Just about everybody I know is subjected to speedups and pay reduction (increased health care cost is a pay reduction whether workers think of it as such or not).
The silence out there is deafening, glad to hear someone speak up.
Right on ,Donaker. (You have done much good work on an old
thread, but that's what we like about Moyers. He never closes.) I just want to tell you about my friend who works in an insurance company in Charlotte. They are killing her. The workload keeps growing and some work both weekends and long days on clerical tasks. It's just like "stretch-out" in the old textile mills. And what are they doing? They're not making a product. (They sell a defective product called disability insurance.) They are getting larger and larger quotas of the number of diabled benefits recipients who have to be cut off each month. They have also gone to insane lenghths to collect overpayments they sent out. (Policies have offsets for other benefits called subrogation clauses.) I have encouraged my friend to quit before she gains more weight or has a heart attack. (Lunch and exercise breaks are frowned upon and older workers are ditched for fresher, less savy younger ones. Her healthcare deductable goes up every six months right along with the premiums.) One day Peggy and I picked her up at work and we were astonished at how haggard and sick even the younger workers looked. Now we can see what Kafka must have gone through.
I wish for two things:
1. that some union would organize these claims examiners who are educated as social workers, disability experts, paralegals and such.
2.that some government body would investigate and set standards of coverage and ethical practice over these deceitful disability policies.
Is the only way to make a living to prey upon people at their most vulnerable time? Employers push these nearly worthless policies on employees to get considerations, commissions and payoffs. If you have a disability policy, look at the subrogation clauses and limits. It may not be worth the premiums or the hassles if you become ill or injured.
I agree with Richard Miller and all posters who supported organizing. We need unions now more than ever, and scabby syncophants less than ever.
There is almost always one key element omitted when discussing the union question! Before getting into that, the air would be cleared if set and distinguishable terminology is used. To start off, since capitalism is generally accepted as being the best of all possible systems, it follows that there must be a capitalist class, proceeding from that there must be capitalists who belong to that class. Since that class owns the means of production and it is a tiny minority of the population, then the majority are compelled to work for the capitalists. The majority being workers, it follows that they must belong to the working class. Therefore exists a class divided society.
Now, back to the key omitted element. We had, right here in Minneapolis, the creation of a union in the early 1930's. Who created it? Workers! Well, if you go by the vague jargon in common usage today, you might miss their existence as workers; we are bombarded day after day with reports on consumers and their confidence. Nothing about workers and what they feel about their plight. That was not the case with the union referred to. It was the Teamsters, and they were not subjected to the ceaseless vague jargon in prevalent usage today, identifying them as "consumers," with their main concern being whether they had "consumer confidence" enough to go to the store to buy the necessities for life. They knew that they belonged to the working class and they knew that their interest was in opposition to that of the capitalist class. They knew that they were not getting enough pay to buy the necessities for life needed by them and their wives and children. They were class conscious. They didn't need anyone to tell them what to do. On their own part, they had the gumption to organize and form a union. That in spite of the actual fire power used against them as it was done all over the United States by the proud back shooters (themselves being members of the working class, mind you) who dutifully served the capitalist class, but that is another part of the story.
It didn't take long for the capitalist class, since direct force including the "blacklist," was ineffective. It only riled up workers more and besides, of most importance, it interfered with production and the making of profit. What to do about it? Eureka! We don't know which capitalist or group of capitalists came up with the panacea, what matters is that it solved the problem, production went on uninterrupted, and profits kept rolling in. It was the creation of the pro capitalist union leader, what some have referred to as the "labor merchant" or the "labor faker." He says to the workers, "Your busy doing your job and strikes always stop your pay and you get behind on your rent and grocery bill. Let me save you the misery, I will handle the boss." Gradually with the compliance of the labor faker, the vague jargon sets into what we have today, "consumers" and "consumer confidence." Capitalist class, what? Working class, what? Class consciousness, what?
It didn't take a "Hitler" to wreck the unions in the US, as was done in Germany. Calmly and persistently, with an occasional ranting and raving against the boss of course, it was the pro capitalist union leader, the "labor merchant," the "labor faker" who performed the dastardly deed. During all this time, with the assistance of union labor for its operation, the media and the educational system has been aiding and abetting the obscuring of workers' class consciousness. Until finally, labor faker union leaders have rendered themselves into an endangered species. The top ones, of course, having seen to it to become virtual capitalists themselves before their demise.
From capitalist use of force against the working class, to guile by using the labor faker to increase profits, comes the next obstacle to increasing profits, the Constitution of the United State. What now? Eureka! Again, we don't know which capitalist or group of capitalist came up with the replacement panacea, all that matters is that its working, profits are going up by leaps and bounds. Go to a country with a huge working class that is largely unemployed or marginally employed and best of all, a country with a Constitution not fit to wipe your, you know what, with--China. For the promise of a couple of fish heads and a bowl of rice a day, Mao roused the starving peasants to the glory of the Korean War human slaughterhouse. Now, for not much more, the Chinese workers submit to slaving away until they are driven into the ground, while the Chinese ruling class, once considered by the US to be tyrants behind the bamboo curtain, hell bent on spreading communism, serve as the new labor merchant to US capitalism.
Just as did our home grown labor merchant, the Chinese replacement makes sure to get a cut out of the action to become a well heeled virtual capitalist. The hitch is, just as our home grown labor merchant helped bring about its own endangered species status so will the Chinese labor merchant despot. Just how long is the scheme of merchandise streaming into the US from China, with American workers' payment continually being lowered, going to last? Just how long is the consumers' consumer confidence going to be sustained to remove the glut of merchandise on store selves, so they can be refilled again and again, while the caravan of super container ships from China come streaming day after day into the California docks to be unloaded?
Class conscious unions, anyone? Return of workers having the gumption to organize, form and operate unions by their own initiative, anyone? Or do we just sit in front of the boob tube and wait for the inevitable? Another breed of labor merchant, maybe!
