Democrats vs. Republicans on Workers’ Rights

Bob Sheak, July 16, 2023

 There are well-known intense partisan divisions between the two major political parties in the United States. This is true generally across the board. In this post, the focus is on the political differences in policies over the rights of workers and employees.

Republicans

The Republican Party supports domestic policies that favor limited government spending (except for bipartisan military spending), deregulation, the enhancement of corporate power, low taxes, the privatization of any public asset or function that has potential profits, opposition to unions, and a stigmatizing and inadequate safety net that would leave workers with no viable option outside of paid work, regardless of how low the pay, the absence of benefits, the existence of unsafe workplace conditions, little or no protection against employer shutdowns, striker replacements, or discrimination.

 Democrats

Unlike the Republicans, progressive and sometimes other Democrats have advanced policies that benefit workers, including support of unions, the creation of an effective National Labor Relations Board and other regulatory agencies (e.g. occupational safety), a high minimum wage, wage subsidies, a relatively strong social-safety net without work requirements, a progressive tax system, and anti-discrimination, civil rights policies.

If these Democratic goals were ever realized, the economy would be less exploitative and more equal than it is. Under such reforms, corporate executives and boards would have to take into account the interests of workers/employees more than they have, while government would take on greater responsibility to ensure security and opportunities for American workers.

Some Democrats veer right

 Not all Democrats or Democratic Presidents have supported a pro-worker agenda. Jon Shelton describes the neo-liberal aspects Bill Clinton’s agenda in his book, The Education Myth: How Human Capital Trumped Social Democracy.

“…for those in the vast group of Americans in the bottom two-thirds of the economic distribution, the policies of the DLC [Democratic Leadership Council] championed by Clinton facilitated the flight of blue-collar jobs [an effect of NAFTA] and made it more difficult to access the safety net. And they replaced these jobs and social supports with false promises. Further, the 1994 Crime Bill, touted by Clinton and other Democrats like Delaware Senator Joe Biden, which stiffened penalties on a series of infractions, provided funding for new prison construction and institutionalized inequitable penalties for crack cocaine” (p.163).

—————

Workers’ rights

 Ideally

 At its best, a policy of workers’ rights would build on Roosevelt’s “Second Bill of Rights.” Shelton describes the substance of this historic speech (pp. 1-2).

 “In his State of the Union address on January 11, 1944, President Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed a Second Bill of Rights. While the original Bill of Rights appended to the Constitution in 1791 promised a core set of civil liberties, Roosevelt’s proposal offered the guarantee of economic freedoms to all Americans.” The proposal included, for example, “The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation,” the “right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation,” as well as rights to a “decent home” and “adequate medical care,” “protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment,” and a “good education.” 

One implication of Roosevelt’s speech was that government would play a big role in the economy, making up for the short-comings of the private sector and, when necessary, including job creation in “public” sector jobs.

—————

Biden and the Democrats have supported legislation to improve opportunities for workers.

 Here are sections of my post of Nov. 2, 2021, titled “Disjunctions in Labor Markets: Capital versus Workers that identifies policies of the Democrats and Biden administration (https://wordpress.com/post/vitalissues-bobsheak.com/1235).

—————————————————————————————–

 Executive orders

 Nelson Lichtenstein is a professor of history at the University of California, Santa Barbara, where he directs the Center for the Study of Work, Labor and Democracy. He reports on how on Friday, July 9, 2021, “President Biden signed a sweeping executive order intended to curb corporate dominance, enhance business competition and give consumers and workers more choices and power. The order features 72 initiatives ranging widely in subject matter — net neutrality and cheaper hearing aids, more scrutiny of Big Tech and a crackdown on the high fees charged by ocean shippers” (https://nytimes.com/2021/07/13/opinion/biden-executive-order-antitrust.html).

The executive order also features a return to the “antitrust traditions” of the Roosevelt presidencies early in the last century.” This is a tradition, Lichtenstein contends, “that has animated social and economic reform almost since the nation’s founding. This tradition worries less about technocratic questions such as whether concentrations of corporate power will lead to lower consumer prices and more about broader social and political concerns about the destructive effects that big business can have on our nation.”

