Organized labor is the oldest, largest and most successful social movement in the United States. Organized labor has been the wave that lifted all boats, leading the way to retirement with dignity, 40-hour workweeks, two-day weekends, extra pay for overtime and access to quality healthcare for working people. Today, organized labor is still the best-funded and organized progressive force in the… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (41)Page 1 of 1 pagesFYI,,,
Sheila Sample’s original article (1)“Last Man To Concede” was answered by me with an (2)untitled letter to her, which she then answered in her article (3)“Dear John”, which in turn was then responded to by my article (4)“Dear Sheila”.
The series of all four articles are located at: http://www.neitherparty.com/nei_blog.taf
Either combined or separate, they offer a pretty decent read and a pathway to more of Sheila’s powerful writing. The articles also offer a rationale for a third political pary which aims to bring together many other third parties under one banner. It is located at www.neitherparty.org .
Might your readers like to be made aware of a worker-friendly third party?Regards,,,John
Posted by John Rice on Jan 21, 2005 at 7:00 PM The Labor unions are obsolete organs of struggle. In fact their role has been transformed into that of de facto “labor relations” branches of corporate America. In a global economy the AFL-CIO , a national organization, is impotent. It is no wonder that provincial attitudes prevail in strike movements.
Workers have achieved much greater gains in the past, all over the world, with organizations like strike committees and workers’ councils. These are directly controlled by the workers themselves who choose delegates from among themselves to represent them. The delegates are not professionals and their positions are revocable at all times. The negotiations with the bosses are open, and the voting among the workers is done by raising hands,not by ballots. Strike committees and workers’ councils have always functioned outside union control. They have a natural tendency to spread beyond the immediately affected workers and to encourage solidarity among workers. Historically as in the 1917-1923 period and in the late 70’s, they have been able to spread almost effortlessly across national borders.
Unions are to be rejected. They once played a progressive role but today they have become organs for the suppression of the class struggle. Their decline is good news for the working class worldwide.
Posted by rojito on Jan 22, 2005 at 3:09 AM Well rojito, you think unions and what they stand for are no longer needed. What’s Americans suppose to do when all industry and electronic work is being jobbed out to foreigners
like China and India. What are Americans left with 5.oo dollar an hour jobs. I wonder how that pompous ass Bush and his group of henchmen are going to run this country with the taxes they’ll get from people with 5.00 an hour jobs?
Posted by Pat Grzybowski on Jan 22, 2005 at 7:09 AM The above two comments regarding labor unions underscore what is most lacking among the so-called
labor movement today: intelligent and strategic thinking. Hard facts reveal that unions today are mostly comprised of workers in dying private industries and of apathetic public employees. Period. The AFL-CIO does a great job speaking for these workers, but that is where its role stops, dead in its tracks. The AFL-CIO simply doesn’t have the will or capacity to change. SEIU, for the most part, is a smoke-and-mirrors orgaization that has grown through mergers and brutal consolidations of locals, not real organizing. Pat Grzybowski (above) asks how Bush will run the country with the taxes from $5 an hour jobs; open your eyes, Pat: he’ll run it just the way he is at this very moment until a real labor movement is born (not reborn) in this country. But don’t hold your breath just yet on that.
Posted by H.P. Albarelli Jr. on Jan 22, 2005 at 12:18 PM Well Abarelli, my d/h belongs to the IBEW and they do a pretty good job trying to keep their union strong. Our town alone has lost alot of industry. Quaker Oaks, Sherwood Medical, Nestles Cat and Dog Food Manafacturers, Stetson Hat and several others whose name escape me at the moment. They were all union. We almost lost Wire Rope which is stronly union. These jobs all paid high wages. I know alot of these people had to take a couple of low paying jobs when this happened just to survive. I really do not think Bush is a President of the people, he is a President of big buisness.
Posted by Pat Grzybowski on Jan 22, 2005 at 7:01 PM Unions have done a piss poor job of showing people that the decline in worker participation in collective bargaining is directly propotional to the decline in our standard of living.