During all this time, the merchant in question does not sell to the highest bidder as was done with the chattel slave on the auction block. He or she sells to the lowest bid of each capitalist concern, the commodity labor power. The labor merchant shill is on the take, getting paid on the side for offering the work time of workers at the lowest possible hourly pay. Not only is the labor merchant on the take with the capitalist class, he or she leeches union dues from workers to perform such a dastardly deed. Labor time is merchandise, a commodity, an investment of capital by the capitalist class. Right now that capital (commodity) is cheapest in China.
Here is one class conscious union that doesn't beat around the bush. But that is hardly enough for the total working class, but a start.
There is almost always one key element omitted when discussing the union question! Before getting into that, the air would be cleared if set and distinguishable terminology is used. To start off, since capitalism is generally accepted as being the best of all possible systems, it follows that there must be a capitalist class, proceeding from that there must be capitalists who belong to that class. Since that class owns the means of production and it is a tiny minority of the population, then the majority are compelled to work for the capitalists. The majority being workers, it follows that they must belong to the working class. Therefore exists a class divided society.
Now, back to the key omitted element. We had, right here in Minneapolis, the creation of a union in the early 1930's. Who created it? Workers! Well, if you go by the vague jargon in common usage today, you might miss their existence as workers; we are bombarded day after day with reports on consumers and their confidence. Nothing about workers and what they feel about their plight. That was not the case with the union referred to. It was the Teamsters, and they were not subjected to the ceaseless vague jargon in prevalent usage today, identifying them as "consumers," with their main concern being whether they had "consumer confidence" enough to go to the store to buy the necessities for life. They knew that they belonged to the working class and they knew that their interest was in opposition to that of the capitalist class. They knew that they were not getting enough pay to buy the necessities for life needed by them and their wives and children. They were class conscious. They didn't need anyone to tell them what to do. On their own part, they had the gumption to organize and form a union. That in spite of the actual fire power used against them as it was done all over the United States by the proud back shooters (themselves being members of the working class, mind you) who dutifully served the capitalist class, but that is another part of the story.
It didn't take long for the capitalist class, since direct force including the "blacklist," was ineffective. It only riled up workers more and besides, of most importance, it interfered with production and the making of profit. What to do about it? Eureka! We don't know which capitalist or group of capitalists came up with the panacea, what matters is that it solved the problem, production went on uninterrupted, and profits kept rolling in. It was the creation of the pro capitalist union leader, what some have referred to as the "labor merchant" or the "labor faker." He says to the workers, "Your busy doing your job and strikes always stop your pay and you get behind on your rent and grocery bill. Let me save you the misery, I will handle the boss." Gradually with the compliance of the labor faker, the vague jargon sets into what we have today, "consumers" and "consumer confidence." Capitalist class, what? Working class, what? Class consciousness, what?
It didn't take a "Hitler" to wreck the unions in the US, as was done in Germany. Calmly and persistently, with an occasional ranting and raving against the boss of course, it was the pro capitalist union leader, the "labor merchant," the "labor faker" who performed the dastardly deed. During all this time, with the assistance of union labor for its operation, the media and the educational system has been aiding and abetting the obscuring of workers' class consciousness. Until finally, labor faker union leaders have rendered themselves into an endangered species. The top ones, of course, having seen to it to become virtual capitalists themselves before their demise.
From capitalist use of force against the working class, to guile by using the labor faker to increase profits, comes the next obstacle to increasing profits, the Constitution of the United State. What now? Eureka! Again, we don't know which capitalist or group of capitalist came up with the replacement panacea, all that matters is that its working, profits are going up by leaps and bounds. Go to a country with a huge working class that is largely unemployed or marginally employed and best of all, a country with a Constitution not fit to wipe your, you know what, with--China. For the promise of a couple of fish heads and a bowl of rice a day, Mao roused the starving peasants to the glory of the Korean War human slaughterhouse. Now, for not much more, the Chinese workers submit to slaving away until they are driven into the ground, while the Chinese ruling class, once considered by the US to be tyrants behind the bamboo curtain, hell bent on spreading communism, serve as the new labor merchant to US capitalism.
Just as did our home grown labor merchant, the Chinese replacement makes sure to get a cut out of the action to become a well heeled virtual capitalist. The hitch is, just as our home grown labor merchant helped bring about its own endangered species status so will the Chinese labor merchant despot. Just how long is the scheme of merchandise streaming into the US from China, with American workers' payment continually being lowered, going to last? Just how long is the consumers' consumer confidence going to be sustained to remove the glut of merchandise on store selves, so they can be refilled again and again, while the caravan of super container ships from China come streaming day after day into the California docks to be unloaded?
Class conscious unions, anyone? Return of workers having the gumption to organize, form and operate unions by their own initiative, anyone? Or do we just sit in front of the boob tube and wait for the inevitable? Another breed of labor merchant, maybe!
During all this time, the merchant in question does not sell to the highest bidder as was done with the chattel slave on the auction block. He or she sells to the lowest bid of each capitalist concern, the commodity labor power. The labor merchant shill is on the take, getting paid on the side for offering the work time of workers at the lowest possible hourly pay. Not only is the labor merchant on the take with the capitalist class, he or she leeches union dues from workers to perform such a dastardly deed. Labor time is merchandise, a commodity, an investment of capital by the capitalist class. Right now that capital (commodity) is cheapest in China.
Here is one class conscious union that doesn't beat around the bush. But that is hardly enough for the total working class, but a start.
Good heavens, do any of you actually read your own stuff that you write?
It reminds me of one of my favorite Calvin and Hobbes(c) cartoon where Calvin says, "Nothing I do is my fault." And then in the next frame he continues, ""My family is dysfunctional and my parents won't empower me! Consequently I'm not self actualized.
Next frame: "My behavior is addictive functioning in a disease process of toxic codependency! I need holistic healing and wellness before I'll accept any responsibility for my actions!
