The Dictatorship

The straightforward reason why Americans struggle to unionize the workforce

Published

10 months ago

September 2, 2025

The straightforward reason why Americans struggle to unionize the workforce

On this Labor Day, more than any in recent memory, there is widespread bipartisan support in Congress and across America for the right to be in a union.

Unions are as popular now as they have ever been and they’re even receiving support from Republicans in Congress like Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley. Yet the labor law that’s currently on the books — the Wagner Act of 1935 — isn’t strong enough to protect workers who want to unionize.

The basic problem is straightforward: Employers don’t want their workers to unionize and are generally willing to fire union supporters to stop a union drive. That means that trying to form a union means risking your job, which is a risk that most workers rationally don’t want to take. That’s especially true when the law is too weak to provide recourse to pro-union workers who do get fired.

The share of workers who are in a union is below what it was before we had any labor laws.

The combination of hostile managers and weak labor laws equals very low unionization rates — in fact, the share of workers who are in a union is below what it was before we had any labor laws. These low union rates account for a great deal of the economic and political inequality that plagues American life.

Building a labor law that actually enables workers to form unions requires a lot more than tinkering with the existing systems. Regardless of party, lawmakers who are serious about making sure workers have a clear path to joining a union need to support reforms more fundamental than any we’ve seen since the New Deal.

These changes would take a two-step approach to tackling the root problems with organizing a union. First, make it easier for workers to unionize and win a collective bargaining agreement even if their employers oppose those efforts, and second, reduce the incentives for employers to fight union organizing drives in the first place.

To accomplish the first goal, Congress must increase penalties on employers that fire pro-union workers, limit employers’ ability to engage in union busting, and change the rules of collective bargaining to make it more likely that workers can win a contract. Many of these proposals are contained in the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Actwhich passed the House twice when Democrats last controlled the chamber, but has languished in the Senate.

Passing the PRO Act is just the start, however. One powerful idea would be to “flip the default.” Rather than assuming (as we do under current law) that workers want to be nonunion, we could start with the equally plausible assumption that workers want to be union. In such a system, we’d still hold union elections. But, like in politics where voters choose between representatives, workers would vote on which union they want to represent them not whether they want representation. And to ensure real freedom of choice, workers could run organizing campaigns to get rid of union representation altogether — if that’s what they prefer.

Labor law can also help reduce the reasons employers oppose unionization in the first place by changing the way unions and employers bargain contracts. Currently, workers in the U.S. who want to form a union must do so at their individual workplace or their individual employer. For example, if McDonald’s workers want a union, they’d have to organize one at a single McDonald’s restaurant. But if that McDonald’s is the only fast-food restaurant in the area to be unionized, then it likely would need to pay its workers more in wages and benefits than its local competitors.

Finally — and here there may be less bipartisan agreement — we need to shore up unions’ ability to act politically.

But in many developed economies, unions organize and bargain across an entire industry, not individual businesses. In this sectoral bargaining regime, no firm in a market is disadvantaged by being union because every firm in the market is covered by the union contract. Thus, no firm needs to see their workers’ organizing as an existential threat to their ability to compete.

Labor law reform, moreover, can’t just be about private sector workers, especially given the critical role that public employees have played in the labor movement. Congress therefore needs to fix a loophole in our laws that President Donald Trump has exploited to weaken federal unions. Using what was supposed to be a narrow exception for workers on the front lines of national security, Trump has denied almost 1 million federal employees collective bargaining rights. Any new labor law reform should include a new and clearer exception that is limited to just those workers traditionally excluded from the federal sector collective bargaining system — those working for the CIA, NSA, DEA, subdivisions of the Defense Department and the Treasury, and other employees in the intelligence field.

Speaking of the president, earlier this year, Trump fired National Labor Relations Board member Gwynne Wilcox, a Joe Biden appointee, years before the end of her term. When Congress created the board in 1935, it assumed that the board would be an independent agency, but an NLRB populated by appointees serving at the pleasure of the president is a different animal. The Supreme Court’s conservative majority has consistently granted Trump the power to jettison the independence of agencies like the NLRB (defying decades-old precedent). New labor laws must address these implications. While it’s unclear what form a federal labor authority should take in this new context, future reform should consider alternatives — such as granting workers a private right to sue employers — so they’re not dependent on a politically biased agency.

Finally — and here there may be less bipartisan agreement — we need to shore up unions’ ability to act politically. Without unions working as political actors, American workers would not be protected by minimum wage and overtime laws, antidiscrimination laws, or health and safety laws, nor would they enjoy the legal right to time off from work for family and medical emergencies. Unions secure these bread-and-butter protections for American workers through collective bargaining, yes, but also through electoral politics. And in a political system awash in corporate money, it is shortsighted to think that unions can do their job exclusively through collective bargaining.

As Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote more than 60 years agothe political activity of unions is “activity indissolubly relating to the immediate economic and social concerns that are the raison d’etre of unions.”

