Change! For the first time ever most union workers now work in government not in the private sector.
President Barack Obama poses with SEIU leader Andy Stern. (LUR.com)
While the private sector was suffering the public sector union membership added 16,000 jobs in 2009.
The New York Times reported, via Atlas and Sweetness and Light:
For the first time in American history, a majority of union members are government workers rather than private-sector employees, the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced on Friday.
In its annual report on union membership, the bureau undercut the longstanding notion that union members are overwhelmingly blue-collar factory workers. It found that membership fell so fast in the private sector in 2009 that the 7.9 million unionized public-sector workers easily outnumbered those in the private sector, where labor’s ranks shrank to 7.4 million, from 8.2 million in 2008.
“There has been steady growth among union members in the public sector, but I’m a little bit shocked to see that the lines have actually crossed,” said Randel K. Johnson, senior vice president for labor at the United States Chamber of Commerce.
According to the labor bureau, 7.2 percent of private-sector workers were union members last year, down from 7.6 percent the previous year. That, labor historians said, was the lowest percentage of private-sector workers in unions since 1900.
Among government workers, union membership grew to 37.4 percent last year, from 36.8 percent in 2008.
Gerald W. McEntee, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, voiced dismay that government employees now represented a majority of union members.
“It’s a very bad sign,” he said. “We’ve been banged around some, but when you see what’s been happening to the industrial base of this country, to the steelworkers, to the autoworkers, they’re been hammered much more.”
After rising the two previous years, overall union membership fell by 771,000 in 2009, to 15.3 million, largely because employment declined over all. But the rate of private-sector unionization fell because two sectors where unions are especially strong — manufacturing and construction — suffered especially large job losses. Construction lost more than 900,000 jobs last year, falling to 5.9 million, while 1.3 million factory jobs were lost, declining to 11.6 million.
Notwithstanding the recession, government employment grew last year, inching up 16,000, to 22,516,000, according to the bureau…
…Noting that union members generally have higher earnings, Labor Secretary Hilda Solis said in a statement: “As workers across the country have seen their real and nominal wages decline as a result of the recession, these numbers show a need for Congress to pass legislation to level the playing field to enable more American workers to access the benefits of union membership. This report makes clear why the administration supports the Employee Free Choice Act,” a bill that would make it easier to unionize.”
January 23rd, 2010 | 7:10 pm | #1
‘to enable more American workers to access the benefits of union membership.’ Yep,that is just playing into Obamas hand. He Wants all workers to belong to the Unions. He has control then. A private contractor can not even bid on a Stimulus job,it goes to Union workers. If a citizen,(not in a Union) works with Union workers on a job,they have to pay Union dues but can not take any Union benifits. The whole thing is a sham,set up by Obama.
January 23rd, 2010 | 7:11 pm | #2
There’s about 1 1% chance that a republican congressman or future congressman reads this comment, but if you do, please tell your colleagues that these union workers are giving money to the Democrats.
Tax payer money.
These bureaucratic stooges need to be destroyed and replaced with free market equivalents…if there’s any need.
January 23rd, 2010 | 7:11 pm | #3
Unions destroyed the private companies they once worked for.
If they destroy the government, would it be a good thing?
January 23rd, 2010 | 7:17 pm | #4
The private sector grows smaller as government grows bigger. Kind of like the communes in the 60’s and 70’s with all of us working to keep the gov’t going. Is this an episode of the “Twilight Zone” we’re living in?
–
January 23rd, 2010 | 7:17 pm | #5
‘Notwithstanding the recession, government employment grew last year, inching up 16,000, to 22,516,000, according to the bureau’
If you work for the Democrats in this administration,you get to have a pay check. My way or the highway says congress.
‘Noting that union members generally have higher earnings, Labor Secretary Hilda Solis said in a statement: “As workers across the country have seen their real and nominal wages decline as a result of the recession’…A Socialist Move,gone Good,thanks to the Stimulus…give the Unions only,the jobs!!!
January 23rd, 2010 | 7:20 pm | #6
Why don’t we try this…Anyone can get the big Highway and Bridge and Building bids.
January 23rd, 2010 | 7:24 pm | #7
‘If they destroy the government, would it be a good thing?’ They are already holding Big seats in the government. They have a lot of power and will always push Obamas adgenda as they will be rewarded well, with ‘Deals’.