$15.00 dresses at Walmart isn’t the answer. Killing to secure oil for petro-chemicals and patent medicine should constitute the tort of professional malpractice on the heathen fat cat lo rent ho’s a.k.a country club Republicans and/or fat cat apologist Dems.
Ah well, it’s a small price to pay as long as those silly fags can’t marry.
Posted by Brad Thrasher on Jan 23, 2005 at 6:37 AM Bush has pushed the reset button on the economy, taking up where Red ink reagan started and his dad continued. America will be how they want it when the minimum wage is a dollar a day, and the average annual income is a few hundred dollars. When America was an immigrant nation and hundreds of thousands came daily, labor was dirt cheap and fortunes unimaginable today were made from the blood and bones of our predecessors. Bush wants to bring those days back.
Posted by Bigfoot on Jan 23, 2005 at 8:01 AM I’m sorry you are so down on unions Brad. However I think they are the only friend the blue collar worker has between the worker and management. We all know what big buisness would do if there were no unions. Everyone knows what happened between the time this country started receiving immigrants and the 1930’s when alot of men died to win their chance for bargaining power. Big buisness would be in 7th heaven if they could get away with paying everyone minimum wage, they don’t care about us, only what we can do for them as cheaply as possible. They are thrilled to death with out sorcing and moving their industries to 3rd. world countries where they can get people to work for 2 bucks an other. But even with tarriffs, they bring their product back to the states and put a price tag on it like union people had made it. I guess when bodies are laying in the streets stinking everything up because people can’t afford insurance and we have riots constantly like the watts riot of the 60’s they will be happy.
Posted by Pat Grzybowski on Jan 23, 2005 at 9:04 AM The problem is the lack of optimism, the high amount of cynicism, the unwillingness to get involved, and the liberal pandering. Labor unions have always been a force for good in this country.
The onslaught of corporate power combined with the push of globalization has not only marked a decline in our living standards here but everywhere. Intelligent and strategic thinking may be lacking to a certain degree but what the labor movement is lacking is two really important things - PASSION and COURAGE.
It took passion and courage for the workers of UPS to shut down that biz for two weeks in 97. It took passion and courage for the UAW and the UFW and UNITE-HERE and the rest to accomplish all of the wonderful things for this country that they have done over the course of its existence.
The law’s in this country are stacked against Labor in favor of big business. The Taft-Hartley Act turned Labor into business, made secondary-boycotts illegal, amongst other things. Corporations are “people” under the law. Labor is not. Therefore the employees of a corporation are not entitled to the same rights under a corporation that they are entitled to under the US government. This is a problem, Labor has no recourse but to behave politely. That’ll have to end.
But I digress. If all of us showed a little more faith, a little more passion, a little more courage, if we stopped being cynical and telling each other “not to hold your breath” for labor to make a revival, and started saying “I support the employees and I support their unions” people might start listening.
We can speculate all we want or we can stop crying like the liberal intellectuals we want everyone to perceive us as and remember that people were actually killed fighting for all the things we take for granted today.
I love having the weekend off, I have Labor to thank. For some reason, I think we owe it to not only Labor but to ourselves to be a little bit more supportive.
Posted by R B J on Jan 23, 2005 at 9:10 AM Hi RBJ,
The first responce I wrote to you got blew off, guess someone didn’t like what I said. I agree with most everything you had to say. Every opportunity I have I appauld unions. I’m not sure about unions who take in people from such varied jobs. How could the heads work hard for each different group? It sounds like a monopoly to me. There was some talk about people ignoring belonging to unions and having their own group thing on a personable level amongst themselves intheir work place. I don’t understand how they would have any clout with management. The majority of our reps and congress men are republican and unions are not going to get very far with them in power. We know who they represent. I never could understand why an hourly wage earner would vote for a republican even if democrats are liberal. Even though we didn’t like Clinton’s personal life, we were doing pretty good, making good money, saving money, paying on the national debt and even having that cushion of money saved for a rainy day. Then Bush gets in office and gives the bulk of it away to the rich. He goes to war with Iraq so big business can have the oil and keep his back scratched. But look at all our men loosing their lives and getting maimed for that. How many of them do you think were union workers in their normal lives. You know they sent men who were in their 30’s and 40’s over to Iraq. I bet quite a few were union. I don’t have much else to offer on the subject of unions except I hope they can come back strong someday.
