Competência ofensiva e controle coercitivo na violência praticada pelo parceiro íntimo.
Este artigo considera algumas das maneiras pelas quais as abordagens de intervenção para os perpetradores de violência por parceiro íntimo (VPI) podem ser reforçadas através da consideração explícita do processo de ofensa. Sugere-se que aqueles que são especialistas em perpetrar esse tipo de violência usam rotineiramente a violência controladora coerciva em relacionamentos íntimos. Este grupo, para quem a violência é instrumental, não só é susceptível de estar em maior risco de ofender, mas também o mais difícil de tratar. Eles são mais propensos a ter longas histórias de desenvolvimento de violência, manter atitudes arraigadas e utilizar o conhecimento sobre os efeitos da intimidação para evitar a detecção. Sugere-se que a consideração específica do que se sabe sobre as causas e correlatos da VPI naqueles que seguem essa abordagem - caminho explícito pode melhorar os resultados dos atuais programas de mudança de comportamento do perpetrador.
Escolha uma opção para localizar / acessar este artigo:
Verifique se você tem acesso através de suas credenciais de login ou de sua instituição.
Injustiça e conflito em lares de idosos: em defesa e troca.
Este artigo examina as dinâmicas relacionais e os padrões de conflito exibidos nas duas casas interdependentes dos lares de idosos da América. No âmbito da teoria do intercâmbio social de poder estrutural, explica como a estrutura assimétrica de dependência e controle em lares de idosos elimina a possibilidade de negociação justa - conflito normal - entre funcionários e pacientes. Na ausência de qualquer oportunidade de recompensas e punições recíprocas, os pacientes tendem a adotar estratégias de influência submissas, enquanto os membros da equipe tendem a negligenciar, explorar ou abusar de pacientes difíceis ou resistentes. O autor examina a dinâmica de troca de táticas adversárias e a prevalência de conflitos de terceiros no lar de idosos e mostra que um aliado partidário dirigido pelo paciente poderia reequilibrar o poder e eliminar as desigualdades no ambiente do lar de idosos.
Escolha uma opção para localizar / acessar este artigo:
Verifique se você tem acesso através de suas credenciais de login ou de sua instituição.
Como os sindicatos de hoje ajudam os trabalhadores: dando aos trabalhadores o poder de melhorar seus empregos e desvendar a economia.
Os americanos sempre se uniram - seja em associações de pais ou organizações comunitárias locais - para resolver problemas e fazer mudanças que melhorem suas vidas e suas comunidades. Por meio de sindicatos, as pessoas se unem para buscar melhorias no local onde passam grande parte de suas horas de vigília: trabalho.
A liberdade dos trabalhadores de se unirem em sindicatos e negociar com os empregadores (em um processo conhecido como negociação coletiva) é amplamente reconhecida como um direito humano fundamental em todo o mundo. Nos Estados Unidos, esse direito é protegido pela Constituição dos EUA e pela lei dos EUA e é apoiado pela maioria dos americanos.1.
Mais de 16 milhões de mulheres e homens trabalhadores nos Estados Unidos estão exercendo esse direito - esses 16 milhões de trabalhadores são representados por sindicatos. No geral, mais de um em nove trabalhadores dos EUA são representados por sindicatos. Essa representação faz do trabalho organizado uma das maiores instituições da América.
Ao fornecer dados sobre cobertura, atividades e impactos dos sindicatos, este relatório ajuda a explicar como os sindicatos se encaixam na economia hoje; como eles afetam trabalhadores, comunidades, ocupações e indústrias, e o país em geral; e por que a negociação coletiva é essencial para uma economia justa e próspera e uma democracia vibrante. Também descreve como décadas de campanhas e políticas antissindicais tornaram muito mais difícil para as pessoas trabalhadoras usarem sua voz coletiva para sustentar seu padrão de vida.
"Negociação coletiva" é como as pessoas que trabalham ganham uma voz no trabalho e o poder de moldar suas vidas profissionais.
Quase todo mundo em algum momento se sentiu inédito ou impotente como empregado. Juntar-se a um sindicato significa simplesmente que você e seus colegas têm uma palavra a dizer, porque negociam juntos elementos importantes das condições de emprego. Isso poderia significar a garantia de aumentos salariais, melhor acesso a cuidados de saúde, melhorias na segurança do local de trabalho e horários mais razoáveis e previsíveis. Por meio de negociações coletivas, o sindicato também trabalha com a administração para desenvolver um processo para resolver as disputas que os funcionários e seus gerentes não conseguem resolver individualmente.
Quando um acordo de negociação coletiva (CBA) é acordado, os representantes sindicais trabalham com os funcionários e com a gerência para garantir que os direitos e obrigações estabelecidos no contrato sejam honrados. E eles representam trabalhadores em situações de alto risco, como quando uma violação de segurança resultou em ferimentos. Por estes meios, a negociação coletiva dá aos trabalhadores uma palavra a dizer em termos de seu emprego, a segurança de saber que existem processos específicos para lidar com queixas relacionadas ao trabalho e um caminho para a solução de problemas.
Para cobrir as despesas de negociação de contratos, defesa dos direitos dos trabalhadores, resolução de disputas e apoio aos membros da unidade de negociação, os sindicatos cobram taxas.
A Lei Nacional de Relações Trabalhistas (NLRA) de 1935 e as emendas regem os sindicatos do setor privado e a negociação coletiva. Embora os estados geralmente não tenham jurisdição sobre os sindicatos do setor privado, o NLRA, conforme alterado, permite que os estados promulguem certas leis que regem as taxas pagas pelos trabalhadores em locais de trabalho privados sindicalizados (discutido mais adiante neste relatório).
Quase metade (48,1%) dos trabalhadores cobertos por um contrato sindical são trabalhadores do setor público. Negociação coletiva entre os trabalhadores federais é abrangida pela Lei Federal de Relações Trabalhistas de 1978 (FLRA). Leis estaduais (promulgadas a partir do final da década de 1950) governam os sindicatos dos funcionários públicos estaduais e municipais. Cada estado tem seu próprio conjunto de leis que regem a negociação coletiva para funcionários públicos estaduais e locais. Alguns estados permitem o conjunto completo dos direitos de negociação coletiva, outros (aproximadamente um quinto) proíbem a negociação coletiva e outros ainda limitam algumas atividades, como o direito de greve ou o direito de cobrar dívidas automaticamente durante o processamento da folha de pagamento. Cerca de um em cada dez estados não tem lei estadual sobre direitos de negociação coletiva no setor público.
Os trabalhadores da união são diversos, assim como os EUA.
Acredita-se que o membro típico do sindicato seja um trabalhador em uma linha de fabricação no Centro-Oeste. A manufatura tem uma forte tradição sindical, mas as pessoas se unem aos sindicatos em muitos setores e ocupações. Os membros do sindicato incluem higienistas dentais em Wisconsin, estudantes de pós-graduação em Massachusetts, bombeiros em Illinois, escritores de televisão e cientistas na Califórnia, seguranças em Washington, DC, jornalistas digitais em Nova York e jogadores de beisebol da liga principal na Geórgia e outros estados.
Também é verdade que, no passado, os trabalhadores sindicalizados eram predominantemente homens brancos. Mas a partir de 2016, cerca de 10,6 milhões dos 16,3 milhões de trabalhadores cobertos por um contrato sindical são mulheres e / ou pessoas de cor.
Cerca de dois terços (65,4%) dos trabalhadores de 18 a 64 anos e cobertos por um contrato sindical são mulheres e / ou pessoas de cor. Quase metade (46,3%) são mulheres. Mais de um terço (35,8%) são negros, hispânicos, asiáticos ou outros trabalhadores não brancos. Os trabalhadores negros são os que têm maior probabilidade de serem representados pelos sindicatos: 14,5% dos trabalhadores negros entre 18 e 64 anos são cobertos por um acordo coletivo de trabalho, em comparação com 12,5% dos trabalhadores brancos e 10,1% dos trabalhadores hispânicos.
Os sindicatos representam trabalhadores de todos os níveis de educação.
Mais da metade (54,5%) dos trabalhadores de 18 a 64 anos e cobertos por um contrato sindical têm um grau de associado ou mais educação. Dois em cada cinco (42,4%) têm diploma de bacharel ou mais educação.
Os trabalhadores sindicalizados vêm de uma variedade de setores, mas a maior parte trabalha na educação ou nos serviços de saúde.
Quase dois em cada cinco trabalhadores (39,8%) tinham entre 18 e 64 anos e eram cobertos por um contrato sindicalizado em educação ou serviços de saúde. Um em cada sete trabalhadores (13,9 por cento) cobertos por um contrato sindical trabalha na administração pública. Um em cada oito trabalhadores (12,2%) cobertos por um contrato sindical trabalha em transporte e serviços públicos. Um em cada 11 trabalhadores (9,1 por cento) abrangidos por um contrato sindical trabalham na indústria transformadora.
Os sindicatos são mais difundidos nos setores de administração pública e transporte.
Como os setores variam em tamanho, as indústrias com maior número de trabalhadores sindicalizados nem sempre são as indústrias com a maior taxa de cobertura sindical. As cinco indústrias com as maiores participações de trabalhadores de 18 a 64 anos cobertas por um contrato sindical (a “taxa de cobertura do sindicato”) são:
Administração pública (33,2%) Transporte e serviços públicos (27,3%) Educação e serviços de saúde (20,0%) Construção (15,7%) Informações (10,6%), incluindo publicações, filmes, radiodifusão, telecomunicações, processamento de dados e outros serviços de comunicação .
Os sindicatos estão prosperando em diversos locais de trabalho, incluindo os locais de trabalho da "nova economia".
Trabalhadores se juntam aos sindicatos para falar sobre seus empregos e seus locais de trabalho. Dada a autodeterminação que os sindicatos oferecem, não é surpresa que estejam prosperando em algumas das empresas, indústrias e ocupações em maior número de mudanças.
Escritores de televisão em Hollywood. Streaming de serviços, ofertas de cabo e múltiplas plataformas de visualização estão alimentando o que é referido como "a Nova Era de Ouro da Televisão". Em 2016, as seis principais empresas de mídia que dominam cinema e televisão (CBS, Comcast, Disney, Fox, Time Warner, e Viacom) registraram quase US $ 51 bilhões em lucros operacionais. Esses lucros dobraram na última década e continuam crescendo. Grande parte do sucesso do setor é atribuível aos cerca de 13 mil homens e mulheres que escrevem programas de TV e filmes e que pertencem ao Writers Guild of America. Apesar dessa contribuição para a lucratividade recorde do setor, a receita dos escritores de TV estava em declínio. A WGA e a Aliança dos Produtores de Cinema e Televisão (que representam os estúdios, redes e produtores independentes) concordaram recentemente em um contrato de negociação coletiva que aumentou os salários e os resíduos digitais dos escritores e preservou amplos benefícios de assistência médica.6 Alunos de pós-graduação e coadjuvantes professores trabalhando em universidades em todo o país. Mais de 64.000 estudantes de pós-graduação são sindicalizados em 28 instituições de ensino superior no setor público, incluindo universidades na Califórnia, Flórida, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Oregon, Pensilvânia, Wisconsin e Washington. as universidades públicas praticam negociações coletivas há quase 50 anos, a lei abriu recentemente a possibilidade em universidades privadas: assistentes de ensino e pesquisa para universidades como Yale, Brandeis University, Columbia e Tufts University estão agora se organizando para melhores condições de remuneração e trabalho. 8 Funcionários profissionais e técnicos na região de Washington, DC e nos Estados Unidos e no Canadá. A Federação Internacional de Engenheiros Técnicos e Profissionais (IFPTE) inclui mais de 80.000 homens e mulheres em ocupações profissionais, técnicas, administrativas e associadas nos Estados Unidos e no Canadá. Os membros trabalham para uma ampla gama de agências e empresas federais, públicas e privadas. Eles incluem juízes de direito administrativo que trabalham para a Administração da Previdência Social, cientistas trabalhando para a NASA, engenheiros e técnicos que trabalham para a General Electric e Boeing, e engenheiros, arquitetos e gerentes de projeto que trabalham para o condado de Santa Clara, Califórnia. O Economic Policy Institute é uma das muitas organizações sem fins lucrativos sediadas em Washington (incluindo o Centro para o Progresso Americano e DC Jobs With Justice) representadas pelos motoristas, funcionários do centro, pilotos e mecânicos do IFPTE Local 70.9 United Parcel Service (UPS). A UPS é o maior empregador sindicalizado do setor privado do país. Dos 440.000 trabalhadores em todo o mundo, quase 250.000 (principalmente motoristas e trabalhadores do centro) são representados pelos Teamsters. Os pilotos da UPS são representados pela Independent Pilots Association, e os mecânicos da UPS são representados pela Associação Internacional de Maquinistas. De acordo com a firma de pesquisa Brand Keys, a UPS é a número um em fidelidade na entrega de encomendas, à frente dos não-sindicalizados FedEx.10, pescadores de lagosta do Maine. A União de Lagostins do Maine foi formada em 2013 depois de um excesso na primavera de 2012 que levou o “preço do barco” para a lagosta a cair cerca de 33% para uma baixa de 20 anos. Foi o primeiro sindicato de pescadores no Maine em mais de 75 anos. Enquanto as pessoas que pescam para viver no Canadá e nas costas de Washington e Alasca têm sido organizadas há anos, a União de Lobos do Maine, com 500 membros, procura fechar a lacuna crescente entre o que os consumidores pagam para comer lagosta e o que os pescadores de lagostas obtêm. Então o sindicato está comprando um negócio de lagosta no atacado. Os pescadores de lagosta da União que vendem para a cooperativa sindical receberão o preço de mercado pela sua lagosta, mas também uma parte dos lucros da cooperativa.11 Cafeteria e outros trabalhadores contratados no Vale do Silício. Em julho de 2017, mais de 500 funcionários de lanchonetes que servem comida no campus de Menlo Park, na Califórnia, se juntaram ao Local 19 da UNITE HERE, um sindicato de mais de 265.000 funcionários de hotelaria, serviço de alimentação, lavanderia, depósito e cassino nos Estados Unidos. e no Canadá. Os funcionários do refeitório do Facebook não podem pagar por moradias na extremamente cara Bay Area e estão buscando salários mais altos e benefícios de saúde mais acessíveis do seu empregador, o Flagship Facility Services. De acordo com o San Jose Mercury News, “milhares de trabalhadores contratados, como faxineiros, seguranças e motoristas de ônibus em outras grandes empresas de tecnologia do Vale do Silício, incluindo Apple, Intel e Google”, já se sindicalizaram. O esforço para sindicalizar esses trabalhadores está sendo liderado pela Working Partnerships USA e pelo Conselho Trabalhista da South Bay AFL-CIO, mas conta com outros grupos religiosos, comunitários e trabalhistas (incluindo o Communications Workers of America, Teamsters e o Service Employees International Union) como parceiros. .12 Jornalistas digitais. O panorama da mídia em mudança tem sido um catalisador recente para a redação de redações. Desde 2014, os funcionários editoriais de muitos meios de comunicação - incluindo In These Times, Vice, Gizmodo Media Group (anteriormente Gawker Media), Salon, The American Prospect, Fusion, The Root e ThinkProgress - formaram sindicatos. O Huffington Post, por exemplo, ratificou um contrato em janeiro de 2017 que inclui disposições sobre a independência editorial, a necessidade de melhorar a diversidade das redações, o tempo necessário, as políticas disciplinares e de demissão e a indenização em caso de demissões13.
Os sindicatos fortalecem a democracia dando voz aos trabalhadores nos debates sobre políticas.
Gerentes, empresários e CEOs se organizam para defender seus interesses econômicos. É isso que as câmaras de comércio, associações empresariais e associações comerciais nacionais fazem. Os sindicatos proporcionam aos trabalhadores que não são executivos ou donos de empresas a oportunidade de serem ouvidos em debates políticos que moldam suas vidas.
Os americanos têm um direito constitucionalmente protegido de se associar e pedir mudanças. Os americanos se unem para mudar os limites de velocidade, a política da escola, as leis que regem a posse de armas, o porte e uso de drogas e muito mais. E quando os americanos quiseram tornar a economia mais justa e mais receptiva às necessidades dos trabalhadores, eles tradicionalmente se uniram em sindicatos para fazê-lo.
Os sindicatos lutaram por - e trabalham para fortalecer - muitos dos padrões e normas humanos que protegem e elevam os americanos hoje. Essas leis e programas essenciais incluem Segurança Social, leis de trabalho infantil, leis antidiscriminatórias, leis de saúde e segurança, seguro desemprego, indenização para trabalhadores que se machucam no trabalho, jornada semanal de 40 horas e salário mínimo federal14. grande força por trás de todas as leis da Great Society sobre discriminação, moradia e direitos de voto.
