Seeing that large banks are the most powerful political entity in America and one of the only institutions members of Congress will practically trip over each other in their rush to save from their own mistakes, I’m left wondering why all the major labor unions don’t get in on the action by starting their own banks.
With control of big financial reserves and large numbers of members, the larger unions already have basically all the most important things they need to start successful banks.
Amalgamated Bank, one of the few union banks from the 1920s to survive the great depression, shows that a union-owned bank can be run successfully and not behave like a bastard to their customers.
Most big banks are jerks
Most of the big national banks have basically turned into vampires. They have handled the mortgage crisis in a manner that is often outright fraudulent, and a big part of their business model is to bleed their customers dry with fees. If all the new union banks did was run at cost, so as to give their members accounts free of predatory fees and practices, while reducing the size of the big national banks, it would be a sufficient improvement to make the task worth it.
In addition, the new union-owned banks can provide favorable loans to businesses that are unionized, new union-owned businesses, and loans to members trying to start small companies organized as worker-owned cooperatives.
Greater influence in the world of finance
That is, of course, only the potential tip of the iceberg. The union bank would gain sufficient extra additional financial holdings from members deposits, the union’s deposits, retirement accounts and even municipal holdings. They could use this to expand their political and financial influence, for example, buying sufficient shares of the large companies that are unionized to give the unions significant voting power on the boards. Voting power on the boards is a key part of both the industrial and union success in Germany. If unions can’t do it by direct law here, maybe they can do it by finance.
Given how terrible the banks are in this country, I think if the major unions put a real push behind starting their own banks, it would be very well received. While not ideal, I can see the political writing on the wall in this winner-take-all economy. Unions are in decline and under all-out assault by Republicans. They need political power, and it seems the easiest way is to steal it from the incredibly powerful banks by starting their own.
Simple unity on wages is no longer enough
As our broken political system slowly turns into a plutocracy where political power flows from the few extremely wealthy individuals and corporations, regular workers united for collective bargaining on wages is no longer good enough. Labor unions should strive to be a force for fully unifying regular people’s collective political and, more importantly, financial power.




46 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
Excellent question. Amalgamated Bank is a worthy model. States should also have their own banks – like Bank of North Dakota.
More states did at the time. The banksters really hated that.
The credit union model approximates what you’re getting at here, I think. However, those entities can also be very aggressive with fees. In fact, without those fees, many of them would flip their net incomes to net losses. Hence, the unions should all get on the same page about this (and lots of other issues, for that matter) and form a federally-charted CU or bank – whatever entity makes the most sense legally and from a financial perspective. If it’s run efficiently, it could deliver good service at relatively low cost. Moreover, some serious nose-thumbing could be done to the large banks, which would make it worth twice the price of admission.
Given that the banking industry is rife with corruption (a criminogenic environment, as William Black has characterized it), why aren’t RICO statutes being applied? I’m not a lawyer and I don’t pretend to be, but from a lay perspective, it would seem like there might be some elements in those statutes that could bite down on these criminals. Then again, it would take an AG with some balls to get the train moving…which we clearly do not have, not at the Federal level, anyway…
I looked into the credit unions and the big problem is that big for profit banks have been very effective at pushing legislation the crippling their ability to compete.
This is true. It’s also true that the only way CU’s can add to their capital is with NI, whereas banks can sell stock, etc. This can be a significant impediment to growth.
Why not. Given that 80% of the income in this country goes to the top 1-2% of us, it would seem reasonable that the 20% getting the shaft would do well to get in the banking business.
personally I see no reason why as a country we even need banks. The entire sector could be replaced totally with credit unions with probably a very net positive effect to our economy over the long term.
Excellent example of the kind of out-of-the-box thinking Firedoglake members have come to expect from our contributors. Thanks, Jon, very eye-opening.
Union banks are a good idea, but a bit late. And another problem is the pernicious influence of what Thorstein Veblen called “pecuniary culture.” A good example is union pension funds that invest in hedge funds, or “boutique funds”, such as the infamous Kohlberg Kravis and Roberts. In effect, union pension funds — and state employee pension funds — for decades, have been helping build and support the “shadow banking system” that has financialized our economy and broken the link between productivity and wages.
No, we’re past the point of simple remedies such as setting up our own banks. We need a radical transformation of cultural thinking about banking and finance. The zombies and vampires of Wall Street, City of London, and Chicago futures markets must be annihilated – treated punitively and vindictively as the financial terrorists they really are. Seriously: financial terrorists, absolutely implying the full use of the panoply of the legal, extra-legal, military, and covert capabilities a sovereign nation state can bring to bear against terrorist threats. An excellent place to start is Enron, where threats against the nation’s energy supply were used to force lawmakers to pass legislation at the state and federal levels to enable Enron to game the electricity market. The memos all exist – of Enron, its lawyers, its financial partners (such as Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley), its lobbyists, and its public relations people. Adopt a zero-tolerance policy, start to lock people up, and squeeze them to sing – and don’t stop until you’ve put away the very top people on Wall Street and in finance and related law firms and other services generally. Less than 10,000 people in jail would be a sign of failure.