Posted by Pat Grzybowski on Jan 23, 2005 at 10:38 AM Pat, I’m no more “down on unions” than I am our grunts and jarheads in Iraq. I support our troops not the war. I support collective bargaining and workers. I don’t support;
(1) Boneheads who have proven themselves less than competent to the task of increasing membership or even maintaining worker participation at previously achieved levels.
(2) Unions that have negotiated away previously earned benefits while management is awarded bonuses for accomplishing the rollbacks.
(3)Whining about the unfairness of advanced corporate power & influence is futile. I don’t need whiners representing me at a negotiating table.
If we are to advance our cause and stem the trend of declining membership; restore dignity and improve conditions in the workplace; we must admit our failings and pick those fights we can win. If the pro-corporate gubmit of the day won’t enforce environmental and worker protections at WTO & NAFTA; WE should be suing for specific performance.
Posted by Brad Thrasher on Jan 23, 2005 at 5:36 PM It seems to me that a lot of the union members who are complaining about the quality of their union and its bargaining are doing so from afar. “The Union” was at one time “Our Union”. The rank and file has the responsibility, if not the sole responsibility, to change the bargaining environment in our favor. Those “boneheads” in the union are victims of laws purposefully stacked against them in order to make bargaining more difficult. But I do agree, things have to change but it’ll take the participation of more than those employed in Labor.
Secondary Boycotts, a legitimate expression of employee solidarity, are illegal in this country. In France, they happen all the time. The negotiating table is slanted in the direction of the employers, all the goods roll down to them. The only weapon we have - the strike, is like a dirty word now. But I agree, Labor needs to do some reshuffling if they are to have a social-movement value in the future.
-They need to become more localized, less national, and get back into the grassroots biz.
-The AFL-CIO has been given too much clout in Labor, how is it that an organization that does not directly represent employees or descend to the depths of the bargaining table have more clout than those that do?
-Let’s take the “whining” and turn it into a screaming (a banshee like screech) about corporate power. It is very rare that I come across someone who trusts wholeheartedly the power of corporations - that is indicative of something. Everyone who works for a wage in this country gets union benefits without paying the dues. Labor has to make it apparent that the benefits of unionism are available and utilized by all across all political spectrums. If labor can show that corporate power is truly a threat to the apathetic or the boneheads, something might give in. Knowledge is a weapon.
-A more active rank and file. We whine about the unions whining about corporate power and giving us terrible contracts.
It is our responsibility (the rank and file) to make sure that our union is active and energetic. It is our responsibility to make sure that our co-employees are aware and active in the situation. The staff of the union are merely our hired goons, if they are not doing the job the way we want them to do it - then something has to give. An employer doesn’t sue his/her employee for bad work - he/she fires or demotes them.
The problem with Labor is deeper than in Labor itself though. The problem is systemic, institutionalized and a product of an individualistic, selfish “ownership” society. We have to be willing to take losses, accept failures and chip in a buck or two every now and then - else the fault rests on us as well.
Posted by R B J on Jan 23, 2005 at 6:18 PM I agree 100% with RBJ. And no, I’m not a disgruntled Union member. I’m honorably withdrawn due to a mid-life carrer change.
But thanks for using the same tactic toward loyal dissenters that corporate America uses by demonizing so-called disgruntled employees.
Aren’t we supposed to be different?
Posted by Brad Thrasher on Jan 23, 2005 at 7:27 PM Brad,
My apologies. It was not my intention to use those tactics against you. I was merely reusing your word choice to expand and comment on your previous posting and most of what I said was not directed at you or your posting in particular.
In fact, I agree with what you say. It seems that we are rolling along on the same ball.
