Later On

A blog written for those whose interests more or less match mine.

Codetermination? Why Not Just Powerful Unions Instead?

with 2 comments

Kevin Drum poses a good question in Mother Jones:

Sen. Elizabeth Warren thinks big corporations have too much power, so next week she’ll be introducing new legislation to address that:

That’s where my bill comes in. The Accountable Capitalism Act restores the idea that giant American corporations should look out for American interests. Corporations with more than $1 billion in annual revenue would be required to get a federal corporate charter. The new charter requires corporate directors to consider the interests of all major corporate stakeholders—not only shareholders—in company decisions. Shareholders could sue if they believed directors weren’t fulfilling those obligations.

This approach follows the “benefit corporation” model, which gives businesses fiduciary responsibilities beyond their shareholders….My bill also would give workers a stronger voice in corporate decision-making at large companies. Employees would elect at least 40% of directors.

Warren’s basic idea is that workers have lost power over the past few decades and therefore have seen sluggish wage growth. At the same time, this has allowed management and shareholders to pocket the rising profits of corporations since they don’t have to fight workers for a bigger share. She’s certainly right about that. Labor and management shares of income vary a bit during booms and recesssions, but the overall trend since the Reagan era is crystal clear:

But here’s the thing I don’t get. Warren’s theory is that this has happened largely because workers have lost negotiating power over the past four decades. Even conservatives, I think, wouldn’t argue too strongly against this notion. It’s pretty plain that the demise of unions has stripped workers of wage bargaining power and this has reduced their ability to claim the same share of overall corporate income that they used to.

But if that’s the case, why introduce a bill that primarily changes the composition of corporate boards? My objection isn’t that it won’t work. It might. But we know that making it easier for workers to unionize would work, and Republicans will fight just as hard against one as the other. So why choose an oddball proposal that sounds European and vaguely socialist even to the American working class?

Why not instead propose a truly simple and powerful proposal to boost unionization throughout the American economy? If your goal is to increase the power of the working class, this is the way to do it. It’s been done in America before, notably during the “Golden Age” of the 40s and 50s when America was supposedly greater than it is now. It produced a strong economy. It didn’t pauperize the rich. It’s easy for workers to understand. And you’re going to need a Democratic president and 60 Democratic senators to pass it, just like Warren’s bill. If the Democratic Party is ready for Warren’s new idea, it’s ready for my old idea. What’s not to like?

Written by Leisureguy

18 August 2018 at 1:44 pm

2 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. It’s probably a good idea in the same general way that raising the minimum wage is a good idea. Among other things, it sets a standard. But a more powerful labor movement seems to me a good way to make this proposal more effective: Consider the track record of student representatives on the governing boards of public universities.

    I should read Drum’s article, but one thing that caught my attention was the requirement for a Federal charter. Consider the ways in which the rich cherry pick states in which to incorporate based on how the corporations therein are regulated.

    rmichaelroman

    19 August 2018 at 6:08 am

  2. You make a good point about how states can have a race to the bottom (in terms of environmental laws, anti-union (“right to work”) laws, minimum wages, taxpayer subsidies) to attract industry, and we indeed saw that as corporations moved from union states in the north to non-union states in the south—and then of course to low-wage nations globally. Federal oversight is required to keep states from injuring their own citizens (cf. Federal environmental regulations).

    Also a good point about student representatives on university boards.

    LeisureGuy

    19 August 2018 at 6:55 am


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.