I'm glad you and Illegaldemon brought up labor unions. I want to push back, like Illegal, that unions today are not more powerful than they were in 1971. I haven't looked into the emergence of police and firefighter unions, but I do know that FDR, while supporting unions in general, did not support unionized government employees. I largely agree with FDR on government unions BTW. Essential government services should not be held hostage for government worker demands - and that goes for cops and firefighters too. Rather, all elected governments should offer competitive careers to police, firefighters, office workers - all of them - to attract and keep workers. They need to have impartial disciplinary boards. Ultimately the ability to attract and keep police and other government workers rests on the democratic process working - on we citizens valuing those jobs and electing leaders who do too.
I was a member of a pilot union for 30 years and saw both the good and the bad sides of collective bargaining. In profitable times and during an awful bankruptcy - numerous up and down times by airlines. But by far I saw the benefit to me, one of thousands of hourly workers, and my fellow pilots, in the form of legally negotiated and enforced pay increases (trying to keep abreast of inflation - a battle every time), holding on in a slow losing battle to medical and retirement benefits, and a huge benefit - a grievance process to enforce the contract and review (and sometimes stop contract violations) any disciplinary actions contemplated by the company. In "At Will" states and at non-unionized companies where unions are legal, workers can be fired for any reason except those specified as illegal reasons like obvious racial discrimination, etc. Even with that language on the books it isn't hard to make a case against a worker you don't like and to get away with firing them. This "you're fired!" reality often leads to tryanny by mid-level bosses who ingratiate themselves with top management. The flip side of a non-union workforce is you, believing you're doing a better job than the guy next to you, can appeal individually to management to give you a better pay rate. Maybe some people like that freedom, but it comes with risks. It takes a dispassionate look at history beginning after the Civil War to see how and why unions are not nearly the force they were 50 years ago. I'd also like to say unions cannot overcome economic realities like globalization, bankruptcies and poor management decisions, or greed, that lead to downsizing (mergers, loss of business) and outright company failures. I saw instances where pilots were terminated - the union couldn't save them (and often didn't want to, but HAD to present the pilot's case by law) - because the facts warranted termination. Unions or not, this is what should happen, and no one is above the law.
All those things I mentioned about our cost basis here being higher than in emerging nations (and China, now a global economic superpower) - our work rule benefits, safety net for injuries and economic bust cycles, the historically high pay after WW II - all of that started their slow climb into our daily life with collective bargaining efforts. Over there in low cost basis nations unions are illegal, and under authoritarian rule will always remain illegal. This, to me, is a sad fact of modern life, and, I'd argue, the main reason American workers will continue to experience downward pressure on their pay and benefits. In many industries it is a slow race to the bottom here, a very slow rise in standards of living for the majority of workers over there. At my company another work group had a national union make several attempts to get our workers to vote to unionize (all narrowly failed). During discussions in which one of my co-workers would complain about dues, or bring up another thing they didn't like about unions (usually not an informed objection) I'd make the point that if workers at other airlines did not pay their dues to collectively bargain for pay raises (and fight for all the rest of the benefits), then their pay would never have been as good as it was. My management looked at the gains unionized workers made elsewhere, then decided what they needed to do to keep pace to keep the union efforts at bay. Were the workers who voted not to become unionized, and to not pay very modest dues, freeloaders riding on the coattails of other workers doing their exact same job? Or proud free marketers believing their pay and benefits were bestowed upon them by enlightened management? It is very rare that gains by hourly workers happened in a union vacuum.
So history also informs me, in conjunction with my experiences as a union member getting to vote for my union representatives, and knowing them personally and hearing about the negotiating process, that the "free market" (a whole 'nuther subject in the context of one-sided corporate welfare and pro-business laws - don't get riled up I'd agree not all were, or are, bad) overseen by managers always seeking to reduce costs and remain competitive would never have achieved the quality of life that unions achieved. Unions, guilds, collective pressure by workers made modern America tolerable. There really were children working in coal mines. Child labor laws here were also a union triumph, along with other social forces. In Pakistan today small children weave carpets by hand that sell for thousands of dollars - and are compensated poverty wages - if compensated at all. It was a bitter, bitter fight to enact laws which eventually allowed for orderly collective bargaining here. Andrew Carnegie, steel tycoon while living in Scotland for two years, ordered his managers to resist unionization by all means necessary - which wound up being the Pittsburg police firing live rounds into picketers and killing a bunch of them. I would agree it is a fine line between violating private property rights of factory owners and peaceful picketing, but that episode in history (one among many) speaks to how hard it was for unions to gain legitimacy.
I really could go on a very long time making the case that without unions we'd still be in dismal unfettered capitalist work environments where if you slipped in the coal mine and chopped off my hand with your pickaxe they'd just drag me out onto the ash heap of humanity and yell, "Next!", and a desperate-for-work person standing in line would eagerly leap forward. I appreciate your true statement that sometimes unions can be too strong, can have corrupt leaderships, can be too disruptive - unions are comprised of people after all - but all our lives, unionized workers or not - would be drastically worse without the labor movement succeeding. The bad things about unions can be mitigated through various means - elections, work stoppage limitations. They need to always be legal, with appropriate boundaries and transparencies.
I'll close by saying something germaine to the original question - where do we as a nation go from here? If there really is a labor shortage then managements are going to have to offer better pay and benefits. If government during this pandemic has temporarily been too generous in giving away free money (massive national debt conjured up from thin air with the stroke of a keyboard by the FED) and that income is keeping workers home, then when those benefits run out we'll see people coming back to work - hopefully - instead of opting to be homeless. If robotics and AI are permanently eliminating millions of jobs (as some economists say) then we as a nation will have to contend with millions, maybe hundreds of millions, of people standing around without any income.
History also teaches us that without income, without hope, without a stake in the system, without anything to lose, frustrated angry people will rise up and seek to tear down society. They did it many times 50 - 100 years ago believing utopian communism was the answer, which it never was and never can be. I sure hope we can sort all this out - figure out how to tax robot-earned income as the tax base shrinks, use international diplomacy to enhance human and worker's rights overseas - to help our work force avoid the downward pressures being exerted on them.
Thanks for chiming in - and I hope some more thoughtful points are made in this thread. To bring it back to the dealership...does anyone agree with me that a skilled worker shortage would be better handled by simply taking fewer appointments so the work could be done, rather than going strictly with first come, first served?
Best,
Finface