Why Do the Poor Cheer for the Rich?

[Judi Lynn]

July 10, 2012

Have the One-Percent Already Won?

Why Do the Poor Cheer for the Rich?
by DAVID MACARAY

Evidence that things are far, far worse than we ever dreamed can be seen in John Q. Public’s resentment of labor unions. Twenty-five years ago people who argued with me (and I had these arguments every day) about the contributions of organized labor used to maintain that unions were “bad” because they were either (1) too anti-democratic and dictatorial, or (2) too “corrupt” (i.e., mobbed up or otherwise “crooked”)

But that was the extent of it. No one suggested that unions weren’t beneficial, or that they weren’t devoted to the interests of working people or, considering the stark alternatives, that they weren’t, in fact, “necessary.” Rather, their gripes were confined to the procedural, to the way unions were governed. Or to be more accurate, to the way they perceived unions to be governed (because, in truth, people often confused “corruption” with simple laziness and inefficiency).

But that’s all changed. While you still hear the occasional grumbling directed toward “corrupt union bosses,” what people complain about today it that labor unions are “elitist.” It’s true. Shocking as that may seem, America’s working people actually use the E-word when referring to other working people—to people who, by virtue of a union contract, have managed to stay above water, who’ve managed to retain decent wages and benefits, and haven’t fallen victim to the biggest money grab since the Gilded Age.

At first I thought this attitude was simply a manifestation of petty jealousy or schadenfreude. But the more I hear, the more I’m convinced the public honestly believes that working people who feel they’re entitled to decent wages and benefits see themselves as being somehow “above the rest of us,” and should, therefore, be knocked down a peg or two. Instead of a union contract serving as a model for the rest of us—something to raise our standard of living—they see it as an insult, a humiliation.

More:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/07/10/when-the-poor-cheer-for-the-rich/

[leveymg]

1. Mimetic envy is part of the scapegoating behaviors that characterize politics

Last edited Tue Jul 10, 2012, 01:04 PM - Edit history (1)

Most people would rather sacrifice the innocent than ever attempt to punish the powerful. It just goes against their religion. Read Rene Girard, "Violence and the Sacred", on-line at Google Books:

Violence and the Sacred - René Girard - Google Books
books.google.com › Literary Criticism › General
Rating: 4 - 17 reviews
Ren Girard (1923-) was Professor of French Language, Literature and Civilization at Stanford Unviersity from 1981 until his retirement in 1995.Violence and the ...
http://books.google.com/books/about/Violence_and_the_Sacred.html?id=RGVKsW5rQ1kC

You won't look at politics, wars, authority, capitalism and religion the same way again.

[phantom power]

2. here's the thing... 25 years ago nobody suggested they *were* beneficial...

I was in high school then, and I very clearly remember nothing but stories about union inefficiency -- stories of the "you can't move that box that's my union job" variety, or the "mob corruption" variety, etc. A young kid never heard any stories about why unions were created in the first place, or any arguments about what the inevitable consequences would be if union influence disappeared.

So, now an entire generation or two have grown up hearing essentially "unions are bad". And, relatedly, "govt is bad."

The Dem/liberal wing of American politics lost the meme war over the last 30 years. Badly.

[1StrongBlackMan]

6. So true ...

I liken the "union messaging problem" to what happenned to the Civil Rights Movement among many African-American families.

Our parents (in some cases grand-parents, but I date myself) marched, sang, prayed, got fired, beat, and kept fighting.

When we "overcame", our parents were reticient to pass on the stories of the struggle to their kids. So those kids grew up able to drink from whatever fountian was available and were able to seat in whatever seat they purchased. In their minds, the Movement was "necessary" but the fight had been won and the movement was ancient history.

So that is what they taught their kids ... If they taught they anything about the Movement.

Whereas, I doubt we will ever go back to the de jure crimes of jim crow, in the labor movement, we are seeing how quickly the hard fought gains can be eroded, because we did not teach our children.

[Igel]

11. They lost it before that, I think.

My mother really didn't like unions. She was in one, and helped out, but resented that it basically helped (as she put it) "those fat slobs." The people who ran the union had always run the union, and basically liked the power, she said, and were entirely self serving. This was the late '60s and early '70s.

