Revolving door project | Unions in Sweden don’t do this, says man who opposes efforts to make American unions as strong as Swedish ones

Most of our readers will have heard of the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) strike that began Tuesday at East Coast and Gulf Coast ports. This strike was met with an outcry from anti-union movements ranging from the far right to Democratic-leaning centrists. Some of these range from the classic anti-union position that the union has ties to the mafia, others concern the wages the union president receives, and still others are angry about the amount the dock workers are paid. The most common, however, are complaints about the ILA’s opposition to port automation. These claims are enough fodder to fill many articles, so we’re going to focus on the most disingenuous rhetorical move being debated by those angry at the ILA, where one expert will point out that “powerful unions in other countries do not act this way.” The best example of this? Co-CEO and co-founder of the Institute for Progress posts a quote from a Swedish labor leader as a means to attack American labor organizations.

For those who don’t know, Institute for Progress (IFP) is a neoliberal think tank trying to launder its more conservative views with a progressive-sounding name. This strategy is hardly original; Both IFP co-founders previously worked at the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), an outspokenly anti-progressive organization funded by their corporate-friendly parent organization The Third Way Foundation (and originally spun out of the Democratic Leadership Council, a corporate-funded entity whose “The mission was to tear the Democratic Party away from its left-wing establishment – ​​especially minority interest groups and labor unions.”

While there, the IFP leadership apparently not only picked up the PPI’s disingenuous naming conventions as a means of laundering their ideas into areas where they would otherwise be unwelcome, but also picked up the neoliberal economic policies that has supported the right wing of the party. Democratic Party for years. Prominent in these policies is the contempt for the American labor movement, which has been the backbone of the party in the long run.

This is why Stapp’s use of Sweden as an example of a union culture on which American union leaders should base their actions is so ridiculous. This use of the socialist Scandinavian country’s peculiar labor laws is unfair, but not unique. Conservatives have also previously used the lack of a minimum wage law in Sweden as an example. At first glance, that sounds like a strong libertarian goal. But this only works if Sweden’s lack of a minimum wage law is presented without any context. This lack of minimum wage is fiercely protected by trade unions, no goal from the right. This is because unions in Sweden have so much power that they view a statute defining the minimum wage as a threat – because it could set a floor on income that would be below the union-negotiated limit, causing wages to fall sooner would then be pulled upwards. This does not mean that American labor unions should abandon their long-standing support for a $15 minimum wage and join libertarians and arch-conservatives who want to abolish it. Because without the necessary labor, this would simply undermine wages.

This strong labor base is also crucial to understanding why Swedish unions are more willing to accept the automation of existing union positions. If Swedish unions can expect workers who lose their jobs due to automation to find well-paying union jobs in another position or in another employment sector, unions are not so concerned about protecting their members’ positions. This is partly due to the more robust unemployment benefits in Sweden (where 80% of wages are received for the first 200 days, followed by 100 days at 70% of wages) compared to the US (where most states receive between 30 and offer 50% of the salary). wages for about 180 days) so that the threat of unemployment due to automation is much smaller.

But it largely comes down to the issues of union density and coverage. In Sweden, 69% of workers belong to a union, while in the US this figure is only 10%. This is even more remarkable when it comes to the percentage of employers covered by collective bargaining: 90% of Swedish workers are covered by a collective bargaining agreement, compared to 11.2% in the US. The strength of this union membership has enabled Swedish unions to use the mere threat of strikes to force employers to capitulate on issues such as pay and working conditions.

This does not mean that Swedish unions are not on strike. Not only have Swedish dockworkers refused to unload Tesla products in solidarity with workers who struck against the electric car company this year (a practice banned in the US), but there have also been broader strikes in recent years.

So because Swedish unions, like their American counterparts, are willing to strike against ports, Stapp either does not seem to understand Swedish labor, or his main objection is the demands of American strikers regarding the automation of the ports. If the latter, he should push for the labor protection and welfare state that makes Swedish unions so willing to accept automation, right? It’s not that it’s a secret formula; after all, it is mentioned in detail in the New York Times piece he took a screenshot of for his tweet:

“In the United States, where most people rely on employers for health insurance, losing a job can lead to a descent into catastrophic depths. It makes employees reluctant to leave their jobs to pursue potentially more lucrative careers. It makes unions more likely to protect jobs above all else. But in Sweden and the rest of Scandinavia, governments provide healthcare and free education. They pay generous unemployment benefits, while employers fund extensive vocational training programs. Unions generally embrace automation as a competitive advantage that makes jobs safer.”

But Stapp does not advocate this kind of broad welfare state. Nor does he advocate policies that enable the strength of the unions, which Swedish workers thank for their willingness to accept automation. He has even said he is skeptical of public sector unions, blames unions for the decline in journalism jobs, and has stated that he is a neoliberal and that “neoliberals generally don’t like unions at all in the public sector.” Although he claims to make an exception for private sector unions (the Swedish public sector is 100% covered by collective bargaining agreements), there is little to be gained from this. Stapp did not mention the PRO Act, the most significant labor legislation in Congress, nor did his think tank, the Institute for Progress.

In fact, the IFP has received abundant funding and has ties to many anti-union groups. This includes one of the IFP’s three outside board members, Zachary Graves, who is executive director of an organization funded by the Koch Network with the goal of undermining teacher unions. This same board member also worked with IFP co-CEO Caleb Watney at the R St. Institute, a right-wing think tank that advocated for worker organizations that could be an alternative to traditional unions. These alternatives would be very similar to the now illegal corporate unions of the Gilded Age, a deliberately weak organization unable to withstand the power of management. This same faux-union framework has been advocated by the Mercatus Center, an organization where both co-founders started their careers and have said they aspire to emulate (but without the libertarian reputation that prevents Mercatus from influencing the left).

It is clear that Stapp does not actually want to reproduce any significant part of the Swedish labor model in the US. He simply finds the Swedish labor leaders an easy club with which to bash the American labor movement. Until he begins to advocate for the robust labor protections needed to create a union power on the Swedish model, he should refrain from comparing their positions with those of the American labor movement.