À medida que a cobertura do sindicato diminuiu e a voz dos trabalhadores diminuiu correspondentemente, muitos dos padrões-chave do local de trabalho das gerações passadas contados foram corroídos. Por exemplo, tem havido uma erosão na proteção de pagamento de horas extras, cortes nos programas de compensação dos trabalhadores e um declínio no valor real do salário mínimo, que é menor agora do que era em 1968.15.
Os sindicatos reduzem a desigualdade e são essenciais para a capacidade dos trabalhadores de baixa e média remuneração de obter uma parcela justa do crescimento econômico.
A disseminação da negociação coletiva que se seguiu à aprovação da Lei Nacional de Relações Trabalhistas, em 1935, levou a décadas de crescimento econômico mais rápido e mais justo que persistiu até o final da década de 1970. Mas desde a década de 1970, a sindicalização em declínio alimentou a crescente desigualdade e paralisou o progresso econômico para a ampla classe média americana. As Figuras A e B mostram que quando os sindicatos são fracos, os rendimentos mais altos aumentam ainda mais, mas quando os sindicatos são fortes, os rendimentos médios aumentam.
Pesquisas do EPI e de outras instituições mostram que essa correlação não é acidental. Primeiro, os sindicatos têm fortes efeitos positivos não apenas sobre os salários dos trabalhadores sindicalizados, mas também sobre os salários de trabalhadores não-sindicalizados comparáveis, pois os sindicatos estabelecem padrões para indústrias e ocupações inteiras (esses incentivos sindicais e não-sindicais são explorados em detalhes na próxima seção). este relatório). Em segundo lugar, os sindicatos fazem com que os salários entre as ocupações sejam mais iguais, porque dão um maior aumento salarial às ocupações de baixos e médios salários do que às ocupações com salários altos. Terceiro, os sindicatos fazem com que os salários dos trabalhadores com características semelhantes sejam mais iguais por causa das uniões de padrões estabelecidas. Em quarto lugar, os sindicatos têm, historicamente, maior probabilidade de organizar os salários médios do que os trabalhadores com salários altos, o que reduz a desigualdade ao fechar as lacunas entre, digamos, operários e operários. Finalmente, o aumento salarial da união é maior para os trabalhadores de baixa renda e maior no meio do que nos níveis salariais mais altos, maior para trabalhadores negros e hispânicos do que para trabalhadores brancos e maior para aqueles com níveis mais baixos de educação - aumentos salariais para esses trabalhadores. grupos ajudam a diminuir as desigualdades salariais.16.
Sabemos quão grande é a força dos sindicatos da igualdade, observando o quanto o declínio contribuiu para a desigualdade entre trabalhadores de médio e alto salário: o declínio dos sindicatos pode explicar um terço do aumento da desigualdade salarial entre os homens e um quinto dos salários. o aumento da desigualdade salarial entre as mulheres de 1973 a 2007. Entre os homens, a erosão da negociação coletiva tem sido o maior fator isolado que criou uma barreira entre os trabalhadores de salário médio e alto.17.
Filiação à União e parcela de renda indo para os 10% mais altos, 1917–2015.
Os dados abaixo podem ser salvos ou copiados diretamente no Excel.
Os dados subjacentes à figura.
Fontes: Os dados sobre densidade de união seguem as séries compostas encontradas nas Estatísticas Históricas dos Estados Unidos; atualizado para 2015 a partir de unionstats. Os dados de desigualdade de renda (parcela de renda para os 10% melhores) são de Thomas Piketty e Emmanuel Saez, “Desigualdade de Renda nos Estados Unidos, 1913-1998”, Quarterly Journal of Economics vol. 118, não. 1 (2003) e dados atualizados do Top Income Database, atualizados em junho de 2016.
Copie o código abaixo para incorporar este gráfico em seu site.
A taxa de filiação à União e a parcela da renda atingem 60% das famílias, de 1917 a 2013.
Os dados abaixo podem ser salvos ou copiados diretamente no Excel.
Os dados subjacentes à figura.
Fontes: Dados sobre a densidade sindical seguem as séries compostas encontradas nas Estatísticas Históricas dos Estados Unidos; atualizado para 2013 a partir de unionstats. Os dados sobre a parcela média de renda de 60% são da Tabela de Renda Histórica do Census Bureau dos EUA (Tabela F-2).
Copie o código abaixo para incorporar este gráfico no seu site.
Os sindicatos aumentam os salários dos trabalhadores sindicalizados e não sindicalizados.
Para os trabalhadores típicos, o crescimento salarial por hora tem sido lento durante décadas, aumentando 0,3% ao ano ou 9,9% em todos os anos de 1979 a 2015. Se o salário tivesse aumentado com a produtividade nesse período, como aconteceu nas décadas anteriores a 1979, o pagamento teria aumentado. subiu 63,8 por cento.18 Mas o pagamento para os trabalhadores típicos não está subindo neste recorde, porque as parcelas cada vez maiores de crescimento econômico estão indo para os maiores assalariados. O crescimento da renda do 1% mais alto dos assalariados aumentou em quase 190% entre 1979 e 2015, o que significa que os 1% mais bem pagos reivindicam uma parcela radicalmente desproporcional do crescimento da renda.19.
Trabalhadores em sindicatos usam seu poder em números para garantir uma parcela mais justa da renda que criam. Os empregadores que têm que negociar coletivamente com os trabalhadores não podem seguir uma estratégia de “dividir e conquistar” entre seus trabalhadores. Os trabalhadores capacitados pela formação de um sindicato aumentam os salários dos trabalhadores sindicalizados e não-sindicalizados. À medida que um setor econômico se torna mais sindicalizado, os empregadores não-sindicalizados pagam mais para reter trabalhadores qualificados e normas de salários mais altos e melhores condições se tornam padrão. Por exemplo, se um hospital do sindicato estiver do outro lado da cidade de um hospital não pertencente a sindicatos e os dois hospitais estiverem competindo por trabalhadores, os trabalhadores não-sindicalizados se beneficiarão da presença do hospital do sindicato.
Os trabalhadores da união ganham mais. Em média, um trabalhador coberto por um contrato sindical ganha 13,2% a mais em salários do que um colega com educação, ocupação e experiência semelhantes em um local de trabalho não-sindicalizado20. Esse aumento salarial foi ainda maior nas décadas anteriores, quando mais trabalhadores americanos foram sindicalizados.21 Os sindicatos também aumentam o salário dos trabalhadores, ajudando a impor padrões trabalhistas, como a proteção contra o roubo de salários. Os sindicalistas têm mais conhecimento sobre seus direitos e os representantes dos sindicatos se comunicam quando necessário com agências de fiscalização do governo, o que aumenta a aplicação de violações salariais. Por exemplo, os trabalhadores cobertos por um sindicato têm metade da probabilidade de serem vítimas de violações do salário mínimo (ou seja, receber uma taxa horária efetiva que esteja abaixo do salário mínimo). Essa forma de roubo de salário está custando aos trabalhadores mais de US $ 15 bilhões por ano, fazendo com que muitas famílias caiam abaixo da linha de pobreza.22 Quando a densidade sindical é alta, os trabalhadores não-sindicalizados se beneficiam de salários mais altos. Quando a parcela de trabalhadores sindicalizados é relativamente alta, como era em 1979, os salários dos trabalhadores não sindicalizados são mais altos. Por exemplo, se a densidade do sindicato permanecesse no nível de 1979, os salários semanais dos não sindicalizados no setor privado seriam 5% mais altos (mais US $ 2.704 em salários para os trabalhadores durante o ano todo), enquanto os salários dos não-sindicalizados no setor privado uma educação universitária seria de 8%, ou US $ 3.016 por ano, maior. (Essas estimativas mostram que salários teriam sido em 2013 se a densidade sindical tivesse permanecido em seus níveis de 1979) .23 Onde os sindicatos permanecem fortes, os sindicatos têm a capacidade de aumentar os salários em todo o setor. Um exemplo é o setor de hospitalidade em Orlando, Flórida. Negociações entre seis afiliadas locais do Sindicato do Conselho de Comércio de Serviços (STCU) e Disney World em 2014 levaram a aumentos salariais de sindicatos para pelo menos US $ 10 por hora a partir de 2016. Essas afiliadas locais representam governantas, salva-vidas, membros do elenco e outros serviços trabalhadores. A Disney, em seguida, estendeu os aumentos a todos os seus 70.000 funcionários em Orlando, incluindo funcionários não sindicalizados. Segundo o Orlando Sentinel, os aumentos salariais levaram grande parte do setor de hospitalidade e varejo de Orlando, incluindo o Westgate Resorts, a aumentar os salários.24 Onde os sindicatos são fortes, os salários são mais altos para os trabalhadores típicos - sindicalizados e não sindicalizados. A remuneração de trabalhadores típicos (medianos) cresce muito mais rápido - quatro vezes mais rápido - nos estados com o menor declínio na sindicalização do que nos estados com os maiores declínios na sindicalização.25 Os sindicatos trazem salários dignos para empregos de baixa remuneração. Os sindicatos transformaram postos de trabalho de salários baixos em serviços de hospitalidade, enfermagem e zeladoria em posições com salários dignos e oportunidades de progresso. Por exemplo, após a sindicalização, as máquinas de lavar louça nos hotéis de Las Vegas pagavam US $ 4 por hora a mais do que a média nacional para esse trabalho, e recebiam excelentes benefícios. E os trabalhadores da hospitalidade em Las Vegas sindicalizados desfrutam de um padrão de vida muito mais alto do que aqueles em Reno, onde os sindicatos são mais fracos. Em Houston, um primeiro contrato sindical de 2006 com 5.300 faxineiros resultou em um aumento salarial de 47% e um aumento nas horas semanais garantidas de trabalho.26.
Ao se unirem, os trabalhadores podem transformar não apenas seus locais de trabalho, mas também setores e comunidades. Aqui estão dois exemplos de como os trabalhadores de hoje estão usando seu “poder em números” para aumentar os salários no local de trabalho e para todos os trabalhadores:
Aumentar o salário mínimo para o serviço de alimentação e outros trabalhadores com baixos salários. Milhões de americanos que trabalham em período integral não recebem o suficiente para pagar as contas; muitos contam com assistência pública, incluindo vale-refeição, subsídios de moradia ou assistência em dinheiro para pagar suas contas. Os preparadores de alimentos, por exemplo, ganham um salário médio por hora de US $ 9,09; ajudantes de saúde em casa ganham $ 10,87. Uma grande razão para os trabalhadores com baixos salários estarem lutando é a erosão do valor do salário mínimo federal, que, a US $ 7,25 por hora, vale 25% menos em termos ajustados à inflação do que há 50 anos. O Sindicato Internacional de Empregados de Serviço foi um dos primeiros e principais apoiadores e continua sendo um forte defensor da Luta por US $ 15, uma campanha para elevar os salários dos trabalhadores de baixa renda promulgando aumentos de salários mínimos nas comunidades e estados do país. Iniciada em Nova York e Chicago em 2012, a campanha levou a leis que estabelecem um salário mínimo de US $ 15 em Nova York, na Califórnia, no Distrito de Colúmbia e em 21 cidades e condados. O movimento Luta por US $ 15 também deu impulso a campanhas de sucesso por menores reajustes de salário mínimo em outros 18 estados desde 2014. (Por meio da campanha, alguns trabalhadores também estão buscando tempo de doença para que todos os trabalhadores, independentemente de seu nível de emprego ou salário, podem tirar folga remunerada quando estão doentes ou precisam cuidar de um membro da família.) Embora muitos empresários tenham endossado aumentos de salário mínimo, os empresários que se opõem ao aumento do salário mínimo também têm voz, através de grupos como a National Restaurant Association. , que faz lobby em Washington, DC e nas capitais dos estados contra aumentos de salário mínimo e dias de doença remunerada.27 Eliminando salários mínimos para os trabalhadores rurais. Em junho de 2017, Familias Unidas por La Justicia (FUJ) e Sakuma Brothers Berry Farm, um dos maiores produtores de frutos silvestres do Pacífico Noroeste, assinaram um acordo coletivo que garante bons salários para os mais de 500 trabalhadores rurais imigrantes que colhem bagas na fazenda. O contrato garante que os catadores de frutas - muitos dos quais ganhavam menos do que o salário mínimo estadual de US $ 9,47 por hora sob o antigo sistema de peças (com base em quantos quilos de frutas colhiam) - agora ganham pelo menos um salário mínimo. de US $ 12; o sistema revisado de preço por peça que ele estabelece busca entregar um salário médio de US $ 15 por hora. O contrato é o culminar de quatro anos de organização, primeiro como organização de trabalhadores e depois como um sindicato reconhecido independente em setembro de 2016. Por meio de greves, piquetes informativos e outros esforços, a FUJ obteve apoio nacional para seus esforços bem sucedidos de mudar uma série de práticas na fazenda, incluindo jornadas de trabalho de 12 horas ou mais. A FUJ também rebateu a tentativa da Sakuma Brothers em 2014 de substituir sua força de trabalho por trabalhadores que entram nos Estados Unidos sob o programa de visto temporário H-2A.28.
Os sindicatos ajudam a aumentar os salários das mulheres e a diminuir as diferenças salariais raciais.
Os sindicatos ajudam a elevar os salários das mulheres e dos trabalhadores negros e hispânicos - cujos salários ficaram atrás dos brancos - estabelecendo “transparência” (os trabalhadores sabem o que os outros trabalhadores estão fazendo), corrigindo discrepâncias salariais, estabelecendo termos mais claros para processos internos como aumentos e promoções, e ajudar os trabalhadores que foram discriminados a atingir a equidade.
Os sindicatos também diminuem as diferenças salariais raciais. Os trabalhadores negros, por exemplo, são mais propensos do que os trabalhadores brancos a estar em um sindicato e são mais propensos a ser trabalhadores de baixa e média remuneração, que recebem um maior aumento salarial por estarem em um sindicato do que trabalhadores com salários mais altos. Este efeito é uma ferramenta importante para fechar o hiato salarial entre brancos e negros, que cresceu um pouco desde 1979, em grande parte devido ao crescimento do hiato desde 2000 - enquanto os salários estagnaram desde 2000 para trabalhadores negros e brancos, o declínio salarial o crescimento foi maior para os trabalhadores negros.29 Hoje, os trabalhadores negros pagam, em média, 85 centavos por cada dólar pago a trabalhadores brancos do mesmo sexo e com educação, experiência e local de residência similares.30.
Os sindicatos ajudam a aumentar o salário das mulheres. Os salários por hora para as mulheres representados pelos sindicatos são em média 9,2% mais altos do que para as mulheres não-sindicalizadas com características comparáveis.31 Os sindicatos aumentam os salários nas ocupações de serviço dominadas pelas mulheres. Trabalhadores representados em sindicatos em ocupações de serviços (que incluem serviço de alimentação e serviços de zeladoria) obtêm 87% a mais em remuneração total e 56,1% a mais em salários do que seus colegas não-sindicalistas.32 Os sindicatos ajudam a reduzir as diferenças salariais entre trabalhadores negros e hispânicos. Os trabalhadores negros e hispânicos recebem um impulso maior da sindicalização do que seus colegas brancos. Os trabalhadores negros, tanto homens quanto mulheres, são mais propensos do que os trabalhadores brancos a serem cobertos pela negociação coletiva e o aumento salarial que recebem por estarem cobertos pela negociação coletiva está acima da média. O resultado é que a negociação coletiva eleva os salários dos trabalhadores negros mais próximos daqueles de seus equivalentes brancos. Os trabalhadores hispânicos têm uma cobertura sindical ligeiramente inferior à dos trabalhadores brancos, mas têm vantagens salariais sindicais muito maiores: assim, as diferenças salariais entre os trabalhadores hispânicos e seus colegas brancos também são menores por causa da negociação coletiva.33 Os trabalhadores negros sindicalizados ganham ainda mais em alguns setores. Trabalhadores da construção civil negros sindicalizados na cidade de Nova York ganham 36,1% a mais do que trabalhadores da construção civil não-sindicalizados na cidade de Nova York.34.
Esses dados mostram que os sindicatos aumentam os salários de todos os trabalhadores - especialmente das mulheres e dos trabalhadores negros e hispânicos - não apagam os problemáticos episódios históricos de sexismo e racismo praticados pelos sindicatos. Os sindicatos são uma instituição americana e, como quase todas as outras instituições americanas, seu passado inclui exemplos claros de discriminação racial e de gênero. Mas houve progresso significativo no aumento das ações das mulheres representadas pelos sindicatos e na liderança sindical. Houve também progresso significativo na integração racial dos sindicatos e em assegurar que os trabalhadores não-brancos tenham acesso equitativo aos estágios, como ilustrado pelo progresso nos sindicatos de construção de Nova York.35 O Presidente da AFL-CIO Richard Trumka afirmou recentemente, com justificativa, que “O movimento trabalhista é a instituição mais integrada dos Estados Unidos.” 36 Os líderes trabalhistas pedem uma atenção ampla e sustentada para enfrentar o racismo e o sexismo, onde continuam a violar os ideais democráticos do trabalho.37.
