If you don’t have to labor on Labor Day, you probably should thank labor unions.
Right-wingers in America today (which as a rule means Republicans) love to bash labor unions (or “union thugs,” to use their favorite term) and blame them for everything from the collapse of the housing market to the national debt to athlete’s foot.
Demonizing unions – and those who belong to them – is clever politics in two ways: It discredits politicians (mostly Democrats) who are supported by unions, and it pits union workers against non-union workers (the old divide-and-conquer game).
Unfortunately, many people have forgotten – or never knew – what life was like for most working people in America before the labor movement got started. Laurence Lewis, writing on the Daily Kos site, reminds us of some of the good things labor unions were responsible for – and that too many of us now take for granted:
“Those who fought and died to create the labor movement helped end child labor and legal employment discrimination, and they helped create the 40-hour work week, paid overtime, workplace safety, workers’ comp, unemployment protections, pensions, guaranteed health insurance, sick leave and guaranteed vacations.”
It’s a great piece, and it’s less than 400 words long. Take five minutes out of your Labor Day fun to read it.
Comments
(11)
written by TC , September 06, 2010
Like all good things most labor unions have outlived their usefulness. Government employees now account for the majority of union members. In Oregon union members have received pay-benefit packages that far exceed the private sector. Nationally, Obama directed much of the stimulus package to union workers as a payback for his election. While unions still serve a purpose it should not be overlooked the baggage often outweighs the benefits. Remember that Bruce next time you rail about government spending.
written by Jack Elliott , September 07, 2010
Miller's post gives the impression that the article he links to might be a pro-union screed. While it's true that unions were a major portion of the struggle to advance workers rights, the point the author makes is that everything Labor Day stands for is opposed by corporations and their Koch-funded astro-turf Republicans lackeys:
"If the Republicans had their way, minimum wage would be kept to a minimum. Regulations that protect workers would be slashed or eliminated. Consumer protections would be slashed or eliminated. Environmental protections would be slashed or eliminated."
and,
"Those who fought and died to create the labor movement helped end child labor and legal employment discrimination, and they helped create the forty hour work week, paid overtime, workplace safety, workers' comp, unemployment protections, pensions, guaranteed health insurance, sick leave and guaranteed vacations. When Republicans criticize unions and talk of reducing government, they are talking about ending all of that progress."
Take a look at the article. There is a comments section after it, a useful place to discuss the article's wider scope, and not just the narrower subject of unions.
BTW, Jack agrees that most unions, like the two main political parties, have been bought and paid for and have been corrupted by entrenched special interests. Jack just doesn't see a proper workaround.
"If the Republicans had their way, minimum wage would be kept to a minimum. Regulations that protect workers would be slashed or eliminated. Consumer protections would be slashed or eliminated. Environmental protections would be slashed or eliminated."
and,
"Those who fought and died to create the labor movement helped end child labor and legal employment discrimination, and they helped create the forty hour work week, paid overtime, workplace safety, workers' comp, unemployment protections, pensions, guaranteed health insurance, sick leave and guaranteed vacations. When Republicans criticize unions and talk of reducing government, they are talking about ending all of that progress."
Take a look at the article. There is a comments section after it, a useful place to discuss the article's wider scope, and not just the narrower subject of unions.
BTW, Jack agrees that most unions, like the two main political parties, have been bought and paid for and have been corrupted by entrenched special interests. Jack just doesn't see a proper workaround.
written by John Personna , September 07, 2010
I think there are places where unions are good. Say where workers are easily replaced and conditions are dangerous. On the other hand, I've seen attempts to unionize creative types, like engineers. I never got that. Being an engineer wasn't (supposed) to be about being just an engineer, but about being a better engineer.
As we became more "information workers" and less randomly replaceable, it's natural that unions would have a reduced role.
As we became more "information workers" and less randomly replaceable, it's natural that unions would have a reduced role.
written by H. Bruce Miller , September 07, 2010
"Once upon a time, a long, long time ago, unions served a very good purpose"
Two comments:
1. It wasn't THAT long, long ago -- a century or less.
2. If right-wingers have their way, we will go back to the "good old days" before any of the reforms won by organized labor existed. An active and energetic organized labor movement is the best protection against that.