Agree, but it would be a hard sell to the MOTU bankers…like the current WH COS, for example.
Whenever wingnuts give me that “Obama is a Socialist” bullshit, I remind them that his COS is a former (former? Yeah right.) SVP for JP Morgan-Chase. Then I say, “Does that sound like a Socialist to you?” Whereupon, their heads explode.
I would also love to see the federal reserve as it currently exists, a quasi-private entity owned by the banks totally destroyed and replaced with a fully public government agency that doesn’t show banks any of the incredibly favoritism it now does.
O/T, but does anyone know what the latest is on the Japanese power plants? I can’t seem to locate timely information anywhere. Did the seawater gambit work, or is the situation still in a state of flux?
well with public education for all, public fire departments, public deposit insurance, socialized old age retirement funds and old age health insurance all American in the classic sense are all socialists.
The greatest PR win was for the shock doctriner to some how convince America we aren’t so they can justify stealing all the wealthy these socialist programs allowed America to generate by creating a highly productive (and once large) middle class.
Agreed. There is no justification for this system, and people do not realize that is did not always exist, that it did not always function as it does now, and that a number of defensible alternatives were proposed, while the main drawback was that they would made it more difficult for the already privileged to extend their privilege.
And by people I include most elite commentators, who have an annoying habit of pointing to the alleged intellectual failings of the people while being blind to the actual intellectual failings of elites.
That is funny, because it makes my head explode too, but for different reasons.
Good point.
I’m not sure the unions don’t have more leverage with their money in the banks. I found this interesting.
http://www.thenation.com/article/159190/walker%E2%80%99s-big-bank-donors-take-hit
Hey, I’m all for it. Maybe we could even get a cool title, something that incorporated those phrases the banksters like, such as “Citizens United” bank.
Heh. I love it! GO JON!
Maybe the NFL players can become the new banksters….there is a pun here somewhere. As in they know how to move the ball or protect the goal line or knock out the opponent. I just think the players may have some experience of understanding the importance of rules.
Book Salon up with Patrick Eddington’s Long Strange Journey: An Intelligence Memoir hosted by Tim Shorrock
North Dakota has a state bank and they’re in fiscal solvency. California doesn’t and we’re up shit’s creek. WHY oh WHY don’t we have a fuckin’ bank?
After the Civil War, my great-great grandfather and a bunch of other farmers founded thier own bank.
Hamel State bank, it still survives today.
It can be done.
This is moronic. To be the huge powerful institution that you fear, you have to become that institution. The reason that they are the way they are is that they don’t behave responsibly. No reasonable bank would leverage 30:1 that is what got us in trouble. All these credit union things are just small change. It is not possible to oppose evil by becoming evil. What happens for instance when church and state are mixed? The church people always think that they will win but what happens is that the state takes over the church. The best for which you can hope is to regulate the evil so that you are not consumed by it.
Hmmm … You sure do have a lion’s share of the hedge funds with folks like Larry Fink who openly prefer totalitarian governments. They own your state representatives and nothing will continue to happen. Just having the unions get behind this effort means an instant shift in the playing field. Then the unions need to make it easy enough for new members to join … like SAG (hinty, hint, hint).
excellent idea. I’ve used credit unions for years, much prefer them to regular banks.
{ Dear Moderati, can you check user access to the Book Salon? The URL redirects to itself then after a few seconds of unsuccessfully attempting to resolve the URL, spits out the error “Unknown login key.” Thank you! }
The basic business of a bank is to borrow short-term (e.g. demand deposits) and lend long (car loans, mortgages) which ordinarily have higher interest rates.
Even if you are not in the market for a loan, you still need services: check cashing, funds transfers, ATM access. In the old days, banks did that for free to attract deposits. Now they want to charge fees on top of that.
What I would love to see is the IRS provide basic banking services. I have an IRS account, my withholding goes into it, my tax payments come out of it, they pay me Treasury Bill interest (approximately zero right now) on the balance, my Social Security payments and anything else coming to me goes into it. I can cash checks or whatever at a Post Office. I get an ATM card good anywhere, with zero-fee ones at the PO. I could have direct deposit of my paycheck. I could buy and redeem longer-duration Treasury securities (like Treasury Direct). So unless I am looking for a loan or a credit card, or to park money in CDs, I don’t need a bank at all. Let banks look for funds in the securities markets like everyone else.
EDIT: Oh, yeah, and my Single-Payer health insurance premiums can be directly paid from it too!
This IS the future.
Are there enough union members left to support more union banks?
Why don’t labor unions have their own party, their own press…they lack imagination at the top. While I never agreed with everything that Andy Stern did, I can understand why he left the AFL-CIO.
Look at HuffPost for what appears to be good update info.
