User:Madison Luzar/Labor unions in the united states

bold = new text

regular = existing text

strikethrough = done adding

Lead
Although much smaller compared to their peak membership in the 1950s, American unions remain a political factor, both through mobilization of their own memberships and through coalitions with like-minded activist organizations around issues such as immigrant rights, environmental protections, trade policy, health care, and living wage campaigns. Of special concern are efforts by cities and states to reduce the pension obligations owed to unionized workers who retire in the future. Republicans elected with Tea Party support in 2010, most notably former Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin, have launched major efforts against public sector unions due in part to state government pension obligations (even though Wisconsin's state pension is 100% funded as of 2015) along with the allegation that the unions are too powerful. The academic literature shows substantial evidence that labor unions reduce economic inequality. Research indicates that rising income inequality in the United States is partially attributable to the decline of the labor movement and union membership.

Article body
Under History: [added citations]

The percentage of workers belonging to a union (or "density") in the United States peaked in 1954 at almost 35% and the total number of union members peaked in 1979 at an estimated 21.0 million. Membership has declined since, with private sector union membership beginning a steady decline that continues into the 2010s, but the membership of public sector unions grew steadily.

 New section: Labor-environment coalitions (under Labor Unions Today) 

'''To help counter their steady decline in power, in the 1980s labor unions began to form coalitions locally, nationally, and globally with religious groups, social movements, politicians, and sometimes employers. There was a general shift away from specific, interest group advocacy and towards large-scale pro-democracy movements. '''

'''Coalitions between labor unions and environmental groups are prominent in interest areas of global trade and health. The unification was unique given the two sides' rocky history and notable differences. Unions are very hierarchical and prioritize jobs, with typically working-class members, while environmental groups tend to consist of middle class and white-collar members and focus primarily on issues related to climate and the environment. Tensions arose in the past when environmental groups pushed for environmental protection regulations without considering the effects on jobs or the side effects on worker safety, unintentionally antagonizing unions. '''

'''Labor unions would sometimes side with employers even though employers are often seen as antithetical to unionization, since no employers mean no jobs. Labor unions have sometimes worked against environmental groups when environmental activism was seen as limiting to economic growth. This antagonization was further encouraged by employers in a politically motivated strategy referred to as “job blackmail,” and has been effective in pitting the movements against each other. '''

'''Labor unions and environmental groups first began to collaborate internationally when the Reagan administration in the 1980s launched attacks on environmental regulations around the same time that they fired thousands of striking air traffic control employees. '''

 Under Possible causes of drop in membership, Union responses to globalization: 

Regardless of the actual impact of market integration on union density or on workers themselves, organized labor has been engaged in a variety of strategies to limit the agenda of globalization and to promote labor regulations in an international context.

'''Labor rights had failed to be included in international trade negotiations in Geneva in 1948 and in Tokyo in 1978. They eventually were brought up by the US in the Uruguay Round in 1994, but were decidedly left to the jurisdiction of the International Labor Organization. Summers argues that this decision to shift all responsibility of labor rights to the ILO essentially extinguished the possibility of including labor standards in any meaningful way, as the ILO lacks any enforceable mechanism to address instances of rights violations. '''

'''It was around this time that US labor unions began to step in to advocate for rights in free trade negotiations. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was being negotiated in 1994, and labor unions were one of the many groups protesting it. The negotiations became a catalyst for the rise of coalition building across sectors, namely between labor unions and environmentalist groups, as well as across borders. '''

'''Pro-NAFTA advocates launched campaigns which claimed that NAFTA and other free trade deals would contribute to employment in the US. While this may be true, Summers argues that US exports tend to be capital-intensive, while imports tend to be labor-intensive, and thus deals like NAFTA would further contribute to the trend of more jobs being lost than created. '''

However, Mayer has written that it was precisely unions' opposition to NAFTA overall that jeopardized organized labor's ability to influence the debate on labor standards in a significant way. During Clinton's presidential campaign, labor unions wanted NAFTA to include a side deal to provide for a kind of international social charter, a set of standards that would be enforceable both in domestic courts and through international institutions. Mickey Kantor, then U.S. trade representative, had strong ties to organized labor and believed that he could get unions to come along with the agreement, particularly if they were given a strong voice in the negotiation process.

When it became clear that Mexico would not stand for this kind of an agreement, some critics from the labor movement would not settle for any viable alternatives. In response, part of the labor movement wanted to declare their open opposition to the agreement, and to push for NAFTA's rejection in Congress. Ultimately, the ambivalence of labor groups led those within the Administration who supported NAFTA to believe that strengthening NAFTA's labor side agreement, the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC), too much would cost more votes among Republicans than it would garner among Democrats, and would make it harder for the United States to elicit support from Mexico.

Graubart writes that, despite unions' open disappointment with the outcome of this labor-side negotiation, labor activists, including the AFL-CIO have used the NAALC's citizen petition, containing a unique cross-border mechanism, to highlight ongoing political campaigns and struggles in their home countries. He claims that despite the relative weakness of the legal provisions themselves, the side-agreement has served a legitimizing functioning, giving certain social struggles a new kind of standing. Kay argues that in the process of fighting NAFTA, activists groups had gained a “power-to”– the power of mobilizing and creating transnational networks, which ultimately helped them to defeat the Multilateral Agreements on Investment in 1998 as well as the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas in 2005.