"Today unions exist only to perpetuate the union, its leadership, and the political agenda of the leadership."
Alas, that's true in many (though not all) cases. And one reason unions grew so weak is that their leaders focused on winning more benefits for existing members (and thus getting themselves re-elected) rather than recruiting new members. But those are arguments for reforming unions, not for eliminating them.
Two comments:
1. It wasn't THAT long, long ago -- a century or less.
2. If right-wingers have their way, we will go back to the "good old days" before any of the reforms won by organized labor existed. An active and energetic organized labor movement is the best protection against that.
"Today unions exist only to perpetuate the union, its leadership, and the political agenda of the leadership."
Alas, that's true in many (though not all) cases. And one reason unions grew so weak is that their leaders focused on winning more benefits for existing members (and thus getting themselves re-elected) rather than recruiting new members. But those are arguments for reforming unions, not for eliminating them.
written by JC , September 07, 2010
I'm no fan of unions for those in government jobs. Private industry is something altogether different. Personally, I don't care for them, but in Private industry, I have a choice whether or not to patronize a union establishment. If they make a better product, I'll buy it. I've got no choice with the government.
But, you may recall that Labor Day was enshrined as a national holiday by President Grover Cleveland in 1894 after the Pullman Strike in which the US Military was used to put down (kill!) workers (citizens). The legislation designating it a national holiday was rushed through Congress and signed in what must have been a record - six days - to attempt to defuse further conflict between labor - that is, the people - and the government who had just finished killing some of its own citizens over a PRIVATE labor dispute. So, the corporations controlled government in 1894? Has that changed much?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_day
But, you may recall that Labor Day was enshrined as a national holiday by President Grover Cleveland in 1894 after the Pullman Strike in which the US Military was used to put down (kill!) workers (citizens). The legislation designating it a national holiday was rushed through Congress and signed in what must have been a record - six days - to attempt to defuse further conflict between labor - that is, the people - and the government who had just finished killing some of its own citizens over a PRIVATE labor dispute. So, the corporations controlled government in 1894? Has that changed much?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_day
written by H. Bruce Miller , September 07, 2010
"So, the corporations controlled government in 1894? Has that changed much?"
No, but the corporations were a little more brazen about it back in the "good old days" that the right wing would love to bring back.
Kids today aren't taught history so they don't know why the Progressive movement and the organized labor movement arose. That leaves them vulnerable to right-wing revisionist propaganda teaching them that everything in America was just peaches and cream until the lousy Progressives came along and screwed it up.
No, but the corporations were a little more brazen about it back in the "good old days" that the right wing would love to bring back.
Kids today aren't taught history so they don't know why the Progressive movement and the organized labor movement arose. That leaves them vulnerable to right-wing revisionist propaganda teaching them that everything in America was just peaches and cream until the lousy Progressives came along and screwed it up.
written by Stephen Cramer , September 07, 2010
Bruce--
It's already happened.
We have dumbed down the work force--they are prematurely pragmatic graduates focussed on careers and earning money. Go for the illusory security of a job that will disappear elsewhere at the drop of a dime. No need for history. No need for critical thinking. No need for anything but pop culture--the internet and its instant answers--the politics of the extreme and the moment.
How can we frame a debate about unions, labor, corporate responsibility, when people get their news from Fox or MSNBC, talk radio or their favorite website, and lack the tools to analyze it?
It's not a coincidence that a culture raised reading Harry Potter and Twilight novels is willing to buy and believe fantasies by David Limbaugh, Glen Beck and Laura Ingraham. That a culture that lives on 'reality' shows mistakes everything they see or read on the internet, in newsprint, or on television as the truth. We have a people with limited attention spans--wait what was I saying?
We already see the middle class disappearing with the unions that created it. The wealthy have almost all of the wealth and power. They buy political offices--look at California. They roam the halls of Congress--full of more millionaires than a Microsoft boardroom. They dictate policy a la Koch and Soros. They write legislation--ignore regulation--thrive on speculation--and survive devastation. The upper class abides.