Os sindicatos melhoram as práticas de saúde e segurança dos locais de trabalho.
Mais de 4.800 trabalhadores são mortos no trabalho todos os anos. An estimated 50,000 to 60,000 more die of occupational diseases each year, and the estimated number of work-related injuries and illnesses exceeds 7 million.38 Unions have always championed worker safety by investing in programs to educate workers about on-the-job hazards and working with employers to reduce worker injuries and the time lost due to injury.39 In unionized workplaces, workers generally have a right to involve a union representative in injury and fatality investigations, which gives workers a voice in their own safety. And researchers have suggested that unions create safer workplaces; because union workers are protected by their union from repercussions for reporting safety issues, they are more likely to report not only injuries but near misses. This increased reporting can lead to a reduction in work hazards.40 The union contribution to safety is particularly important because government health and safety regulations are being weakened.41.
Union construction sites are safer for workers. In 2014, OSHA inspected New York state construction sites and found twice as many health and safety violations at nonunion construction sites as at union construction sites.42 Another study, of Missouri construction sites, found higher levels of OSHA violations among nonunion St. Louis residential construction job sites than at unionized St. Louis residential job sites.43 Mine workers in union mines are less likely to be severely injured or die on the job. Unionization is associated with a substantial and statistically significant drop in traumatic injuries and in fatalities in underground bituminous coal mines from 1993 to 2010.44 Unions ensure that employers are held accountable. Tragedies arise when employers cannot be held accountable. Miners in the Upper Big Branch Mine in West Virginia tried and failed to a join a union three times, according to In These Times . Each time, at least 65 percent of the miners signed cards saying they wanted to be members of a union. And each time, these workers were repeatedly intimidated by management at Massey Energy, which owns the mine: Massey CEO Don Blankenship delayed the election process for months while he threatened to close the mine if the workers voted for a union—and the workers ended up voting against joining a union to save their jobs.45 On April 5, 2010, an explosion collapsed the mine’s roof, killing 29 miners and injuring two. In the aftermath, reports surfaced that the nonunion mine had a record of safety violations and that coal miners who worked in the mine knew about the dangerous working conditions. Blankenship was found guilty on a charge of conspiracy to willfully violate mine health and safety standards and was sentenced to a year in prison.46.
Here are some specific ways unions have improved safety in the workplace by representing workers’ concerns in public and testifying before Congress and state legislatures:
Nurses win violence prevention standards. In the past decade or so, the rate of reported violence against health care workers (who make up 9 percent of the nation’s workforce) has more than doubled. The increase stems from cuts in state funds for mental health services and hospital budget cutbacks thinning the ranks of nurses and security guards. National Nurses United (NNU), which represents more than 160,000 nurses across the country, has fought for and won workplace violence prevention standards in California, Minnesota, and Massachusetts. NNU is now petitioning the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) for a formal workplace violence prevention standard that would apply nationwide.47 Laborers, autoworkers, and others secure protections for workers from deadly silica dust. Roughly 2.3 million workers are exposed to silica dust, which causes silicosis (an incurable and often deadly lung disease), lung cancer, other respiratory diseases, and kidney disease. Silica dust is produced by grinding stone or masonry in mines or on construction sites. Although the hazards of silica dust have been known for at least a century, existing regulations limiting exposure were outdated and were not keeping up with worker exposure to silica in new industries such as stone countertop fabrication and hydraulic fracturing. A broad section of the labor movement—including the United Automobile Workers and the Laborers’ International Union of North America—helped persuade OSHA to issue a new rule that reduces workers’ exposure to silica.48 Firefighters get relief from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Firefighters who develop PTSD after witnessing repeated trauma on the job don’t always have recourse if the disorder means they cannot work while they seek treatment. When independent studies showed that post-traumatic stress rates are on the rise for Texas firefighters, the Texas State Association of Fire Fighters (TSAFF) launched an education campaign for state lawmakers leading to legislation to improve workers’ compensation coverage for Texas first responders diagnosed with line-of-duty-related PTSD. The legislation (HB 1983) was signed into law by Governor Greg Abbott on June 1, 2017.49.
Unions support strong families with better benefits and due process.
About six in 10 adults (63 percent) say the average working person in the United States has less job security now than 20 or 30 years ago.50 And the lack of paid sick days is depriving many workers of funds needed for basic necessities—an especially difficult problem for the lowest-wage workers, about three-fourths of whom don’t get any paid sick days.51 Uncertain work hours, last-minute shift changes, and other scheduling practices are also hurting families. And research shows that jobs that are insecure, unpredictable, and risky also affect communities and society as a whole.52.
But working people in unionized workplaces are more likely to have benefits that strengthen families and improve job security and predictability. (Some of the items in the list below provide union–nonunion comparisons not adjusted for personal characteristics and other factors, while some, where indicated, provide adjusted comparisons.53)
Union workers are more likely to be covered by employer-provided health insurance. More than nine in 10—94 percent—of workers covered by a union contract have access to employer-sponsored health benefits, compared with just 67 percent of nonunion workers. When adjustments are made for other characteristics that may affect benefits coverage—such as sector (public or private), industry, region, employee status (full - or part-time), and establishment size—union workers are 18.3 percent more likely to be covered. Union employers contribute more to their health care benefits. Union employers pay 77.4 percent more (per hour worked) toward their employees’ health coverage (providing better benefits for a greater share of workers) than comparable nonunion employers. Occupations with higher-than-average union impact on employer-provided health care include transportation, services, construction, extraction, and installation/maintenance/repair. Union workers have greater access to paid sick days. Almost nine in 10—87 percent—of workers covered by a union contract have access to paid sick days, compared with 69 percent of nonunion workers. Almost all—97 percent—of union workers in state and local government have paid sick days, compared with 86 percent of their nonunion peers. In the private sector, 79 percent of union workers have paid sick days compared with 67 percent of their nonunion peers. Union workers are more likely to have paid vacation and holidays. In the private sector, 89 percent of workers covered by a union contract get paid vacation and paid holidays, whereas 75 percent of nonunion workers get paid vacation and 76 percent get paid holidays. For workers overall (private and public), 80 percent of union workers get paid holidays while 75 percent of nonunion workers do. Equal shares of union and nonunion workers (74 percent) get paid vacation.54 When adjustments are made for other characteristics that may affect benefits coverage—such as sector (public or private), industry, region, employee status (full - or part-time), and establishment size—union workers are 3.2 percent more likely to have paid leave. Employers contribute more to paid vacation and holidays for union workers than nonunion workers. Union employers contribute 11.4 percent more toward paid vacation and holidays for their workers than do comparable nonunion employers. Industries and occupations with higher-than-average employer contributions toward paid vacation and holidays include production, transportation, office and administrative support, service occupations, and construction. Unions provide due process. Private employment in every state except for Montana is generally at will, with employers free to dismiss workers for almost any reason, except for reasons specified by law (e. g., on account of race, religion, disability, or other identities that are protected classes). Union contracts have provisions that allow workers to be fired, but only when the employer shows a proper, documented performance-related reason for dismissing the worker. Usually, contracts include a transparent process for disciplining workers, and the employer—except in extreme cases—must follow that process and give a worker a chance to improve performance before the employer moves to dismiss the worker. Union workers have more input into the number of hours they work . Almost half (46 percent) of nonunion workers say they have little or no input into the number of hours they work each week, compared with less than a quarter (22 percent) of union workers.55 Union workers get more advance notice of their work schedules . More than one in three workers (34.4 percent) who belong to a union get at least a week’s advance notice of their work schedules, whereas less than one in four nonunion workers (23.2 percent) do. (These calculations exclude workers whose schedules never change.)56.
Unions also bring better benefits to the broader labor force. Here is a specific example of how unions have helped secure crucial benefits for workers by taking their concerns to the lawmakers and to the public at large:
Winning paid sick days for workers. There is no federal law that ensures all workers are able to earn paid sick days in the United States. For workers who fall ill or whose families depend on them to provide care in the event of an illness, this means sick days can be incredibly costly. This is a particular problem for low-wage workers, 73 percent of whom have no opportunity to earn paid sick days. Unions have participated in coalitions to enact paid sick days laws. For example, voter outreach by the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) helped win passage of a paid sick days law in Oregon, while SEIU was a key player in enacting the nation’s strongest paid sick days policy, in Massachusetts.57.
Unions are good for workers’ retirement security.
Few Americans have enough to live on in retirement. A key part of the story of rising retirement income insecurity is a shift from traditional defined-benefit (DB) pensions that provide a guaranteed income to defined-contribution (DC) plans—401(k)s or similar plans—that force workers to bear investment risk without providing any guarantees.58 The shift from pensions to 401(k)s has also exacerbated inequality, benefiting some very wealthy families but leaving the vast majority unprepared for retirement. Nearly half of all families headed by an adult age 32–61 have zero retirement savings.59.
Union members have an advantage in retirement security, both because union members are more likely to have retirement benefits and because, when they do, the benefits are better than what comparable nonunion workers receive: union members are more likely to have pensions, and employer contributions to the plans (whether pensions or DC plans) tend to be higher.
Ninety percent of union workers participate in a retirement plan (of any kind), compared with 75 percent of nonunion workers. Seventy-four percent of union workers who have pensions participate in a traditional defined benefit pension, compared with 15 percent of nonunion workers.60 Traditional defined benefit pensions are especially important to black workers, who derive more than a fifth of their household income from these pensions in retirement.61 Union employers (when adjustments are made for various employer characteristics) are 22.5 percent more likely to offer an employer-provided retirement plan and, on average, to spend 56 percent more on retirement for their employees than do comparable nonunion employers.62.
Unions create a path to sharing knowledge and solving problems.
Because they are on the front lines, working people often have some of the best information on how to improve their workplaces and make their workplaces safer and more productive. Unions provide the means for workers to share their knowledge about what works and what doesn’t—without fear of retaliation. Unionized workplaces also provide their workers with more transparency about company finances and processes that can help shape responses to problems.
Here are a few examples of specific ways unions have sought to improve their workplaces:
Shifting from teacher punishment to professional development. The Peer Assistance and Review (PAR) system created by the Toledo Federation of Teachers (TFT) in the early 1980s transformed teacher evaluation and professional development in Toledo and subsequently spread to other cities and counties in Ohio and throughout the country, including Boston; Rochester, New York; St. Paul, Minnesota; and Montgomery County, Maryland. Under the PAR program, new teachers—and experienced teachers who have been struggling—work with “consulting teachers” who provide mentoring and evaluation. Only after that process do principals get involved in evaluation. Veteran teachers may be referred to the program or seek it out on their own. Districts that have adopted PAR say that it strengthens instruction, increases teacher leadership, and helps strengthen the relationship between the district and the teachers union.63 Training manufacturing workers in new technology skills. Labor unions and the AFL-CIO Working for America Institute have been key partners in implementing a program that trains workers to operate more technical and highly specialized manufacturing processes. The Industrial Manufacturing Technicians (IMT) apprenticeship program began in Milwaukee and is expanding across eight states. The program, operated by the Wisconsin Regional Training Partnership (WRTP)/BIG STEP, provides workers with 2,700 hours of on-the-job training and 260 hours with technical college instructors. Labor union partners include the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAMAW), the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers (SMART), the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), the United Automobile Workers (UAW), and the United Steelworkers (USW). “Union support ensures that the firm-specific design of the program is responsive to worker feedback as well as to lessons learned from IMT programs at other employers that the union covers.”64 Ending quotas that force bank workers to sell exploitive loans . More than 15,000 U. S. bank workers for Spain-based Santander Bank are trying to create the first bank workers’ union in the United States (bank unions are widespread in other developed countries). Among Santander workers’ goals is to end quotas that force workers to hawk subprime auto loans and other exploitative loans to customers—often people of color and neighbors in their communities—without being able to properly explain the terms of those loans.65 While there has been no election petition filed for Santander Bank yet, Santander workers have brought attention to what has been a problem for American consumers. By forming unions and gaining a seat at the table, financial services employees could help end predatory practices like those engaged in by Wells Fargo Bank in recent years.66.
Workers still want unions but are being thwarted by aggressive campaigns and lobbying that have eroded private-sector union membership.
Almost half (48 percent) of workers polled said they’d vote to create a union in their workplace tomorrow if they got the chance.67 But workers are being deprived of that opportunity. Because unions and collective bargaining are effective at giving workers power, they are opposed by corporate interests and policymakers representing the highest-earning 1 percent.68 For decades, fierce corporate opposition has suppressed the freedom to form unions and bargain collectively in the private sector by promoting anti-union campaigns in workplaces seeking to unionize and by lobbying lawmakers to pass laws depriving private-sector unions of funds needed to operate. This activity has tracked the dramatic, rapid increase of corporate political activity that began in the mid-1970s, with a specific “call-to-arms” for U. S. corporations that quadrupled the number of corporate PACs from 1976 to 1980.69 More recently, anti-union lobbyists have passed legislation weakening unions in states such as Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin that were once union strongholds.70 Outdated labor laws have failed to provide workers with protection from this employer onslaught against collective bargaining. And corporate lobbyists have blocked reforms to labor laws that would protect workers’ collective bargaining rights with meaningful penalties for violations and better processes for organizing. Employers are exploiting loopholes, including by misclassifying workers as independent contractors to get around labor laws that protect employees.
By going after union funding, employer interests and their allied lawmakers can wipe out one of the crucial pillars of support for pro-worker candidates and causes. If unions have fewer members, or if the law hamstrings unions’ ability to collect administrative fees from the workers they represent, there will be less union money spent on advocating for workers in general. As Gordon Lafer, associate professor at the Labor Education and Research Center at the University of Oregon, notes, “The labor movement serves as the primary political counterweight to the corporate agenda on a long list of issues that are not per se labor-related. To the extent that unions can be removed as a politically meaningful force, the rest of the agenda becomes much easier to execute.”71.
These strategies have been effective, as is evident in the differing trends in unionization between private-sector and public-sector workers. Until very recently, public-sector employers have been far less engaged in trying to block unionization efforts than their private-sector counterparts. Just 6.4 percent of private-sector workers belong to a union, down from about 35 percent in the 1950s and about 25 percent in the early 1970s. In contrast, 34.4 percent of public-sector workers belong to a union, up from at or slightly above 10 percent in the 1950s. Overall, 10.7 percent of workers belong to a union, down from about 35 percent in the mid-1950s.72 Figure C shows the dramatic decline in private-sector unionization since the 1970s.
Private-sector unionization has declined as a direct result of anti-union policies : Union coverage rates by sector, 1973–2016.
The data below can be saved or copied directly into Excel.
The data underlying the figure.
Note: Coverage rates are based on data for all workers age 16 and up.
Source: EPI analysis of data from the Union Membership and Coverage Database (unionstats), compiled by Barry Hirsch and David Macpherson (posted February 11, 2017)
Copy the code below to embed this chart on your website.
Employers often fight unionizing efforts with aggression and intimidation, using legal and illegal tactics.
Not all employers oppose unions. Some unions featured in this report were voluntarily recognized by employers, and some led campaigns in which the employer provided union organizers with free access to employees.73.
But often, when private-sector workers seek to organize and bargain collectively, employers hire union avoidance consultants to orchestrate and roll out anti-union campaigns. Intense and aggressive anti-union campaigns—once confined to the most anti-union employers—have become widespread, leading to a “coercive and punitive climate for organizing that goes unrestrained due to a fundamentally flawed regulatory regime that neither protects [workers’] rights nor provides any disincentives for employers to continue disregarding the law.”74 While the National Labor Relations Act, which governs private-sector collective bargaining, makes it illegal for employers to intimidate, coerce, or fire workers involved in union-organizing campaigns, the penalties are insufficient to provide a serious economic disincentive for such behavior.75 And many of the tactics that are illegal on paper can be actively pursued because verbal, veiled threats without a paper trail or explicit language connecting the threat to the union effort are difficult to prove and thus prosecute. Finally, the Department of Labor is working to repeal a rule that prohibits employers from keeping the work of anti-union consultants a secret.76.