Lichtenstein emphasizes that “the most progressive part of the executive order is its denunciation of the way in which big corporations suppress wages. They do this both by monopolizing their labor market — think of the wage-setting pressures exerted by Walmart in a small town — and by forcing millions of their employees to sign noncompete agreements that prevent them from taking a better job in the same occupation or industry.” He quotes Biden. “If your employer wants to keep you, he or she should have to make it worth your while to stay. That’s the kind of competition that leads to better wages and greater dignity of work.”

Biden introduces pro-union, pro-worker legislation

 Proposed legislation

At a presidential press briefing on March 9, 2021, President Biden introduced the “Protecting the Right to Organize” (PRO) Act of 2021, strongly encouraging the House to take up and pass the legislation and stating that it would be a major step, if and when approved, “in dramatically enhancing the power of workers to organize and collectively bargain for better wages, benefits, and working conditions” (https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases-2021/03/09/statement-by-the-president-joe-biden-on-the-house-taking-up-the-pro-act). You can access the full proposal at https://joebiden.com/empowerworkers.

Biden believes that the conditions and prospects of ordinary workers starts with rebuilding unions. He states: “The middle class built this country, and unions built the middle class. Unions give workers a stronger voice to increase wages, improve the quality of jobs and protect job security, protect against racial and all other forms of discrimination and sexual harassment, and protect workers’ health, safety, and benefits in the workplace. Unions lift up workers, both union and non-union.  They are critical to strengthening our economic competitiveness.”

And there are almost “60 million Americans [who] would join a union if they get a chance, but too many employers and states prevent them from doing so through anti-union attacks.” There is the precedent of strong action by the federal government in support of unionization, that is, the National Labor Relations Act, passed in 1935 despite unified business opposition. The president pointed out that the NLRA “said that we should encourage unions. The PRO Act would take critical steps to help restore this intent.”

U.S. House of Representatives passes Pro Act

 Don Gonyea reports on NPR that on March 13, 2021, House Democrats approved the Pro Act by a 224-206 vote, “with five Republicans joining Democrats in favor of it.” Union leaders supported it (https://www.npr.org/2021/03/09/975259434/house-democrats-pass-bill-that-would-protect-worker-organizing-efforts).

 Gonyea lists five provisions of the Pro Act.

 “1. So-called right-to-work laws in more than two dozen states allow workers in union-represented workplaces to opt out of the union, and not pay union dues. At the same time, such workers are still covered under the wage and benefits provisions of the union contract. The PRO Act would allow unions to override such laws and collect dues from those who opt out, in order to cover the cost of collective bargaining and administration of the contract.

 “2. Employer interference and influence in union elections would be forbidden. Company-sponsored meetings — with mandatory attendance — are often used to lobby against a union organizing drive. Such meetings would be illegal. Additionally, employees would be able to cast a ballot in union organizing elections at a location away from company property.

 “3. Often, even successful union organizing drives fail to result in an agreement on a first contract between labor and management. The PRO Act would remedy that by allowing newly certified unions to seek arbitration and mediation to settle such impasses in negotiations.

 “4. The law would prevent an employer from using its employee’s immigration status against them when determining the terms of their employment.

 “5. It would establish monetary penalties for companies and executives that violate workers’ rights. Corporate directors and other officers of the company could also be held liable.”

 In an interview with Richard Trumka, the president of the AFL-CIO, described the Pro Act as a potential “game changer,” saying it would a major step in correcting the “wages and wealth inequality, opportunity and inequality of power.”

 Gabby Berenbaum cited a poll that found a majority of voters supporting the legislation (https://www.vox.com/2021/6/16/22535274/poll-pro-act-unioniization-majority-bipartisan). She writes: “The Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act seems unlikely to succeed in the Senate due to a lack of Republican support — but it has the support of the majority of likely voters, according to a new poll from Vox and Data for Progress.” But there is a partisan divide among likely voters. The survey of 1,000 likely voters conducted June 4 to 6 — “found 40 percent of Republicans support the PRO Act, along with 74 percent of Democrats and 58 percent of independents. Overall, the poll found the bill has the support of 59 percent of likely voters.”

