Where labor went wrong

[howaboutme]

They have permitted the right wing and corporate America to successfully spin and portray labor as harmful, greed based, and the reason for lost jobs. The outcome from that spin has been extremely harmful to every American because labor has lost political clout. There is no longer offsetting political power to the corporate elite.

The real function of unions is about establishing contractual employment security isn't it? The corporate mouthpieces (Limbaugh, etc) consistently spin the point that there shouldn't be rules that provide employment or wage security, and they portray a picture of incompetent lazy workers that can't be fired because of union contracts. They fail to mention that every CEO and executive in corporate America is protected from the Board and owners by much stronger contracts. These are the individuals who determine whether a corporation succeeds. They (unlike rank and file employees) actually get to decide the strategic and operational direction of a corporation and yet they demand much more pay and employment security than do the employees whose jobs depend on their decisions.

The labor movement is extremely important to our democracy and to a balanced middle class oriented government. Without the political power of organized labor, our country becomes an oligarchy where corporations and the rich will run our nation and government to their personal benefit. They will control government and they will steal our national, state and local assets just as the Russian oligarchs did in Russia. The real issue issue about the importance of labor is far more than the protections for individual employees. It is about the need for offsetting political power from the corporate elite.

The Democratic Party was at one time loyal to labor. That priority and loyalty ended with Bill Clinton signing NAFTA and it will be eroded further unless Obama and the Democratic Congress signs card check.

[endless october]

1. the Democratic party could help by formally embracing "trickle-up" economics.

this would consolidate several important messages into a memorable, simplified concept.

moving towards trickle up would benefit all socioeconomic groups in the long run.

[skeptical cynic]

2. I don't think they "permitted" anything

It was a well orchestrated attack by the people who control the money and the media (and the guns).

Peasants make passive citizens, docile employees and willing soldiers. Union busting is just part of the process of impoverishing, and thereby controlling, citizens.

In a nation where 70% of the GDP is based on consumption, what could make more sense than distributing wealth to consumers? Unless, of course, the real agenda is funneling wealth into a ruling class that has no long-term investment in the nation. Unless an impoverished citizenry provides docile workers and soldiers motivated by economically-induced patriotism upon which to build empire. Wealth is mobile. Wealth is loyal only to wealth. Wealth can segregate itself from the peasants. Wealth doesn't care whether workers are rich or poor, only that they produce and comply.

The Democratic Party has abandoned labor because it's abandoned democracy.

[howaboutme]

4. Well said

By "permitted" what I meant to say was that they failed to see this coming and use the resources and influence that they had to fight it while they had power.

Union management was often as self-centered as corporate management and they were content as long as they were getting good results for their members and more importantly were well compensated themselves and living the good life of power and prestige. They failed to think strategically. It was truly economic war and perhaps they were outmaneuvered and or infiltrated by the enemy (i.e. elite).

This late G. Carlin says it very well and powerfully too. You may have heard it. I've heard people say it was so powerful that he may have had more than the stroke or MI that was reported.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q

[skeptical cynic]

7. I'm "management" but

I've worked closely with and supported union labor for decades. I think you characterized it very well. They were, in many ways, betrayed by their own leadership. But I think they betrayed themselves too, by buying into the same neoliberal and militaristic mindset as everyone else over the last thirty years.

A union equipment operator working on the Trans-Alaska Pipeline in Alaska can make well over six figures in a year. It's very easy for someone making that kind of money, and enjoying the lifestyle of the bosses, to start thinking like them.

I'd like to see a resurgence of an aggressive labor movement that not only works on behalf of its membership but aggressively and very vocally works to add to union membership.

I frequently encourage "unskilled labor" I meet to visit the IWW website, and the World Socialist Website as well.

Socialism: It isn't just for corporations anymore.

[snot]

3. Great lecture on the role of changes in the law in the decline of unions:

at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBrSuBt5T6c&feature=player_embedded .

[howaboutme]

5. Very interesting

Thanks, these gentlemen sound very interesting. I will come back and listen to the rest.

[FBI_Un_Sub]

6. The labor movement

is absolutely essential to the existence of a middle class. But they kind of let their "tea baggers" get carried away over Brown v Board of Ed and school bussing -- then they went off and backed Louise Day Hicks and Pete Flaherty.

[mrcheerful]

8. The attack on labor started the very instant that unions were formed

Up in the northern states which had an industrial base, they were pro union, in the south unions were seen as a evil group that dared tell business owners how to treat their employees. In the 70's the country saw businesses leaving the north to head to southern states were unions were few and had little power, so southern workers were paid less then what the northern union workers were being paid plus none of the expensive benefits that union workers received.

Then 1980 saw the first election of a anti-union president who did everything to weaken unions power over business. An example of this was seen in Michigan when Kroger grocery stores, which were unionized, were sold, wink wink, to Kessel who then gave union workers the option to either leave the union and work for less pay or be fired. Two things that I saw first hand was 1) Kessel stores sold all Kroger brand goods 2) Kessel's prices were not very much lower then the union Kroger prices had been, which was what people were told when Kessel's opened, without unions the product prices would be much lower.

Even though the unions called for a ban on Kessel and Kroger stores, union members, many of whom voted for Reagan, went against the union. At the same time the auto corporations, with the help of Reagans policies on labor, started lay offs and down sizing. Union members blamed a soft UAW president for these tactics by the big 3, also the union workers were being blamed for the crappy cars the big 3 were producing, the excuse was union workers were paid high wages and got good benefits that made the costs of autos so high that the big 3 had to cut back on quality to produce an affordable auto.

Add to this the Reagan policy of free trade that allowed Japan to dump cheap auto's on the American market which costs a lot less then the crappy auto's that the big 3 were producing, plus the Japanese auto's weren't plagued with recalls like the big 3 ran into because of their CEO's cost cutting efforts in quality control.

The thing with NAFTA that keeps getting over looked was 1) it was wrote by a republican controlled house and senate 2) the republicans had enough votes to over ride a veto 3) Clinton signed the NAFTA bill with the provision that before NAFTA could take effect the countries involved with NAFTA had to be on equal playing fields with wages, safety and EPA standards. When the town drunk from Texas took the white house he signed those provisions that Clinton had put in away.

The real problem was by the time Clinton was elected corporations had already had 10 years of shipping factories out of country with the help of the Republicon tax give aways that gave corporations the capital to move the businesses out of country. Clinton signing NAFTA, a bill that would have been law anyhow, had very little to do with the corporate shipping jobs over seas, they had already been shipping jobs out a long time before Clinton. The free trade crap also started long before NAFTA was law, NAFTA just was an after thought by the pukes to put some legal dogma to make it seem legal practice, but free trade had been a con battle cry since tricky Dick was elected.

[howaboutme]

9. MrCheerful well said, but how do you stay cheerful?

The situation in the USA is dire. That's why I asked how you stay cheerful?

Our Congress and government is not now, nor has it been for decades actually working for the "We the People" that our US Constitution states is the source of our government. Instead "they" have other interests that take precedence, such as themselves, the multi-national corporations, multi-national lobbies, Wall Street, and even other countries. Some of these countries are absurdly permitted to bribe our government officials through campaign donations and in opposition to the law. But our laws are only rigidly enforced against average citizens. The elite always skate by.

That's why we need unions because if they are kept American they can serve to offset all the corrupt influences in our government. Globalism is about allowing the capitalist elite to dodge the law and tax obligations.