Her take: That the unions were there to prevent gross abuses in the workplace and make things safer while ensuring decent, reasonable benefits. Along the way, the goal of the unions became to gain more power for the unions; instead of preventing gross abuses the union made sure that management was hemmed in to prevent the possibility of any abuse, to make sure that nobody was ever asked to do one erg of work more than the contract allowed. In order to prevent workplace accidents, safety rules became nearly onerous.

So my mother's job was to collect samples of steel and check the plating and other surface properties. If somebody missed cutting a sample off a coil of sheet steel then she had to find somebody to do it for her. It was easy--you go up to the coil, you cut a piece off the edge, and that's that. But she wasn't allowed to do it. Sometimes she did. But if a union rep was around she'd ask for the appropriate person to come and cut off the chunk of steel. If there was only one, she might have to wait for hours. If it was early in a run, they'd run thousands of yards of steel before she could report back--and if the plating was wrong, they'd take those hours of production and send them back as scrap.

She came home one day spitting nails. The guy who was supposed to cut the piece of steel from coils was out sick overnight. Then the guy who came in in the morning had some problem and didn't get the samples cut quickly. She finally got the results of nearly 20 hours of production out and the entire run had to be scrapped. Scores of tons of sheet steel unacceptable for canned goods. They'd miss the contract for either that order or the next. The union guys, she said, just laughed. If it hurt the company it was funny. She was concerned that they'd lose the contract--and since they were already shutting down for 2 weeks every summer because of a lack of orders, she was worried. A year later her job was harder--she had to split her time between two mills because they lost that contract, one they'd had for 20 years. The guys who laughed? They retired. Five or six years later the only people working there were security guards.

Similarly with safety regs, e.g. steel-toed shoes and safety glasses. She'd spend hours in the "lab", such as it was and hours filling out reports. But since the union had the entire lab area designated as "lab", she had to wear safety glasses during her entire shift. Not just out on the floor or while dealing with reagents, where there could be some hazard to sight. In the lab the worst that could happen was to drop a flask on her foot. A pickle jar weighed more. But the contract had the entire building classified as a safety zone so she had to wear steel-toed boots not only because a flask might be dropped on her foot, but because she might drop a pen. So she'd sit there, at her desk, wearing steel-toed shoes and heavy safety glasses for hours because, well ... because the union made the company do it. Nobody liked it, but it was inconvenient for the company and showed the company who was boss.

Her point: Give men power, owners or unions, and they'll make sure they get as much power as they can and make sure things are run entirely for their own good--regardless of who gets hurt. (Later in life she finally amended that to something like "Give people power," but when I was growing up only men could be so petty.) A pox on both their houses.

[1StrongBlackMan]

3. This OP is exactly on point ...

I have these same discussions, and get the same responses, as the writer on a practically daily basis.

It have ceases to amaze me that whenever there is an article in the daily rag about working conditions for government workers, e.g., wage freezes, proposals to shift from defined benefit pension plans to defined contribution plans, Sick/Vacation leave pay-outs, there is an unending stream of working class people posting, "Good ... Now they can join the rest of us" and "Good ... They should have special rights because they have a union." (Nevermind, this is Arizona where unions have long been neutered.)

To this I usually respond, "It seems you have the argument exactly backwards ... Rather than fight for government workers to sink to what you are being paid, doesn't it make more sense for you to organize and fight for what government workers are being paid? Remember, pulling someone else into the mud and mire does nothing to lift you out; it just gets everyone dirty."

[pscot]

4. Stupidity, madame. Sheer stupidity.

[snacker]

5. Great read...

thank you for posting this.

[grasswire]

7. my sister, the teabagger, owes her cadillac retirement...

....and health care to the fact that school librarians are part of the teachers union. Yet she's a teabagger with all that hatred of unions and government. What a disconnect.

[Kablooie]

8. You gotta kiss them ass so they'll trickle down on you.

Unfortunately the trickle is yellow instead of green.

[kitt6]

9. This is not a Black

thing.

[SILVER__FOX52]

10. Leadership is the Key..............

The President needs to clarify, precisely, his support for Unions and demand that legislation be passed, that will stop Corporations from having the upper hand in unionization Elections.