January 23rd, 2010 | 7:26 pm | #8
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by World_Policy: For the First Time Ever Most Union Members Now Work for the US Government: Change! For the first time ever most u… http://bit.ly/8oOzZF...
January 23rd, 2010 | 7:40 pm | #9
Disturbing awareness: Andy Stern has an alarmingly separated-at-birth closeness to Bill Maher.
————–
Note to self: Total concentration on the term “center-mass” during Card Check recruiting.
Kenny Solomon
DC Works For Us
http://www.dcworksforus.com
January 23rd, 2010 | 7:44 pm | #10
Obama appointed Craig Becker, the associate general counsel at Andy Stern’s Service Employees International Union to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Becker is a radical on unions.
January 23rd, 2010 | 7:46 pm | #11
I believe it was JFK that was responsible for letting government workers unionize. Certainly this is the cause of many of the problems faced by our nation re: teachers union.
January 23rd, 2010 | 7:55 pm | #12
Enforcing an executive order issued by President Obama on February 6,
just a couple of weeks after he took office, the Labor Department has let it
be known that only contractors that submit to a union-only “project labor
agreement,” or PLA, will be allowed to bid on the Job Corps Center.
Adding insult to injury, the Obama Labor Department is also demanding
that would-be bidders on the Job Corps project show experience, “if possible,”
on at least three previous PLA projects.
January 23rd, 2010 | 7:56 pm | #13
This is just to clear up some misconceptions about government “union workers”. The way unions in the government work is different than other cases. The unions cannot close a government shop, they have no control over non-union workers. Government shop unions cannot strike (remember President Reagan and the air traffic controllers?), they cannot bargain for policies that conflict with federal law. I worked for the Government in a union shop of slightly more than 3000 civilian employees. This was an aircraft overhaul facility. Almost all of the employees were technicians, many ex and retired military that were highly skilled at aircraft maintenance. At any one time, about 25% of the work force were union members, the rest were not and didn’t pay union dues. When some one tells you what percentage of government employees are union members, take it with a grain of salt. The statements usually count all employees of a shop as union members because there is a union in the shop, in almost all cases you will rarely find a shop that is all union as the government shops are right to work facilities, you cannot be forced to join the union or pay dues to them. Most government employees do not fit the mold of lazy, parasitic, slacker workers, especially at the technical field positions. The shop I worked at was a group of highly motivated, patriotic ex-military and retired military people. When a military aircraft was sent out the door there we knew that some American military mans life depended on the job we did overhauling that helicopter gunship, or cargo plane or F-14 Tomcat. I enjoy your blog very much, read it almost everyday, I just wanted to offer you a little more info on unions in the government and how they work. Keep up the good work.
Mark
January 23rd, 2010 | 8:02 pm | #14
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704423204575017690900226982.html
“A poll conducted on behalf of the AFL-CIO found that 49% of Massachusetts union households supported Mr. Brown in Tuesday’s voting, while 46% supported Democrat Martha Coakley. The poll conducted by Hart Research Associates surveyed 810 voters.
The finding, disclosed during an AFL-CIO conference call about the poll, represents a fresh problem for Democrats, who count on union leaders and union members as a pillar of the party’s base.”
I’m a union member and vote conservative 100% of the time.
January 23rd, 2010 | 8:03 pm | #15
“To participate in public works using 25 million or more in federal funds, nonunion companies will have to consent to impose union monopoly bargaining on their employees and hire new workers through discriminatory union hiring halls. “Independent workers who already
have their own retirement funds will nevertheless be forced to contribute to
Big Labor-manipulated pension funds. “Rather than compromise the
freedom of their employees and the efficiency of their operations, most
independent construction firms will, in all probability, simply refuse to submit
bids on large federal projects. “Since just 16% of construction
employees nationwide are unionized, that will sharply reduce the number of
potential bidders for public works and, inevitably, also jack up taxpayer costs.”
Every reputable study of PLAs’ impact on construction costs backs up
this prediction.
January 23rd, 2010 | 8:04 pm | #16
All this smoke and mirrors all year was to hide the rise in government employment. The stimulus is indeed “working as planned” to diminish the private sector and increase the public sector, at full throttle – necessary to get it set in place before people can organize effectively to oppose it.