Three-quarters or more of private employers facing unionization hire union avoidance consultants to quash the union campaign, sometimes spending hundreds of thousands of dollars .77 Employer tactics may include one-on-one meetings with supervisors, mandatory employee meetings (also known as “captive audience” meetings), videos, and leaflets. Often consultants work behind the scenes to craft the message that management delivers. The communication strategy typically warns employees that the union will just charge dues and fines without delivering raises or other benefits; will make employees strike; will take years to deliver a contract; and will generally interfere in the employment relationship. Because employers can bar pro-union workers from speaking at mandatory meetings, management can make the case against unions without being challenged.78 The campaign against a union-organizing attempt at the lifestyle media site Thrillist is a classic example of the types of misleading arguments used by employers: anti-union messaging argued that that the union would come between management and employees, would silence employees by making them talk only through union representatives, would make promises it could not keep, and would prevent employers from giving wage increases.79 From the 1990s to the early 2000s, the likelihood of private employers using 10 or more tactics in their anti-union campaigns doubled , and the focus on more coercive and punitive tactics—designed to intensely monitor and punish union activity—increased.80 One-in-five to one-in-seven union organizers or activists can expect to be fired as a result of their activities in a union election campaign.81 Roughly a third of employers (34 percent) fire workers during campaigns.82 By firing one or more union organizers, employers can disrupt the organizing campaign while intimidating other potential bargaining unit members into dropping the campaign or voting no in the representation election. Employers may also threaten to cut workers’ hours or pay, suspend workers, or report workers to immigration enforcement authorities.83 Fifty-seven percent of private employers threaten to close the worksite if employees unionize. Forty-seven percent threaten to cut wages and benefits.84 Sixty-three percent of private employers interrogate workers about union support in mandatory one-on-one meetings between workers and their supervisors , and 54 percent of employers threaten workers in such meetings.85 Union elections are not free and fair because the law does not give union organizers equal access to voters. Employers may block union organizers from accessing the workplace while compelling voters to attend anti-union meetings. Unions may only access voters outside of work. And while, by law, employers that possess contact information such as email addresses for employees must provide that information to union organizers, proposed legislation would severely limit organizers’ rights to access that information.86 The tactics are effective. A study of private-sector union organizing in Chicago found that while a majority of workers supported unionization when petitions were filed to begin the workplace organizing effort (a majority vote is needed to elect to unionize), unions were victorious in only 31 percent of these campaigns, after workers had endured the full range of employer anti-union activity.87 Loopholes in labor laws allow employers to endlessly delay contract negotiations. Two years after an election, 37 percent of newly formed private-sector unions still had no labor agreement. 88.
Workers reclassified as independent contractors cannot form unions because they aren’t covered by the NLRA.
Misclassification occurs when employers classify workers who are in fact employees as independent contractors, which employers do to avoid a host of employment-related obligations, such as paying for unemployment insurance and workers’ compensation and even paying a minimum wage. Workers wrongly classified as independent contractors are also deprived of the right to unionize under U. S. laws. These workers are thus unable to join together in a union to negotiate better terms and conditions with their employer. Misclassification is rampant in many industries such as food services and construction. The practice contributes to an economy where wages are flat, profits are soaring, and companies that do not arrange their businesses to avoid their employment responsibilities are disadvantaged.89.
Corporate lobbyists push laws—misleadingly called ‘right-to-work’ laws—that seek to defund private-sector unions.
Unions provide a range of tangible benefits to their members, from contract and benefit administration and enforcement to legal services. These services cost money. While states generally have no jurisdiction over private-sector unions, the NLRA allows states to pass “right-to-work” (RTW) laws.90 Contrary to their branding, these laws do nothing to boost workers’ chances of finding a job. Rather, right-to-work laws simply prohibit contracts that require all workers who benefit from union representation to help pay for these benefits. Specifically, RTW laws say unions can’t require nonunion members of a collective bargaining unit who don’t pay union dues to pay “fair share fees”—fees that cover the basic costs of representing employees in the workplace (but are not used for costs associated with union organizing or political activities).
Fair share fees are just that. Under federal law, no one can be forced to join a union as a condition of employment. However, unions are required to represent all members of a bargaining unit, whether or not they are in the union. This means that if an employer mistreats a worker who is not in the union, the union must pursue that worker’s grievance just as it would a member’s, even if it costs tens of thousands of dollars. Nonunion workers also receive the higher wages and benefits their union coworkers enjoy.91 Eliminating fair share fees encourages “free-riding”: workers paying union dues see coworkers who are paying nothing but getting the same benefits, and they decide to leave the union and stop paying union dues.
RTW laws weaken unions by eroding union funding and membership ( Figure D shows union density, as measured by shares of workers covered by collective bargaining, in RTW and fair share states). Proponents of RTW laws say they boost investment and job growth but there is no serious evidence of that. While causal impacts of RTW laws are hard to estimate with statistical precision, there is ample evidence that RTW laws hurt all workers—not just union members.92.
Twenty-eight states have “right-to-work” laws that allow workers in the private sector to access the benefits of union negotiations without sharing the costs. States that passed RTW a long time ago have successfully avoided large-scale unionization. Historically states in the Deep South and parts of Midwest and West passed RTW laws to weaken unions. Many succeeded. Especially in the Deep South, states that passed RTW laws in the 1940s and 1950s have low private-sector unionization rates that persist to this day. States with strong unions are now being targeted by RTW. Anti-union lobbyists have succeeded in bringing RTW to heavily unionized states such as Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin to weaken worker power.93 “National Right to Work” legislation has been introduced in the House and Senate: H. R. 785 by Rep. King (R-Iowa) and S. 545 by Sen. Paul (R-Ky.). These companion bills would allow employees who work in a unionized workplace, but who decline to become union members, to refuse to pay a fair share fee to the union that negotiates their benefits. A well-funded, centralized campaign is behind RTW laws . In the wake of the Great Recession, RTW laws passed and proposed were presented as homegrown responses to state unemployment woes, but the similarity of the text in the laws, and the fact that states with more fiscal distress were not more likely to introduce such legislation, reveals “a political agenda…funded by a network of extremely wealthy individuals and corporations.”94 RTW laws lower unionization rates even in less-unionized states. The passage of RTW in Oklahoma decreased private-sector unionization rates by roughly 20 percent.95 Wages are 3.1 percent lower in RTW states than in fair share states , after controlling for individual demographic and socioeconomic factors and state macroeconomic indicators, including cost of living. This translates into a $1,558 annual RTW wage penalty for a typical full-time, full-year worker, union or nonunion, in the public or private sector.96 Proponents of RTW laws say they boost investment and job growth but there is no real evidence of that. Reviewing claims of faster-than-average employment growth in RTW states, an EPI report found dramatic growth in some RTW states but steep declines in others, with the high-growth states skewing the average. Studies that have found positive employment effects of RTW laws have failed to control for a host of factors that would affect employment, from the education level of the workforce to the proximity of transportation hubs to a state’s natural resources to a state’s level of manufacturing.97 A 2015 study similarly found “no pronounced effect of RTW laws on state economies.”98 Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. targeted the misleading nature of the “right-to-work” slogan in 1961 when he said the purpose of “right to work” is “to destroy labor unions and the freedom of collective bargaining by which unions have improved wages and working conditions of everyone.”99.
Right-to-work laws weaken unions by eroding union membership : Union density in right-to-work and fair-share states.
Notes: Union density is measured as share of workers covered by collective bargaining. Six states have right-to-work laws that were enacted in the last five years (in 2012 or later): Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Wisconsin, and West Virginia.
Sources: The Union Membership and Coverage Database (unionstats), compiled by Barry Hirsch and David Macpherson (posted February 11, 2017), and Right-to-Work Resources, National Conference of State Legislatures, web page accessed August 22, 2017.
Copy the code below to embed this chart on your website.
Corporate lobbies and allied lawmakers are dismantling the rights of public-sector union workers.
When state budget deficits increased after the Great Recession, business-backed governors in a number of states sought to curb the powers of public-sector unions by arguing that government unions were to blame. Though these anti-union laws were presented as homegrown responses to specific fiscal distress in each state, the laws’ similarities, and the fact that states with more fiscal distress were not more likely to introduce such legislation, suggest that lawmakers were enacting an agenda driven and funded by national corporate interests. In fact, the financial distress was caused by Wall Street’s excessive risk-taking, not by unions.100 And, many of the same states that curbed state employee unions also enacted new tax cuts for the wealthy. 101.
From 2011 to 2015, fifteen states enacted legislation severely limiting or even dismantling collective bargaining rights for public-sector unions. 102 Wisconsin’s “Budget Repair Bill” (Act 10) largely eliminated collective bargaining rights for the state’s 175,000 public employees. While the law does not explicitly outlaw collective bargaining, it prohibits public employees from negotiating about anything other than wages (and then only to adjust wages for inflation); it outlaws fair share fees; it eliminates the ability to pay union dues through the state payroll; and it requires unions to hold expensive recertification elections every year to remain in existence.103 The share of workers in unions in Wisconsin dropped from 15.2 percent in 2009 to 8.3 percent in 2015. 104 Other state laws eliminated collective bargaining rights for certain groups of workers (school teachers in Tennessee, municipal employees in Oklahoma, farmworkers and child care workers in Maine, and home care workers in Michigan) or restricted what public employees can bargain about (health care in New Jersey). Beyond curbs to collective bargaining are a set of state measures that target the power of public-sector unions by cutting public-sector wages and benefits and restricting unions’ ability to collect dues through the public payroll. Anti-union laws are gateway laws to broader anti-worker measures. Some states that succeed in degrading public collective bargaining go on to pass other laws that diminish worker rights.105 Wisconsin, for example, eliminated the requirement to allow workers at least one day off per 7-day week.106.
Attacks on public-sector collective bargaining are playing out in the courts.
In the public sector, there is a similar attack on collective bargaining playing out in the courts. In Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (431 U. S. 209 (1977)), the Supreme Court upheld the use of fair share fees in public-sector unions against a challenge based on the First Amendment. The Court held that public-sector employees who elect not to join the union may be charged a fee to cover the cost of collective bargaining and contract administration. Fair share fees may not be used to support union political activities. These fair share fees ensure that all workers represented by the union pay their fair share of the cost of that representation.
In 2016, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association which, among other things, addressed whether Abood should be overruled and public-sector fair share fee arrangements invalidated under the First Amendment. On March 29, 2016, the Supreme Court affirmed Abood by an equally divided 4–4 split.107.
Pro-RTW organizations have continued to litigate challenges to public-sector unions’ fair share fee requirements. One of those cases, Janus v. AFSCME , will likely be heard in the Supreme Court’s upcoming term.108.
Conclusion: Unions are essential to a fair economy and a vibrant democracy.
Unions are a dynamic and ever-evolving institution of the American economy that exist to give working people a voice and leverage over their working conditions and the economic policy decisions that shape these conditions. Collective bargaining is indispensable if we want to achieve shared prosperity.
But it is precisely because they are effective and necessary for shared prosperity that unions are under attack by employers who want to maintain excessive leverage over workers and by policymakers representing the interests of the top 1 percent. These attacks have succeeded in increasing the gap between the number of workers who would like to be represented by a union and the number who are represented by a union. And these threats to the freedom to join together in unions haven’t been met with a policy response sufficient to keep the playing field level between organizing workers and the employers looking to thwart them.
Giving workers a real voice and leverage is essential for democracy. While unions historically have not been able to match corporate political donations dollar for dollar, working people organizing together in unions play an equalizing role because they can motivate members to give their time and effort to political causes. For example, one study found that unions are very effective at getting people to the polls—especially increasing voting among those with only a high school education.109.
As this report has shown, unions—when strong—have the capacity to tackle some of the biggest problems that plague our economy, from growing economic inequality, wage stagnation, and racial and gender inequities to eroding democracy and barriers to civic participation.
And unions also help to address current workforce trends that are increasing work insecurity, from the rise of part-time work and unpaid internships to the exploitation of student athletes to increasing numbers of Uber drivers and other “gig economy” workers.110 In a recent New York Times op-ed, Kashana Cauley cited some of these trends and called on her millennial peers to lead the next labor movement.111 Indeed, there is evidence that young workers are primed to do so: 55 percent of 18- to 29-year-old workers view unions favorably, compared with 46 percent of workers age 30 and older.112 And young people of both political parties are more amenable to labor unions than their older peers.113 Having entered the workforce during the last recession, these young workers have experienced a labor market with lower wages, diminishing benefits, “noncompete” clauses that make it harder for even entry-level employees to move to better jobs, and other facets of increasing insecurity, Cauley explains.114.
Certainly, Americans of all ages, occupations, races, and genders have a vested interest in making sure our economy works for everyone. To promote an inclusive economy and a robust democracy, we must work together to rebuild our collective bargaining system.
Agradecimentos
The authors would like to thank our coworkers who provided valuable feedback on drafts of this report and contributed data and examples, including Daniel Essrow, Kayla Blado, Elizabeth Rose, Monique Morrissey, David Cooper, Julia Wolfe, Jessica Schieder, and Samantha Sanders. We are also thankful to Krista Faries for her excellent copy editing and to Margaret Poydock for laying out the report.
1. Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that everyone has a right to form and/or join a trade union. The right of labor unions to gather is given under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which protects the right to exercise freedom of speech in peaceful protest. The U. S. Congress enacted the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) in 1935 to protect the rights of employers and employees, including the right to form, join, or assist labor organizations and to bargain collectively. Americans of all ages broadly support the ability of workers in various sectors to unionize, with shares supporting unions ranging from 62 percent to 82 percent, depending on the sector. See “Mixed Views of Impact of Long-Term Decline in Union Membership: Public Says Workers in Many Sectors Should Be Able to Unionize,” Pew Research Center, April 27, 2015.
2. In 2016 there were 16.3 million wage and salary workers age 16 and older who were represented by a union, either because they were union members or (if they weren’t union members) were in jobs covered by a union or an employee association contract. The share of workers who belonged to a union was 10.7 percent, and the share of workers covered by collective bargaining was 11.9 percent. (Source: EPI analysis of Current Population Survey Outgoing Rotation Group [CPS ORG] data for all workers age 16 and older).
3. The source for the public sector’s share of workers covered by a union contract is EPI analysis of Current Population Survey Outgoing Rotation Group (CPS ORG) data for all workers age 16 and older; the source for state laws covering collective bargaining is Jeffrey Keefe, Laws Enabling Public-Sector Bargaining Have Not Led to Excessive Public-Sector Pay , Economic Policy Institute, October 16, 2015.
4. Cathy Hester Seckman, “The Unions: How Organized Labor Is Lending a Helping Hand to Dental Hygiene,” RDH vol. 24, no. 4 (April 2004); Liat Shapiro, “Grad Students Vote in Majority for Labor Union,” The Justice , May 23, 2017; Mark Konkol, “Latino Firefighters Bullied into Taking Race-Based Promotions, They Say,” DNAinfo Chicago , May 22, 2015; Jeffrey Fleishman, “Working Hollywood: Writers Are the ‘Labor’ and ‘Leprechauns’ behind TV’s Latest Golden Age,” Los Angeles Times , June 23, 2017; Tian Harter, notes from a talk by Paul K. Davis (Ames Federal Employees Union—IFPTE Local 30, Santa Clara County, California), titled “Scientists & Engineers in Labor Unions?—Yes”; website of the Law Enforcement Officers Security Unions—DC, leosudc and “Why Join AFEU?” Ames Federal Employees Union website, accessed August 22, 2017; Gary Weiss, “An Unlikely Big Player in Digital Media: Unions,” Columbia Journalism Review , June 21, 2017; Jeff Fannell, “The MLBPA: What We Do,” MLBPlayers , August 31, 2016.
5. Non-Hispanic white men make up 34.5 percent of total persons represented by unions. These estimates are based on EPI analysis of Current Population Survey Outgoing Rotation Group (CPS ORG) data for all workers age 16 and older. As of 2016, there are 15.5 million workers age 18 to 64 who are covered by a union contract; 10.1 million are women and/or people of color. The breakdowns by race and ethnicity, gender, and occupations in this section focus on workers age 18 to 64 who are represented by a union, as do our estimates of union wage premiums (advantages) discussed later in the paper. We rely on our own tabulations in order to obtain race/ethnicity breakdowns that are mutually exclusive.
6. Certain residual formulas in the pay TV and the subscription video-on-demand (SVOD) industries needed to be increased because they did not adequately reflect the value of the content created by WGA members. The WGA health fund had been running a deficit due to the rapid inflation in health care costs, and the WGA determined that the period of record profitability for the studios and networks was a good time to reverse the current trend to deficits with additional employer contributions. (Sources: Email correspondence with Neal Sacharow, Director of Communications, Writers Guild of America West, August 14, 2017; Jeffrey Fleishman, “Working Hollywood: Writers Are the ‘Labor’ and ‘Leprechauns’ behind TV’s Latest Golden Age,” Los Angeles Times , June 23, 2017.)
7. Columbia University , 364 NLRB No. 90 (Slip. Op. 2016).
8. The National Labor Relations Board in 2016 reversed an earlier decision and ruled that graduate students could unionize in the private sector. For more on recent graduate student organizing, see David Ludwig, “Why Graduate Students of America Are Uniting,” The Atlantic , April 15, 2015; Liat Shapiro, “Grad Students Vote in Majority for Labor Union,” The Justice , May 23, 2017; Stephen Markley, “Adjunct Professors and Grad Students Are the Working Poor, and They Need Unions,” Paste , January 19, 2017.
