Unions tend to be a Democratic sacred cow, so a lot of Democrats might think that Randy Kuhl's recent anti-labor vote will hurt Kuhl in the long run. I'm not so sure that the average voter in the 29th will buy the link between more unions and higher wages. To those with who think otherwise, I'd like to share some simple statistics.
In 1990, Rochester was 59th in a list of US cities ranked by median income. In 2000, Rochester was 68th. During that same time, the percentage of workers in Rochester who were union members grew from 12.5% to 14.4%.
This is far from a sophisticated economic analysis, but it does indicate that there's no clear relationship between prosperity and union membership. It's an inconvenient fact for those who are inclined to support the ad campaign mentioned yesterday.
Comments
I agree that your figures don't disprove the claim that unions raise incomes. In fact I believe that large companies that keep unions out by providing high wages, generous benefits and good working conditions are often responsible for a strong middle class in a given area, e.g., Toyota, M&M Mars (now Masterfoods). I'm guessing that if you look at the wealthiest counties in the US you will find a relatively low union membership. Same with the poorest counties. Unions don't make people (except mobsters and union officials) wealthy, but they do build up the middle class. Anything that helps the unions to organize puts an upward pressure on wages. That's proven by our history in the last century.
Having said that, I doubt Randy's vote will affect many individual voters' opinion of him. They are either in a union or not. Only the unions and the employers would be directly affected by the law.
I'm willing to accept that unions were historically responsible for growth of the middle class. But I don't think that's true anymore.
Toyota's a good an example: the Japanese car makers won't even consider locating in the Northeast. They only consider sites in the South. Part of the reason has to be the more union-friendly work laws here.
True, the unions will have less direct effect on the economy in this century, but without them the fate of the average wage earner would be worse than it is. True too that the unions have been squeezed out of manufacturing and into service jobs (government jobs are service jobs). The number of products and services that can be provided here at competitive costs relative to the world job market is obviously shrinking. I don't know enough about NY labor law to comment on its effect on new manufacturing in the state, but I'm sure it doesn't help. However, the fact is that manufacturing jobs are not just draining from the rust belt, the same thing is happening in the south, as jobs leave the US altogether.
Toyota is an atypical company. It pays and treats American workers well. Standards set by auto industry unions have, I'm sure, affected Toyota's attitudes somewhat, as has the Toyota bashing of the seventies and early eighties. On the other hand, it is an enlightened company in may ways, it's patient, relentless in its pursuit of efficiency and quality, its profit margins are high and stable, it takes R&D seriously and it doesn't overpay its executives.
Walmart is another company that has contributed greatly to the "wealth" of the working class family and it has done so by squeezing cost out of it's operations. It has provided entry level jobs, but more importantly it is probably more responsible for keeping inflation down than any government program could have been -- short of price controls. Despite virtually no wage gains in the past thirty years, the combination of stable prices and easy credit have boosted the buying power of low and moderate income families. Walmart is a good example of a company that has helped the working person by ignoring the unions and their standards.
I'd like to believe, that the interests of the Democratic Party lie in the living conditions of the lower and middle class -- not simply economic development. Unions, with all their faults have set standards of fairness, safety, and democracy and in the workplace. If you are right and unions have less influence in the future, then we will have to rely on the government to provide those standards.
I think you're right that government will play more of an oversight role. OSHA's a good example of an agency that takes the place of union oversight.