Hobbs response to this? "One of us needs to stick his head in a bucket of ice water. Calvin just grins, "I love the culture of victimhood.
Now doesn't the cartoonist take us all back to the times that many of our bloggers here have been needing to do is to stick their heads into a bucket of ice water?!!!
Union totalirism and Karl Marx Socialism and Mao"s Communism and the new form of leadership in Venezuala are not what works here.
Organization of the unions by the Marxists in the early days of the last cerntury, here in the U.S. sound so familiar to some of the retoric spouted about in this blog. Is that what we really want?
Why don't we just rejust refer to those corporate money mongers as bushuasie and burgess and do as they did to them in china?
Or,let"s keep the wall torn down as Ronald Reagan has so eloquantly stated it and not go to any form of a socialist/unionist government.
That is not to recognise that change does not eed to occur but not wholesale socialism/unionism. To suggest otherwise is to need the "bucket of icewater" in my opinion.
Kelly, you can't keep your position from being outsourced just by "reinventing the service you provide in your job." The race to the bottom doesn't work that way. The best way to keep your position from being outsourced is to work to get some people who actually care about America elected to positions of power in America's federal government.
"Reinventing the service you provide in your job" is a dishonest little slogan, carefully planted by a corporate think-tank in order to discourage unionization and to persuade ordinary Americans to blame the victims instead of the perpetrators of corporate outsourcing.
"What's that you say, you lost your job? You must have done something you shouldn't, or failed to do something you should. Maybe you neglected to... um... uh... er... Reinvent yourself! Yeah, that's the ticket! It's your own fault, you should have reinvented yourself! Everyone else here, move along, nothing to see. All you have to do is just be willing to reinvent yourself when the time comes; then you won't end up like this poor woman who irresponsibly brought herself and her family to ruin, by refusing to reinvent herself."
Unions were spun beginning in the Reagan administration, and we all fell in line with the new terminology being created by the corporate government. Unions were ill-prepared for the corporate/government/media assault. Once our media is given back to the people, and it will happen, we'll see a return of the Unions as workers and society, once again, begin to respect the concept of working for a living.
I really appreciated the interview with Andy Stern because up to and even early that day I could have been quoted that unions have served their purpose. After watching the interview I realized that unions are in need of reinventing themselves. Just like I have to reinvent the service I provide in my job to keep from my position being outsourced, unions need to adapt to helping the people who can benefit from organization. In the same breath I would say that unions that have become much too big and become about power probably need to review the objectives of the union.
As the wife of an airline pilot who has been represented by a union (and makes only 30K/year after 6 YEARS as a professional airline pilot and line check airman!), here is my question: WHAT GOOD IS THE UNION WHEN WE HAVE FEDERAL MEDIATION THAT FORBIDS THE WORKERS FROM ANY STRIKE ACTION? I believe in the concept of unions - IF they are willing and able to complete the job entrusted to them of PROTECTING the interests of its clientele. We are NOT seeing that today in this industry! If it was up to MOST of the pilot group (at least at our company), there would have been a strike a LONG time ago.
I got turned on to the idea of Unions by none other than the UFW and Bobby Kennedy in Central California. Now that was a labor fight!!
Unions are necessary ... as necessary as Democracy. Unions ARE Democracy. Like any "democratic union" (pun intended) they require work to maintain, lots and lots of hard work.
We owe a huge debt to Organizers of the past. Sadly their story is rarely told. The power of Union is self evident in the savage, relentless wars waged to defeat them. Unions useful? HA! Now more than ever!
I am s member of SEIU721.
The merging of 7 unions to one. This was suppose to be a win for the Local 535 merger with Local 660. However we are losing our great medical benefits and being forced to take the meager benefits that Local 660 negociated for their members. We asked Local 721 to pull out all the stops to help us keep our benefits and fight Los Angeles County. They have yet to contact Andy Stern to ask his help in this battle. I don't think they want him to know the problems in California. Andy we need your help.
It seems to me that globalization is most effective for ordinary workers in the INTERNATIONAL UNION movement. That way, we can keep track of where the corporations are working and with what people and work together to ensure that workers are not exploited wherever they are. Once I realized that illegal immigrants are good for U.S. businesses because they allow corporations to outsource without having to travel (the workers come to them), that's when I realized that cooperation between unions internationally is essential.
I was inspired by both Andy Sterns and Grace Lee Boggs, for different reasons. I wish I had known of them before, but better now than never.
Love the show.
Andy Sterns ideas are good. What needs to happen first, Is the politicins who we voted in need to start taking care of all the people not just the ones who have the money to further there political interests. Second, every one of the politians need to be on Social Security, not there own lucrative retirement plan that the rest of us pay for. How can they ever relate to the rest of us on Social Security. How did setting up a reitrement plan like the on they have ever get approved. Oh! They take of each other! This has to be address ASAP.
I happened upon Bill's show while surfing. Mrs. Boggs spoke eloquently, but as most socialists, deceptively. Like the fall of the Soviet Union, Mrs. Boggs' ideas are yesterday's news. Wake up people, they lost, we won, get over it.
The media endlessly repeats the mantra that unions are in international decline. The fact of the matter is that according to the best evidence there is, more unions have grown than have shrunk since 1997. Why 1997? Because that's when the last proper global study was done! (10 years ago - the same year Princess Diana died!). If you don't believe me ask Google. Or see the two articles on the New Unionism website: http://www.newunionism.net/
Unionism has not outlived its usefulness, it has held its ground despite 10 years of relentless and sustained corporate misreporting.
Absolutely not. We have a country that is controlled by corporate interest. We need the unions to grow and challenge this power. As long as we have corporate power, then we need union power. Imagine what would happen in 98% of all working families were in a union. Health care would be provided to everyone, we would have greater educational system, college would be affordable, housing would be affordable, we wouldn't be at war in foreign countries, we would have workers compensation that provide a standard of living for the injured, we would have better unemployment systems, the elected officials would be using the government to help the people not hurt them. I could go on and on. The point: unions makes democracy work best!