9. See the “About IFPTE” and “Whom We Represent” pages on the IFPTE website (ifpte); the IFPTE Local 70 website (ifptelocal70); and “Center for American Progress Staff Sign First Contract” [press release], International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, May 15, 2017.
11. Fellow locals in the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) are lending some of the funds for the purchase. See Penelope Overton, “Maine Lobstermen’s Union Votes to Buy Hancock County Lobster Business,” Portland Press Herald , February 25, 2017.
16. The classic reference for the union impact on inequality, and many other matters, is Richard B. Freeman and James l. Medoff, What Do Unions Do? (New York: Basic Books, 1984). Also see Brantly Callaway and William J. Collins, “Unions, Workers, and Wages at the Peak of the American Labor Movement,” National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper no. 23516, June 2017, for evidence from the early postwar period. More recent estimates of union wage premiums by wage fifth, occupation, and education can be found in Lawrence Mishel, Josh Bivens, Elise Gould, and Heidi Shierholz, The State of Working America, 12th Edition , an Economic Policy Institute book (Ithaca, N. Y.: Cornell Univ. Press, 2012), Table 4.37.
17. Bruce Western and Jake Rosenfeld, “Unions, Norms, and the Rise in U. S. Wage Inequality,” American Sociological Review vol. 76 (2011), 513–37; Lawrence Mishel, Josh Bivens, Elise Gould, and Heidi Shierholz, The State of Working America, 12th Edition , an Economic Policy Institute book (Ithaca, N. Y.: Cornell Univ. Press, 2012), Table 4.37.
18. From 1979 to 2015, productivity rose 63.8 percent while hourly compensation for the typical worker (production/nonsupervisory workers in the private sector) increased only 9.9 percent. See underlying data from Economic Policy Institute, The Productivity-Pay Gap (last updated August 2016).
19. Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, downloadable Excel files with 2015 data updates to Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, “Income Inequality in the United States, 1913–1998,” Quarterly Journal of Economics vol. 118, no. 1 (2003).
20. The regression-based gap controls for gender, race and ethnicity, education, experience, geographic division, major occupation and industry, and citizenship. The log of the hourly wage is the dependent variable. The gap uses a five-year average of wages from 2012 to 2016. Source: “Union Wage Premium by Demographic Group, 2011,” Table 4.33 in The State of Working America 12th Edition , an Economic Policy Institute book (Ithaca, N. Y.: Cornell Univ. Press, 2012), updated with 2016 microdata from the Current Population Survey Outgoing Rotation Group (CPS ORG) microdata.
21. There are three groups of workers whose wages have been affected by the decline of unionization. First, there are the remaining union members, who according to research have experienced a decline in the earnings premium that comes from belonging to a union—a decline especially large for female members. For instance, the union wage premium fell over the 1973 to 2009 period by nearly a third for private-sector women. Among private-sector men, after peaking in the early 1980s, the earnings premium that comes from union membership had fallen slightly by 2009 (Jake Rosenfeld, Patrick Denice, and Jennifer Laird, Union Decline Lowers Wages of Nonunion Workers: The Overlooked Reason Why Wages Are Stuck and Inequality Is Growing , Economic Policy Institute, August 30, 2016). The estimates referenced are from Figure 3.1 of Jake Rosenfeld, What Unions No Longer Do , (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 2014).
22. Workers not covered by unions—those who are neither in a union themselves nor covered by a union contract—are almost twice as likely (4.4 percent) to experience minimum wage violations as those in a union or covered by a union contract (2.3 percent). See David Cooper and Teresa Kroeger, Employers Steal Billions from Workers’ Paychecks Each Year: Survey Data Show Millions of Workers Are Paid Less Than the Minimum Wage, at Significant Cost to Taxpayers and State Economies , Economic Policy Institute, May 10, 2017.
23. Union density is the share of workers in similar industries and regions who are union members. For the typical nonunion man working year-round in the private sector, the decline in private-sector union density since 1979 has led to an annual wage loss of $2,704 (2013 dollars). For the 40.2 million nonunion men working in the private sector, the total loss is equivalent to $109 billion annually. The effects of union decline on the wages of nonunion women are not as substantial because women were not as likely to be unionized as men were in 1979. See Jake Rosenfeld, Patrick Denice, and Jennifer Laird, Union Decline Lowers Wages of Nonunion Workers: The Overlooked Reason Why Wages Are Stuck and Inequality is Growing , Economic Policy Institute, August 30, 2016.
25. The 10 states that had the least erosion of collective bargaining saw their inflation-adjusted median hourly compensation grow by 23.1 percent from 1979 to 2012. The 10 states that had the most erosion of collective bargaining saw their inflation-adjusted median hourly compensation grow by 5.2 percent. Erosion is measured by the percentage-point decline in the share of workers in the state covered by a collective bargaining contract. See David Cooper and Lawrence Mishel, The Erosion of Collective Bargaining Has Widened the Gap between Productivity and Pay , Economic Policy Institute, 2015.
29. Valerie Wilson and William M. Rodgers III, Black-White Wage Gaps Expand with Rising Wage Inequality , Economic Policy Institute, September 20, 2016.
30. The wage gap is adjusted and is as of 2016; it comes from Economic Policy Institute, State of Working America Data Library , “Wage Gaps: Black–White Wage Gap,” last updated February 13, 2017.
31. The regression analysis producing this estimate controlled for education, experience, race, citizenship status, geographic division, industry, and occupation. (Source: “Union Wage Premium by Demographic Group, 2011,” Table 4.33 in The State of Working America, 12th Edition , an Economic Policy Institute book [Ithaca, N. Y.: Cornell Univ. Press, 2012], updated with 2016 microdata from the Current Population Survey Outgoing Rotation Group [CPS ORG] microdata.)
32. Data are unadjusted for factors such as demographics and employer size. Data are as of March 2017 and are drawn from EPI analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Employee Benefits in the United States—March 2017” [news release], U. S. Department of Labor. In 2016, women made up 56.6 percent of those employed in service occupations but only 46.8 percent of all workers employed in 2016 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Household Data, Annual Averages” [data table], Current Population Survey , 1, 4). Service occupations include protective service, food preparation and serving, healthcare support, building and grounds cleaning and maintenance, and personal care and service.
33. EPI analysis of 2016 microdata from the Current Population Survey finds that hourly wages for black workers represented by unions are 14.7 percent higher than wages paid to their nonunionized counterparts. Hispanic workers represented by unions are paid 21.8 percent more than their nonunionized counterparts. In contrast, non-Hispanic white union workers have a smaller—9.6 percent—wage advantage over nonunionized white workers. The regression analysis producing this estimate controlled for education, experience, gender, race, citizenship status, geographic division, industry, and occupation.
44. Overall, unionization is associated with a 14 to 32 percent drop in traumatic injuries and a 29 to 83 percent drop in fatalities. See Alison D. Morantz, “Coal Mine Safety: Do Unions Make a Difference?” ILR Review vol. 66, no. 1 (January 2013), 88–116.
47. The federal standard would include an assessment of risk factors (such as staffing levels), a post-incidence response procedure, employee participation in the creation of a plan, and prohibition on retaliation against an employee who may seek legal assistance after an incident. See Alexia Fernández-Campbell, “Why Violence Against Nurses Has Spiked in the Last Decade,” The Atlantic , December 1, 2016 (updated June 19, 2017); “NNU Petitions Violence Prevention in Workplace,” National Nurses United, August 2, 2016. See also a Government Accountability Office report that found that workplace violence is a serious and growing concern for 15 million health care workers and can be prevented through violence prevention programs: U. S. Government Accountability Office, “Additional Efforts Needed to Help Protect Health Care Workers from Workplace Violence,” March 2016.
51. Eighty-seven percent of private-sector workers in the highest 10 percent of wage earners have the ability to earn paid sick days, compared with only 27 percent of private-sector workers in the lowest 10 percent. For the average worker who does not have access to paid sick days, if the worker needs to take off three days, the lost wages are equivalent to the household’s entire grocery budget for the month. See Elise Gould and Jessica Schieder, Work Sick or Lose Pay? The High Cost of Being Sick When You Don’t Get Paid Sick Days , Economic Policy Institute, June 28, 2017.
52. Bertil Videt and Danielle de Winter, “Job Insecurity as the Norm: How Labour Market Trends Have Changed the Way We Work,” The Broker , March 10, 2014. Videt and de Winter cite A. Kalleberg, “Precarious Work, Insecure Workers: Employment Relations in Transition,” American Sociological Review vol. 74., no. 1 (2009), 2.
53. Unadjusted data (comparisons based just on union status, which include the by-industry comparisons) are as of March 2017 and come from Tables 2 and 6 in Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Employee Benefits in the United States—March 2017” [news release], U. S. Department of Labor, July 21, 2017. Adjusted data are based on analysis of fourth-quarter 1994 Employment Cost Index microdata as presented in Table 4.35 in Lawrence Mishel, Josh Bivens, Elise Gould, and Heidi Shierholz, The State of Working America, 12th Edition , an Economic Policy Institute book (Ithaca, N. Y.: Cornell Univ. Press, 2012) and drawn from Brooks Pierce, “Compensation Inequality,” U. S. Department of Labor Statistics Working Paper no. 323, 1999.
54. Union–nonunion gaps in access to paid vacation and holidays are much narrower in state and local governments because teachers make up a large portion of state and local government employment and they are not usually offered paid vacation. See Tech Notes on page 3 of Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Employee Benefits in the United States—March 2017 ” [news release], U. S. Department of Labor, July 21, 2017.
55. EPI analysis of the 2016 General Social Survey Quality of Worklife and Work Orientations supplements. “Union worker” here refers to workers who said they belonged to a union.
56. EPI analysis of the 2016 General Social Survey Quality of Worklife and Work Orientations supplements. Respondents were asked whether they or their spouses belong to a union. The sample excludes all workers who say their schedules never change.
57. 87 percent of private-sector workers in the top 10 percent of wages have the ability to earn paid sick days, compared with only 27 percent of private-sector workers in the bottom 10 percent. Sources: Elise Gould and Jessica Schieder, Work Sick or Lose Pay? The High Cost of Being Sick When You Don’t Get Paid Sick Days , Economic Policy Institute, June 28, 2017; Justin Miller, “With Oregon’s Bill, Paid Sick Leave Gains Momentum,” The American Prospect , June 16, 2015; “2014: A Banner Year for Workers and Families in Massachusetts,” Massachusetts Communities Action Network, November 2014.
58. DB pensions (such as those historically negotiated by unions) provide more secure, adequate, and egalitarian retirement incomes than 401(k)-style DC plans. Workers are automatically enrolled in traditional pensions and, in the private sector, employer contributions fund the plan, so that the existence of savings does not depend on a worker’s ability to set aside wages for retirement; in addition, the amount of retirement income is guaranteed with pensions, not contingent on the state of the stock market at the time when retirees need to access their savings. In contrast, employers that offer 401(k)-style plans typically require workers to contribute to the plans in order to receive an employer match, and these workers shoulder all the investment risk.
61. Income estimate is for all seniors age 65 and older, whether retired or not. Source: Monique Morrissey, The State of American Retirement: How 401(k)s Have Failed Most American Workers , Economic Policy Institute, March 3, 2016.
62. Adjusted data are based on analysis of fourth-quarter 1994 Employment Cost Index microdata as presented in Table 4.35 in Lawrence Mishel, Josh Bivens, Elise Gould and Heidi Shierholz, The State of Working America, 12th Edition , an Economic Policy Institute book (Ithaca, N. Y.: Cornell Univ. Press, 2012) and drawn from Brooks Pierce, “Compensation Inequality,” U. S. Department of Labor Statistics Working Paper no. 323, 1999.
63. See “A User’s Guide to Peer Assistance and Review,” Harvard Graduate School of Education (accessed July 2017); Saul A. Rubinstein and John E. McCarthy, Collaborating on School Reform: Creating Union-Management Partnerships to Improve Public School Systems , Rutgers School of Management and Labor Relations, October 2010; “Peer Assistance and Review (PAR) Program,” Boston Teachers Union (accessed July 2017).
67. In 2012, forty-eight percent of all nonmanagerial workers surveyed by the AFL-CIO Workers’ Rights Survey (May 2012 Hart Research Associates poll) said they would “probably” or “definitely” vote to form a labor union if an election were held tomorrow.
68. In a roundtable discussion on PBS NewsHour , James Hoffa, president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, suggested that “the real reason” political leaders in states such as Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, New Jersey, and Michigan have targeted unions is because they are “the backbone of the Democratic Party…the ones that have the boots on the ground” (“Union Leaders Discuss State of U. S. Labor as Attacks Rise, Membership Goes Down,” PBS NewsHour , September 3, 2012).
69. Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson, Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer—and Turned Its Back on the Middle Class (Simon & Schuster, 2010).
70. Colin Gordon, “Right to Work (For Less): By the Numbers,” Dissent , May 10, 2016.
71. Gordon Lafer, The One Percent Solution: How Corporations Are Remaking America One State at a Time (Ithaca, N. Y.: Cornell Univ. Press, 2017), 93.
72. Current membership rates are for 2016 and come from Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Union Members Summary” [economic news release], U. S. Department of Labor, January 26, 2017; 1950s rates come from John Schmitt, “Union Membership Trends, 1948–2012,” No Apparent Motive (blog), January 25, 2013; and 1950s and 1970s rates come from the data appendix for figures that accompanies Barry T. Hirsch, “Sluggish Institutions in a Dynamic World: Can Unions and Industrial Competition Coexist?” Journal of Economic Perspectives vol. 22, no. 1 (2008), 153–76.
73. Employers, where law permits, may voluntarily recognize a union based on a simple showing of majority support from the employees.
74. Kate Bronfenbrenner, No Holds Barred: The Intensification of Employer Opposition to Organizing , Economic Policy Institute and American Rights at Work Education Fund, May 20, 2009.
75. Penalties may consist of being required to post a notice, reinstate fired workers, give back pay to fired workers, or rerun an election. There are no punitive damages or criminal charges. The most serious penalty, a bargaining order to work with the union on a first contract, is often ineffectual as the anti-union campaign continues.
77. A national study of NLRB elections from 1999 to 2003 found that 75 percent of employers used consultants to design and coordinate their anti-union campaigns; see Kate Bronfenbrenner, No Holds Barred: The Intensification of Employer Opposition to Organizing , Economic Policy Institute and American Rights at Work Education Fund, May 20, 2009. A 2002 Chicago study found that 82 percent of employers hired anti-union management consultants. See Chirag Mehta and Nik Theodore, Undermining the Right to Organize: Employer Behavior during Union Representation Campaigns , a report by the Center for Urban Economic Development at the University of Illinois at Chicago for American Rights at Work, December 2005. A notice of proposed rulemaking from the U. S. Department of Labor cited estimates ranging from 66 percent to 87 percent; see Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act; Interpretation of the ‘Advice’ Exemption, 76 Fed. Reg. 36178 (June 21, 2011).
78. Marni von Wilpert, “Union Busters Are More Prevalent than They Seem, and May Soon Even Be at the NLRB,” Working Economics (Economic Policy Institute blog), May 1, 2017; Kate Bronfenbrenner, No Holds Barred: The Intensification of Employer Opposition to Organizing , Economic Policy Institute and American Rights at Work Education Fund, May 20, 2009; Chirag Mehta and Nik Theodore, Undermining the Right to Organize: Employer Behavior during Union Representation Campaigns , a report by the Center for Urban Economic Development at the University of Illinois at Chicago for American Rights at Work, December 2005.
80. Kate Bronfenbrenner, No Holds Barred: The Intensification of Employer Opposition to Organizing , Economic Policy Institute and American Rights at Work Education Fund, May 20, 2009.
82. Kate Bronfenbrenner, No Holds Barred: The Intensification of Employer Opposition to Organizing , Economic Policy Institute and American Rights at Work Education Fund, May 20, 2009.
83. Annette Bernhardt et al., Broken Laws, Unprotected Workers: Violations of Labor Laws in America’s Cities , National Employment Law Project (New York City), Center for Urban Economic Development (Chicago), and UCLA Institute for Research on Labor and Employment (Los Angeles), 2009.
84. Kate Bronfenbrenner, No Holds Barred: The Intensification of Employer Opposition to Organizing , Economic Policy Institute and American Rights at Work Education Fund, May 20, 2009. Another study of 62 union-representation campaigns launched in Chicago in 2002 found that 49 percent of employers threatened to close or relocate all or part of the business if workers elected to form a union. See Chirag Mehta and Nik Theodore, Undermining the Right to Organize: Employer Behavior during Union Representation Campaigns , a report by the Center for Urban Economic Development at the University of Illinois at Chicago for American Rights at Work, December 2005.
85. Kate Bronfenbrenner, No Holds Barred: The Intensification of Employer Opposition to Organizing , Economic Policy Institute and American Rights at Work Education Fund, May 20, 2009.
86. Testimony of Guerino J. Calemine, III, General Counsel, Communications Workers of America before the U. S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Health, Labor, Employment, and Pensions, Legislative Hearing on H. R. 2776, 2775, and 2723, June 14, 2017.
87. In the Chicago study, for nearly all of 179 petitions filed with the NLRB to represent previously unorganized workers, the majority of workers supported unionization when the petitions were filed, but unions were victorious in only 31 percent of these campaigns. Chirag Mehta and Nik Theodore, Undermining the Right to Organize: Employer Behavior during Union Representation Campaigns , a report by the Center for Urban Economic Development at the University of Illinois at Chicago for American Rights at Work, December 2005.
88. Because the law gives employers the right to multiple levels of review (by an administrative law judge, then by the full NLRB, and then by appellate courts), delays between the union election and the final results can last for years. Data come from Kate Bronfenbrenner, No Holds Barred: The Intensification of Employer Opposition to Organizing , Economic Policy Institute and American Rights at Work Education Fund, May 20, 2009.
90. The 1947 Taft–Hartley amendments to the National Labor Relations Act sanctioned a state’s right to pass laws that prohibit unions from requiring a worker to pay dues, even when the worker is covered by a union-negotiated collective bargaining agreement.
92. It is hard to isolate the decision of a state to become RTW from other legislative changes or to separate the RTW effect from the many factors, including recessions, that influence state labor market conditions.
94. Gordon Lafer, The Legislative Attack on American Wages and Labor Standards, 2011–2012 , Economic Policy Institute, October 31, 2013. According to Lafer’s report, one of the most active organizations facilitating this work is the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a corporate lobbying group whose model bills (establishing RTW, abolishing minimum wage and prevailing wage statutes, etc.) are the basis for over 100 laws adopted annually. See also “ALEC,” Common Cause website (accessed August 2017).
95. See page 10 of Ozkan Eren and Serkan Ozbeklik, “What Do Right-to-Work Laws Do? Evidence from a Synthetic Control Method Analysis” [author-posted version of article published in Journal of Policy Analysis and Management , vol. 35, no. 1 (July 15, 2015), 173–194].
97. The more scholars are able to hold “all other things” equal, the more it becomes clear that these laws have little or no positive impact on a state’s job growth. The most recent and most methodologically rigorous studies conclude that the policy has no statistically significant impact whatsoever. See Gordon Lafer and Sylvia Allegretto, Does ‘Right-to-Work’ Create Jobs? Answers from Oklahoma , Economic Policy Institute, March 16, 2011.
98. After a literature review, the authors conclude, “Some studies find significant effects of RTW laws on various state outcomes, while others find no effect (see for example, Hirsch 1980, Holmes 1998, Farber 2005, Lafer and Allegretto 2011).” The authors did their own study of Oklahama and found no effect, at least in the short run, on state outcomes including employment and wages. See Ozkan Eren and Serkan Ozbeklik, “What Do Right-to-Work Laws Do? Evidence from a Synthetic Control Method Analysis” [author-posted version of article published in Journal of Policy Analysis and Management , vol. 35, no. 1 (July 15, 2015), 173–194].
100. According to Gordon Lafer in The One Percent Solution , the argument that budget deficits were the result of overspending bureaucrats and overly generous union contracts did not fit the facts: there was no statistical correlation between the size of budget deficits and the presence or strength of labor unions. See Gordon Lafer, The One Percent Solution: How Corporations Are Remaking America One State at a Time (Ithaca, N. Y.: Cornell Univ. Press, 2017).
101. In Wisconsin, for example, half of the tax cuts enacted from 2011 to 2014 went to the richest 20 percent of the state’s population. See chapter 1 in Gordon Lafer, The One Percent Solution: How Corporations Are Remaking America One State at a Time (Ithaca, N. Y.: Cornell Univ. Press, 2017).
102. Unless otherwise noted, information in these bullet items comes from Gordon Lafer, The One Percent Solution: How Corporations Are Remaking America One State at a Time (Ithaca, N. Y.: Cornell Univ. Press, 2017).
103. Ohio’s law was overturned by citizen referendum and Minnesota’s bill was vetoed by the governor. The other 13 states are Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Nevada, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Wisconsin.
105. In the wake of Act 10, Wisconsin enacted a broad rewrite of its civil service law, lengthening the probationary period for new employees (during which time they can be fired for any reason) and centralizing hiring with the Department of Administration, a highly politicized agency; union representatives fear the law will lead back to a system where political appointees have disproportionate power to reward friends and punish enemies. See Dan Kaufman, “The Destruction of Progressive Wisconsin,” New York Times , January 16, 2016; Jason Stein and Patrick Marley, “Scott Walker Signs Civil Service Overhaul,” Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel , February 12, 2016.
106. The provision was passed as part of the state budget. See Stephanie Bloomingdale, “Walker and GOP Just Took Away the Weekend,” Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel , July 13, 2015.
107. 136 S. Ct. 1083 (2016). A split decision effectively upholds the ruling of the lower court.
109. Jake Rosenfeld finds that unions increase voter turnout, especially in the private sector. Voting rates are “5 percentage points higher than the rates of non-members” (Jake Rosenfeld, What Unions No Longer Do [Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 2014], 170–171).
110. EPI has researched unpaid internships and part-time work. See for example, Ross Eisenbrey, “Unpaid Interns Fare Worse in the Job Market,” Economic Policy Institute Snapshot, July 6, 2016, and Lonnie Golden, Still Falling Short on Hours and Pay: Part-time Work Becoming New Normal , Economic Policy Institute, December 5, 2016. Many news articles have covered the plight of student athletes, who generate substantial sums for their universities but earn no pay themselves. See for example, Taylor Branch, “The Shame of College Sports,” The Atlantic , October 2011. Uber drivers have been trying to organize in Seattle but the company is fighting it, requiring its customer service representatives to call drivers with a script arguing that it would be bad for them. See Alison Griswold, “Uber Is Using Its US Customer Service Reps to Deliver Its Anti-union Message,” Quartz , February 20, 2016.
Sign up to stay informed.
Track EPI on Twitter.
EPI is an independent, nonprofit think tank that researches the impact of economic trends and policies on working people in the United States. EPI’s research helps policymakers, opinion leaders, advocates, journalists, and the public understand the bread-and-butter issues affecting ordinary Americans.
Follow EPI.
1225 Eye St. NW, Suite 600.
Washington, DC 20005.
&cópia de; 2018 Economic Policy Institute.
The Perkins Project on Worker Rights and Wages.
Tracking the wage and employment policies coming out of the White House, Congress, and the courts.
State of Working America Data Library.
Authoritative, up-to-date data on the living standards of American workers.
Inequality. is.
Interactive tools and videos bringing clarity to the national dialogue on economic inequality.
Affiliated programs.
Economic Analysis and Research Network (EARN)
A network of state and local organizations improving workers' lives through research and advocacy.
Referent Power in Leadership: Definition & Examples.
Ocorreu um erro ao tentar carregar este vídeo.
Tente atualizar a página ou entre em contato com o suporte ao cliente.
Você deve criar uma conta para continuar assistindo.
Registre-se para uma avaliação gratuita.
Como membro, você também terá acesso ilimitado a mais de 70.000 aulas de matemática, inglês, ciências, história e muito mais. Além disso, receba testes práticos, questionários e treinamento personalizado para ajudá-lo a ter sucesso.
Já registrado? Entre aqui para acesso.
Você está em um rolo. Mantenha o bom trabalho!
Basta fazer o check-in. Você ainda está assistindo?
0:01 Referent Power in Leadership 0:17 Definition of Referent Power 1:58 Examples of Referent Power 3:05 Lesson Summary.
Quer assistir isso mais tarde?
Faça o login ou inscreva-se para adicionar esta lição a um curso personalizado.
Organize e salve suas aulas favoritas com os cursos personalizados.
Lições recomendadas e cursos para você.
Referent Power in Leadership.
Referent power can be an effective means of leadership. In this lesson, you will learn what referent power is, some of its key concepts and be provided an example. You'll have a chance to reinforce your knowledge with a short quiz after the lesson.
Definition of Referent Power.
Referent power in leadership is the ability of a leader to cultivate the respect and admiration of his followers in such a way that they wish to be like him. In other words, referent power is leading by example.
Referent power is based upon a leader modeling his behavior to demonstrate appropriate conduct and decision making. Employees will observe a manager's behavior and act as they believe their managers would act in the same situation. In other words, you refer to what you believe the manager would do and do the same; the manager becomes a point of reference for your behavior. You may not even know that you are modeling your behavior after your manager.
As you can imagine, this type of power relies heavily upon the trust of employees in their manager and developing employee empowerment : allowing employees to make decisions in certain work situations. Trust and enabling employee empowerment takes some time to develop. Consequently, referent power may not work well in organizations with high rates of turnover of employees.
It is important for a manager to be aware of cultural differences when attempting to use referent power. For example, according to some theorists, the general cultural value of egalitarianism in America may make it harder for managers to earn the respect of American employees. Instead of seeking respect, managers dealing with American employees may attempt to increase their likeability, which is often more effective with American workers. Americans tend to identify with people they like and who they feel liked by in return. Employees from other cultures may identify with managers they respect and who they feel respected by.
Desbloquear conteúdo.
Tenha acesso GRATUITO por 5 dias
basta criar uma conta.
Sem compromisso, cancele a qualquer momento.
Selecione um assunto para visualizar os cursos relacionados:
Examples of Referent Power.
Let's say you are the third generation owner of a small family business that your grandfather started 60 years ago in a small city in the Midwestern U. S. You have employees who have been with the company for decades. In fact, you have employed multiple generations of employees from the same families and who are products of the close-knit culture you and your family have developed.
You take a very soft hand in management. You trust and respect your employees and they trust and respect you. You believe they are capable of doing their jobs with little supervision and can handle most situations on their own because they have been with the company and have seen you (and sometimes even your father and grandfather) handle nearly every type of situation that may confront them. You also trust them to seek your guidance if they confront an unfamiliar situation, just like you would seek guidance from your father.
In this example, you have not only empowered your employees but have demonstrated the application of referent power by modeling appropriate behavior for them. They use your behavior as a point of reference for their own behavior.
Resumo da lição.
Referent power is the ability of a leader to effectively model behavior to her employees in a manner that provides a point of reference for employees' own behavior in work situations. This modeling can occur even without employee knowledge. Referent power can provide for employee empowerment, but it does require a significant degree of trust and time to develop. A manager seeking to utilize referent power must also keep in mind cultural differences employees may have in leader-follower relationships.
Resultados de Aprendizagem.
You should have the understanding to do the following after this lesson:
Describe referent power Explain when referent power is effective, when it is not effective, and its relationship to cultural differences Recall an example of referent power.
Para desbloquear esta lição, você deve ser um membro de estudo.
Registre-se para uma avaliação gratuita.
Desbloqueie sua educação.
Veja por si mesmo porque 30 milhões de pessoas usam o Study.
Torne-se um membro do Study e comece a aprender agora.
já é um membro? Entrar.
Ganhando o crédito da faculdade.
Você sabia & hellip; Temos mais de 95 cursos universitários que preparam você para obter crédito por exame que é aceito por mais de 2.000 faculdades e universidades. Você pode testar os dois primeiros anos da faculdade e salvar milhares de seu diploma. Qualquer pessoa pode obter crédito por exame, independentemente da idade ou do nível de escolaridade.
Transferência de crédito para a escola de sua escolha.
Não tem certeza de qual faculdade você quer participar ainda? O Study tem milhares de artigos sobre cada grau imaginável, área de estudo e plano de carreira que podem ajudá-lo a encontrar a escola certa para você.
Escolas de Pesquisa, Graus & amp; Carreiras
Receba as informações imparciais que você precisa para encontrar a escola certa.
Procurar artigos por categoria.
Procure uma área de estudo ou nível de graduação.
Artigos recomendados.
Intro to Business: Help and Review.
32 chapters | 518 lessons | 2 conjuntos de cartões de memória
Go to Business Morality & Code of Conduct: Help and Review.
Go to Business in Global Markets: Help and Review.
Go to Entrepreneurship and Small Business: Help and Review.
Leadership Orientation: Task-Oriented & People-Oriented 6:16 Referent Power in Leadership: Definition & Examples 3:38 3:01.
Go to Project Management Basics: Help and Review.
Go to Workplace Productivity & Motivation: Help and Review.
Go to Managing the Employer-Worker Relationship: Help and Review.
Go to Product Development and Retailing: Help and Review.
Go to Pricing Strategy in Marketing: Help and Review.
Go to MIS Basics in Business: Help and Review.
Go to Risk Management in Business: Help and Review.
Go to Financial Management in Business: Help and Review.
Go to Lean in Business.
Go to Strategic Planning for Small Businesses.
Go to Small Business Entrepreneurship.
Go to Product Pricing for Small Business.
Referent Power in Leadership: Definition & Examples Related Study Materials.
Navegue por cursos.
Navegue por lições.
Latest Courses.
Últimas lições.
Cursos Populares.
Lições Populares
Explore nossa biblioteca de mais de 70.000 lições.
Baixe o aplicativo.
Sobre nós.
Baixe o aplicativo.
&cópia de; estudo de direitos autorais 2003-2018. Todas as outras marcas registradas e direitos autorais são de propriedade de seus respectivos proprietários. Todos os direitos reservados.
Crie sua conta. Nenhuma obrigação; cancelar a qualquer momento.
Inicie o seu teste gratuito. Nenhuma obrigação; cancelar a qualquer momento.
Seu plano selecionado:
Você está se juntando a:
Seu carrinho está vazio. Por favor, escolha um produto.
Lições em vídeo de estudo ajudaram mais de 30 milhões de estudantes.
Os alunos amam o estudo.
"Aprendi mais em 10 minutos do que 1 mês de aulas de química"
Ganhe crédito na faculdade.
"Eu acedi ao exame CLEP e ganhei 3 créditos universitários!"
As videoaulas de estudo ajudaram mais de meio milhão de professores a envolver seus alunos.
Estudo de amor aos professores.
"Os vídeos mudaram a maneira como eu ensino! Os vídeos no Study realizam em 5 minutos o que me levaria uma aula inteira."
Você sabia.
Os alunos em condições de aprendizagem on-line tiveram um desempenho melhor do que aqueles que receberam instruções presenciais.
Expert Power in Leadership: Definition & Examples.
Ocorreu um erro ao tentar carregar este vídeo.
Tente atualizar a página ou entre em contato com o suporte ao cliente.
Você deve criar uma conta para continuar assistindo.
Registre-se para uma avaliação gratuita.
Como membro, você também terá acesso ilimitado a mais de 70.000 aulas de matemática, inglês, ciências, história e muito mais. Além disso, receba testes práticos, questionários e treinamento personalizado para ajudá-lo a ter sucesso.
Já registrado? Entre aqui para acesso.
Você está em um rolo. Mantenha o bom trabalho!
Basta fazer o check-in. Você ainda está assistindo?
0:04 Definition of Expert Power 2:01 Example 2:53 Lesson Summary.
Quer assistir isso mais tarde?
Faça o login ou inscreva-se para adicionar esta lição a um curso personalizado.
Organize e salve suas aulas favoritas com os cursos personalizados.
Lições recomendadas e cursos para você.
Definition of Expert Power.
Expert power is power based upon employees' perception that a manager or some other member of an organization has a high level of knowledge or a specialized set of skills that other employees or members of the organization do not possess. Expert power can actually turn power dynamics upside down because its use is not limited to the formal leaders of an organization. Any member of an organization who has a high level of knowledge or a set of specialized skills that others in the organization do not possess may exert expert power.
For example, let's say you're a high-paid lawyer at a Wall Street law firm. You must have a case filed with the court by the end of the day or your client loses the right to file the lawsuit, which happens to be worth millions of dollars. Your word processing program crashes, and you think you may have lost the legal complaint. The court clerk's office closes in less than one hour, not nearly enough time to redraft. You approach your secretary to see if she can do anything. All of a sudden, you find yourself at the mercy of a secretary who tells you that the file can be recovered if you follow her directions. For that brief moment, who had the power? Who follows whose order?
There's a catch-22 when power is based upon expert authority, which can be a huge disadvantage to both the manager and the organization. The power a person is able to exert because of her expertise will diminish if she shares her knowledge. Por quê? As others learn the knowledge and skills from the leader sharing her expertise, the respect for her superiority based on such knowledge and skills diminish because they are no longer unique or specialized. A manager has two choices: share the knowledge or withhold the knowledge. If the knowledge is shared, the manager's authority will decrease over time. However, if the knowledge is withheld, the organization will not be as effective as it could be over time.
Desbloquear conteúdo.
Tenha acesso GRATUITO por 5 dias
basta criar uma conta.
Sem compromisso, cancele a qualquer momento.
Selecione um assunto para visualizar os cursos relacionados:
Let's say that you are a software engineer recently hired to lead the development of a new interactive 3-D action video game. You have a great deal of experience and have developed some new techniques that will bring gaming up a notch. Your team, including your direct supervisor, is in awe of your skills. They come to you for help in writing the programming code they have been assigned to compose. You teach them some of your techniques, and you become the go-to guy on the team and in the department.