Across party lines, Americans support unions. If Democrats in Congress continue to stand up for labor rights, then it would only take a handful of Republicans to create the majorities needed to pass the reforms outlined in this piece. If Republicans are serious about supporting workers and their unions, then they need to stand up and address the root causes of the current system’s failures. For years, lawmakers on both sides have promised to fight for the working class. But words are not enough. Now is the time for action.

Sharon Block

Sharon Block is a professor of practice at Harvard Law School, and the executive director of the Center for Labor and a Just Economy. She is a former member of the National Labor Relations Board.

Benjamin Sachs

Benjamin Sachs is the Kestnbaum Professor of Labor and Industry at Harvard Law School.

The Dictatorship

Monday’s Campaign Round-Up, 6.22.26: Why Trump backed both Republicans in a key S.C. race

Published

18 hours ago

June 22, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Monday’s Campaign Round-Up, 6.22.26: Why Trump backed both Republicans in a key S.C. race

Today’s installment of campaign-related news items from across the country.

* In South Carolina’s gubernatorial raceDonald Trump endorsed Lt. Gov. Pam Evette last month. Last week, however, ahead of this week’s primary runoff election in the race, the president published an online item telling voters that “you can’t go wrong” with either Evette or state Attorney General Alan Wilson.

If this sounds at all familiar, it’s because Trump has done this before. Around this time two years ago, for example, he endorsed both Republicans running in a congressional primary in Arizona. And two years before that, he endorsed two leading contenders in a Senate primary in Missouri.

Only the president can say for sure why he ended up endorsing Evette and Wilson in the South Carolina race, though it’s worth emphasizing for context that GOP primary voters have already ignored his direction into two gubernatorial primaries this month, and it stands to reason that he hoped to avoid a third.

* We’re one day away from a variety of notable racesincluding but not limited to South Carolina’s gubernatorial race. There are also some congressional primaries in a handful of statesincluding Maryland, New York and Utah.

* In took a while, but the ballots have been tallied under Maine’s ranked-choice systemand we now know that Democrat Hannah Pingree, the former state House speaker, will face off against Republican Bobby Charles, who worked at the State Department during the Bush-Cheney era.

* As for Maine’s closely watched congressional racestate Auditor Matt Dunlap won the Democratic nomination in the battleground 2nd District, defeating state Sen. Joe Baldacci, who enjoyed the backing of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Dunlap will run in the fall against a familiar figure: former Republican Gov. Paul LePage, who had moved to Florida a few years ago, but who returned to run for Congress.

* In California’s congressional special electiontwo Democratic candidates — state Sen. Aisha Wahab and Melissa Hernandez, a Bay Area Rapid Transit director — have advanced to an Aug. 18 special general election. The winner will fill the vacancy left by disgraced former Rep. Eric Swalwell, who resigned in April.

* In a new commercial shared first with MS NOWDemocrat James Talarico has launched his campaign’s first multimillion-dollar ad buy in Texas’ gubernatorial race. In the 30-second spot, Talarico focuses on affordability and the cost of living. The state lawmaker will face scandal-plagued state Attorney General Ken Paxton in the fall.

* And in New Jersey, Republican Rep. Tom Kean Jr.who has been missing from Capitol Hill since early March, will reportedly return to work on June 30according to a statement from his spokesperson. Neither Kean nor his office have offered any public information about why he has been away.

Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”

The Dictatorship

Trump tries dual endorsement in South Carolina as his pick for governor flounders in polls

Published

18 hours ago

June 22, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Trump tries dual endorsement in South Carolina as his pick for governor flounders in polls

Jun. 22, 2026, 11:39 AM EDT

After President Donald Trump’s pick for governor in Iowa lost in the Republican primary earlier this month, the president argued that he “would have endorsed the other person” if he had “the proper information.”

Trump is taking no chances in the South Carolina gubernatorial primary. Over the weekend he rescinded his exclusive endorsement of Pamela Evette, the lieutenant governor, announcing instead that he would support both Evette and her runoff opponent, Alan Wilson, the state’s attorney general.

The move put Evette’s political future in jeopardy: Even before Trump’s dual endorsement, she trailed in limited public polling and was seen by political observers in South Carolina as a weak candidate with little to show besides the president’s coveted endorsement.

“Her chief distinction from Alan Wilson was that Trump endorsed her,” said Dr. Dubose Kapeluck, a professor of political science at the Citadel Military College of South Carolina.

Trump’s dual endorsement “was a kiss of death,” he told MS NOW.

Evette, who moved to South Carolina from Ohio to found a successful payroll and HR company in 2000, has been lieutenant governor since 2019, serving under Gov. Henry McMaster, who is term-limited.

In office, she has pursued meaningful but little-celebrated policies, like a key tort reform bill, according to Gil Gatch, a Republican member of the South Carolina state House and an Evette supporter.

