Philadelphia has long been known as a "union town" - a distinction that has had its costs and its benefits. On the one hand, if you are a low-skilled worker with a job as a janitor or laborer, you could still earn a decent living and receive good benefits due to the power of your union. On the other hand, if you are a developer or a manufacturer, you have often been faced with the choice of paying more for labor or concentrating your operation in a lower cost, non-union friendly place. Decades ago, that meant moving to the suburbs or down south. Now it means India and China.
The overall effect on the city is difficult to judge. Yes, we are less beset by the difficulties of the working poor who perform many of the service industry jobs that are available here because they are able to earn a decent living and get health care. But, it is also possible that many jobs that would have been higher paying otherwise have left the city because of the strength of the unions.
Whatever their effect in the past, it seems clear now that labor unions are at a cross roads. While their political power in Philly is still formidable when it comes to getting huge amounts of votes for Democratic candidates in statewide or national races, it doesn't seem to have meant a whole lot in local races as evidenced by the results of the mayoral primary.
Judging from the "Comments" section of any Daily News or Inquirer story that deals with either the construction trades unions or the municipal workers unions, it seems that the public image of organized labor is taking a beating.
And now, judging from an action taken by City Council last week and seemingly approved by Mayor-elect Nutter, the unions may be losing their exclusive hold on public works construction projects. This prompted Inquirer reporter George Anastasia to offer a news analysis that raised these very questions about organized labor's power.
But where does this leave us? Are we better off if Philadelphia ceases to be a "union town" because it would mean that more lower income people without college degrees would have a greater shot at some of these higher paying construction jobs? Or are the jobs just higher paying because of the power of the unions? Simple economics tells us that if labor unions are removed from the equation and the supply of usable labor is no longer kept artificially low by law and by union strength, then the price of that labor will also decrease (given no change in labor demand). Yes, there may be more jobs but at what cost?
The unionized workforce requirements could be serving as a good way to transfer wealth from the very rich to the middle and working class in a way that's more palatable to conservatives than welfare payments and high taxes. Without union strength, are we just looking at a Philadelphia where the gap between rich and poor grows wider?
In Sunday's Philadelphia Tribune, where Council's actions were applauded in an editorial, Councilman Goode is quoted offering a compromise solution to attempt to diversify the unions:
[Goode] also floated another idea, a more long-term concept, of creating other unions that are more inclusive.
“[We could] create competition by creating new labor unions that better mirror the make up Philadelphia,” he said.
Related question... why have the building trades unions always been so reluctant to release any data about the racial make up of their memberships? The Tribune has an answer for that.
Anyway, before anyone starts to celebrate what may be a decline in union influence in Philadelphia, let's remember what things were like before organized labor came along and think just how easily the situation could go back to that.