It's funny (peculiar--not humorous) that all of us act and think the way we do because we are focused on the shiny object in the hand and not what is happening around it.
The public sector unions will deny what is happening to them, their jobs and their so-called benefits until it is too late, the same way the private sector unions did. They will try to act when no action is possible.
It's already happened.
We have dumbed down the work force--they are prematurely pragmatic graduates focussed on careers and earning money. Go for the illusory security of a job that will disappear elsewhere at the drop of a dime. No need for history. No need for critical thinking. No need for anything but pop culture--the internet and its instant answers--the politics of the extreme and the moment.
How can we frame a debate about unions, labor, corporate responsibility, when people get their news from Fox or MSNBC, talk radio or their favorite website, and lack the tools to analyze it?
It's not a coincidence that a culture raised reading Harry Potter and Twilight novels is willing to buy and believe fantasies by David Limbaugh, Glen Beck and Laura Ingraham. That a culture that lives on 'reality' shows mistakes everything they see or read on the internet, in newsprint, or on television as the truth. We have a people with limited attention spans--wait what was I saying?
We already see the middle class disappearing with the unions that created it. The wealthy have almost all of the wealth and power. They buy political offices--look at California. They roam the halls of Congress--full of more millionaires than a Microsoft boardroom. They dictate policy a la Koch and Soros. They write legislation--ignore regulation--thrive on speculation--and survive devastation. The upper class abides.
It's funny (peculiar--not humorous) that all of us act and think the way we do because we are focused on the shiny object in the hand and not what is happening around it.
The public sector unions will deny what is happening to them, their jobs and their so-called benefits until it is too late, the same way the private sector unions did. They will try to act when no action is possible.
written by aaychbee'em critic , September 07, 2010
"1. It wasn't THAT long, long ago -- a century or less."
Sorry, I guess a "century or less" must not seem that long ago to you.
Sorry, I guess a "century or less" must not seem that long ago to you.
written by H. Bruce Miller , September 07, 2010
"Sorry, I guess a "century or less" must not seem that long ago to you."
In the scale of human history, it isn't.
In the scale of human history, it isn't.
written by Jack Elliott , September 07, 2010
What Stephen said.
No mere speedbumps, these problems, but fundamental issues. Fixable? No one knows. An electorate is meant to be a body of qualified voters, but here the abilities to think critically and ask probing questions aren't qualifications.
Nations come and nations go. Nothing is permanent. Except maybe this case of athlete's foot here. It just won't go away.
No mere speedbumps, these problems, but fundamental issues. Fixable? No one knows. An electorate is meant to be a body of qualified voters, but here the abilities to think critically and ask probing questions aren't qualifications.
Nations come and nations go. Nothing is permanent. Except maybe this case of athlete's foot here. It just won't go away.
However, it would be interesting to poll union workers today and ask two simple questions: a) Do you believe your union works for you or do you work for the union? and b) If you really, really had the free choice, would you want to belong to your union?
We all know the overwhelming responses. Unions, as a force for workplace reform or worker advancement are a relic of the past. Today unions exist only to perpetuate the union, its leadership, and the political agenda of the leadership.
Why is it that today the only unions that are holding their own are government employee unions. Private sector unions are a shadow of their past and continue to shrink. It is because until very recently, these government worker unions did not depend on the financial health a company like their private sector counterparts. The viability of a company provided a check and balance against unsustainable costs/contracts. We've seen what happens when spine-less managements sign unsustainable contracts. Just ask any well trained, hihgly skilled but jobless UAW worker. There are tons of them.
The state or municipality, howewver, can and do raise taxes to cover these Cadillac contracts. The federal government can print money or use bail outs that take tax dollars from tax payers in fiscally healthy states like TN and TX (oops they're kind of conservative aren't they) to bail out government unions in liberal states like CA.
So I thank the unions that up until the 60's or 70's last century, advanced worker protections, advanced the middle class, and got many of their principles enacted into laws, agencies, or regulations. Since then, however, they have been a leech sucking the life out of good decent workers.