Do Labor Unions Promote the Middle Class?

Library of Economics and Liberty: Do Labor Unions Promote the Middle Class?

… What Hacker and Pierson have done here is point to one effect of unions–labor economists call it the "threat effect"–but left out another that is stronger. But to see why, we need to back up and think about what unions have been in the United States since the 1930s. Unions, as economists, even many who are pro-union, have pointed out are legal monopolies. As pro-union Harvard economists Richard Freeman and James Medoff, put it, "Most, if not all, unions have monopoly power, which they can use to raise wages above competitive levels." They have this monopoly power mainly because the federal government gives them the power, not the right, to be the sole bargaining agent for workers in a plant or company, even if many of the workers don't want to be represented. These workers tend to be "the unseen." But because the unions drive wages above competitive levels, they cause some of the workers to be put out of work. …

… What do these workers do? Sit and eat bon-bons the rest of their lives? No, they go out and find other work. If they find work in the non-union sector, that drives down wages there. Indeed, one of the main findings of the late H. Gregg Lewis, the famous labor economist at the University of Chicago, is that unions in their heyday, the 1950s and early 1960s, caused union wages to be 10 to 15 percent higher and non-union wages to be 3 to 4 percent lower. …


Comments

3 responses to “Do Labor Unions Promote the Middle Class?”

  1. The same thing happens with coffee and fair trade. Fair trade growers–the ones fortunate enough to get a fair trade contract–do get paid a higher price for some of their crop. But the growers on the outside make less than they might in the absence of fair trade agreements.
    Perhaps fair trade isn’t so fair if poor bystanders are adversely affected.

  2. Perhaps I am dense but something about this is not computing in my brain. I went and read the original and am still confused.
    A mine or a factory that goes “union” will require more employees not less. Wasn’t a key part of the union contract cutting the work day/week from 6 days of 12 hr shifts to 5 days of 8 hr shifts.
    If I am going to keep my factory or mine working 24/7 then I am going to need a 3rd shift.

  3. I’m not sure you would see such a radical shift in hours in one sweeping move. The general idea is that as you make wages more higher, employers will have greater incentive to automate operations and take fewer risks with lower skilled workers.
    But assuming a radical change in hours could be made. I assume you suggesting wages would be similar for both work schedules. The new work hours will make the new jobs far more attractive. That will create much greater demand for those jobs. In an open market, wages would be driven down by the influx of new job seekers. But unions, with monopoly power, are able to restrict the labor pool to a fixed number, forcing wages to stay at a high rate.

Leave a Reply to Michael W. KruseCancel reply

Discover more from Kruse Kronicle

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading