Study: Unions are Bad for Economic Growth

Reader Comments
Back to blog

Another "journalist" for corporate greed...yaaaayyy.

Josh of WI 10:06PM February 08, 2009

Thats why Mexico is a powerhouse of growth.

John of MT 11:30AM February 08, 2009

Unions fight for the right to keep the Unions organization in place and not for whats best for their clients. Unions have to become more business oriented on their own internal workings and more flexible and accountable while still defending their workforce members.
They have to realize that they are not just a check/balance against the employer. They themselves are in a world wide battle for employment. Every person in the union hierarchy should read the World is Flat by Friedman to help them understand where they acutally are.

George of NY 11:17AM February 08, 2009

Right now what we need is more middle class income growth. We've had to much realocation of wealth to the few. That may look like it is boosting profits in the short term but it wrecks sales in the long term and destroys quality companies, banks and veryone in the long run.
We've had a decline in Unions for the last 30 years and it is finally catching up. People can no longer borrow to keep those sales up. Result colapsing profits and major business loses.
Weak unions make for a weak country and that is what is happening to us.

Bill Couture of CA 3:36AM February 08, 2009

Misleading headline at beat.
Tomnic hits it right on the head.
Further - when are we going to stop looking at corporate well-being as any real sign of well-being for U.S. individuals? Our history is chock full of examples of layoffs being great for the stock value of corporations.
Translated? Unless you're invested in the corporation, then your getting screwed is of little concern - even if you're part of the engine that actually makes the corporation run.
Unless,m of course, you're the CEO or CFO - in which case, it'll TOTALLY be worth your while to get canned.
Same old, same old.
Sigh.
M.

Max of NY 9:56PM February 07, 2009

Unions can and should play a constructive role in a free-market economy. The management of any company should be willing to sit down and listen to (and act upon) legitimate worker demands about working conditions, training, benefits, hours and yes, even the management goals of the company. Today, however, things go awry because unions have become politicized and issues are less about membership welfare and more about co-opting the union for political purposes, namely influencing membership voting. In such cases, worker goals and management goals diverge and both parties suffer.
The solution - in the case of unionized companies, both the company and the union should be prohibited from providing campaign contributions to any candidate for public office. If individual union members or management want to contribute, fine, but no entity contributions. Also, the company and the union should be prohibited individually from hiring ANY lobbyists. If the union and management decide to hire a lobbyist to promote the interest of the company, fine. But no lobbying for the detrimental benefit of either the factory floor or the executive suite.

Bill of NJ 9:52PM February 07, 2009

If a workforce can be compelled to perform without just compensation, and companies are free to operate by dumping wastes and extorting any asking price, of course profits increase -- for that company. But the social cost is tremendous. Walmart is a good example of a company which has managed to shift most of its true labor costs to taxpayers in the form of public healthcare, food stamps, and other benefits which are required for the "working poor".
This report (you should read it in full) is based on such a narrow, pre-selected set of facts that it could lead only to the conclusion described. It is not a report - it is a propaganda piece aimed at unions and the Free Choice Act. The academics who took money for this exercise should be ashamed.

Rosemary Williams of CA 4:39PM February 07, 2009

We need our unions for security health benefits and pensions. Some companies would not pay a fair wage. If unions are abolished than a law should be passed to guarantee cost of living wages, health care.

m bilak of NJ 4:28PM February 07, 2009

The title of the post seems to misrepresent the contents of paper that you cited. The paper is looking at the "effect of new unionization on the equity value" of firms studied. Economic growth is not addressed by the paper. Maybe you can clarify this for the readers, James?

tomnic of CA 4:22PM February 07, 2009

This pompous little piece implies that the employer corporations should not merely hire people to work, but actually OWN a silenced and subservient workforce inside the "market cap" that is bought and sold by traders. Expressed correctly that way, it sounds a lot like slavery or indentured servitude, now doesn't it?
The fact of the matter is that companies who manage well and treat employees fairly will not be unionized, with of without our contemplated Employee Free Choice Act going through Congress. Employees simply will not pay dues for something that management willingly gives them anyway. There are lots of good companies that never get a union. Most of those, by the way, are private with on-site owners who have a conscience, work daily WITH their people and are not tone-deaf to morals.
But the public companies with managers of a mindset like above---who think they own workers in the market cap---deserve the union they get. And enhanced laws to get that done for their workers can't happen soon enough.

Muser of NM 3:51PM February 07, 2009