Keiser is right on. Obama is a tool of the megabanks which prefer totalitarian governments such as Obama is embracing for us. I teach at a community college here in SoCal and we’re being told to eliminate the basic skills (remedial) curriculum. “Hey poor people? How would you like another nice kick in the teeth?”
Maybe FDL should start a credit union. The one I belong to started out REAL TINY in (maybe) 1979. It’s relatively large now; services are pretty good (not TERRIFIC), but certainly better than banks–especially the large ones.
I’m 51 – it seems to me that union “leadership” has been pretty much like Democratic Party “leadership” for 30 years —
lots and lots of the seriously politically incompetent, plenty of sell outs and lots of the veal pen crowd.
walker is the NATURAL AND LOGICAL consequence of raygun-ism -
why are sell outs and incompetents the natural state of “the left” ??
rmm.
There are a lot of credit unions that have close associations with unions (although not “union-owned”). These union-inspired credit unions usually provide good service to the members, but do not play the same role in politics and the general economy as the big banks.
Credit unions are a good alternative to the big banks for consumers, but there still needs to be legislation to reign in the giant money center banks. We need to bring back Glass-Steagall and create stronger anti-trust rules on the banking sector.
We have heard talk of a labor party, or a union-dominated third party, for many, many years — and nothing has come of it.
The unalterable fact is that a Labor Party has little or no chance of ever winning a national election, and probably could not even win a state-wide election in any more than four or five states.
Obama and the subverted Federal apparatus (please see this little gem by Teddy today, “TSA Slips Scanner Re-Testing into Busy Friday News Day,” on the @#$% TSA and Janet Napolitano) is trying to get us all to smile and say, “Got Gulag?“
I love that idea, as long as these banks have charters that limit them to simple, bread and butter transactions. Nothing more complicated than commercial paper, if that.
I also would be interested in unions setting up an investment fund for 401Ks…
Lastly, I know nothing about labor law, but I’ve never understood why I can’t just join a union, whether my company is organized or not. Chris Matthews had a great comment last night about there being a real need for unions to be the advocate of all working people in American society, not just indirectly but overtly. I’ve always thought that…I’m not interested in a union that spends all its time handling complaints about who threw spitballs at whom in the company cafeteria, but we all need an institution that will fight for us when it comes to college debt, or home foreclosures, health and safety issues (including the environment), trade policies, etc. The system is too big for any of us to fight alone; we’ll get eaten up by the machine, just like so many have over the past few years.
Why not allow people to pay $25/month to a union of their choice that vigorously engages in legal warfare on behalf of workers and consumers (as a group), organizes protests, creates institutions like your banking idea, etc etc. I suppose you would have to have some kind of firewall between members who had organized at a company, and those who were part of a broader association, but it would be great to have voting rights and the ability to get involved at any level of the union machinery itself.
I suppose what I’m describing is an array of trade associations, run by today’s unions on behalf of all workers.
The bank doesn’t need to have any branches, run it all online, the USAA way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USAA
One fact ignored by your proposal is the experience of Amalgamated Bank itself.
Amalgamated was able to do nothing to halt the decline of the International Ladies Garment Workers Union and, later, UNITE. Indeed, it became a huge bone of contention between UNITE, HERE, and the SEIU, and caused a great deal of tension and disunity among the three. The fight over the bank harmed the labor movement more than anything else.
Of course AB was unable to halt the decline of UNITE – its industry was dying in the US, and culturally it was ill prepared to engage in the kind of organizing that might have allowed it to expand. Having a tool only helps if you are in a position to use it.
It is also strange to blame the existence of the bank for the dispute between SEIU / Workers United and UNITE HERE. Given SEIUs history of seeking to engage in hostile takeovers of other unions, and their efforts to poach union members, there is little reason to think the dispute would not have arisen if the bank did not exist. What is more, it would have been less of a prize if there were more than one such banks. It was not the existence of the bank, but rather the dispute between Raynor and Wilhem and their allies about what sort of union UNITE HERE would be and SEIUs intervention in that dispute that caused the tensions.
I think a non-profit financial institution would be an excellent idea. (Though I think the ideal answer is simply a non-profit Bank of the United States. which eliminates the bank middlemen altogether is the best).
But why stop there? How about a progressive-minded free internet provider, maybe one that can sideskirt any unfavorable net neutrality rulings. Can’t CREDO, which also handles phones now, do internet? (I have an aircard with Sprint, and I would love to switch to CREDO if they provided the service).
stewartm
All true, but the point is the same.
The existence of AB could do nothing to halt the decline of UNITE. What is the point of a union bank if it cannot help strengthen the union? And It’s not at all clear to me how UNITE should have “used” the AB tool in a way that would would have prevented decline.
And you are absolutely correct that AB was not the main issue in the struggle between SEIU and UNITE. I overstated my point there.
Yes, California should have its own state bank and so should CALPERS, the pension fund for public workers, including teachers.
Credit Unions… They are who the normal unions should talk to and try to consolidate to gain a bigger advantage.
Some Unions in NJ have loose ties to credit unions.