U.S. last in unionization among developed countries

[pampango]

http://peoplesworld.org/u-s-last-in-unionization-among-developed-countries/

The United States is dead last among 21 top developed nations in both unionization rates and union coverage of the workforce, a new study says - and it's not because of globalization or high technology.

Instead, according to "Politics Matter: Changes in Unionization Rates in Rich Countries, 1960-2010," national political climates - which can expand legal rules such as who labor law covers, whom unions can bargain for and represent, and how free unions are to organize - are the determining factors in both union coverage and union density.

Countries with a Social Democratic political climate had consistently high rates of both unionization and union coverage. Countries with a "Continental European" tradition, where union membership is less enshrined, but collective bargaining coverage of workers is strong, have high union coverage rates but declining union membership. And so-called "liberal market" economies like the U.S. and Britain, that, at best, are neutral about both organizing and union membership saw both membership and coverage crash, the Center for Economic Policy and Research study reported.

"If the decline in unionization is the inevitable response to the twin forces of globalization and technology, we would expect unionization rates to follow a similar path in other countries subjected to roughly similar levels of globalization and technology," But the unionization rates didn't follow those patterns, researchers said.

"One simple factor, however, does appear to explain much of the observed variation in unionization trends: The broad national political environment. Countries that have been strongly identified during the postwar period with social democratic parties - Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and Finland - have generally seen small increases in union coverage and only small decreases in union membership since 1980.

[redqueen]

1. K&R

[Romulox]

2. Unions have no power to demand higher pay when jobs are easily outsourced.

You're confusing cause with effect in an attempt to justify globalism.

[pampango]

3. The conclusion of the study does not support that theory.

The study concludes that the cause of our (and the UK's) weak unions and declining union membership isn't globalization or technology, but our "liberal market" economy. "If the decline in unionization is the inevitable response to the twin forces of globalization and technology, we would expect unionization rates to follow a similar path in other countries subjected to roughly similar levels of globalization and technology," but that is not what happens.

[Romulox]

4. It's not a "study", it's a Chick Tract for free traders. nt

[Romulox]

5. Misrepresent much, OP? "liberal market economies... have...seen sharp drops in union coverage"

From your link:

"Most, however, argue that, for various reasons, the supply of union jobs has decreased."

and later:

"Over the same period, countries identified as 'liberal market economies' - the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, Canada, and Japan - have generally seen sharp drops in union coverage and membership."

This study doesn't support the conclusion you are trying to put forward in your block of highlighted text. In particular, these researchers ABOSULUTELY found a correlation between low union membership, and "liberal market economies", such as you espouse. :hi: