Challenge: America Keeps Its Labor Power

The title is relative, but sums up the contents as best I could.

Your challenge is to ensure the following happens, or at least as much of the following as can be done. These are facets of the economy which have become an issue with their change since at least the 1970's onwards. Your challenge is to ensure they stay the course:

Firstly ensure Union power and Labor remain strong. Secondly, ensure jobs exported as of the OTL 2009/2010 remain in the US, at least to a degree greater than now, and ensure that markets which the US has been superseded in or neck and neck with other nations in competition with remain either US dominated or in a better position than the US is now (IE, Japanese automotive industries womped the US auto industry following the oil shortage of the 1970's, and have been highly competitive in the US market ever since). Thirdly, ensure America stays a creditor rather than debtor nation.

Basically, this is just a challenge to ensure the situation circa a few decades Post-WW2 remain rather than giving way due events, and in a way that it could have been with reasonable evolution rather than any wank. The factory doesn't move to China and put thousands of workers out of a job and cut off labor from people who never went to college because the factory was always there and for a good pay check, Detroit doesn't fall flat on it's face with the Japanese auto market sweeping in with efficiency and low gas requirements, the Unions don't slowly shrivel, and so forth.
 
Now, I'm not one hundred percent sure on all of these, but I have a few ideas of my own on this subject that I've been kicking around for some time.

Postwar Demobilization Goes Smoother: If we can avoid the postwar period of striking and general labor unrest from '45 until '46, the 'American Winter of Discontent', we can avoid the Taft-Hartley Act and the decline of the American labor movement. For this to happen, you have to have Truman either [a] better prepared for demobilization or not in charge. Avoiding Taft-Hartley is one of the biggest things here if you want to keep American labor unions strong.

National Health Insurance: One of the problems that American automakers and American businesses in general have had to contend with since day one were the presence of the employer-based health insurance plans that were initially created during the war when employers couldn't raise wages without government approval. There's already a bill floating around Congress in the postwar era, the Wagner-Murray-Dingell Bill, which would essentially establish a Medicare for All program. Avoid a GOP takeover of Congress in '46, and you could feasibly get the bill to a floor for a vote before the Presidential Election two years later. This takes away one potential source of labor unrest (striking over benefits and reductions in said benefits), while strengthening big businesses and small businesses alike who don't have to worry about health insurance.

"Operation Dixie" Succeeds:
Another POD for improving labor union strength in the U.S. is to have 'Operation Dixie', the C.I.O.'s drive to unionize Southern textile workers, succeed. IOTL, the plan largely fell through because of the passage of the Taft-Hartley Act and public opinion having been shifted against the unions because of the American Winter of Discontent. Without either of those, there's a chance that Operation Dixie might do a little better. If so, this avoids the merger of the C.I.O. and A.F.L. (the C.I.O. largely signed on to the merger to increase labor power in the states; it might not have done so with an expanded base in the South) and makes the Southern U.S. much more hospitable to unions and labor in general. This probably also tips off an earlier Civil Rights movement, if you play your cards right.

No A.F.L., C.I.O. Merger: Competition between labor leagues helped increase the power and stature of both organizations in the prewar and postwar period until their merger in 1955. With a more powerful C.I.O. on the one hand, you have a force that will be more willing to pressure Democrats to make more radical changes to the U.S. social structure (Civil Rights, Medicare, anti-war moves), and one that will be able to organize black workers in the South. Competition between the leagues is probably going to be better for the union movement as a whole, as well.

Co-determination in the United States: Postwar, West Germany adopted a system by which workers were represented on the boards of major industries, culminating in a 1970s law that mandated labor representation on all companies with over a certain number of employees. In the United States, Walter Reuther pushed for the same kind of system, and with any luck, he might get it. This would probably provide for corporations with better long-term visions as union members focus on social improvements within the organizations themselves (maybe earlier, non-federal affirmative action policies?).

The Minimum Wage stays a Living Wage: Take control over the minimum wage from Congress ASAP. Indexing the Minimum Wage to 50% of the average growth in wages fixes this problem entirely, and also removes a big source of both labor unrest and periodic inaction on the part of the Congress and the President.

No 'Chicken Tax': This tax, which was enacted by the Johnson administration to prevent a U.A.W. strike before the '64 election, raised tariffs on light trucks made in West Germany, and thus, did a lot to protect Ford from international competition in the light truck category. If this tax can be avoided or phased out before the free trade era picks up and the Japanese outcompete the U.S. on this basis, then American automakers might not be caught completely by surprise when the oil shock hits or free trade picks up, and might, as a result, do a lot better.