But voters could be forgiven for knowing little about Evette besides the fact that Trump endorsed her, which he did just days before the June 9 primary. Visitors to her campaign website are greeted with a full-screen message labeling Evette as “Trump-endorsed.” The first line in her X bio states the same. Pro-Evette television ads are quick to tout the endorsement.

An accomplishment like tort reform, while noted on Evette’s website, “maybe could have been something that was highlighted more heavily,” Gatch told MS NOW.

The political makeup of South Carolina nearly guarantees the next governor will be whoever emerges on Tuesday between Evette and Wilson. They survived a crowded primary field on June 9, and nearly every challenger who fell short of the runoff publicly endorsed the attorney general.

“She’s just not a good candidate,” Josh Kimbrell, a state senator who failed to make the runoff and has since said he’d back Wilson, said of Evette.

“She kind of assumed this was a coronation, and that was never going to go over that well,” he added.

Even some pro-Trump voters were confused by the president’s initial endorsement of Evette, whom he called “a good friend, fighter, and WINNER” in a social media post in May.

“I have no clue why Trump would endorse Pamela Evette,” Leland Lemmons, a 30-year-old Trump supporter told MS NOW as he exited a polling site in the Greenville suburb of Easley on June 9.

“She’s served, you know, a decent time. I just haven’t seen much fruition of what she’s done in office,” he added.

In a post on Truth Social Friday announcing his dual endorsement, Trump wrote, “I can’t hurt one of them by only Endorsing the other, so, therefore, I am going to Endorse, for Governor of South Carolina, both Pam Evette and Alan Wilson!”

In a subsequent statement on X, Evette said, “I was proud to come in first as [Trump’s] endorsed candidate for Governor on June 9th. Looking forward to doing it again on June 23rd.”

After The Washington Post foreshadowed the dual endorsement last Tuesday, allies of Evette were quick to denounce the possibility.

“I would guess that’s fake news,” Suzanne Pucci, a member of Evette’s finance committee, told MS NOW of the chance Trump would also endorse Wilson. “She’s probably not real worried about it.”

Another close ally and supporter told MS NOW at the time the report was “a total, fabricated lie.”

“[Trump] is invested in Pamela Evette because she invested in him. He’s a loyal guy. That kind of stuff is important to him,” added the supporter, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

“With or without Trump, I think she is going to win,” they said.

On Thursday, a senior campaign aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity, brushed off the idea of a dual endorsement, telling MS NOW in a statement, “Pamela Evette has earned the complete and total endorsement of President Trump. She is the only Trump-endorsed candidate in this race and we look forward to delivering a big win for the president on Tuesday.”

Roughly 24 hours later, Trump retracted the exclusive endorsement.

Will McDuffie is a reporter for MS NOW.

The Dictatorship

Fears of an ‘economic catastrophe’ helped push Trump toward an Iran deal

Published

18 hours ago

June 22, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Fears of an ‘economic catastrophe’ helped push Trump toward an Iran deal

As last week’s G7 summit in France got underway, a reporter asked Donald Trump whether his purported deal with Iran was final. “No, it’s not final,” the president replied. Later that day — during a visit to Versaillesof all places — he signed the framework anyway.

But moments after signing his name to the memorandum of understanding, Trump offered an unsubtle hint about what he was thinking at the time. Amid applause from those around him, the American president pointed down and then up while saying“Oil down, stocks up.”

In other words, Trump’s focus had nothing to do with natural security and everything to do with the economy. What’s more, the four-word phrase was part of a larger and underappreciated pattern. The Washington Post reported:

In the more than 100 days since President Donald Trump launched a war with Iran, he has offered a shifting list of reasons for why he started the conflict. But in explaining his push for peace, he named a priority much closer to home: protecting the stock market.

“I didn’t want to see economic catastrophe,” Trump told reporters gathered in the Alpine spa town of Évian-les-Bains, France, after the Group of Seven summit.

As the summit wrapped up, the Republican similarly said“I’ve studied presidents, some good, some bad, some great. Not too many are great and some really bad. … And the one president I did not want to be was the late, great Herbert Hoover. I didn’t want that and who knows what would have happened.”

He pushed the same point in an interview with Axios, which was released over the weekend.

“If I went further, the stock market would be much lower,” the president said. “Now think of this: I have one primary wish as president, in terms of people: I never want to be the late, great Herbert Hoover.”

The comments came days after Trump similarly argued“The alternative to this deal was a global recession. There are stupid people who want to see a global recession. They are just stupid people.”

Whether the president fully appreciates the implications of his own rhetoric, this string of comments doesn’t just shed light on his motivations for accepting a defeat, it also suggests he saw his failed policy in Iran as pushing the global economy toward a dangerous cliff.

In other words, based on Trump’s own comments, the war he started was poised to create an “economic catastrophe,” which he was desperate to avoid — and which led him to accept a framework that empowered Iran to get what it wanted in exchange for effectively no concessions at all.