Total Soviet when the government takes more money from the private sector to buy up more corporations, unsold housing and property inventories from banks and expands HUD to Big Landlord across the nation, expanding it further when the Democrats can call in any current mortgages, forcing more people to give up their ownership rights to government.
Why even call it “government” or “USG” anymore? It’s the Un-Democratic Party that is destroying the traditional government, the two-party system, checks and balances.
United Socialist States of America – USSA
That’s the change the hopers wanted, what Obama constantly reminds us we ALL voted for, so shut up.
Really creepy that no one who intones “hope” and “change” can define either. They wanted “hope” and “change” from Obama, now they’re grumbling he isn’t delivering “hope” and “change,” and can’t define what he isn’t delivering.
January 23rd, 2010 | 8:10 pm | #17
[...] this article: For the First Time Ever Most Union Members Now Work for the US Government [...]
January 23rd, 2010 | 8:16 pm | #18
[...] Gateway Pundit – For the First Time Ever Most Union Members Now Work for the US Government [...]
January 23rd, 2010 | 8:22 pm | #19
The benefits enjoyed by unionised government workers give those workers a very strong incentive to work to influence the political process. By contrast, the taxpayers who must bear the costs of those benefits do not have a comparable incentive for political involvement, because those costs are widely diffuse and therefore are not as visible. Such an arrangement can only last so long before it runs headlong into economic reality, as the 2008 bankruptcy of Vallejo, in California, made clear.
January 23rd, 2010 | 8:51 pm | #20
Higher wages… plus they are exempt from the Cadillac Tax on Health Care.
Free Money from Obama:
$300 million for Landrieu
Cornhusker Kickback
God knows what others
now, Tax Breaks for Union Thugs
Unions OWN Obama. They gave him $400 million. They dictate to him.
January 23rd, 2010 | 8:56 pm | #21
Way past time the fed govt. was cut by 4/5th.
January 23rd, 2010 | 9:19 pm | #22
[...] maturity and a bit of real (not faux) open-mindedness, Obama seems unhappy with most Americans (except the unions) and the feeling of unhappiness and distrust is quite [...]
January 23rd, 2010 | 10:19 pm | #23
So, Mark in post #13–
If government unions can’t do anything, then what’s the point? Why would anyone give up their money to join an organization that can’t do anything?
January 23rd, 2010 | 10:24 pm | #24
Are chrysler and GM workers counted as government workers or private industry workers? Because that’s alot of union workers that can skew the statistics one way or the other.
January 23rd, 2010 | 10:47 pm | #25
Abelard in #23
Exactly the question I asked the union rep when he asked me to join when I first started working at the facility. His response was “we do a lot of good for members”. I didn’t buy it. Government workers are generally divided into 2 groups, wage grade employees, “WG”, and general schedule employees, “GS”. Wage grade employees hourly wages are computed by sampling the the wages of employees in the general region of the government facility that are doing related types of work, then a formula is used to calculate the hourly wages of WG emplyees. The GS salaries are written into law by Congress and apply to all GS employees. Whether you are a member oof a union or not has no bearing on your wages.
Mark
January 23rd, 2010 | 11:12 pm | #26
Ruh Roh, The Once is losing his base.
Gallup tracking poll puts Obama approval and disapproval at 47%
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows that 24% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-three percent (43%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -19 (see trends).
These figures come from nightly telephone surveys and are reported on a three-day rolling average basis. Today’s update is the first based entirely upon interviews following Tuesday’s election in Massachusetts and the Approval Index has fallen eight points since Tuesday morning.
The number of Democrats who Strongly Approve has fallen from 55% on Tuesday morning to 48% today. The number of unaffiliated voters who Strongly Disapprove has increased from 43% on Tuesday to 51% today. It remains to be seen whether those changes are a temporary reaction in the wake of a stunning election upset or the beginning of a more lasting change.
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/01/23/gallup-tracking-poll-puts-obama-approval-and-disapproval-at-47/comment-page-1/#comments
January 23rd, 2010 | 11:25 pm | #27
Public employee unions, their excessive pay and benefit demands and their close relationship to Democrat party big government liberals like Obama, are the reason states like California, New York and New Jersey are in deep financial distress even as they levy the highest taxes in the country. New Jersey voters may have figured it out but we will have to wait until November to see if the electorate in California and New York have a clue.
