The New Republic

Time also to bid farewell to the "-gate" appendage to every scandal, real or imagined. The Watergate break-in occured almost 42 years ago. A Google search on "Benghazi-gate" yields 2.34M hits. (Granted most from Fox, Red State, WND, etc). We are about as far removed from Watergate as that scandal was from Teapot Dome. By that logic, le nom de scandale should have been "the Watergate-Dome".

- dubyadoubte

January 24, 2013 at 7:59pm

I think the "Job Creators" will be happy when workers have no representation at all, zero power, cannot make any demands for workplace safety, decent hours let alone fair pay. It's discouraging to say the least. And, there's a communications gap even among Democrats and other liberals - the necessity for workers to have some kind of rights, some kind of power, is huge but the issue is receiving little attention, even as more and more of us wind up in "independent contractor" situations, paying for our jobs, working Walmart-type jobs with no benefits, etc.

- Sophia

January 25, 2013 at 11:24am

And, I've brought up the issue of automation several times, nobody has picked up on it, but that's huge. We're losing jobs, pay, and a place in the world to machines, from automatic check-out machines to graphic design to architecture to engineering let alone assembly line work. This is making corporations more profitable but what about the outlook for workers?

- Sophia

January 25, 2013 at 11:24am

Now: corporations no longer even pretend to exist for the purpose of making whatever, caring for their workers or being part of a community. I read that Johnson & Johnson, makers of the all metal hip devices that are part of a major lawsuit and which have caused so much grief, used to have a corporate creed that began with the idea of making quality products and ended with the idea of making a profit for shareholders, and that somewhere along the line, in recent years, this was flipped upside down, and that many other corporations have taken the same approach. In fact Bain and other groups like that sometimes make money by dismantling companies, far from making things they gut the companies and take the money. Attitudes like this are certainly reflected in the way workers are treated and this includes attacks on "Big Labor," which as pointed out in the article doesn't actually represent big groups of workers anymore, alas.

- Sophia

January 25, 2013 at 11:28am

It may not be 1965, but 11 per cent of the workforce is not insignificant. It represents millions of voters who are politically educated and for the most part reliability Democrat--which is why the GOP is so relentless in their attacks. We ought to be focusing on changing the rules that now so heavily favor corporations in combating organizing efforts. This can be turned around.

- Vogelfam

January 25, 2013 at 11:54am

"Big Labor" was possibly coined pejoratively to counter those times when writers refused to say "Leaders of Free Enterprise" and insisted instead on the tidier but perhaps more menacing tag of "Big Business."

- atlasqq

January 25, 2013 at 12:20pm

(Final line of my comment above:) As if by doing so, they were seen as putative equals of towering power, when Big Business in fact almost always had it over Labor in the grander scheme of things.

- atlasqq

January 25, 2013 at 12:24pm

Vogelfam argues that key to reviving organized labor is "to change the rules that now so heavily favor corporations in combating organizing efforts." Would that mostly be a political effort, electing pro-labor Democrats to public office? I would like to suggest that more effort be place on reforming employment law, which currently favors employers by a wide margin. The bosses have all the power and unorganized workers have little recourse but to find an attorney who is willing to work on contingency. And the attorney will only stick his neck out if he thinks there's a winnable case under the facts and the law. Our work force is predominantly white collar and needs to be educated about the law and how it should be reformed.

- amidut

January 25, 2013 at 2:13pm

Maybe the WSJ is being ironic. This younger hipper humor is a little hard to pick up on sometimes. And a little correction to Mr. MacGillis on his line 'it is the political and legal environment around organized labor in America, more than changed macroeconomic conditions, that explains why union membership has fallen so much more steeply here than in, say, Canada.' Union membership is dropping for more than just legislative activities. The union problems are being avoided in every new endeavor. TNR will be going digital 3 days from now, Publisher Hughes told us why were here last week. How many union employees will be editing the TNR Digital Website? As many as work at the TNR Printing Plant? As many at the USPS Delivering the snail mail copy? Well, digital really isn't a union job. TNR needs flexibility and creativity and you can't get those things with Seniority and Work Rules. Exactly. It's not legislation, it's creation.

- CRS9TNR

January 25, 2013 at 6:07pm

From the article: 'Which leads to an obvious question: At what point in the continued decline of organized labor are its opponents going to stop referring to it as Big Labor? " It's called "big labor" not because of the % in unions, it's because it's a guarantee from the government to permit above-market rates to be charged on labor. And make no mistake, unions wages ARE zero sum. In other words, union gains come at the loss of non-unionized outside employees. They don't come from management and executive salaries. Unions are only able to charge above-market wages because most aren't in unions. Think about it: If President Obama declared tomorrow that everyone's wages were to double, does that mean you could buy twice as much house? No. It means you could buy the exact same house. Why? Because the price would rise to meet the demand. INitially, the demand for the bigger house would be very strong, but soon the price would rise to 2X the previous level. And you are back where you started. Same with cars, same with food, same with ipods. Doubling everyone's salary would cause the price of everything to double. And so what if were were all in a union and got 30% raises? Same thing: Prices would rise 30%. Unions do nothing to keep employers honest. Sure, they try to convince the dues payers that wihtout them the employers would be screwing them. But really what they are doing is trying to convince the employees that the unions deals are a good deal. Most know it's not a good deal, and given a choice they opt out. If you have a skill an employer wants, he will pay top dollar for that skill and treat you well. There is overwhelming evidence for that, from heart surgeons to engineers to woodworkers and electricians. If you don't have a skill and want a premium wage, then good luck with that. You are trying to cheat society, and you will need government's help to make that happen. But of course, the government is more than happy to help.

- seattleeng

January 26, 2013 at 3:51am

@amidut -- Hear, hear! Your idea is a great starting point for one or more investigative articles on how we work today: contractual "mediation" (employee signs away right to sue employer as a condition of hire), "at will" hiring (employee agrees s/he can be fired at any time for any reason), over-broad confidentiality agreements, etc. There's a lot hidden in the fine print!

- Wonderland

January 26, 2013 at 11:24am

Seattle, most trade unionists are skilled workers, and by collective action have indeed raised standards of living not just for themselves, but for all Americans throughout the 20th century...oh, I don't know why I'd bother to respond to you. Fine. Everything is a libertarian paradise. Any attempt to alter this results in pain or stagnation. Blah, blah, blah. We get it.

- Curran1

January 26, 2013 at 11:25am

Curran writes: "Seattle, most trade unionists are skilled workers, and by collective action have indeed raised standards of living not just for themselves, but for all Americans throughout the 20th century.." Skilled yes. But a skilled practitioner has never had trouble making a good living, have they? Whether a machinist in the 50's, or a Google coder in the aughts, the jobs have been plentiful and the compensation has been sweet. Unions or not. That is the benefit of being skilled. That benefit does NOT come from being in a union. Now, no question unions have been able to command a premium wage for unskilled workers over non-unionized counterparts. But is that really something to be proud of? As noted above, that premium comes at the expense of non-union labor, and it doesn't work if everyone is union. There is a reason that unions are increasingly representing unskilled workers: It's because skilled workers realize they can stand on their own. They can compete one on one with a giant corporation and tell the corporation: "I can do this for you. If you can find someone that can do it better or cheaper, then do it. But I want this particular wage." And more often than not, the corporation acquiesces.

- seattleeng

January 26, 2013 at 3:08pm