 However, Republicans in the Senate threatening a filibuster and powerful business lobbying groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and The National Retail Federation kept the Pro Act from moving forward in the Senate.

 

—————————————————————————————

 An impasse

 Biden’s agenda on workers’ rights is at a legislative impasse. The same is true for his two infrastructure bills and other initiatives. The obstacles are corporate and business opposition, the ability of Republicans in the U.S. Senate to obstruct legislative initiatives by using the filibuster, the insistence of a couple Democratic Senators who have so far refused to support an end of the filibuster. It doesn’t matter much what the public thinks. Jumping to the present (July 2023), Republicans gained control of the House in the 2022 midterm elections and made it more difficult to pass progressive or any Democratic legislation.

Beyond the Pro Act

 While the Pro Act, if ever passed, would strengthen the positions of unionized workers and make it easier for workers to create unions. That’s all good. But there is much that the legislation doesn’t do.

So, as of now, the majority of workers will continue to be non-unionized, others will have little choice but to take “bad” jobs, while some will continue to subsist outside of the labor force on inadequate government social/welfare programs, on support from relatives, or being desperately poor. In the absence of the Pro Act, unionized workers will continue to be at a severe disadvantage vis a vis employers. In this eventuality, anti-democratic, right-wing political forces will be further empowered and the society will be that much closer to some type of fascism.

 —————- Unions like what Biden is doing

 Jessica Corbett reports on June 16, 2023, on the “unprecedented show of solidarity” of major unions for Biden and his 2024 presidential run (https://commondreams.org/news/unions-endorse-biden-2024).

“On the eve of a Philadelphia rally hosted by labor leaders, the AFL-CIO and 17 unions on Friday endorsed Democratic U.S. President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris for reelection in 2024.

“During the 2020 campaign and since taking office, Biden has pledged ‘to be the most pro-unio President leading the most pro-union administration in American history.’ He has won praise for various appointments—including Julie Su for labor secretary, which still lacks U.S. Senate approval—and actions to improve the lives of exploited workers.

“Although Biden also has at times angered organized labor—particularly in December when he signed a congressional resolution preventing a nationwide rail strike as industry workers were fighting for paid sick leave—AFL-CIO president Liz Shuler still stressed Friday that ‘there’s absolutely no question that Joe Biden is the most pro-union president in our lifetimes.’

“From bringing manufacturing jobs home to America to protecting our pensions and making historic investments in infrastructure, clean energy, and education, we’ve never seen a president work so tirelessly to rebuild our economy from the bottom up and middle out,” Shuler said. “We’ve never seen a president more forcefully advocate for workers’ fundamental right to join a union.”

“‘Now, it’s time to finish the job,’ she declared. ‘The largest labor mobilization in history begins today, supercharged by the excitement and enthusiasm of hundreds of thousands of union volunteers who will work tirelessly to reelect a president they know has our backs and will always fight for us.’

“Coming nearly 17 months before the 2024 election, Friday’s announcement is the earliest presidential endorsement in history for the general board of the AFL-CIO—which represents 60 unions and more than 12.5 million workers.”

“‘Joe Biden ran for president four years ago because he knows the way to grow the economy is to grow the middle class, and that starts with strong unions and labor representation,’ she continued. ‘With the early support from the labor movement, our campaign can tap into organized labor’s incomparable organizing abilities, which allows us to reach deep into communities and talk to voters about the tens of thousands of good-paying union jobs created by President Biden’s first-term agenda.’”

“Along with the AFL-CIO, unions individually endorsing the Biden-Harris campaign include the Actors’ Equity Association; American Federation of Government Employees; American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME); American Federation of Teachers (AFT); Communications Workers of America; International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers; International Union of Operating Engineers; International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental, and Reinforcing Iron Workers; Laborers’ International Union of North America; and National Nurses United (NNU).