The question about the usefulness of unions was as ridiculous as asking if the voting rights act is useless. As long has there is hatetred and bigotry in this great nation of ours we need the voting rights act and as long as working men and women struggle for a place in this economy then unions are not only useful but necessary.
A viewer commented to the fact that we need balance. Both in Unions and Corporations. True. But isn't it equally true that the blame can be held by each of us? Us being defined as stockholders that require ( not hope for) profits on a quarterly basis. We each want the good life, and sometimes forget that the Corps are merely images of our own personal desire for gain. No wonder then that as Corps vie for your investment dollars, workers needs get passed over, or hidden in the Annual Reports, and instead the "Guru" that supposedly runs the company makes millions on his salary and his stock options and is touted as the "hero". Good for Mr Stern, but hope that his Union can ultimately remember what it's beginnings were made of some ten or twenty years from now.
I'm sorry but its gotten to the point where big, muscular corporations wield all the power in our society. Employees--people trying to raise families have to deal with the havoc created by corporate power. One example is the demise of usury laws. Usury laws used to protect regular folks against loan sharks and extortion. Nowadays, banking has repealed usury laws so that we can all get clobbered by high interest rates! My hope is with unions. Its only by banding together we can restore a bit of balance in favor of the little guy.
Just goes to show how well the right wing misinformation has worked to destroy the unions.I believe it is a fact that at the time of the greatest union influence was also the time of greates prosperity in the working class. Without the unions there would be no middle class. Wasn't the education of the trade apprenticess all done by them too? It is evident that the working stiff is at the mercy of the largess of the employer, who will always claim that competance and competition not faithfull long service decide raises. Maybe competition should be limited to the luxuries in life and not also for housing, clothing and food with the rest of the world. Charity begins at home.
There was a time when unions held so much power that they became (almost) as bad as what they were established to fight -- but that time is long past. Big Money has held the reins for far too long, with the predictable results we now see all around us: stagnant or declining wages for most; scant or no benefits; yada-yada. Reviving Americans' right to organize, though, is only a tiny step in the right direction. Likewise, improving access to higher education will mean very little, as long as corporations are allowed to rule the world. As I've written here on other threads, we've got to cap the trade deficit and reverse tax regs that encourage companies to ship our jobs overseas. We need to break up some dangerous monopolies, too -- not least over the media that have people brainwashed into believing corporatist rubbish. Obviously public financing of elections is crucial to making the other changes necessary to save us.
Mr. Stern's "interview" should have been balanced, on the same program, with an opposite view of the place for unions. I feel such biased media reporting is a great disservice to our nation.
The fall of the American auto makers and other such heavily unionized industries is evidence enough to me that unions too often do not benefit their members. I do not dispute that corporations take advantage of their employees too often but unions have not proved to be a viable solution to that problem.
Last nights show was excellent as usual. I'm so glad your back, Bill.
I think unions can still be very useful if there's a way to reach fair and equitable contracts. In some cases unions demand too much causing the price of services and products to rise and companies to look off shore as a way to, in some cases, survive and/or make larger profits. There has to be a balance or the system will remain in its current dysfunctional state.
This constant drumbeat of "Globalization is Inevitable" amounts to surrender of our civilization to the corporatocracy that is generating all this propaganda. None of this is set in concrete though it is a probable outcome as long as we continue to buy into the coordinated hype generated by the corporate run media and the oligarchy that currently passes for a Democratic government in this country.
I find that most Americans, while espousing the virtues of Globalization, have totally ignored the ultimate transformation that must occur for Globalization to become a reality; the end of the nation state. We are talking about empire and an imperialist world government where regional concerns for the quality of life no longer exist unless they are having a negative impact on planetary corporate profit. In simpler terms, our flag, our constitution, our bill of rights, and our dreams of freedom and equality are on the chopping block.
We have the power to thwart this movement by ignoring the rants of corporate lapdogs that proclaim dyer warnings such as, “isolationist policies hurt America”. Trade negotiations over the past 15 years have overwhelmingly benefited foreign countries, multinational corporations, and a group of international bankers at an enormous cost to U.S. workers and a number of U.S. companies that believe in maintaining U.S. dominance on the world stage.
We are seeing a transformation in other parts of the world as countries and entire continents cast off the shackles of corporate financed dictators and international banking loan sharks as they embrace a nationalist agenda with freedom and respect for individual human rights. Ironic that we are being coerced into terminating our experiment in Democracy just as many others are being born. The concern over the fate of trade unions is really the least of our problems.
dare not utter the "u" word these days anywhere near a workplace...it astounds me that companies are so fearful about a group of people (workers) who get together to ask for better: perhaps better wages, working conditions, etc.
it astounds me that companies are so loathe to even sit across a table and even hear what might "be wrong" for workers. it astounds me that companies are so terrified to work out a deal so workers will be happier and more productive.
it's called negotiation. isn't that what the big kids do?
i hear so much about "value-added." when writing resumes, i'm told to make sure i include what "value" i added to jobs i've held. little by little, underpaid service workers (the new economy workers) are catching on, and unions will grow again. see, those workers are beginning to understand that the "value added" to many companies is THEM. they make the sales; they keep the operation going; they are the company face that the public sees; that without THEM, there is, guess what, no company at all!
Unions raise all boats. Everyone including the rich benefit from unions. Innovation, efficiency, ethics - good flows from unions. The sorry state of the United States ethically and economically, is at least reflected by the rise of the unions. Unions are feared by those who fear freedom. No unions in the old USSR or in Haiti.
Unions, local political groups, and community discussion seems to be at a low. Indeed, the usefulness of these groups need to be reinvigorated and participation increased. The counter-balance to corporate power has to be organizations for the protection working conditions and a voice for fairness throughout all organizations. Union strength is being broken by the political and geographic boundaries faced by employees of large corporations.