January 23rd, 2010 | 11:59 pm | #28
When a public sector union represents their members, they are negotiating against the public. Their benefits and especially their pensions are breaking the bank everywhere. It was said before that their wages were lower but that is no longer the case. They can also retire at an early age.
Government employees are becoming a privileged class in America and that is un-American. And public sector unions should be eliminated.
January 24th, 2010 | 1:07 am | #29
It would be nice to find a way to reconcile the perspectives offered by Mark and Robert.
Mark’s comment at 13 is very helpful- it changes my perception of ‘government worker’. Previously, my concept was of a paper pusher in some government office building. Those individuals add almost nothing to the welfare of society in general, and 50% of their positions (and cost) could be eliminated tomorrow. That is admitted in the government’s own label of ‘non-essential’.
Those government employees in the defense sector are entirely different. Every dollar spent on defense is an investment in freedom and liberty, not counting what percentage gets diverted by corruption. Canceling the F-22 saves nothing, the loss of that program actually endangers everything else.
Robert’s point is spot on: ‘When a public sector union represents their members, they are negotiating against the public’. A simple illustration of this is the public teacher’s unions: their concern is primarily their own position, and government education is horrendous as a result. When over 20% of the nation’s children are functionally illiterate, the health and future of the nation has been compromised, and its liberty and self-reliance undermined.
When Reagan fired the unionized air traffic controllers, the Kremlin took note. Our enemies need to fear us, our allies need to trust us, and to do either they need to see our true character and convictions. I’d like to see an American president fire the unionized public school teachers, and cut ALL government (except Defense) by 10% every year for eight consecutive years.
Doing that (along with building nuclear reactors for clean energy) will revitalize America and the drive for freedom worldwide.
Government is not the solution, it never has been. Government itself is the problem. Public sector unions are a large part of the problem: they should be eliminated, and government should be reduced to less than half of what it is now.
Best regards, Peter Warner.
January 24th, 2010 | 1:36 am | #30
Retief: ‘When some one tells you what percentage of government employees are union members, take it with a grain of salt.’ For the record, the above post concerns what percentage of union members are government employees. Not the same thing.
As others have pointed out, Porkulus was in part a way to funnel taxpayer money to labor unions, which would then kick back a portion of their dues to Democrat politicians.
Vastly enlarging the SEIU via Obamacare would also engorge Democratic Party coffers, while increasing the dependency of American citizens on their government, and therefore on the Party of Government. It would be a giant step towards turning the United States into a one-party state.
As to what government unions do for their members: they funnel enormous amounts of union money to politicians, mostly Democrats, who are in a position to expand union roles and raise their pay. They don’t have to strike or even threaten. They simply pay politicians a few cents on the dollar to increase their wages. Democrats are glad to do it. After all, it’s taxpayer money, and they’ll get their usual kickback.
That’s how we reached a situation where public-sector employees are paid much more than private-sector employees. It’s a racket, and we’re the victims.
January 24th, 2010 | 1:55 am | #31
Not only do more union members work for the government, but as lyle points out, government employees now earn significantly more than their peers in the private sector. With the growing integration of SEIU interests with the Democratic Party, there might be two observations to be made. First, “the notion of leveling the playing field” thru government mandate, is symptomatic of the typically shallow left-wing central planning crowd; because, and now well established by history, at the end of the day free market economics rule reality, the reason socialist physical environments are typically shabby in many respects, as well as generally marked by higher unemployment, etc.; and that’s not even getting started on their bureaucratic cultures… The numbers simply don’t add up, too bad life “ain’t” perfect, but the insidious slide to the far left is simply a “redistribution” fantasy, it’s baiting, a ploy to make everyone, except the party, union and government members, poorer; because in the end we know the numbers simply do not add up. The second observation, “something is rotten in the state of Denmark”; while the Massachusetts election is finally a wisp of hope that an important margin of Americans are starting to come to their senses, finally recuperating from the snake oil drunk that Obama and the Democrats have been pedaling this last several years.