However, after about six months, almost all of your team members, and quite a few of the department members, have learned your tricks, and you are no longer sought out or listened to as much as you were before you shared your knowledge. You once were able to exert expert power, but that power has been severely diminished as you shared the knowledge.
Resumo da lição.
Expert power is power based upon the perceived superior knowledge or specialized skills of any member of an organization. Sometimes the expert exerting power is not even technically the formal superior in the organizational relationship, like a lawyer relying upon a secretary for help with a computer program. A significant disadvantage to expert power is that if the expert's knowledge is shared, his power will probably diminish over time; however, if the expert does not share his knowledge, then the organization will not be as effective.
Resultados de Aprendizagem.
When you finish this lesson, we should have you ready to:
Define expert power Identify who may or may not have the expert power Describe how expert power may change over time.
Para desbloquear esta lição, você deve ser um membro de estudo.
Registre-se para uma avaliação gratuita.
Desbloqueie sua educação.
Veja por si mesmo porque 30 milhões de pessoas usam o Study.
Torne-se um membro do Study e comece a aprender agora.
já é um membro? Entrar.
Ganhando o crédito da faculdade.
Você sabia & hellip; Temos mais de 95 cursos universitários que preparam você para obter crédito por exame que é aceito por mais de 2.000 faculdades e universidades. Você pode testar os dois primeiros anos da faculdade e salvar milhares de seu diploma. Qualquer pessoa pode obter crédito por exame, independentemente da idade ou do nível de escolaridade.
Transferência de crédito para a escola de sua escolha.
Não tem certeza de qual faculdade você quer participar ainda? O Study tem milhares de artigos sobre cada grau imaginável, área de estudo e plano de carreira que podem ajudá-lo a encontrar a escola certa para você.
Escolas de Pesquisa, Graus & amp; Carreiras
Receba as informações imparciais que você precisa para encontrar a escola certa.
Procurar artigos por categoria.
Procure uma área de estudo ou nível de graduação.
Artigos recomendados.
Introdução ao Gerenciamento: Ajuda e Revisão.
21 capítulos | 312 aulas | 2 conjuntos de cartões de memória
Vá para Noções Básicas de Gerenciamento: Ajuda e Revisão.
Ir para a Escola Comportamental da Teoria da Gestão: Ajuda e Revisão.
Vá para Planejamento nas Organizações: Ajuda e Revisão.
Vá para Organizing in Business Management: Ajuda e Revisão.
Leadership: Leaders & Their Role in Organizations 4:30 Management vs. Leadership: The Difference Between a Manager & Leader 9:44 Leading as a Function of Management 9:40 Leadership Orientation: Task-Oriented & People-Oriented 6:16 The Transformational Leader 8:54 The Transactional Leader 7:36 The Servant Leader 4:45 The Laissez-faire Leader 4:56 The Participative or Democratic Leader 5:51 The Authoritarian or Autocratic Leader 4:45 The Charismatic Leader 6:20 The Situational Leader 3:36 The Bureaucratic Leader 5:32 The Blake Mouton Managerial Grid: Five Leadership Styles 7:31 Positional Power: Legitimate, Coercive & Reward Power 5:35 Personal Power: Referent and Expert Power 4:45 Top-Level Management: Definition, Functions & Responsibilities 5:41 What Is Conflict Management? - Definition, Styles & Strategies 4:22 Conflict Management Flashcards Directive Leadership Style: Definition & Concept 3:46 Expert Power in Leadership: Definition & Examples 3:28 3:02.
Vá para Motivação no Local de Trabalho: Ajuda e Revisão.
Vá para Controlling in Organizations: Help and Review.
Go to Strategic Management and Managerial Decision Making: Help and Review.
Vá para Gerenciando Mudanças Organizacionais.
Vá para Introdução ao Small Business Management.
Expert Power in Leadership: Definition & Examples Related Study Materials.
Navegue por cursos.
Navegue por lições.
Latest Courses.
Últimas lições.
Cursos Populares.
Lições Populares
Explore nossa biblioteca de mais de 70.000 lições.
Baixe o aplicativo.
Sobre nós.
Baixe o aplicativo.
&cópia de; estudo de direitos autorais 2003-2018. Todas as outras marcas registradas e direitos autorais são de propriedade de seus respectivos proprietários. Todos os direitos reservados.
Crie sua conta. Nenhuma obrigação; cancelar a qualquer momento.
Inicie o seu teste gratuito. Nenhuma obrigação; cancelar a qualquer momento.
Seu plano selecionado:
Você está se juntando a:
Seu carrinho está vazio. Por favor, escolha um produto.
Lições em vídeo de estudo ajudaram mais de 30 milhões de estudantes.
Os alunos amam o estudo.
"Aprendi mais em 10 minutos do que 1 mês de aulas de química"
Ganhe crédito na faculdade.
"Eu acedi ao exame CLEP e ganhei 3 créditos universitários!"
As videoaulas de estudo ajudaram mais de meio milhão de professores a envolver seus alunos.
Estudo de amor aos professores.
"Os vídeos mudaram a maneira como eu ensino! Os vídeos no Study realizam em 5 minutos o que me levaria uma aula inteira."
Você sabia.
Os alunos em condições de aprendizagem on-line tiveram um desempenho melhor do que aqueles que receberam instruções presenciais.
Saynsumthn’s Blog.
Apenas outro blog WordPress.
Posted in Forced Population Control.
Forced vaccinations lead to forced abortion and sterilization.
Fox News guest Jonathan Hoenig said the idea of mandating vaccines is a slippery slope to the government forcing all sorts of medical procedures upon people, like abortion and forced sterilizations.
Chinese national denied asylum because she reported pregnant women subjected to forced abortions.
A Chinese National who claims she was wrongfully denied asylum in the United States because she reported pregnant women pregnant in violation of China’s one-child family planning policies, has lost her bid before the United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
On February 25, 2008, Suzhen Meng was admitted to the United States as a nonimmigrant visitor with authorization to remain for six months.
Five months later, on July 24, 2008, Meng filed for asylum stating that she had suffered past political persecution when, as a public security officer in her local community, she refused to collect a security fee from residents and wrote a letter to the local public security bureau alleging that the police chief was corrupt.
Meng asserted that, as a result of these actions, her passport was confiscated and she was arrested and held in custody for 14 days, during which time a guard slapped her in the face several times and fellow prisoners beat her on instruction of the guards.
Ten months later, Meng’s passport was returned when she promised not to engage in any further anti-government activities, whereupon she left China.
After having overstayed her visa Meng was later brought before a US immigration hearing.
During that hearing, she testified that in her twenty-two years as a public security officer her duties included reporting all pregnant women to China’s family planning office, including women pregnant in violation of state limitations.
Meng told the judge that she understood that when she reported a woman to authorities, that woman would be punished, typically by being forced to undergo an abortion or sterilization.
In addition, Meng testified to having seen women dragged away forcibly by the police.
Meng said that despite the severe consequences to women who were reported as pregnant against China law, she continued to make her reports. In her attempt to receive sympathy she claimed that she sometimes advised women whom she would report as being pregnant to go into hiding or to flee.
On November 3, 2014 the United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit upheld the decision of the Immigration Judge in denying Meng’s application for asylum. That judge had ruled that Meng’s active assistance in the persecution of pregnant women barred her from receiving asylum and ordered her removal from the United States.
In writing the court’s opinion, Judges Reena Raggi explained that asylum is a form of discretionary relief granted when a person shows either past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution.
“Meng does not–and cannot–dispute that forced abortions and involuntary sterilizations constitute persecution on a protected ground ,” Raggi wrote. & # 8220; Nor does she dispute that women in her community who became pregnant in violation of family planning policy were subjected to such persecution.”
Despite the fact that Meng attempted to claim she would be persecuted if asylum were denied the court was not persuaded and called Meng the persecutor, writing that, “ Meng’s reports regularly resulted in persecution, she knew that, and she nevertheless continued to report.”
“Meng engaged in such reporting over a period of two decades. In short, her assistance in persecution was not a single, marked departure from her duties, but a regular, and important, aspect of her duties. While Meng may have encouraged some women to hide or flee to avoid the persecution that she knew would follow from her conduct, the record indicates that Meng nevertheless persisted in reporting women with unauthorized pregnancies as long as she served as a public security official. Accordingly, because the record evidence was sufficient to support a finding that Meng assisted in persecution, we identify no legal error in the agency’s determination that the persecutor bar rendered Meng ineligible for asylum or withholding of removal ,” the denial of review states.
Planned Parenthood leader called abortion a form of birth control.
Guy Gervais, a past president of Planned Parenthood of Orange County, admitted that abortion is a form of birth control almost a year before the infamous Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision which legalized abortion on demand in the United States.
In a March 11, 1972 letter to the editor, Gervais called abortion an “ absolute necessity ” as a “ medical backup to birth control deficiencies .”
In a letter to the editor published April 4, 1972, Gervais wrote, “ I do accept reality and know that abortion is the most widespread form of birth control employed world wide .”
Gervais goes on to imply that voluntary use of contraception is needed now but that involuntary methods may be used at some point, “ When one thinks of the worldwide problems due to overpopulation, I can think of no solution other than to advocate any and all forms of birth control on a voluntary basis – lest it become compulsory later on .”
This idea of compulsory population control is nothing new and Planned Parenthood leaders have thrown this idea around for years:
In fact, at a 1968 convention of Planned Parenthood, John D Rockefeller 111, recipient of the 1967 Sanger award bantered around the suggestion of compulsory family planning when he said, “ The growth of world population is so rapid and its consequences so serious that this may be the last generation which has the opportunity to cope with the problem on the basis of free choice . Hence it does not seem unreasonable, that, if we do not make voluntary family planning possible in this generation, we may make compulsory family planning inevitable for future generations .”
As late as 1970, former Planned Parenthood president Alan Guttmacher called the idea of a limitation of families to only 2 children in America “desirable.”
The statement was made to a Sarasota paper while he was speaking under the sponsorship of Planned Parenthood of Sarasota County, Inc.
Alan Guttmacher, who was the residing president of Planned Parenthood World-Population at the time, sat down with Sarasota Herald Tribune reporter, Lee McCall for an interview.
Guttmacher told McCall that Planned Parenthood was an “excellent organization.”
McCall reports that Guttmacher pointed out that even though there have been discussions of limiting families to 2.2 children for what we would consider a forced population control system , Guttmacher said it was inadvisable for Planned Parenthood because it would essentially cause a public relations backlash among Americans and especially minorities who see this language as genocide and eugenics. Planned Parenthood was knee deep in Eugenics and Guttmacher knew the sensitivity of how the minority black community felt about population control which we have documented before (here).
Planned Parenthood president, Alan Guttmacher told the paper, “ Seria difícil. In the first place it would probably split the organization. Also we would have trouble with minority groups accepting this. So even though the plan may be desirable and would make us a stronger nation, a less polluted nation, I feel it would be strategically unwise at this time.”
Guttmacher goes on to endorse a plan that he says would work, ABORTION , “ If we could get the abortion law liberalized, most of the 750,000 unwanted pregnancies would not lead to babies…”he stated.
The same year, Planned Parenthood president Alan Guttmacher, who was a former vice-president of the American Eugenics Society , told Boston Magazine that the United Nations should be the organization the United States used to carry out population control programs worldwide.
Guttmacher explained his reasoning, “ If you’re going to curb population, it’s extremely important not to have it done by the dammed Yankees, but by the UN. Because the thing is, then it’s not considered genocide. If the United States goes to the black man or the yellow man and says slow down your reproduction rate, we’re immediately suspected of having ulterior motives to keep the white man dominant in the world. If you can send in a colorful UN force, you’ve got much better leverage. "
Earlier in 1966, Guttmacher compared the world population with the threat of nuclear war and told the Washington Post that governments may have to act officially to limit families “ It may be taken out of the voluntary category “, Guttmacher said.
That created a huge backlash which set off accusations again by minority communities that Planned Parenthood was wanting to limit families especially black ones.
In an attempt to squelch that – Guttmacher denied that he wanted family limitation - and the media published the lies hook, line and sinker.
In 1971, Guttmacher again railed on about the importance of government limiting the size of families and said the government had been “ niggardly ” in their attempts to combat over-population. By then the backlash against force had begun so, Guttmacher began to advocate for “ Volunteerism ” as a PR way to get his population control measures received.
In a 1969 article in Medical World News Reports, Guttmacher sees the possibility that coercion will be used to control population, “Each country will have to decide its own form of coercion ,” writes Guttmacher, “ and determine when and how it should be employed . At present the available means are compulsory sterilization and compulsory abortion . Perhaps some day a way of enforcing compulsory birth control will be feasible. & # 8221;
Guttmacher was following in the steps of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger who in 1932, called for the U. S. government to set aside farms and what she called “open spaces” where certain groups of people would be segregated from the rest of society. She proposed that, among others, the illiterate, the unemployed and the poor should be forcibly kept in these areas until they developed “ better moral conduct .”
The documentary film Maafa21.
Sanger called for parents to have a QUOTE: LICENSE TO BREED controlled by people who believed in her eugenic philosophy. She wanted all would be parents to go before her eugenic boards to request a “ PERMIT TO BREED “. So much for Choice , huh?
Sanger also called for those who were poor and what she considered to be “ morons and immoral ‘ , to be shipped to colonies where they would live in “ Farms and Open Spaces ” dedicated to brainwashing these so-called “ inferior types ” into having what Sanger called, “ Better moral conduct ”.
Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger once wrote that no one should have the right to bear a child and no permit for children shall give a couple the right the have more than one birth, requiring parents to obtain a “ license to breed .”
A marriage license shall in itself give husband and wife only the right to a common household and not the right to parenthood.
Article 4 . No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child, and no man shall have the right to become a father, without a permit for parenthood.
Article 5 . Permits for parenthood shall be issued upon application by city, county, or State authorities to married couples , providing the parents are financially able to support the expected child, have the qualifications needed for proper rearing of the child, have no transmissible diseases, and on the woman’s part, no medical indication that maternity is likely to result in death or permanent injury to health.
Article 6 . No permit for parenthood shall be valid for more than one birth .
This strange idea was opposed opposed by many.
In another example from 1969, a professor at the University of California, Dr. Garrett Hardin , called it insanity to rely on voluntarism to control population. Hardin was a member of the American Eugenics Society and an outspoken advocate of government enforced birth control saying that citizens should be willing to give up their right to breed for the betterment of society. In 1980, he was given Planned Parenthood ’s highest national award.
In 1967 when eugenicist and Nobel Prize winner, Dr. William Shockley , caused a national uproar when he stated that it was a waste of taxpayer money to create better schools and welfare programs for what he called “Ghetto Negroes.” He claimed to have research showing that people of African descent are genetically inferior to whites in intelligence and simply not smart enough to take advantage of programs designed to help them.
To save tax money, he proposed that the U. S. government implement forced birth control to lower the reproduction of the inferior classes and then issue certificates to become pregnant that would be sold on the New York stock exchange. Shockley was a national committee member of Planned Parenthood and a featured speaker at at least one Planned Parenthood conference.
Donald Minkler was the president of the American Association of Planned Parenthood Physicians and a member of the Board of Directors of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Like many of those in the eugenics movement, he understood that their plans would not always be voluntarily adopted and that the use of governmental coercion, or even force, might one day be necessary.
In 1972, Minkler made this astonishing statement, “We hope that the restraint of population growth can come about through voluntary means: but, if it does not, involuntary methods will be used .”
Planned Parenthood: Cruelty to Women and an Affront to Women’s Health and Women’s Rights.
Saynsumthn has covered Elaine Riddick’s pursuit for justice for her eugenics sterilization for years. So it is an honor to publish this Guest Editorial by Ms. Riddick.
Planned Parenthood: Cruelty to Women and an Affront to Women’s Health and Women’s Rights.
By Elaine Riddick, Executive Director, Rebecca Project for Justice March 18, 2014.
Planned Parenthood is not a sanctuary for women’s health as women have been made to believe. Many women have no knowledge of the cruel and callous history of Planned Parenthood.
Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood is an infamous eugenicist and population control advocate who opened the first birth control clinic in the United States in 1921. The clinic was called the American Birth Control League and was renamed Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) in 1942, and later she created the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) in 1952.
Planned Parenthood’s fundamental strategy for Population Control of Black and low income women was forced sterilizations and abortions. Margaret Sanger persistently dehumanized Blacks, low-income children, the disabled, mentally ill, immigrants, and impoverished women, by classifying them as “ human weeds ”, “ spawning… human beings who never should have been born ”.
