Unions not only factor in the plight of middle class

December 30, 2013 

  • At issue: Dec. 10 commentary by Ron Formisano, "Attacking labor movement is same as attacking middle class"

In his Dec. 10 op-ed, Ron Formisano stated that "inequality in the nation has reached record heights not seen since the 1920s," and that "a prime cause has been the decline of labor unions."

He claimed the result to be "its middle class getting smaller." The inequality he noted had mostly to do with wages, though wages are often affected by inequality in such things as IQ, risk-taking, education, personal incentive and, often, plain luck.

Formisano did not define the middle class. According to PBS in a September 2012 report, both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama (both millionaires) agreed that it consisted of folks making below $250,000. Most others probably would not agree. The government has never defined the middle class, so it actually is what anyone says it is.

According to the federal HHS Department, the poverty level for a family of four stands at $23,550. According to an American Community Survey report in September, the median household income in 2012 was $51,371.

The census is split into five classes, each involving 20 percent of the population. The middle 20 percent of households ranged in the $38,500 to $62,400 category. This group is probably not the middle class, with 40 percent of 310 million in population both above and below it financially.

This is from Time magazine in February 2009: "Today, most middle-class Americans are homeowners. They have mortgages, at least some college education and a professional or managerial job that earns them somewhere between $30,000 and $100,000 a year ... and 70 percent of them have cable and two or more cars. Two-thirds have high-speed Internet, and 40 percent own a flat-screen TV."

Blue-collar, unionized workers also fit that description.

There's been some change because of the continuing recession, but the above seems accurate for working-class families now. The major decline during the last three years is the huge loss of jobs and an unemployment rate that's actually close to 20 percent.

This loss — and consequent middle-class shrinkage — has nothing to do with labor unions, notwithstanding the hundreds of billions of stimulus dollars wasted on non-existent "shovel-ready" jobs presumably designed for union members, Obama's locked-in support group.

Thirty-five percent of the work force was unionized in the 1950s, mostly in private companies. Today, that figure is at 6.6 percent, with unionized government workers at 4.7 percent for a total of 11.3 percent.

It would be much lower if Obama had not bailed out General Motors and Chrysler in 2009, slamming shareholders but protecting union jobs. The government has just made the final sale of taxpayer shares, with $11.8 billion in losses to the taxpayers.

The union decline began when huge numbers of women entered the work force during and following WWII, but between 1967 and 2011 the number of female workers increased rapidly by 343 percent, while the male work force merely doubled to 103 percent, according to Census Bureau and Department of Labor statistics.

Two-earner households meant men alone no longer had to bring home the bacon, consequently did not pursue perks and raises that unions stood for. In addition, women now outnumber men in higher education and are entering professions, not manual labor.

Formisano cited the most unionized and least unionized states concerning middle-class households as realizing 47.4 percent and 46.8 percent, respectively, of total state income — virtually no difference, actually destroying his own argument. The loss of manufacturing jobs has all but killed the economy.

Blame for losing these jobs is equally shared by unions and management, each inordinately greedy and corrupt to the point of pricing U.S.-made goods out of the market, domestic and global.

I belonged to blue-collar transportation unions for decades, mostly as a locomotive engineer, and certainly appreciated union achievements. But I examined the rail on which I operated trains one summer day some 30 or so years ago and discovered it was made in Japan, where there were no iron-ore mines and from where it had to be shipped 6,000 miles at great expense, but still undercutting U.S. steelmakers.

I also lived in Ashland in the 1960s and watched industry giant Armco Steel begin sinking into demise. Technology has played a part, too. I witnessed labor-intensive train crews reduced from five to two men, no matter the length or tonnage of the train.

The prime cause for inequality has little to do with unions.


At issue: Dec. 10 commentary by Ron Formisano, "Attacking labor movement is same as attacking middle class"

Jim Clark of Lexington is a retired locomotive engineer.

Lexington Herald-Leader is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

Commenting FAQs | Terms of Service