January 24th, 2010 | 8:10 am | #32
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by conservatweet, Vince Humphreys, Greg Adams, BowlMeOverVa, Anna Brouker and others. Anna Brouker said: RT @gregadams: For the First Time Ever Most Union Members Now Work for the US Govt [via @gatewaypundit] #tcot #icon http://bit.ly/77MrIv [...]
January 24th, 2010 | 10:19 am | #33
[...] For the First Time Ever By Ramparts360.com [...]
January 24th, 2010 | 11:59 am | #34
We need to learn from the history of other countries like Argentina. The demise of Argentina over the past 100 years was due in no small part to the rise of labor unions and their incestuous relationship to those in power. The following is an example of where we are heading if we don’t stop the madness beginning with the November 2010 and November 2012 elections:
In the early 20th century, Argentina was one of the richest countries in the world. While Great Britain ’s maritime power and its far-flung empire had propelled it to a dominant position among the world’s industrialized nations, only the United States challenged Argentina for the position of the world’s second-most powerful economy.
It was blessed with abundant agriculture, vast swaths of rich farmland laced with navigable rivers and an accessible port system. Its level of industrialization was higher than many European countries: railroads, automobiles and telephones were commonplace.
In 1916, a new president was elected. Hipolito Irigoyen had formed a party called The Radicals under the banner of “fundamental change” with an appeal to the middle class.
Among Irigoyen’s changes: mandatory pension insurance, mandatory health insurance, and support for low-income housing construction to stimulate the economy. Put simply, the state assumed economic control of a vast swath of the country’s operations and began assessing new payroll taxes to fund its efforts.
With an increasing flow of funds into these entitlement programs, the government’s payouts soon became overly generous. Before long its outlays surpassed the value of the taxpayers’ contributions. Put simply, it quickly became under-funded, much like the United States ‘ Social Security and Medicare programs.
The death knell for the Argentine economy, however, came with the election of Juan Peron. Peron had a fascist and corporatist upbringing; he and his charismatic wife aimed their populist rhetoric at the nation’s rich.
This targeted group “swiftly expanded to cover most of the propertied middle classes, who became an enemy to be defeated and humiliated.”
Under Peron, the size of government bureaucracies exploded through massive programs of social spending and by encouraging the growth of labor unions.
High taxes and economic mismanagement took their inevitable toll even after Peron had been driven from office. But his populist rhetoric and “contempt for economic realities” lived on. Argentina ’s federal government continued to spend far beyond its means.
Hyperinflation exploded in 1989, the final stage of a process characterized by “industrial protectionism, redistribution of income based on increased wages, and growing state intervention in the economy…”
The Argentinian government’s practice of printing money to pay off its public debts had crushed the economy. Inflation hit 3000%, reminiscent of the Weimar Republic . Food riots were rampant; stores were looted; the country descended into chaos.
And by 1994, Argentina ’s public pensions — the equivalent of Social Security — had imploded. The payroll tax had increased from 5% to 26%, but it wasn’t enough. In addition, Argentina had implemented a value-added tax (VAT), new income taxes, a personal tax on wealth, and additional revenues based upon the sale of public enterprises. These crushed the private sector, further damaging the economy.
A government-controlled “privatization” effort to rescue seniors’ pensions was attempted. But, by 2001, those funds had also been raided by the government, the monies replaced by Argentina ’s defaulted government bonds.
By 2002, “…government fiscal irresponsibility… induced a national economic crisis as severe as America ’s Great Depression.”
In 1902 Argentina was one of the world’s richest countries. Little more than a hundred years later, it is poverty-stricken, struggling to meet its debt obligations amidst a drought.
We’ve seen this movie before. The Democrats’ populist plans can’t possibly work, because government bankrupts everything it touches. History teaches us that ObamaCare and unfunded entitlement programs will be utter, complete disasters.
Today’s Democrats are guilty of more than stupidity; they are enslaving future generations to poverty and misery. And they will be long gone when it all implodes. They will be as cold and dead as Juan Peron when the piper must ultimately be paid.
Individuals create wealth, government consumes it
January 24th, 2010 | 12:46 pm | #35
Just think about some of these striking at the wrong time for some perceived needed benefit that they are demanding. They could shut down some parts of the government.
January 25th, 2010 | 11:24 am | #36
SEIU, the SS of the Obama administration
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact