Stories

A Union Cure Worse than the Income Inequality Disease?

Matthew Lau
May 21, 2015
A new report from a left wing think tank has found that income inequality goes up when unionization rates go down. The solution is obvious: more and bigger unions will make us all richer. Except they won’t, because high unionization rates also correspond with poor economic performance, including lower income growth for everybody. Besides, the primary beneficiaries of unionization in Canada today are public servants, who earn more, work less, and retire earlier on bigger pensions than their private sector counterparts. That’s where real income inequality lies, writes Matthew Lau, despite all the clamour for raising taxes on the “rich” and making corporations pay their “fair share.”
Stories

A Union Cure Worse than the Income Inequality Disease?

Matthew Lau
May 21, 2015
A new report from a left wing think tank has found that income inequality goes up when unionization rates go down. The solution is obvious: more and bigger unions will make us all richer. Except they won’t, because high unionization rates also correspond with poor economic performance, including lower income growth for everybody. Besides, the primary beneficiaries of unionization in Canada today are public servants, who earn more, work less, and retire earlier on bigger pensions than their private sector counterparts. That’s where real income inequality lies, writes Matthew Lau, despite all the clamour for raising taxes on the “rich” and making corporations pay their “fair share.”
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter

Lau - Union

The historic election of an NDP majority government in Alberta on May 5 was cause for celebration among left wing organizations across Canada, no doubt including the Ottawa-based Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. Only days before the election, the CCPA published a report claiming that more, bigger, and stronger unions are needed in Canada to strengthen the middle class and reduce income inequality. Alberta NDP Premier-elect Rachel Notley could be the answer to their prayers. She had a long career as a labour lawyer prior to entering politics in 2008, working for several public sector unions in Alberta and British Columbia. During the election campaign, she courted unionized civil servants by promising increased hiring and spending in education and healthcare.

That augurs well for the objectives of the CCPA, which said in its report that “the hollowing out of Canada’s middle class, particularly its upper middle class, is closely associated with the decline of unionization in Canada – especially in the private sector.” Furthermore, according to the CCPA, “a union card is not only a ticket into Canada’s middle class, it’s the key to upward mobility within the middle and upper class.” That’s because unionized workers – especially in the public sector – get higher wages, better pensions and benefits, and better job security. Call it the union advantage.

Unfortunately, the union advantage is often a significant disadvantage for employers – who are mostly the taxpayers. In 2012, according to Statistics Canada, the national public sector unionization rate was 71.4 percent, over four times as high as the unionization rate in the private sector. Between 1997 and 2012, the percentage of all unionized workers employed by government rose from 51.6 percent to 57.4 percent.

High unionization rates are a driving factor behind the inflated costs of government services. According to a recent study by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, on average federal government employees earn a 33.2 percent premium over comparable private sector workers (after taking wages and benefits into account), provincial government employees earn a 21.2 percent premium, and municipal government employees earn a 22.3 percent premium. The CFIB’s study shows that if government employees in Canada received the same wages and benefits as private sector workers, taxpayers would have saved at least $20 billion in 2010.

Similarly, a series of Fraser Institute reports released earlier this year found that the wage premiums alone for government workers are 11.5 percent in Ontario, 6.7 percent in British Columbia, 6.9 percent in Alberta, and 10.8 percent in Quebec. In each of these provinces, the Fraser Institute also found that public sector workers invariably retired years earlier than their private sector counterparts, had higher absenteeism rates, were much more likely to have pensions (almost all defined benefit), and were far less likely to lose their jobs.

The taxpayer-funded income premium enjoyed by unionized public sector workers cannot be sustained forever by the relatively poorer private sector workers. But closing the gap by unionizing more private sector workers, as the CCPA suggests, is not economically sustainable either. The Montreal Economic Institute has noted that jurisdictions with higher union densities tend to have higher unemployment rates, lower capital investment, and poorer economic growth. One of the consequences of this would be, ironically, lower tax revenues to sustain civil servants.

Recent economic evidence seems to confirm the findings of the Montreal Economic Institute. As the CCPA’s paper shows, 1980 to 1995 was a period characterized by relatively high union density and relatively low income inequality compared to the 1995 to 2010 period, when union density declined and income inequality rose. Hence their conclusion that more unionization is needed to reduce inequality and improve the standard of living for more Canadians.

However, data from Employment and Social Development Canada shows that from 1980 to 1995, the average family-adjusted after-tax income decreased by 2.3 percent for Canada’s poorest quintile, 1.9 percent for the richest quintile, and 5.6 percent for everyone in the middle. From 1995 to 2010, the period with lower union density, incomes increased by 24.8 percent for the poorest quintile, 41.1 percent for the richest quintile, and 29.5 percent for the middle classes. In other words, everyone got richer when unionization declined – and the rich prospered the most.