Euphemisms and sterilization target code words, for example, “ feebleminded ”, were used to describe Black women like me, Elaine Riddick. I was forcibly sterilized at the age of 14 years under North Carolina’s inhumane forced sterilization policy. A policy that was derived from Margaret Sanger’s Planned Parenthood population control handbook, which spread across the United States by her loyal band of eugenicists and lobbying our elected officials. Those cruel and inhumane forced sterilization polices and abortion-on-demand policies were also exported to create the one-child policy in China; where mothers abandoned or killed their live birthed children to avoid persecution. IPPF programs through the US government also forcibly sterilized millions women and men in India.
(Elaine Riddick in the powerful documentary film Maafa21)
Currently, Planned Parenthood uses an arsenal of abortions on demand lethal contraceptives such as Depo Provera and Norplant called the “DDT of contraceptives”. They are called the DDT of contraceptives, because they cause extremely lethal side-effects and are banned or restricted in the United States, Europe, India and Israel.
However, Planned Parenthood the largest distributor of Depo Provera circumvents restrictions, and typically, Blacks, Latinos, low-income and vulnerable women & girls are targeted and injected without full informed consent of lethal side effects. In the U. S. less than 2% of white women are injected with Depo Provera, and in Europe the use of injectables such as Depo Provera is virtually non - existent.
In 1998, the FDA sent a letter to Pfizer the maker of Depo Provera requesting an immediate halt to advertisements that misled women about risk and side effects of Depo Provera. However, this practice of misleading women about risk continues through Pfizer’s distributor Planned Parenthood, by target marketing to Blacks and Latinos while concealing details about side-effects on their websites.
In 2013, Israel restricted Depo Provera with funding from U. S. reproductive health funder Shira Saperstein of the Moriah Fund. However, in the United States Shira Saperstein still works with Planned Parenthood and abortion advocates to callously promote Depo Provera as a safe contraceptive for low income women in the U. S. and Africa.
They mislead women about lethal harm of increased HIV/AIDS and breast cancer and other debilitating diseases documented by the FDA and NIH.
Norplant was pulled from U. S. markets in 2002 is still implanted in economically deprived women globally and is promoted by the International Federation of Planned Parenthood and the Population Council with malice and forethought. Thousands of poor women have died from diseases caused by Depo Provera and thousands struggle with permanent damage but the US government is silent.
Therefore, my goal as Executive Director of the Rebecca Project for Justice is to seek a practical humane policy solution that institutes informed consent procedures to protect women.
To achieve that goal, we have devised a four point strategy:
1 ) Policy: Drafting legislation to present at Congressional Hearings with the Global Health and Judiciary Committees this year;
2 ) Lawsuits: Class action suit lead by Attorney Willie E. Gary of the Gary Law Group;
3 ) Prosecution: Through a detailed letter to Department of Justice, we are demanding prosecution of doctors and institutions such as Planned Parenthood that conspire to conceal lethal side effects;
and 4 ) Media: Creating petitions and a public relations campaign with Tanya Wiley of WPC Communications.
Elaine Riddick is the Executive Director of Rebecca Project for Justice you can contact her her by e-mail here: Elaine. Riddick@RebeccaProjectJustice.
Eugenics minded sex columnist advocates forced population control and mandatory abortion.
Popular sex columnist and liberal pundit/ Gay Activist Dan Savage drew some heat this week when he suggested to an Australian conference that he’d offer up “mandatory abortion” as a method of fighting overpopulation.
During this week’s Festival of Dangerous Ideas in Sydney, Australia, Savage appeared as part of a panel with British conservative writer Peter Hitchens, among others, debating a variety of topics reportedly including religion, sex, and marriage. During the Q&A, an audience member asked Savage to provide a “dangerous idea” that could “change the world for the better.”
His answer: “Population control. There’s too many goddamn people on the planet. [Audience applause] You know, I’m pro-choice, I believe that women should have a right to control their bodies. Sometimes in my darker moments, I’m anti-choice. I think abortion should be mandatory for about 30 years. [Mix of applause and gasps] That’s a dangerous idea. She wanted a dangerous idea, so throw the chair at me.”
Savage’s views are not new, in fact, in 1950, Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger was quoted again advocating sterilization when she said, “ I consider that the world and almost our civilization for the next twenty-five years, is going to depend upon a simple, cheap, safe contraceptive to be used in poverty stricken slums, jungles, and among the most ignorant people. Even this will not be sufficient, because I believe that now, immediately; there should be national sterilization for certain dysgenic types of our population who are being encouraged to breed and would die out were the government not feeding them.”
During its founding, Planned Parenthood was surrounded by supporters of eugenics. In fact, one of Sanger’s financial backers, Proctor and Gamble heir, Clarence Gamble, provided funding for eugenics projects and gave money directly to the North Carolina Eugenics Board which sterilized many women including, Elaine Riddick. Riddick has been outspoken of her experience leading to a recent apology from the state.
In 1947, Gamble also called for the expansion of that state’s sterilization program saying that for every feebleminded person sterilized, 40 more were polluting and degrading the bloodlines of future generations with their defective genes.
In 1967 president, Lyndon B. Johnson made this statement LBJ Faces up a Crisis: Johnson also stated, “Nations with food deficits must put more of their resources into voluntary family planning programs.” ( SOURCE: Lewiston Evening Journal – Feb 2, 1967 , from Johnson’s 1967 State of the Union Address )
In 1969, the Population Council’s President, Bernard Berelson, published an article suggesting that if voluntary methods of birth control were not successful, it may become necessary for the government to put a “fertility control agent” in the water supplies of “urban” neighborhoods.
On December 10, 1974, the United States National Security Council promulgated National Security Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM-200), also called The Kissinger Report. This document explicitly laid out a detailed strategy by which the United States would aggressively promote population control in developing nations in order to regulate (or have better access to) the natural resources of these countries.
In order to protect U. S. commercial interests, NSSM-200 cited a number of factors that could interrupt the smooth flow of materials from lesser-developed countries, LDCs as it called them, to the United States, including a large population of anti-imperialist youth, who must, according to NSSM-200, be limited by population control. The document identified 13 nations by name that would be primary targets of U. S.-funded population control efforts.
According to NSSM-200, elements of the implementation of population control programs could include: a) the legalization of abortion; b) financial incentives for countries to increase their abortion, sterilization and contraception-use rates; c) indoctrination of children; and d) mandatory population control, and coercion of other forms, such as withholding disaster and food aid unless an LDC implements population control programs.
While the CIA and Departments of State and Defense have issued hundreds of papers on population control and national security, the U. S. government has never renounced NSSM-200, but has only amended certain portions of its policy. NSSM-200, therefore, remains the foundational document on population control issued by the United States government.
Then….In 1969, Alan Guttmacher as then President of Planned Parenthood-World Population and former Vice President of the American Eugenics Society, said this: “ I would like to give our voluntary means of population control full opportunity in the next 10 to 12 years. Then , if these don’t succeed, we may have to go into some kind of coercion , not worldwide, but possibly in such places as India, Pakistan, and Indonesia, where pressures are the greatest… There is no question that birth rates can be reduced all over the world if legal abortion is introduced …” ( SOURCE: Family Planning: The needa and the Methods, by: Alan F. Guttmacher; The American Journal of Nursing, Vol. 69, No. 6. (June, 1969) PP. 1229-1234)
Followed by this statement, made by Planned Parenthood and the Eugenics Society’s Alan Guttmacher in a 1970 interview with the Baltimore Magazine ,
“ Our birth rate has come down since we last talked.. I think we’ve hit a plateau - the figure’s not likely to drop much more unless there is more legal abortion . , or abortion on request as we call it…My own feeling is that we’ve got to pull out all the stops and involve the United Nations …If you’re going to curb population, it’s extremely important not to have it done by the dammed Yankees, but by the UN. Because the thing is, then it’s not considered genocide. If the United States goes to the Black man or the yellow man and says slow down your reproduction rate, we’re immediately suspected of having ulterior motives to keep the white man dominant in the world. If you can send in a colorful UN force, you’ve got much better leverage.”
Guttmacher was on the board of Planned Parenthood and also VP of the American Eugenics Society:
Harry Laughlin was an official with both the American Eugenics Society and Margaret Sanger’s American Birth Control League and, in 1928, his plan for using forced sterilization to eliminate those who might produce what he called “degenerate offspring” was published in the Birth Control Review.
Governments may have to use FORCE to control populations, that was what Donald Minkler told to Planned Parenthood in 1972.
“We hope that the restraint of population growth can come about through voluntary means: but, if it does not, involuntary methods will be used.” Dr. Donald Minkler, 1972.
Donald Minkler was the president of the American Association of Planned Parenthood Physicians and a member of the Board of Directors of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Like many of those in the eugenics movement, he understood that their plans would not always be voluntarily adopted and that the use of governmental coercion, or even force, might one day be necessary.
In 1969, Ketchel believed that adding Birth Control o water was the answer to population control. Ketchel was a professor of Physiology at Tuffs Medical school.
The idea of forced eugenics was not something that suddenly developed in the 1970s.
In a 1929 speech, American eugenicist Samuel Holmes had proposed that mandatory birth control should be used as a tool to eliminate what he called the menace to the white race that had been created by increases in black population. His solution was to have a quota system in which the right to have a child would be controlled by the government and determined by race. At the time, Holmes was on the National Council of the American Birth Control League which would later become known as Planned Parenthood .
In 1936, eugenicist Julian Huxley, proposed that the genetically inferior classes could be made to have fewer children if they were denied easy access to welfare. Another part of his proposal was that medical care to these same people should be restricted in order to reduce the survival rates of the children they did have. He also called for the forced sterilization of anyone who was unemployed beyond a certain length of time. Huxley was later honored by Planned Parenthood and was a featured speaker at one of their annual conventions.
In 1969, a professor at the University of California, Dr. Garrett Hardin, called it insanity to rely on voluntarism to control population. Hardin was a member of the American Eugenics Society and an outspoken advocate of government enforced birth control saying that citizens should be willing to give up their right to breed for the betterment of society.
In 1980, he was given Planned Parenthood’s highest national award.
“I suggest that we celebrate 1976 as a year of reproductive’ pause to come as close as possible to a zero birthrate,” Dr. Garrett Hardin, a professor of human ecology at the University of California at Santa Barbara, told a population conference attended by members of the John Muir Institute, a conservation organization.
• “Even if it did not succeed completely, I think we should at least make the effort—as a kind of symbolic gesture,” he said in an interview later.
Astrophysicist Dr. Donald Aitken said: “I’d like to see Mr. Nixon, stand up a few years from now and say,’Nothing has happened. Population must be controlled. We must set an example. .
& # 8221; ‘So the government has to step in arid tamper with religious and personal convictions — and maybe even impose penalties for every child a family has beyond two.”
University of ‘ Colorado’s Prof, of Economics Kenneth E. Boulding has proposed a system of “Marketable licenses” to have children as the only one which will combine the minimum of social controversy necessary to the solution of the problem, with a maximum of individual liberty’and ethical choice.
Dr. Walter E. Howard, professor of wildlife biology at the University of California at Davis, told a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science he.
thinks the public is not ready for laws concerning reproduction, but that “in time government controls must come.”
Procreation could no longer be considered a private matter, he said, adding, “Once the public becomes informed, I believe a social stigma will develop against large families.
Couples will be embarrassed to have more than one or two children in the very near future.”
Edgar Chasteen , founder of Compulsory Birth Control for All Americans, said: “Freedom will be the death of us all; if only we can recognize how necessary compulsion is to our society.”
The menace of the world population e x p l o s i o n , said another speaker, Dr. Malcolm Potts, is so enormous that the alternative to a concerted, rational program now might well be “the government putting hormones in the water supply in 1984 or carrying me off for a forcible vasectomy (sterilization operation) because I had two children.”
From the public health viewpoint, he said, “I stand by my deliberately provocative statement that the pill should be in vending machines and cigarettes on prescription, According to an article in the “WINNIPEG FREE PRESS, WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 1969.
On October 7,1971 the Waterloo Doily Courier, Waterloo, Iowa, reported that a reporter for Black Hawk County District Court Judges Ralph Hasner (deceased) and George Heath, responded to a two-part Waterloo Courier series last May on Black Hawk County welfare spending with this suggestion:
‘•Seems to me the best bet for the taxpayer would be to require that any woman be sterilized after the birth of her second illegitimate child. Also, the father of child number two should be sterilized. Then at least no more would be produced.” Jensen, now living in Colorado, admits that “perhaps” he was being “too tough.”,But he also suggested that.
people should “get mad enough that they will insist on sterilization. Then deliberately having child after child as a means of making a living will go out of style.”
Black Hawk County District Judge Blair Wood is one who sees possible legal support for compulsory sterilization or birth control.
“Three factors seem to support a form of compulsory sterilization — a long – term shot or pill is after all merely temporary sterilization,” says Judge Wood.
Judge Wood also thinks a long-lasting birth control shot “would be more palatable to the court than irreversible sterilization. “Then the court could take another look at each individual situation after six months or a year and decide whether another shot was needed in order to extend that person’s temporary sterilization for another six months or year.”
Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger, was a member in good standing with the racist American Eugenics Society. Sanger had board members who were known for their racist writing and Sanger published many of those in her publications. Sanger called for parents to have a QUOTE: LICENSE TO BREED controlled by people who believed in her eugenic philosophy. She wanted all would be parents to go before her eugenic boards to request a “ PERMIT TO BREED “.
Sanger also called for those who were poor and what she considered to be “ morons and immoral ‘ , to be shipped to colonies where they would live in “Farms and Open Spaces” dedicated to brainwashing these so-called “ inferior types ” into having what Sanger called, “ Better moral conduct” .
“ I consider that the world and almost our civilization for the next twenty-five years, is going to depend upon a simple, cheap, safe contraceptive to be used in poverty stricken slums, jungles, and among the most ignorant people . Even this will not be sufficient, because I believe that now, immediately, there should be national sterilization for certain dysgenic types of our population who are being encouraged to breed and would die out were the government not feeding them. "
Planned Parenthood Founder, Margaret Sanger, 1950.
University of Michigan, recently, Mr. MacMullan inquired as to how we can check or. reduce the population of these United States.
“I suspect, however,” he said, “‘that the key to success lies in convincing. people that it is morally wrong for any woman to bear more than two children.”
“How do we go about stabilizing our population? I don’t know …Many measures have been suggested — mass sterilization, abortion, birth control chemicals in the water supply—you.
name it. I suspect, however, that the key to success likes in convincing people that it is morally wrong for any woman to bear more than two children.”
& # 8221; there is nothing farfetched about developing a nontoxic waterborne chemical that would temporarily inhibit human fertility without deleterious side effects.”
So says editorialist Michael Malloy, wringing his Hands in a recent issue of the National Observer.
‘Such a chemical in our municipal water supplies would reduce the birth rate while avowing every couple to have as many children as they wished simply by avoiding public water. This would ‘immediately eliminate most illegitimacy our society. It would make the “unwanted child” a pathetic memory. It would free our cities from much of their crushing welfare burden. “So let’s target our population control on the least responsible instead of the most responsible people,” he urges.
“Let’s put. the sacredness of human life back in the center of our morality and stop all. these abortions. Let’s allow people to have as many children as their hearts have room for, and still reduce our population. In short, let’s find something to put in the water.”
Paul Ehrlich advocated forced population control and was also a speaker at Planned Parenthood events – He also served on the Board of Advocates of Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
Current White House science advisor John P. Holdren co-wrote the 1977 textbook Ecoscience, which lays out in detail a wide-array of coercive and voluntary-submission population control methods. One of the most drastic is that of “Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods” (p. 787). Other drastic proposals include starving the poor by consolidating the global food supply and depriving nations who don’t meet population reduction goals of proportionate food rations (p. 942-3).
Putting sterilants in the water, though, dates back further to a 1969 memo sent in private from Planned Parenthood VP Frederick S. Jaffe to the Rockefeller-created Population Council’s President Bernard Berelson. It advocated drastic coercive measures including “Fertility control agents in water supply” and “encourage increased homosexuality.” But much of the one-page memo also aimed to dangle state benefits over expectant mothers to encourage abortions, sterilization and birth control through payments, tax credits and public housing policies.
Both Jaffe and Berelson are recipients of the Margaret Sanger Award for their population control work. Rockefeller-funded Sanger is a classical Eugenicist, and the founder of the Birth Control League that later transformed into Planned Parenthood. She was a key player in the highly inflammatory “Negro Project” (to reduce numbers in the black population) wherein she bluntly wrote in 1939 that “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”
In 2012, The Detroit News published a call to add contraceptives to the water supply, a dangerous and repugnant proposal for gross state power over life and death – all in the name of fighting the “breeding poverty” of the welfare class. Editorial page editor Nolan Finley writes:
“Since the national attention is on birth control, here’s my idea: If we want to fight poverty, reduce violent crime and bring down our embarrassing drop-out rate, we should swap contraceptives for fluoride in Michigan’s drinking water.“
No comments:
Post a Comment