The new Democratic party. What will it look like?

The new Democratic party. What will it look like?

U.S. hiring picked up in November while the unemployment rate tumbled to a nine-year low on a drop in the number of people in the workforce and wages unexpectedly declined, providing a mixed picture of the labor market.

The 178,000 gain followed a 142,000 rise in October that was less than previously estimated, a Labor Department report showed Friday. The median forecast in a Bloomberg survey called for a 180,000 advance. The jobless rate fell 0.3 percentage point to 4.6 percent as labor participation dropped for a second month.

A steady job market also signals employers were willing to keep hiring in the days before and after the Nov. 8 presidential election. While the Federal Reserve is almost certain to raise borrowing costs this month, sustained weakness in wages or participation would weigh on the economic outlook.

The simple fact that Michigan is now a right-to-work state should tell yoiu something about the long-term benefits of labor unions

Introduction and executive summary

Under federal law, no one can be forced to join a union as a condition of employment, and the Supreme Court has made clear that workers cannot be forced to pay dues used for political purposes. So-called right-to-work (RTW) legislation goes one step further and entitles employees to the benefits of a union contract—including the right to have the union take up their grievance if their employer abuses them—without paying any of the cost.

This means that if an employer mistreats a worker who does not pay a union representation fee, the union must prosecute that worker’s grievance just as it would a dues-paying member’s, even if it costs tens of thousands of dollars. Non-dues-paying workers would also receive the higher wages and benefits their dues-paying coworkers enjoy. RTW laws have nothing to do with whether people can be forced to join a union or contribute to a political cause they do not support; that is already illegal. Nor do RTW laws have anything to do with the right to have a job or be provided employment.

At their core, RTW laws seek to hamstring unions’ ability to help employees bargain with their employers for better wages, benefits, and working conditions. Given that unionization raises wages both for individual union members as well as for nonunion workers in unionized sectors, it is not surprising that research shows that both union and nonunion workers in RTW states have lower wages and fewer benefits, on average, than comparable workers in other states.

Indeed, in a 2011 EPI paper, Elise Gould and Heidi Shierholz estimate that wages in RTW states are 3.2 percent lower on average than wages in non-RTW states, even after controlling for a full set of worker characteristics and state labor market conditions. Gould and Shierholz (2011) also find that workers in RTW states are less likely to have employer-sponsored health insurance and pension coverage.

In this paper, we update that research and subject the results to a series of robustness tests. We utilize more recent data from the Current Population Survey, and employ a cost-of-living indicator from the Bureau of Economic Analysis that was only made available in the years following the release of Gould and Shierholz (2011). Last, we subject our results to various robustness tests as suggested by Sherk (2015) regarding choice of specific explanatory variables. We find that the main results hold under any reasonable alternative specifications. Only extensive data-mining and non-standard specifications of wage equations can move the estimated RTW penalty to statistical insignificance. Our central findings are:

. Wages in RTW states are 3.1 percent lower than those in non-RTW states, after controlling for a full complement of individual demographic and socioeconomic factors as well as state macroeconomic indicators. This translates into RTW being associated with $1,558 lower annual wages for a typical full-time, full-year worker.

. The relationship between RTW status and wages remains economically and statistically significant under alternative specifications of our econometric model.

Decline of unions has hurt all workers: study

The steep decline in union membership in recent decades has had an outsize effect on the American workforce, tamping down wage increases for nonunion workers, a new study says.

Average weekly earnings for nonunion private-sector male workers would have been 5%, or $52, higher in 2013 if the share of union workers had remained at 1979 levels, according to the study out Tuesday from the liberal-leaning Economic Policy Institute ahead of Labor Day. That’s tantamount to a loss of $2,704 annually for the average nonunion worker.

The paper was authored by Washington University sociologists Jake Rosenfeld and Patrick Denice, and Jennifer Laird, a research scientist at Columbia University’s Center on Poverty and Social Policy.

The earnings loss is smaller for women because they were not as unionized as men in 1979. Weekly wages would be about 2% to 3% higher for women if union membership had stayed at 1979 levels, the report says.

About 10% of male private-sector workers were union members in 2013, down from 34% in 1979. In that period, the share of women who belong to unions fell to 6% from 16%.

The report argues the dwindling influence of unions is a significant but often ignored reason for wage stagnation, along with globalization, technological change and the slowdown in educational achievement gains.

The prevalence of unions affects the pay of nonunion workers in various ways, the study says. Nonunion employers often raise their workers’ pay to foster loyalty and head off an organizing drive. Kodak deployed that strategy in highly organized New York State, the study says.

The fatter paychecks of union workers also creates a more competitive labor market that forces nonunion companies to lift wages to prevent employees from jumping ship. And unions often establish labor-friendly policies that generally promote fairness in pay, benefits and worker treatment, according to the report.

The gains of yesteryear were not limited to nonunion workers at risk of joining unions, the study says. When those workers received raises, their higher-level supervisors who couldn't join unions also saw sharper pay increases to maintain salary hierarchies, the paper says.

But the losses engendered by shrinking union participation are most pronounced for nonunion private-sector male workers who lack a Bachelor's degree. Wages for that group would be 8% higher in 2013 if union membership had stayed at 1979 levels, translating into an annual wage loss of $3,016.

At their core, RTW laws seek to hamstring unions’ ability to help employees bargain with their employers for better wages, benefits, and working conditions.

The new Democratic Party? What will it look like? What do you think about us talking about it now?

Do any Democrats like Bernie? Could we show the world what ethical politicians look like by starting debates with Bernie Sanders against Jill stein? I personally think it would look close to Jesus debating himself. What do you think?

I am absolutely confused about the subject of this thread.

I have thought about it myself and my own conclusion (for whatever it is worth) is that we need to go more left to meet with the Bernie's.

Quote:

At their core, RTW laws seek to hamstring unions’ ability to help employees bargain with their employers for better wages, benefits, and working conditions.

Isn't it sad that this right to work idea has been around for such a long time yet most people still do not understand it?