There is a lot of whining in Labor and everyone seems to blame everyone else for its faults. You said “we must admit our failings and pick the fights we can win.” I couldn’t agree more and this is exactly what is missing in Labor.
That tactic however seems to work in the corporate world, maybe we should just give Corporate America a whole lot of demons to identify. Swamp them with disgruntled employees and then see how well that tactic works.
Respect
Posted by R B J on Jan 24, 2005 at 2:43 AM Brother/Sister RBJ,
or maybe we de-sex and refer to each other as fellow or friend.
So what fights can we win? Is staying married to Democrats in our best interest in terms of advancing our agenda? Is it in our best interest to have our agenda perceived as directed by Satan by more than 50 million voters? Are there ways we can reach out to the bible thumping born again curiosity challenged true believers in the Walmart way cementheads?
Whatever we do in politics it won’t amount to jack unless we take back the churches. The Prince of Peace who represents our values; solidarity and brotherhood in the pursuit of enlightenned self-interest ain’t the Jesus Christ being sold to Americans today.
We’ve been hosed by amendments to Taft-Hartley because our membership outside of Michigan through Pennsylvania can’t elect a dog-catcher. Seems to me we have to go where our people are and right now that’s church on sunday and activism within the churches all week long.
In Wealth & Democracy, Kevin Phillips makes the case for collective bargaining and what Unions did to create the middle class. Since 1979 though we really haven’t had a clear and convincing win. To a very real extent our accomplishments are yesterday’s news.
The mentality that was once “get home knock back a couple martinis, wrestle with the missus and forget it” is now “yeah things might be tough, we’re at war but I can still buy a pair of jeans and a t-shirt at Walmart for 20 bucks.”
I dunno how to communicate it in a way that the mentality described above would get it. None of us do. It just seems that’s our challenge.
Oh did somebody start this thread with an essay on the future? good, we’re still on topic :)
Posted by Brad Thrasher on Jan 24, 2005 at 4:06 AM Brad and RBJ,
You both sound like you both agree. Are you both affliated with a union or have ever been?
Generally to get things changed higher up you have to start in you own locals. Someone has to start getting the news out so others will stand with you. If you bitch and moan enough about some wrong being don you by the big chiefs in the AFL-CIO pretty soon it will get around to other unions in the different ranks. You know if enough people come together on something from different unions a vote can be called for to change thing reguarding the way the higher ups are doing things. Just a thought.
Posted by Pat Grzybowski on Jan 24, 2005 at 7:06 AM This has been a fascinating and instructive dialogue, but if one were to dispassionately deconstruct it its most obvious element would be that it has little to nothing to do with the subtle and brilliant article by Jeff Epton (see above) that ostensibly kicked it off. I proffer that the American labor movement is in the final throes of intellectual and physical death. Politically and socially the movement has had nothing new to offer since John Sweeney assumed the mantle of “leadership.” What Sweeney, and his shrinking number of loyalists, don’t understand is that organized labor’s death is concurrent with that of the American Dream. Until someone, or something, comes along and redefines, or reinvents, that dream, unions (and the money machines like the AFL-CIO that *pretend* to democratically represent them and their workers) will continue to slide deeper into the muck of total irrelevance.
Posted by H.P. Albarelli Jr. on Jan 24, 2005 at 2:37 PM Pat, as posted earlier in this thread I am honorably withdrawn from my Union due to a mid-life career change. I’m a former writer-broadcaster and member of SAG, previous to that I was a member of the UAW; currently a certified paralegal and law student.
H.P Alberelli, Jr, disagree that we have vacated the topic. If we don’t understand the past and our current situation Jeff Epton’s and any other futurists predictions are irrelevant.
We are experiencing, per Kevin Phillips in Wealth & Democracy a Second Gilded Age in American history. The first lasted from about 1880 through 1930. This one began in 1981 with the Reagan Revolution and hopefully has already peaked.
Neither Unions or the process of collective bargaining is “in the final throes of intellectual and physical death.” What has changed is the willingness of people to stand up for themselves and plan their lives beyond 5 minutes from now.
