From: gerald_a_levy (gerald_a_levy@MSN.COM)
Date: Mon Dec 15 2003 - 10:23:43 EST
Paul C wrote: > I think that class struggle does have a role here. It is > easier for unions to win wages from firms which have an > above average profit share. This will tend to limit the > dispersion of the profit share. Whether this is a sufficient > explanation I am unsure. Several responses: 1) It is true, of course, that unionized workers have greater _opportunities_ for winning wage concessions from firms which have an above average profit share. Yet, here we are only talking about one segment of the labor market and industry which tends to be associated with the oligopolies. 2) As a 'stylized fact', it is the case for most of the post- WW2 period within the US that both real wages and profits tended to increase. However, let's consider the reasons and changes that have occurred: a) Real wages tended to increase when productivity and profits increased because of a 'labor accord' in which Union 'leaders' basically entered into an agreement with corporations that in exchange for allowing mgt. to increase productivity (and conceding that issues related to technological change were 'management prerogatives' that weren't subject to negotiation or the grievance procedure), workers would receive periodic wage increases. An example of this was the 'Annual Improvement Factor' in the auto industry which automatically adjusted money wages for union (UAW) members upwards by 3%/annum. b) one could make the case, as people like Bowles and Edwards have done, that this was a reflection of the social structure of accumulation (SSA) of the post-WW2 period. Yet, this clearly has _not_ been the experience within all capitalist social formations during that time period: i.e. the 'labor accord' was specific to particular social formations. I suppose one could otherwise claim, as David Y and Paul Bullock might, that the 'labor accord' was an expression of the 'labor aristocracy.' That, however, raises other issues -- certainly ones that require an examination of the world capitalist system as a whole rather than only individual capitalist social formations like the US, the UK, or Japan -- such as how the transfer of surplus value internationally could cause real wages for (some) workers to rise within the imperialist nations. c) The 'labor accord' was in force for workers in the so-called 'subordinate primary market'. The workers in the 'secondary market' (often women and minorities) had a different experience. For example, workers in the secondary labor market were not organized and there was a significant disparity in wages among workers in the different labor market 'segments'. It should also be noted that many of the corporations that employed workers from the secondary market were in the so-called 'service sector' where the larger corporations in that sector were oligopolies and received a higher than average rate of profit. d) Union membership has been in _decline_ in the US for many decades now: in 1950 35% of the nonfarm employed workers were union members; in 1960, the rate was 32%; in 1970 the rate was 31%; in 1980 the rate was 25%, and in 1990 the rate dropped still further to 15%.(* ) So, to the extent that the ratio of real wages to profits has remained constant over this period (which I'm still not convinced of) the explanation can't be found in Union power, especially since the same model of 'labor-management cooperation' has been employed -- by and large -- from the 1950's to the present time in the US. As a consequence, I am quite leery of generalizing this experience since it seems to be both time- and nation- specific and I have not been convinced that the empirical and historical evidence demonstrates that what has been the case in the US (or the UK) during the time period discussed above represents a "basic and consistent feature of capitalism". But, I'm still listening. In solidarity, Jerry (*) Source: Samuel Bowles and Richard Edwards _Understanding Capitalism_, 2nd edition, HarperCollins College Publishers, 1993, p. 242
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Dec 16 2003 - 00:00:00 EST