least of which being that France has an extremely vibrant labor movement that routinely calls industry-wide and even general strikes, and the fact that the richest and highest ranked in HDI-terms country in the world, Norway, has unionization levels similar to those of Finland.

Anyway, shame on you for browsing reddit.

[Havet]

That argument is stupid as hell for a number of reasons, not the least of which being that France has an extremely vibrant labor movement that routinely calls industry-wide and even general strikes, and the fact that the richest and highest ranked in HDI-terms country in the world, Norway, has unionization levels similar to those of Finland.

Anyway, shame on you for browsing reddit.

Do you understand how comparative evidence works?

Australia is 2nd, and has only 25% unions. Finland has 74% unions and is 16th. The whole point is that if there isn't a strong correlation then you cant say something is responsible for another.

"But what about Norway?"

If unions where what was responsible then you'd see an exact curve of nations with the highest union levels at the top and ones with the worst at the bottom. But thats not what you see. So either you have to go through each country and say why thats special and why something else is disrupting the positive effect of the unions, or, you have to accept that at the very least unions are not the deciding factor in living conditions.

Point is: 1 data point is not evidence out of the top 5 on the HDI. Norway is the only one with over 40% unionisation.

Not trying to be a prick btw. I'm open to any data you can present. This is NOT about ideologies. This is about data.

[Thug Lessons]

Seriously I'm reading through this and every single thing he says is absolute bullshit. Australia's GDP per capita rose while unionization fell? Yeah that's really important if you're concerned with raw economic performance rather than ensuring that wealth is evenly distributed throughout society. And China? He's seriously treating Chinese unions as anything more than another agent of state control? How could anyone take this seriously?

So, professor SunInABox, while it's quite always a joy to read the clever musings of an uniformed, idiotic free market shill on one of the worst websites ever created, I have a few objections to your line of argument here. For example, *clotheslines you, chokeslams you through a folding table and finally, BAM, the people's elbow* Long Live the Victory *dons sunglasses* of People's War. *smirks, revs Harley and rides off into the sunset*

[Mr.Awesome]

I feel tempted to make a graph comparing % of workers in unions to hdi etc. :p

brb :)

[Havet]

Seriously I'm reading through this and every single thing he says is absolute bullshit. Australia's GDP per capita rose while unionization fell? Yeah that's really important if you're concerned with raw economic performance rather than ensuring that wealth is evenly distributed throughout society. And China? He's seriously treating Chinese unions as anything more than another agent of state control? How could anyone take this seriously?

A) HDI rose with GDP
B) if the chinese unions are just an agent of "state control", thats even more evidence that unions aren't worth shit, because Chinese standards of living are still rising (http://www.researchrecap.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/china-wages.gif) (they've dipped since the recession, which the graph doesn't show, but before that they were rising, as you can see (http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=sp_dyn_le00_in&idim=country:CHN&dl=en&hl=en&q=chinese+life+expectancy))

[Mr.Awesome]

According to this site called Nationmaster there is no corelation between HDI and unions.

However there is a correlation between Trade union membership and Income distribution > Richest 10%.

http://www.nationmaster.com/plot/lab_tra_uni_mem/eco_inc_dis_ric_10/flag

The greater the union membership the less the rich get :)

[Thug Lessons]

Do you understand how comparative evidence works?

Australia is 2nd, and has only 25% unions. Finland has 74% unions and is 16th. The whole point is that if there isn't a strong correlation then you cant say something is responsible for another.
Well, fellow forums user, I am far from an expert in statistics, but I know enough about the subject to tell you that cherry-picking your data points makes anything you have to say about correlation invalid. A valid statistical comparison of unionization rates to development statistics would be interesting, but this is not.


If unions where what was responsible then you'd see an exact curve of nations with the highest union levels at the top and ones with the worst at the bottom. But thats not what you see.
Yes, if unions were the only factor in determining national wealth and wellbeing then that's what you'd expect to see, and the fact that this is not the case shows that there are other factors involved. But would anyone even try to dispute that? Even the staunchest advocate of the labor movement wouldn't claim that unions alone can turn a poor nation into a rich one or that the lack thereof can drive a Western nation into the third world.


So either you have to go through each country and say why thats special and why something else is disrupting the positive effect of the unions, or, you have to accept that at the very least unions are not the deciding factor in living conditions.
There are no 'deciding factors' in infinitely complex phenomena like economic performance and human development. This whole thing is a pointless distraction from an idiot who desperately needs to go back to the mises.org forums.

[Havet]

Well, fellow forums user, I am far from an expert in statistics, but I know enough about the subject to tell you that cherry-picking your data points makes anything you have to say about correlation invalid. A valid statistical comparison of unionization rates to development statistics would be interesting, but this is not.

Its not a full statistical breakdown. I aint got time for that. all its doing is picking examples that show discrepancy that need to be explained. I only need more evidence than what you're showing (in this case 0)

Im not saying i know im right, im just saying i have this chunk of evidence that calls your claims into question.


Yes, if unions were the only factor in determining national wealth and wellbeing then that's what you'd expect to see, and the fact that this is not the case shows that there are other factors involved. But would anyone even try to dispute that? Even the staunchest advocate of the labor movement wouldn't claim that unions alone can turn a poor nation into a rich one or that the lack thereof can drive a Western nation into the third world.

They don't have to. All you have to do is show how that, all things being equal, unionism has higher standards of living than not. thats what my examples where designed to bring doubt to. However that website Mr. Awesome posted confirms it: no corellation between HDI and unions.

It doesnt matter if the top 10% have more of the wealth, if the standard of living for the average guy is the same.

Of course no one suggests unionism can turn somalia into switzerland. But the finland example was exactly that. Finland has more wealth per GDP than france: 7 times the union members. So its not about making a rich country poor; its already richer. It has 7 times the union members, yet the standard of living for the average person is still worse, albeit, only by 0.001%.

But that demonstrates it comparitively. He (suninabox) wasn't picking a shit poor country and a rich one. That would be cherry picking. If anything, he picked against his favour, cause by rights, even if unions had no effect, finland should have a higher HDI because it has more money. Of course, this isn't demonstrated concretely in one example, but its enough to cast doubt, which is all he was trying to do.


There are no 'deciding factors' in infinitely complex phenomena like economic performance and human development. This whole thing is a pointless distraction from an idiot who desperately needs to go back to the mises.org forums.

Well, some people in reddit were claiming it was a deciding factor (as do most here), they said unions where neccessary for employee welfare.

But his (suninabox) claims dont even have that in implicitness, he already address 3rd factors, which proves he cant think theres a deciding factor. However its comparing one thing to another and thats how you demonstrate effect, like a control group (scientific method anyone?)

Just because there are lots of factors going on, doesnt mean you cant isolate what factor has what effect. Of course, i didnt do enough work to prove it substantially, but i at least did enough so that someone claiming unions did have a positive effect would have to explain why in the case of finland, they don't appear to.


According to this site called Nationmaster there is no corelation between HDI and unions.

Why did you glossed over the fact unions aren't correlated to HDI, but then went on to complain about equality?

You're assuming inequality is bad (and this topic is reserved for ideology), but HDI data I posted earlier shows it doesn't matter.

[Dimmu]

Statistics are always useless.. I mean Finland was ranked by other publications as best country to live in etc.. But again, it does not mean a thing. At least we in Finland do not have the inequality like USA or France, but its growing..

[RGacky3]

Your right france has a low union membership, but france has a very very high union representation and unions have huge amount of support, so the idea of representation does'nt work.

Also its not accross the board, you can't just take 2 countries and compare them because therer are other factors.

But OVERALL countires with stronger unions (not neccessarily more members) have a stronger working class.

Norway for example has 40%, however it also has a strong public sector where even non union members are represented by unions.

THere are so many factors that go into GDP that you can't just pick unions and 2 or 3 countries. GDP can rise really fast for various reasons, but that does'nt make for a healthy economy at all.

If you have strong unions demand will stay high meaning GDP growth is more sustainable, and the economy is actually working (meating public need).


if the chinese unions are just an agent of "state control", thats even more evidence that unions aren't worth shit, because Chinese standards of living are still rising (http://www.researchrecap.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/china-wages.gif) (they've dipped since the recession, which the graph doesn't show, but before that they were rising, as you can see (http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=sp_dyn_le00_in&idim=country:CHN&dl=en&hl=en&q=chinese+life+expectancy))

Yeah but income inequality has increased. But also remember China is still a very centrally planned economy, so it functions a little differently.



Heres the thing we have to remember Unions are THE ONLY democratic institutinos in the economy, and they are the ONLY force the workers have in the economy, and long term unions will make for a healthy economy, simply because democratic structures lead to more stability (a priori).

As far as the evidence is concerned, look at Germany for example, its only about a quarter of the population, but the unions are so strong they are required to be in the board of directors by law, look how health ythe German economy is. German unions although just representing directly 25% of the workforce are really strong and actually indirectly help a lot more.

[Revolution starts with U]

It's not union membership that's important, it's labor protection. You can have all the unions you want.. if they're in bed with the status quo it doesn't matter.
France has strong labor protections.

[#FF0000]

Wages in the US declined by like 20% since the decline of unions. Union workers make more.

It's pretty simple.

Doesn't mean there aren't shitty unions, though.

[RGacky3]

Heres the thing about shitty unions, yeah there are shitty unions, but its like constitutional monarchies, no matter how bad the parliment, or how much the parliment is in bed with the monarchs and nobles, they are at least succeptable to public pressure and are not totally totalitarian.

Corporations are totalitarian entities, even the bad unions are democratic though, so I'd support reforming unions, but I don't just drop them juts because they get a bit corrupted, even unions like the teamsters, there is a good reform movement in the teamsters.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Heres the thing about shitty unions, yeah there are shitty unions, but its like constitutional monarchies, no matter how bad the parliment, or how much the parliment is in bed with the monarchs and nobles, they are at least succeptable to public pressure and are not totally totalitarian.

Corporations are totalitarian entities, even the bad unions are democratic though, so I'd support reforming unions, but I don't just drop them juts because they get a bit corrupted, even unions like the teamsters, there is a good reform movement in the teamsters.

Totally agree, unions are a defensive working class organization and because of that they tend to develop internal conservatism. Since they try and balance an irreconcilable conflict (between one group that profits the more it makes the other group suffer) they can't quit either side - they would be worthless without workers or capitalism.

But even a top-down and beurocratic line of defense is better than no defense at all.

[Dean]

Does anyone else think its hilarious that labor unions are being touted as a primary source of economic structure in these nations? It couldn't possibly be that capitalists transfer their means of production to weak-worker states (like China) when workers develop some semblance of control.

Great "comparative evidence" that - like most economists - ignores the capitalist's role in economic changes. It's not like they would stand to benefit from removing their investments from regions which demand high worker compensation.

[RGacky3]

It couldn't possibly be that capitalists transfer their means of production to weak-worker states (like China) when workers develop some semblance of control.


Nope, look at a place like the US with really weak unions, now look at a place like sweeden and Germany, with really strong unions, which one has more outsourcing?

You need the workers to be complacent to outsource, you gotta weaken the weakers first THEN outsource.

Outsourcing happens when the working class can't fight back, its used to brake the unions after they've already been weakend and to push profits way up by cutting cost.

Its not as if by having a weak labor movements the Capitalist will suddenly be nice.