————-

Where Republicans have been wrong

 Contrary to what Republican critics of Biden’s policies assert, the Biden/Democratic economic policies have not produced a recession or inflation or caused workers to leave the job market in favor of government assistance.

#1- No recession

Economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman documents how the Federal Reserve and Republican critics wrongly predicted an economic recession stemming from high employment levels. There is no recession, at least not as of July 2023 (https://nytimes.com/2023/07/11/opinion/us-recession-yield-curve.html). Here’s some of what Krugman writes.

“By late 2022, members of the Federal Reserve committee that sets monetary policy were predicting an unemployment rate of 4.6 percent by late 2023; private forecasters were predicting 4.4 percent. Either of these forecasts would have implied at least a mild recession.

“To be fair, we don’t know for sure that these predictions will be falsified. But with unemployment in June just 3.6 percent, the same as it was a year ago, and job growth still chugging away, the economy would have to fall off a steep cliff very soon to make them right, and there’s little hint in the data of that happening.”

“Indeed, the Fed has, once again, raised rates sharply to fight inflation. But events since then have failed to follow the script in two distinct ways

“First, those rate hikes have so far failed to produce a recession. Instead, the economy has been remarkably resilient. Mortgage interest rates — arguably the most important place where the rubber of monetary policy meets the road — have soared over the past year and a half:

“Yet unemployment hasn’t meaningfully gone up at all, which isn’t what most economists, myself included, would have predicted. Why not?

“Part of the answer may be that housing demand surged in 2021-22, largely as a result of the rise in remote work, and that this increase in demand has muted the usual negative impact of higher rates. This is especially true for multifamily housing, where high rents have given developers an incentive to keep building despite higher borrowing costs.

“Anotherpart of the answer may be that the Biden administration’s industrial policies — in effect, subsidies for semiconductors and green energy — have led to a boom in nonresidential investment, especially manufacturing.”

 #2 – Low inflation

Despite concerns that inflation would rise, the economy cooled sharply in June, according to a report by Jeanna Smialek (https://nytimes.com/live/2023/07/12/business/cpi-inflation-fed).

“The Consumer Price Index climbed 3 percent in the year through June, less than the 4 percent increase in the year through May and just a third of its roughly 9 percent peak last summer.”

#3 – The strong economy has not made workers “lazy”

Paul Krugman addresses this issue and rebuts the right-wing belief that workers will avoid work if they have alternatives in the form of government unemployment and other government assistance (https://nytimes.com/2023/07/10/opinion/socialism-workers-plarticipation-labor-market.html).

 Hecites Bernie Marcus, a co-founder of Home Depot, who argues, “‘Socialism,’ he opined, has destroyed the work ethic: ‘Nobody works. Nobody gives a damn. ‘Just give it to me. Send me money. I don’t want to work — I’m too lazy, I’m too fat, I’m too stupid.’”

Marcus is hardly alone in espousing such views. Krugman writes:

 “Without question, rich men are constantly saying similar things at country clubs across America. More important, conservative politicians are obsessed with the idea that government aid is making Americans lazy, which is why they keep trying to impose work requirements on programs such as Medicaid and food stamps despite overwhelming evidence that such requirements don’t promote work — but do create red-tape barriers that deny help to people who really need it.”

 “Given the opportunities created by a full-employment economy — arguably the first truly full-employment economy we’ve had in almost a quarter century — Americans are, in fact, willing to work. Indeed, they’re more willing to work than almost anyone, even optimists, had imagined. And the robustness of the American work ethic has huge implications for policy.”

“One way to look past demographic changes is to focus on labor force participation by Americans in their prime working years, which is higher now than it has been for 20 years. Bobby Kogan of the Center for American Progress reports that if youadjust for age and sex, overall U.S. employment is now at its highest level in history — again, despite the lingering effects of the pandemic.”