Unions don’t need to be re-invented. We only need a winning strategy.
Posted by Brad Thrasher on Jan 24, 2005 at 8:38 PM Brad- You mis-read my message: I wrote that the American Dream needs re-invention. But that said, I also think unions could do with some redevelopment. A good start would be to insist on more control and say in what the AFL-CIO does and how it spends its money. Keep in mind the AFL-CIO is almost entirely funded by the hard-earned dollars of local union members; yet these members have virtually NO say in what the federation does… in the past 15 years the AFL-CIO has easily spent well over $100 million on failed political campaigns…imagine the effect that money would have had in providing health care for the thousands of union members who have lost their jobs and benefits because of socail apathy on the part of the federation…
Posted by H.P. ALBARELLI JR. on Jan 24, 2005 at 8:57 PM Geez H.P I quoted you directly from your post.
We do agree that whatever money has been spent on political campaigns has been wasted dollars.
Bill “Democrat in name only” Clinton did nothing for us. We haven’t had a political win at the federal level since 1980. Today we are on the verge of losing California to the corporatists. The low rent corportist ho’s have something like 28 governorships and state legislatures.
Unions that choose to stick with the Dems need to get involved earlier in the process and begin nominating and supporting candidates at the primary level. I for one am not opposed to supporting moderate Republicans who are willing to advance our agenda. It’s not like fairness in the workplace and corporate responsiblity are radical theories shared only among pot smoking latte-loving socialist commie dog liberals.
Posted by Brad Thrasher on Jan 24, 2005 at 10:53 PM I read a commet posted about UPS and the courage it took to go on strike. I for one am thrilled that they did. My husband is an owner operator at Fed Ex Ground and when we put our Kenworth on right before the strike, we were doing fairly well. Then the strike and hotdog now we couldn’t keep up with the work. We did great. So for the unions and their strikes, I personally hope UPS drivers go out again. So does Fed Ex,huhm a non union well paying organization
Posted by Robin on Jan 26, 2005 at 12:19 AM Dear Robin,
FedEx wouldn’t be a well paying organization if it wasn’t competing with UPS.
You Robin are a pirate. Nothing wrong with that really. Pirates have been around at least as long as prostitutes. It ain’t cheeky or hip steppin’ in here braggin’ about it.
Fare well Robin and I hope you make all the pym’ts on the Kenworth before FedEx reduces your rates.
Posted by Brad Thrasher on Jan 26, 2005 at 3:26 AM hey, you boring-heads. check out this article on the revival of the IWW. the AFL-CIO wishes it had as much kick-ass energy as the wobs!
http://www.newsreview.com/issues/sacto/2005-01-13/cover.asp
Posted by wob on Jan 26, 2005 at 5:19 AM Awesome wob. I just emailed the General Defense Comittee and offered 20-25 hours per month of pro bono research & writing. Thank you for bringing this wonderful story to my attention. I’m only sorry I don’t have more to give to the struggle.
Posted by Brad Thrasher on Jan 26, 2005 at 5:49 AM Hey union dues payers - wake up!
Your money is being stolen from you.
The truth is readily available to you athttp://liberalquicksand.blogs.com/liberalquicksand/2005/01/unions_only_job.ht tml
In addition, there are many fine union atriticles analyzed to expose the truth - using the union’s and their co-conspirators in the press - own words. Freedom begins with knowledge. Drink it in.
Posted by lycfyg on Jan 26, 2005 at 12:56 PM The IWW article is a applause piece for mob rule and violence. Since when is it ok for one citizen to threaten another and prevent them from making a living? Either you want the job or you do not.
How about I come to your home, tear up your lawn, break your lawn mower and maybe set fire to your house; all because you won’t hire my guys to mow your lawn for $50, when you can do it yourself for $10 or someone else will do it for $32?
My fellow Americans, deep down you know union corruption and extortion is wrong. Quit contributing to it.
Posted by lycfyg on Jan 26, 2005 at 1:03 PM Violence, when it occurs is always a symptom of bad law and/or an unfairness in the application of law.