Walter Reuther doesn't die in 1970: IOTL, Reuther died in a plane crash in 1970. If this can be avoided, then Reuther can continue pushing for a strong union movement and improvements for working people in general. If he lives long enough to see the oil shock and the start of Detroit's decline, it'll certainly be interesting to see how he adapts his unionism to growing problems in the American auto industry.

Earlier 'Green Revolution': Let's say the oil shock is either a bit worse or lasts a bit longer, resulting in a real movement for energy independence under either the Nixon or Carter administrations (or whoever you have in office). If the auto industry greens earlier, if the environmentalists forge an alliance with workers earlier than IOTL (a seventies 'Blue-Green Alliance'), you probably have a stronger, cleaner workplace and a cleaner workforce. Not to mention you've single-handedly developed a new American industry that can keep American exports up and keep the U.S. in the creditor, not debtor category.

Unionization of the Service Sector: I realize that a stronger and surviving manufacturing sector probably means the rise and growth of the service sector is either butterflied away or much smaller. Nevertheless, a strong manufacturing sector means strong unions, and stronger unions mean more ambitious unions. Maybe a coordinated drive to unionize Wal-Mart and the fast food industries in the eighties?
 
A little note: Big Labor is part of the problem. Small unions, the ones that keep the man from screwing over the worker are alright, but the big ones develop this culture of entitlement, expecting raises and perks even if they haven't earned them or deserve them. This tends to drive business away, such as Boeing planning to assemble 787s outside of the Seattle Area since the Union was getting too demanding. 6% annual raises? You know, when I get a raise, I like to think it's because I earned it. These machinist seem to think they are entitled to it. This might also be why the automotive industry has outsources, this and Free Trade. To keep a strong industrial base, protectionist policies are required, but not TOO protectionist. In the 1970s, Detroit was producing... how can I put this... well, garbage. The Japanese were producing cars that worked, and didn't burn through gasoline like it was oxygen, which is what the consumer apparently wanted.

Anyway, if big Unions would keep strong and protect what they have, and not get greedy in demands, then that would help.
 
The United States still has labour power. Not so much in traditional industries like the automobile sector, but today the US manufactures far, far more than China, India and any other country in the world.
 

Susano

Banned
A little note: Big Labor is part of the problem. Small unions, the ones that keep the man from screwing over the worker are alright, but the big ones develop this culture of entitlement, expecting raises and perks even if they haven't earned them or deserve them.
But "Big Labour" has its advantages as well. Look at Switzerland where there havent been major strieks in ages because employers and employees have a sort of permnent truzce - really generous wage raises for having no strikes. That was only possible due to Swiss labour being well organised, with no competiting smaller unions. Or look at Germany now during the economcial crisis - we were one of the most hard hit countries, being so export orientated, but had much less jobs destroyed. Part of that were due to agreements between employers and employees, and again, had teh emplyoeed not been unionised in single, monolithic organisations that could not have worked - had it been many small, competiting unions, inevitably some of them would have boycotted such deals.
 

NothingNow

Banned
Now, I'm not one hundred percent sure on all of these, but I have a few ideas of my own on this subject that I've been kicking around for some time.

Postwar Demobilization Goes Smoother: If we can avoid the postwar period of striking and general labor unrest from '45 until '46, the 'American Winter of Discontent', we can avoid the Taft-Hartley Act and the decline of the American labor movement. For this to happen, you have to have Truman either [a] better prepared for demobilization or not in charge. Avoiding Taft-Hartley is one of the biggest things here if you want to keep American labor unions strong.

National Health Insurance: One of the problems that American automakers and American businesses in general have had to contend with since day one were the presence of the employer-based health insurance plans that were initially created during the war when employers couldn't raise wages without government approval. There's already a bill floating around Congress in the postwar era, the Wagner-Murray-Dingell Bill, which would essentially establish a Medicare for All program. Avoid a GOP takeover of Congress in '46, and you could feasibly get the bill to a floor for a vote before the Presidential Election two years later. This takes away one potential source of labor unrest (striking over benefits and reductions in said benefits), while strengthening big businesses and small businesses alike who don't have to worry about health insurance.

"Operation Dixie" Succeeds:
Another POD for improving labor union strength in the U.S. is to have 'Operation Dixie', the C.I.O.'s drive to unionize Southern textile workers, succeed. IOTL, the plan largely fell through because of the passage of the Taft-Hartley Act and public opinion having been shifted against the unions because of the American Winter of Discontent. Without either of those, there's a chance that Operation Dixie might do a little better. If so, this avoids the merger of the C.I.O. and A.F.L. (the C.I.O. largely signed on to the merger to increase labor power in the states; it might not have done so with an expanded base in the South) and makes the Southern U.S. much more hospitable to unions and labor in general. This probably also tips off an earlier Civil Rights movement, if you play your cards right.