1) The unions need to be more realistic when dealing with management. For example, I don't think it's reasonable to expect employers to bear the entire burden of healthcare costs. Unions should be flexible on this issue, while at the same time mounting a massive campaign against insurance and drug companies. 2) Also they need to get with the whole globalization program. We will never reverse the trend of losing manufacturing jobs to cheaper overseas labor markets, for example. Unions need to work with management and government in a constructive way to address these issues. If they fail to adapt to the 21st century realities such as these, then I'm afraid they will become irrelevant. If they can adapt then they can continue to be a positive force in our society.
With companies treating workers like game pieces to be sacrificed to obtain objectives and with upper management compensation many times that of the work force, unions are needed now more than ever. However, they need to be much smarter and more sophisticated in their approach to issues. And they need to stop giving in to companies on important issues of worker welfare. Unions need to hold the line on health insurance and retirement benefits for workers. If companies are going to move to find lower taxes and cheaper workers, unions are going to have to organize wherever the companies move. This will be downright dangerous but organizing has always been dangerous - remember the Haymarket Massacre.
Comments
What happened. I tried to log on to the comments several times but could get only the old comments back to June.
Suddenly they appeared again.
All I can do is appologize and retrack my last comment.
Sorry.
Don
Posted by: Donald J Donaker | December 28, 2007 4:25 PM
Well Jack, it appears that our comments have been striken. So much for what you said, Moyers never closes.
Is this how the fascists clamped down on unions in Germany.
Don
Posted by: Donald J Donaker | December 28, 2007 4:19 PM
Well Jack, it appears that our comments have been striken. So much for what you said, Moyers never closes.
Is this how the facists clamped down on unions in Germany.
Don
Posted by: Donald J Donaker | December 28, 2007 4:14 PM
I hear you Jack.
Just about everybody I know is subjected to speedups and pay reduction (increased health care cost is a pay reduction whether workers think of it as such or not).
The silence out there is deafening, glad to hear someone speak up.
Thanks for your reply.
Don
Posted by: Donald J Donaker | December 28, 2007 3:16 PM
And another thing, Andy Sterns brand of collaboration
with oligarchs is not my idea of unionism.
Posted by: Jack Martin | December 28, 2007 3:07 PM
Right on ,Donaker. (You have done much good work on an old
thread, but that's what we like about Moyers. He never closes.) I just want to tell you about my friend who works in an insurance company in Charlotte. They are killing her. The workload keeps growing and some work both weekends and long days on clerical tasks. It's just like "stretch-out" in the old textile mills. And what are they doing? They're not making a product. (They sell a defective product called disability insurance.) They are getting larger and larger quotas of the number of diabled benefits recipients who have to be cut off each month. They have also gone to insane lenghths to collect overpayments they sent out. (Policies have offsets for other benefits called subrogation clauses.) I have encouraged my friend to quit before she gains more weight or has a heart attack. (Lunch and exercise breaks are frowned upon and older workers are ditched for fresher, less savy younger ones. Her healthcare deductable goes up every six months right along with the premiums.) One day Peggy and I picked her up at work and we were astonished at how haggard and sick even the younger workers looked. Now we can see what Kafka must have gone through.
I wish for two things:
1. that some union would organize these claims examiners who are educated as social workers, disability experts, paralegals and such.
2.that some government body would investigate and set standards of coverage and ethical practice over these deceitful disability policies.
Is the only way to make a living to prey upon people at their most vulnerable time? Employers push these nearly worthless policies on employees to get considerations, commissions and payoffs. If you have a disability policy, look at the subrogation clauses and limits. It may not be worth the premiums or the hassles if you become ill or injured.
I agree with Richard Miller and all posters who supported organizing. We need unions now more than ever, and scabby syncophants less than ever.
Posted by: Jack Martin | December 28, 2007 3:01 PM
Labor union demise.
There is almost always one key element omitted when discussing the union question! Before getting into that, the air would be cleared if set and distinguishable terminology is used. To start off, since capitalism is generally accepted as being the best of all possible systems, it follows that there must be a capitalist class, proceeding from that there must be capitalists who belong to that class. Since that class owns the means of production and it is a tiny minority of the population, then the majority are compelled to work for the capitalists. The majority being workers, it follows that they must belong to the working class. Therefore exists a class divided society.
Now, back to the key omitted element. We had, right here in Minneapolis, the creation of a union in the early 1930's. Who created it? Workers! Well, if you go by the vague jargon in common usage today, you might miss their existence as workers; we are bombarded day after day with reports on consumers and their confidence. Nothing about workers and what they feel about their plight. That was not the case with the union referred to. It was the Teamsters, and they were not subjected to the ceaseless vague jargon in prevalent usage today, identifying them as "consumers," with their main concern being whether they had "consumer confidence" enough to go to the store to buy the necessities for life. They knew that they belonged to the working class and they knew that their interest was in opposition to that of the capitalist class. They knew that they were not getting enough pay to buy the necessities for life needed by them and their wives and children. They were class conscious. They didn't need anyone to tell them what to do. On their own part, they had the gumption to organize and form a union. That in spite of the actual fire power used against them as it was done all over the United States by the proud back shooters (themselves being members of the working class, mind you) who dutifully served the capitalist class, but that is another part of the story.
It didn't take long for the capitalist class, since direct force including the "blacklist," was ineffective. It only riled up workers more and besides, of most importance, it interfered with production and the making of profit. What to do about it? Eureka! We don't know which capitalist or group of capitalists came up with the panacea, what matters is that it solved the problem, production went on uninterrupted, and profits kept rolling in. It was the creation of the pro capitalist union leader, what some have referred to as the "labor merchant" or the "labor faker." He says to the workers, "Your busy doing your job and strikes always stop your pay and you get behind on your rent and grocery bill. Let me save you the misery, I will handle the boss." Gradually with the compliance of the labor faker, the vague jargon sets into what we have today, "consumers" and "consumer confidence." Capitalist class, what? Working class, what? Class consciousness, what?
