Comments on: Reducing inequality: are unions the answer?

By: Andrew

Andrew — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 12:42:17 +0000

Thanks for the great post (and blog). I ran a correlation between GINI and collective bargaining coverage for 20 OECD countries a couple weeks ago, and r = -.659. You can see the graph here, if you are interested, although I apologize that my graph isn't as friendly as yours (my blog is primarily to keep track of things I find interesting, not public consumption).

By: Stefan Johnsson

Stefan Johnsson — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 18:54:42 +0000

The state should be the main bargaining chip for wage workers. Even Karl Marx saw this as the answer to the growing inequality due to capitalism. I’m not saying that Unions do not have an effect…but they are limited compared to what the government can do.

But if the government is controlled and are puppets of big business instead of the citizens…you do not see many changes in income inequality or laws that’ll help wage workers.

By: Jeff Sallaz

Jeff Sallaz — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 16:37:45 +0000

Great post. I don’t think that many labor folks view the EFCA as a panacea for income inequality, or even as a sure-fire way to restore unionization rates to where they were in the 50s. But one thing missing in the list of factors contributing to decline is the refinement and rationalization of employer strategies for winning union votes (e.g., appealing decisions, hiring consultants, firing pro-union workers). As a human-rights issue, EFCA should be supported, even if its effects on inequality is as of yet unknown.

By: Stephen Gordon

Stephen Gordon — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 14:15:06 +0000

It’s not clear just how unions are effective in reducing equality. Places such as Sweden and Germany have similar gini coefficients for market income as do Canada and the US. Where they are different is after tax and (especially) transfers.