No A.F.L., C.I.O. Merger: Competition between labor leagues helped increase the power and stature of both organizations in the prewar and postwar period until their merger in 1955. With a more powerful C.I.O. on the one hand, you have a force that will be more willing to pressure Democrats to make more radical changes to the U.S. social structure (Civil Rights, Medicare, anti-war moves), and one that will be able to organize black workers in the South. Competition between the leagues is probably going to be better for the union movement as a whole, as well.

Co-determination in the United States: Postwar, West Germany adopted a system by which workers were represented on the boards of major industries, culminating in a 1970s law that mandated labor representation on all companies with over a certain number of employees. In the United States, Walter Reuther pushed for the same kind of system, and with any luck, he might get it. This would probably provide for corporations with better long-term visions as union members focus on social improvements within the organizations themselves (maybe earlier, non-federal affirmative action policies?).

The Minimum Wage stays a Living Wage: Take control over the minimum wage from Congress ASAP. Indexing the Minimum Wage to 50% of the average growth in wages fixes this problem entirely, and also removes a big source of both labor unrest and periodic inaction on the part of the Congress and the President.

No 'Chicken Tax': This tax, which was enacted by the Johnson administration to prevent a U.A.W. strike before the '64 election, raised tariffs on light trucks made in West Germany, and thus, did a lot to protect Ford from international competition in the light truck category. If this tax can be avoided or phased out before the free trade era picks up and the Japanese outcompete the U.S. on this basis, then American automakers might not be caught completely by surprise when the oil shock hits or free trade picks up, and might, as a result, do a lot better.

Walter Reuther doesn't die in 1970: IOTL, Reuther died in a plane crash in 1970. If this can be avoided, then Reuther can continue pushing for a strong union movement and improvements for working people in general. If he lives long enough to see the oil shock and the start of Detroit's decline, it'll certainly be interesting to see how he adapts his unionism to growing problems in the American auto industry.

Earlier 'Green Revolution': Let's say the oil shock is either a bit worse or lasts a bit longer, resulting in a real movement for energy independence under either the Nixon or Carter administrations (or whoever you have in office). If the auto industry greens earlier, if the environmentalists forge an alliance with workers earlier than IOTL (a seventies 'Blue-Green Alliance'), you probably have a stronger, cleaner workplace and a cleaner workforce. Not to mention you've single-handedly developed a new American industry that can keep American exports up and keep the U.S. in the creditor, not debtor category.

Unionization of the Service Sector: I realize that a stronger and surviving manufacturing sector probably means the rise and growth of the service sector is either butterflied away or much smaller. Nevertheless, a strong manufacturing sector means strong unions, and stronger unions mean more ambitious unions. Maybe a coordinated drive to unionize Wal-Mart and the fast food industries in the eighties?


That's Pretty much what i was going to say Except, I would add:
Fewer purchases from Japanese Companies during the Korean War.
This might help to Delay by a few years the Growth of Japanese Automotive Exports, and all that that entails.
.
Laws Regarding American Assembly and/or Parts content in US domestic Market Automobiles.

the Idea is to keep some industry here without a tarrif or anything while requiring some investment by the Automakers involved. Obviously Small Automakers would be Exempt. But It's not even Really a burden on the involved parties, Complete Knockdown Kits and/or building the Engine And/or transmission (the Heaviest parts of an Auto besides the Body/frame) in the US would be Sufficient for what I have in mind. It's a Little restrictive for the Free trade era but that's it, It is meant to be restrictive, but only slightly.
 
You know, Norton, alot of the manufacturer decline has to do with American jobs increasingly being BETTER jobs than factory work. There's a continuous cycle of job improvement in democracies; right now, our computer-related and high-tech service jobs are largely better than the more dangerous, less-flexible, and worse-paying jobs they replaced.

So, just warning you, but such a United States as you describe would be worse off than today's. It'd be a rather less happy one and, ironically, give you you that labor unrest because people wouldn't see so much better prospects than their parents'. The young'd be particularly shut out and unhappy, because unions are all about seniority.

Unions have limited coverage today less because of regulation (which long preceded tthe biggest declines), but because unions are inherently monopolies, and can be a cure worse than the problem they're solving. So, you only see them in particularly bad companies and industries.

EDIT: Another reason for the decline is the shifts in industries over time; industries generally stay unionized once unionized, so if there were more car jobs, that's another reason you'd see more union members. By contrast, new industries find it both worthwhile and easier to keep their people happy enough to keep unions at bay; that's IMHO the best outcome of union law, aside from bad corporate actors and sectors.
 
Top