I would respect lycfyg had he also enumerated and referenced the unlawful and violent acts comitted by management.
The issue is fairness. Always has been, always will be.
Posted by Brad Thrasher on Jan 26, 2005 at 3:44 PM Hey Brad, a fedex update. My husband runs close to 2,00 miles per week.a little under. The Kenworth used to bring in 96 cents per mile, now I am pleased and elated to report it now is a $1.06 per mile plus drop and hook pay at $12 per drop(Doubles) and half per a single trailer. Oh yeah and every 3 months if there are no violations on the truck i.e speeding and such the safety bonus went from $200 per truck to $300. And since fuel is so high on the road we as contractors pay $1.24 per gallon of diesel. I am not blowing my own horn here I am stating facts, FedEx is in the process of growing by leaps and bounds with NO union interferance. Just ask any out of work Yellow drivers what the union did for them.
Posted by robin on Jan 26, 2005 at 10:44 PM Fairness according to whom?
If I want to pay someone $32 to cut my lawn and that person agrees - how is it fair that some union thugs can assault me, the guy I just hired or wreck any of our property over an agreement made between two people?
How about if I burn down your house because I don’t like the amount you paid for a golf club at a garage sale? I make golf clubs, so I have that right to force you to buy MY clubs at MY price?
Brad, did you know the first union’s Constitution’s primary goal was not safety or higher wages for workers, but the destruction of capitalism in this country.
Now, what is your goal? Don’t say fairness. I already crushed that fable.
Posted by lycfyg on Jan 27, 2005 at 4:37 AM Without a Union means I would have been fired a long time ago and not now looking forward to retirement. Why? Same as everyone else, I refused to sleep with the Boss, refused to discriminate against other employees, refused to step on all that stood in my way by finding other solutions. That made me the job steward I am today. We as members and activists have higher standards for humankind. It’s easy to make the numbers, but the real reward is to “walk the walk”.
Posted by Paula Kay Entwistle on Jan 27, 2005 at 11:13 AM To the management of these Times.
I am very upset that you wouldn’t print my last comments about the union verses big buisness. I will not be joining anymore of your debates.
Posted by Pat Grzybowski on Jan 27, 2005 at 2:06 PM Hey Paula,
Your job is not to be a ‘steward’. Your job is to assist in making a company profitable in exchange for a paycheck.
If this company was doing anything against your moral fiber, then you quit and find another job or start your own company.
Your position is NOT the higher standard, as unions are nothing more than legalized extortion.
In addition, the goal of the very first union (right in their constitutiion by the way) was to bring down our capitalist system. That is treason! Now, how high are your activist’s standards again?
Posted by lycfyg on Jan 28, 2005 at 7:28 PM You have a funny way of looking at things. The unions weren’t talking about the government, they were talking about big business that wanted to keep paying them starvation wages and working them like dogs for as many hours a day as they wanted.
GET REAL!!!!!
Posted by Pat Grzybowski on Jan 28, 2005 at 9:51 PM “The very first union”, eh? Are you refering to the guilds of renaissance Europe? Because as any student of history will tell you, those were, in fact “the very first unions” and since capitalism hadn’t been invented at that time, I think it would be very unlikely that they included the destruction of capitalism in their consitutions.
Posted by Jonathan Wright on Jan 29, 2005 at 1:41 AM The debate within labor and why it is so important to all of us is explained in the article “The New Boss” (New York Times Magazine Sunday, January 30, 2005) written by Matt Bai.
The debate is framed in this article by looking at two labor leaders - Buffenbarger, the President of the shrinking IAM (Machinists Union) and Andy Stern, The President of SEIU (the largest union in the AFL-CIO).
The Machinist President wants to fix labor by having the AFL-CIO spend $188 million to create, among other things, a Labor News Network on cable TV.
Stern wants to reorganize the AFL and create 20 industry-based unions out of the 60 something (mostly shrinking) separate unions. He wants to cut the dues all the unions pay to the AFL in half and spend that money instead on organizing new members. He wants the AFL credit card revenue to be directed at organizing Wallmart, etc.