 Krugman asks where the additional workers coming from? “One answer,” he points out, “is that in a tight labor market, employers are more willing to look at marginalized groups, many of whose members turn out to be perfectly capable of productive employment. We have, for example, seen a stunning rise in employment among Americans with disabilities.” Two, there ha been “a surge in foreign-born workers, who “tend to be both working-age and highly motivated.”

 Krugman continues.

 “And while the hot economy may have temporarily boosted inflation, it also put Americans to work — not just those who lost jobs during the pandemic and its aftermath but also some who previously were unable to get a foot in the door. (It also produced especially big gains for low-paid workers.)

If we manage to avoid a severe recession, many of these job gains will probably persist.”

 These facts challenge what “grumpy rich men may say, [namely that] Americans haven’t become lazy. On the contrary, they’re willing, even eager, to take jobs if they’re available. And while economic policy in recent years has been far from perfect, one thing it did do — to the nation’s great benefit — was give work a chance.”

 #4 – Republican opposition to unions and collective bargaining lacks a factual basis

 In a post sent out on November 2, 2021, I quoted Robert Reich on this issue. (https://wordpress.com/post/vitalissues-bobsheak.com/1235). Reich challenges “five big lies spread by wealthy corporations and their enablers intended to stop workers from organizing and to protect their own bottom-lines” (https://www.truthdig.com/articles/the-5-biggest-corporate-lies-about-unions).

 “Lie #1: Labor unions are bad for workers. Wrong. Unions are good for all workers – even those who are not unionized. In the mid-1950s, when a third of all workers in the United States were unionized, wages grew in tandem with the economy. That’s because workers across America – even those who were not unionized – had significant power to demand and get better wages, hours, benefits, and working conditions. Since then, as union membership has declined, the middle class has shrunk as well.

 “Lie #2: Unions hurt the economy. Wrong again. When workers are unionized they can negotiate better wages, which in turn spreads the economic gains more evenly and strengthens the middle class. This creates a virtuous cycle: Wages increase, workers have more to spend in their communities, businesses thrive, and the economy grows. Since the the 1970s, the decline in unionization accounts for one-third of the increase in income inequality. Without unions, wealth becomes concentrated at the top and the gains don’t trickle down to workers.

 “Lie #3: Laborunions are as powerful as big business. Labor union membership in 2018 accounted for 10.5percent of the American workforce, while large corporations account for almost three-quarters of the entire American economy. And when it comes to political power, it’s big business and small labor. In the 2018 midterms, labor unions contributed less than 70million dollars to parties and candidates, while big corporations and their political action committees contributed 1.6billion dollars. This enormous gulf between business and labor is a huge problem. It explains why most economic gains have been going to executives and shareholders rather than workers. But this doesn’t have to be the case.

 “Lie #4: Most unionized workers are in industries like steel and auto manufacturing. Untrue. Although industrial unions are still vitally important to workers, the largest part of the unionized workforce is workers in the professional and service sectors – retail, restaurant, hotel, hospital, teachers–which comprise 59% of all workers represented by a union. And these workers benefit from being in a union. In 2018, unionized service workers earned a median wage of 802 dollars a week. Non-unionized service workers made on average, $261 less. That’s almost a third less.

 “Lie #5: Most unionized workers are white, male, and middle-aged. Some unionized workers are, of course, but most newly-unionized workers are not. They’re women, they’re young, and a growing portion are black and brown. In fact, it’s through the power of unions that people who had been historically marginalized in the American economy because of their race, ethnicity, or gender are now gaining economic ground. In 2018, womenwho were  in unions earned 21 percent more than non-unionized women. AndAfrican-Americans who were unionized earned nearly 20 percent more than African-Americans who were non-unionized.”

—————–

 Concluding thoughts

If Trump and the right-wing forces that support him prevail in 2024, we can expect that an increasing proportion of the US population will find themselves economically insecure, marginalized, and/or poor. They will continue to be without union representation, and burdened with inadequate employment options, with jobs that pay low wages, provide no benefits or affordable benefits (e.g., health insurance; pensions), and provide little or no job security.