Some have argued that class envy, stoked for years by the left and its allies in public sector unions, was a strong influence in the Alberta election. Both the Progressive Conservatives and the NDP promised higher income taxes on the rich, but the latter outbid the PCs by promising corporate tax hikes too. Class envy has also been manifest at the federal level, where the NDP and Liberals have assailed Conservative promises of family income splitting and higher contribution levels in Tax Free Savings Accounts as giveaways to the rich.

That Albertans decided to exchange the Alberta Advantage for the Union Disadvantage suggests that many voters currently envy the rich more than they do unionized public servants. It will be interesting to see if the idea that soaking the rich and growing the unions to reduce income inequality resonates with voters across Canada in the fall federal election.

~

Matthew Lau is a finance and economics student at the University of Toronto.

Love C2C Journal? Here's how you can help us grow.

More for you

The Housing Market Isn’t Racist. Blame Your Parents Instead

Diversity may be our strength. But it is now alarmingly commonplace in Canada to blame any perceived diversity in outcomes between racial groups on vaguely-defined “systemic racism” or “white supremacy”. Case in point: the Federal Housing Advocate’s allegations of rampant racism in Canada’s housing market, and the need to address it with outlandishly disruptive policies. Delving deep into Statistics Canada’s ample supply of race-based data, Peter Shawn Taylor considers the evidence for racism in Canadian housing, education, income and poverty statistics, and finds a more convincing explanation much closer to home.

Young Offenders: Meet the Angry Socialists Poisoning Our Politics

Social media is widely blamed for poisoning the public conversation on a range of topics – especially politics and contentious social questions. But there’s a possibly even more dangerous force growing on the internet: an online community of YouTubers and livestreamers spouting far-left dogma, praising political violence and denigrating their opponents as evil, far-right fascists. Using fallacious arguments, psychological manipulation and overheated rhetoric, they seek to radicalize young people and convert them to their cause. Millions are tuning in, and mainstream “progressive” politicians are jumping on their bandwagons. Noah Jarvis profiles three of these socialist crusaders and explains why they are such a threat.

The Worrisome Wave of Politicized Prosecutions

Shaping criminal charges, bail decisions or prison sentences around an accused person’s political or religious beliefs is utterly odious – a hallmark of tinpot tyrannies and totalitarian hellholes. Such practices have no place in any constitutional nation, let alone a mature democracy that presents itself as a model to the world. But that is increasingly the situation in Canada, writes Gwyn Morgan. Comparing the treatment of protesters accused of minor infractions to those of incorrigible criminals who maim and kill, Morgan finds a yawning mismatch that suggests political motivations are increasingly a factor in today’s criminal justice system.

More from this author

Trudeau’s Economic Incompetence in Seven Charts

A picture may be worth a thousand words, but a good chart can explain billions. With just a few simple lines, a chart can bring complicated economic facts into sharp focus – revealing, for example, the growing gap in living standards between Canada and the U.S. since 2015. Or the $127 billion in excess spending by the federal Liberals even before the pandemic hit. Or the impact of the recent spike in inflation. Using seven custom-created charts, Matthew Lau illustrates and explains the financial devastation wrought by the Trudeau government’s fiscal policies throughout the Canadian economy. Troublingly, Lau’s final three charts suggest the worst is yet to come.

Erin O'Toole won the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada by promoting a "big tent", but what does that coalition mean?

An Unwise Union: How Workers Will Suffer From Erin O’Toole’s Embrace of Big Labour

Erin O’Toole became leader of the Conservative Party of Canada on the strength of his Big Tent vision for the party. But how big should that tent be? Recently O’Toole surprised commentators by extolling the benefits of the union movement and repeating many of its claims as Conservative policy. Matthew Lau charts the origin of this unorthodox political strategy, and its worrisome economic implications. If the Conservatives want to attract workers’ votes, he argues, they should start by recognizing the damage done by unions to growth and job creation.

The Right To Be Fat: Pushing Back Against Government Overreach

Would beloved comic actor John Candy have lived longer if government forced him to eat less? What about Orson Welles? Or Luciano Pavarotti? Perhaps. Would they have been happier or more successful? We’ll never know the answer to the first, and as to the second, almost certainly not. Candy built his career around a lovable portliness, Welles often played menacing fat men and Pavarotti’s girth helped him belt out arias. A few extra pounds, in other words, offers both advantages and disadvantages − and it should be up to the individual to decide how to balance the scales. As governments ramp up policies designed to put their citizenry on a diet, Matthew Lau sallies forth in defence of eating what you want, and exercising only when you feel the need.

Share This Story

Donate

Subscribe to the C2C Weekly
It's Free!

* indicates required
Interests
By providing your email you consent to receive news and updates from C2C Journal. You may unsubscribe at any time.