According to the article, Stern “is provoking an argument more relevant to our moment.”
Bai explains the argument as, “The facts of our time are clear enough: a ruthless kind of globalized economy is upon us, and it is not going away. Many American industries are bound to be surpassed by leaner competitors, and the workers left behind by this tectonic shift have little power to influence the decisions of corporate barons whose interests know no national boundaries. Can American workers ever be secure in a global market? Can a service economy sustain the nation’s middle class? And are we brave enough to have the conversation?”
Posted by Susan on Jan 29, 2005 at 4:52 PM It;s not if were strong enough Susan, the answer may lie in the fact that we have sold our Butts to China by borrowing so much money we have to fill our store shelves with their junk and there is no room for ours even if industry was up and running strong or as strong as it could. Look at the money being pored into this needless war that’s killing and maiming so many of our boys today. Bush just keeps borrowing money from China to keep it afloat. He is only interested in big buisness and getting the oil for big buisness in this country. If China should sell off some of our debt, and it wouldn’t have to be much, we would sink like a rock. If Europe stops using the dollar as a judge of the economy and goes to the Euro, that will not be good for us. I think we’d better brace ourselves for terrible times ahead union or no union.
Posted by Pat Grzybowski on Jan 29, 2005 at 5:50 PM Pat,
I don’t disagree with your take that Bush’s Big Business interests are his only interest - that the war is about profiteering - that the Walmartization (retailers dictating labor costs here and around the globe) of America is a huge problem. The issue with the Euro (trying to keep the US dollar as the world currency) is part of what took the US to Iraq.
You raise important issues that we need to face.
I believe more organization has to happen to be able to fight back and we need more leaders who think more broadly, like you do.The old guard labor leaders want to keep following the dems around with dollars and or advertise their way power. Stern wants unions to group together the resources we have now (in U.S.) to organize more effectively and, he is trying to figure out how to reach globally.
Posted by Susan on Jan 29, 2005 at 8:23 PM Takes us back to the start of the string again: the Neither Party at www.neitherparty.org
Or, you could continue to support the Democrats if you were the sado-masochistic type. Your choice.
Posted by John Rice on Jan 30, 2005 at 3:28 AM I went to the link and under labor and it says,
“We support the right of individuals to voluntarily establish, associate in, or not associate in, labor unions. We believe workers should be encouraged to organize and practice collective bargaining. Furthermore, an employer should have the right to recognize, or refuse to recognize, a union as the collective bargaining agent of some, or all, of its employees.”
This position tells me that nobody in the Neither Party has ever tried to organize a union.
The environment of tension and fear that the employer and their an anti-union consultants create anytime workers hint at joining together is something you need to witness to understand, but imagine the Bush propaganda and intimidation machine aimed at you every minute of every day you are at work for 8 weeks (fear messages, henchman, lies, spies, bribes, twisting swift boat like co-workers and bosses who make you feel like a trader, etc.).
Just about the time that it’s time to vote, you and your co-workers feel so much pressure and tension that you can’t talk to one another anymore. You hate coming to work at all. You’re beyond afraid and you wish you’d never heard of a union.
Posted by Susan on Jan 30, 2005 at 3:48 PM Walt, the economic arguement presented by you and the Wobblies is correct. Sadly though not for the reasons stated. The old models of supply and demand are based on a scarcity of goods and services. Today, scarcity is largely a managed market condition caused by cronyism.
Our economic challenge is the distribution of the abundance of goods and services produced. Seems to me the Wobblies are on the right track; however, a new economic model also requires new human understanding in terms of motivation and striking a balance between individualism and collectivism.
Actually we very nearly created a democratic workplace in the years 1955 through 1967, inclusive. Management pay was roughly 40 times entry level pay rather than the 500 to 1 ratio of today.
Posted by Brad Thrasher on Jan 31, 2005 at 4:13 AM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Jeff Epton
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1979 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
427 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2005 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