It didn't take a "Hitler" to wreck the unions in the US, as was done in Germany. Calmly and persistently, with an occasional ranting and raving against the boss of course, it was the pro capitalist union leader, the "labor merchant," the "labor faker" who performed the dastardly deed. During all this time, with the assistance of union labor for its operation, the media and the educational system has been aiding and abetting the obscuring of workers' class consciousness. Until finally, labor faker union leaders have rendered themselves into an endangered species. The top ones, of course, having seen to it to become virtual capitalists themselves before their demise.
From capitalist use of force against the working class, to guile by using the labor faker to increase profits, comes the next obstacle to increasing profits, the Constitution of the United State. What now? Eureka! Again, we don't know which capitalist or group of capitalist came up with the replacement panacea, all that matters is that its working, profits are going up by leaps and bounds. Go to a country with a huge working class that is largely unemployed or marginally employed and best of all, a country with a Constitution not fit to wipe your, you know what, with--China. For the promise of a couple of fish heads and a bowl of rice a day, Mao roused the starving peasants to the glory of the Korean War human slaughterhouse. Now, for not much more, the Chinese workers submit to slaving away until they are driven into the ground, while the Chinese ruling class, once considered by the US to be tyrants behind the bamboo curtain, hell bent on spreading communism, serve as the new labor merchant to US capitalism.
Just as did our home grown labor merchant, the Chinese replacement makes sure to get a cut out of the action to become a well heeled virtual capitalist. The hitch is, just as our home grown labor merchant helped bring about its own endangered species status so will the Chinese labor merchant despot. Just how long is the scheme of merchandise streaming into the US from China, with American workers' payment continually being lowered, going to last? Just how long is the consumers' consumer confidence going to be sustained to remove the glut of merchandise on store selves, so they can be refilled again and again, while the caravan of super container ships from China come streaming day after day into the California docks to be unloaded?
Class conscious unions, anyone? Return of workers having the gumption to organize, form and operate unions by their own initiative, anyone? Or do we just sit in front of the boob tube and wait for the inevitable? Another breed of labor merchant, maybe!
During all this time, the merchant in question does not sell to the highest bidder as was done with the chattel slave on the auction block. He or she sells to the lowest bid of each capitalist concern, the commodity labor power. The labor merchant shill is on the take, getting paid on the side for offering the work time of workers at the lowest possible hourly pay. Not only is the labor merchant on the take with the capitalist class, he or she leeches union dues from workers to perform such a dastardly deed. Labor time is merchandise, a commodity, an investment of capital by the capitalist class. Right now that capital (commodity) is cheapest in China.
Here is one class conscious union that doesn't beat around the bush. But that is hardly enough for the total working class, but a start.
http://socialismmarxdeleonforarealunion.org/index.html
Posted by: Donald J Donaker | December 28, 2007 1:44 PM
Labor union demise.
There is almost always one key element omitted when discussing the union question! Before getting into that, the air would be cleared if set and distinguishable terminology is used. To start off, since capitalism is generally accepted as being the best of all possible systems, it follows that there must be a capitalist class, proceeding from that there must be capitalists who belong to that class. Since that class owns the means of production and it is a tiny minority of the population, then the majority are compelled to work for the capitalists. The majority being workers, it follows that they must belong to the working class. Therefore exists a class divided society.
Now, back to the key omitted element. We had, right here in Minneapolis, the creation of a union in the early 1930's. Who created it? Workers! Well, if you go by the vague jargon in common usage today, you might miss their existence as workers; we are bombarded day after day with reports on consumers and their confidence. Nothing about workers and what they feel about their plight. That was not the case with the union referred to. It was the Teamsters, and they were not subjected to the ceaseless vague jargon in prevalent usage today, identifying them as "consumers," with their main concern being whether they had "consumer confidence" enough to go to the store to buy the necessities for life. They knew that they belonged to the working class and they knew that their interest was in opposition to that of the capitalist class. They knew that they were not getting enough pay to buy the necessities for life needed by them and their wives and children. They were class conscious. They didn't need anyone to tell them what to do. On their own part, they had the gumption to organize and form a union. That in spite of the actual fire power used against them as it was done all over the United States by the proud back shooters (themselves being members of the working class, mind you) who dutifully served the capitalist class, but that is another part of the story.
It didn't take long for the capitalist class, since direct force including the "blacklist," was ineffective. It only riled up workers more and besides, of most importance, it interfered with production and the making of profit. What to do about it? Eureka! We don't know which capitalist or group of capitalists came up with the panacea, what matters is that it solved the problem, production went on uninterrupted, and profits kept rolling in. It was the creation of the pro capitalist union leader, what some have referred to as the "labor merchant" or the "labor faker." He says to the workers, "Your busy doing your job and strikes always stop your pay and you get behind on your rent and grocery bill. Let me save you the misery, I will handle the boss." Gradually with the compliance of the labor faker, the vague jargon sets into what we have today, "consumers" and "consumer confidence." Capitalist class, what? Working class, what? Class consciousness, what?
It didn't take a "Hitler" to wreck the unions in the US, as was done in Germany. Calmly and persistently, with an occasional ranting and raving against the boss of course, it was the pro capitalist union leader, the "labor merchant," the "labor faker" who performed the dastardly deed. During all this time, with the assistance of union labor for its operation, the media and the educational system has been aiding and abetting the obscuring of workers' class consciousness. Until finally, labor faker union leaders have rendered themselves into an endangered species. The top ones, of course, having seen to it to become virtual capitalists themselves before their demise.
From capitalist use of force against the working class, to guile by using the labor faker to increase profits, comes the next obstacle to increasing profits, the Constitution of the United State. What now? Eureka! Again, we don't know which capitalist or group of capitalist came up with the replacement panacea, all that matters is that its working, profits are going up by leaps and bounds. Go to a country with a huge working class that is largely unemployed or marginally employed and best of all, a country with a Constitution not fit to wipe your, you know what, with--China. For the promise of a couple of fish heads and a bowl of rice a day, Mao roused the starving peasants to the glory of the Korean War human slaughterhouse. Now, for not much more, the Chinese workers submit to slaving away until they are driven into the ground, while the Chinese ruling class, once considered by the US to be tyrants behind the bamboo curtain, hell bent on spreading communism, serve as the new labor merchant to US capitalism.
Just as did our home grown labor merchant, the Chinese replacement makes sure to get a cut out of the action to become a well heeled virtual capitalist. The hitch is, just as our home grown labor merchant helped bring about its own endangered species status so will the Chinese labor merchant despot. Just how long is the scheme of merchandise streaming into the US from China, with American workers' payment continually being lowered, going to last? Just how long is the consumers' consumer confidence going to be sustained to remove the glut of merchandise on store selves, so they can be refilled again and again, while the caravan of super container ships from China come streaming day after day into the California docks to be unloaded?
Class conscious unions, anyone? Return of workers having the gumption to organize, form and operate unions by their own initiative, anyone? Or do we just sit in front of the boob tube and wait for the inevitable? Another breed of labor merchant, maybe!
During all this time, the merchant in question does not sell to the highest bidder as was done with the chattel slave on the auction block. He or she sells to the lowest bid of each capitalist concern, the commodity labor power. The labor merchant shill is on the take, getting paid on the side for offering the work time of workers at the lowest possible hourly pay. Not only is the labor merchant on the take with the capitalist class, he or she leeches union dues from workers to perform such a dastardly deed. Labor time is merchandise, a commodity, an investment of capital by the capitalist class. Right now that capital (commodity) is cheapest in China.
Here is one class conscious union that doesn't beat around the bush. But that is hardly enough for the total working class, but a start.
http://socialismmarxdeleonforarealunion.org/index.html
Posted by: Donald J Donaker | December 28, 2007 1:39 PM
Good heavens, do any of you actually read your own stuff that you write?
It reminds me of one of my favorite Calvin and Hobbes(c) cartoon where Calvin says, "Nothing I do is my fault." And then in the next frame he continues, ""My family is dysfunctional and my parents won't empower me! Consequently I'm not self actualized.
Next frame: "My behavior is addictive functioning in a disease process of toxic codependency! I need holistic healing and wellness before I'll accept any responsibility for my actions!
Hobbs response to this? "One of us needs to stick his head in a bucket of ice water. Calvin just grins, "I love the culture of victimhood.
Now doesn't the cartoonist take us all back to the times that many of our bloggers here have been needing to do is to stick their heads into a bucket of ice water?!!!
Union totalirism and Karl Marx Socialism and Mao"s Communism and the new form of leadership in Venezuala are not what works here.
Organization of the unions by the Marxists in the early days of the last cerntury, here in the U.S. sound so familiar to some of the retoric spouted about in this blog. Is that what we really want?
Why don't we just rejust refer to those corporate money mongers as bushuasie and burgess and do as they did to them in china?
Or,let"s keep the wall torn down as Ronald Reagan has so eloquantly stated it and not go to any form of a socialist/unionist government.
That is not to recognise that change does not eed to occur but not wholesale socialism/unionism. To suggest otherwise is to need the "bucket of icewater" in my opinion.
Bob lutes
Posted by: Bob Lutes | June 29, 2007 2:55 PM
Kelly, you can't keep your position from being outsourced just by "reinventing the service you provide in your job." The race to the bottom doesn't work that way. The best way to keep your position from being outsourced is to work to get some people who actually care about America elected to positions of power in America's federal government.
"Reinventing the service you provide in your job" is a dishonest little slogan, carefully planted by a corporate think-tank in order to discourage unionization and to persuade ordinary Americans to blame the victims instead of the perpetrators of corporate outsourcing.
"What's that you say, you lost your job? You must have done something you shouldn't, or failed to do something you should. Maybe you neglected to... um... uh... er... Reinvent yourself! Yeah, that's the ticket! It's your own fault, you should have reinvented yourself! Everyone else here, move along, nothing to see. All you have to do is just be willing to reinvent yourself when the time comes; then you won't end up like this poor woman who irresponsibly brought herself and her family to ruin, by refusing to reinvent herself."
Posted by: REM | June 23, 2007 5:46 AM
Unions were spun beginning in the Reagan administration, and we all fell in line with the new terminology being created by the corporate government. Unions were ill-prepared for the corporate/government/media assault. Once our media is given back to the people, and it will happen, we'll see a return of the Unions as workers and society, once again, begin to respect the concept of working for a living.
Posted by: Alma Kesling | June 23, 2007 12:56 AM
I really appreciated the interview with Andy Stern because up to and even early that day I could have been quoted that unions have served their purpose. After watching the interview I realized that unions are in need of reinventing themselves. Just like I have to reinvent the service I provide in my job to keep from my position being outsourced, unions need to adapt to helping the people who can benefit from organization. In the same breath I would say that unions that have become much too big and become about power probably need to review the objectives of the union.
Posted by: Kelly | June 22, 2007 10:21 PM
As the wife of an airline pilot who has been represented by a union (and makes only 30K/year after 6 YEARS as a professional airline pilot and line check airman!), here is my question: WHAT GOOD IS THE UNION WHEN WE HAVE FEDERAL MEDIATION THAT FORBIDS THE WORKERS FROM ANY STRIKE ACTION? I believe in the concept of unions - IF they are willing and able to complete the job entrusted to them of PROTECTING the interests of its clientele. We are NOT seeing that today in this industry! If it was up to MOST of the pilot group (at least at our company), there would have been a strike a LONG time ago.
Unions useful? I don't know about that anymore.
Posted by: pilot wife | June 22, 2007 2:08 AM
I got turned on to the idea of Unions by none other than the UFW and Bobby Kennedy in Central California. Now that was a labor fight!!
Unions are necessary ... as necessary as Democracy. Unions ARE Democracy. Like any "democratic union" (pun intended) they require work to maintain, lots and lots of hard work.
We owe a huge debt to Organizers of the past. Sadly their story is rarely told. The power of Union is self evident in the savage, relentless wars waged to defeat them. Unions useful? HA! Now more than ever!
Posted by: Jan | June 21, 2007 9:58 PM
I am s member of SEIU721.
The merging of 7 unions to one. This was suppose to be a win for the Local 535 merger with Local 660. However we are losing our great medical benefits and being forced to take the meager benefits that Local 660 negociated for their members. We asked Local 721 to pull out all the stops to help us keep our benefits and fight Los Angeles County. They have yet to contact Andy Stern to ask his help in this battle. I don't think they want him to know the problems in California. Andy we need your help.
Posted by: Deborah Cotton Thomas | June 21, 2007 1:18 AM
It seems to me that globalization is most effective for ordinary workers in the INTERNATIONAL UNION movement. That way, we can keep track of where the corporations are working and with what people and work together to ensure that workers are not exploited wherever they are. Once I realized that illegal immigrants are good for U.S. businesses because they allow corporations to outsource without having to travel (the workers come to them), that's when I realized that cooperation between unions internationally is essential.
I was inspired by both Andy Sterns and Grace Lee Boggs, for different reasons. I wish I had known of them before, but better now than never.
Love the show.
Posted by: Brenda Berck | June 20, 2007 11:57 PM
Andy Sterns ideas are good. What needs to happen first, Is the politicins who we voted in need to start taking care of all the people not just the ones who have the money to further there political interests. Second, every one of the politians need to be on Social Security, not there own lucrative retirement plan that the rest of us pay for. How can they ever relate to the rest of us on Social Security. How did setting up a reitrement plan like the on they have ever get approved. Oh! They take of each other! This has to be address ASAP.
Posted by: Ed | June 20, 2007 6:19 PM
I happened upon Bill's show while surfing. Mrs. Boggs spoke eloquently, but as most socialists, deceptively. Like the fall of the Soviet Union, Mrs. Boggs' ideas are yesterday's news. Wake up people, they lost, we won, get over it.
Posted by: ron r's friend | June 20, 2007 5:41 PM
The media endlessly repeats the mantra that unions are in international decline. The fact of the matter is that according to the best evidence there is, more unions have grown than have shrunk since 1997. Why 1997? Because that's when the last proper global study was done! (10 years ago - the same year Princess Diana died!). If you don't believe me ask Google. Or see the two articles on the New Unionism website: http://www.newunionism.net/
Unionism has not outlived its usefulness, it has held its ground despite 10 years of relentless and sustained corporate misreporting.
Posted by: Peter | June 19, 2007 12:31 PM
Absolutely not. We have a country that is controlled by corporate interest. We need the unions to grow and challenge this power. As long as we have corporate power, then we need union power. Imagine what would happen in 98% of all working families were in a union. Health care would be provided to everyone, we would have greater educational system, college would be affordable, housing would be affordable, we wouldn't be at war in foreign countries, we would have workers compensation that provide a standard of living for the injured, we would have better unemployment systems, the elected officials would be using the government to help the people not hurt them. I could go on and on. The point: unions makes democracy work best!
Posted by: Andre | June 18, 2007 8:28 PM
The question about the usefulness of unions was as ridiculous as asking if the voting rights act is useless. As long has there is hatetred and bigotry in this great nation of ours we need the voting rights act and as long as working men and women struggle for a place in this economy then unions are not only useful but necessary.
Posted by: Damita | June 18, 2007 6:32 PM
A viewer commented to the fact that we need balance. Both in Unions and Corporations. True. But isn't it equally true that the blame can be held by each of us? Us being defined as stockholders that require ( not hope for) profits on a quarterly basis. We each want the good life, and sometimes forget that the Corps are merely images of our own personal desire for gain. No wonder then that as Corps vie for your investment dollars, workers needs get passed over, or hidden in the Annual Reports, and instead the "Guru" that supposedly runs the company makes millions on his salary and his stock options and is touted as the "hero". Good for Mr Stern, but hope that his Union can ultimately remember what it's beginnings were made of some ten or twenty years from now.
Posted by: Dan | June 18, 2007 5:43 PM
I'm sorry but its gotten to the point where big, muscular corporations wield all the power in our society. Employees--people trying to raise families have to deal with the havoc created by corporate power. One example is the demise of usury laws. Usury laws used to protect regular folks against loan sharks and extortion. Nowadays, banking has repealed usury laws so that we can all get clobbered by high interest rates! My hope is with unions. Its only by banding together we can restore a bit of balance in favor of the little guy.
Posted by: Osipova | June 18, 2007 5:17 PM
Just goes to show how well the right wing misinformation has worked to destroy the unions.I believe it is a fact that at the time of the greatest union influence was also the time of greates prosperity in the working class. Without the unions there would be no middle class. Wasn't the education of the trade apprenticess all done by them too? It is evident that the working stiff is at the mercy of the largess of the employer, who will always claim that competance and competition not faithfull long service decide raises. Maybe competition should be limited to the luxuries in life and not also for housing, clothing and food with the rest of the world. Charity begins at home.
Posted by: Ewan S Fallon | June 18, 2007 4:19 PM
There was a time when unions held so much power that they became (almost) as bad as what they were established to fight -- but that time is long past. Big Money has held the reins for far too long, with the predictable results we now see all around us: stagnant or declining wages for most; scant or no benefits; yada-yada. Reviving Americans' right to organize, though, is only a tiny step in the right direction. Likewise, improving access to higher education will mean very little, as long as corporations are allowed to rule the world. As I've written here on other threads, we've got to cap the trade deficit and reverse tax regs that encourage companies to ship our jobs overseas. We need to break up some dangerous monopolies, too -- not least over the media that have people brainwashed into believing corporatist rubbish. Obviously public financing of elections is crucial to making the other changes necessary to save us.
Posted by: (The Other) Katherine Harris | June 18, 2007 11:33 AM
Mr. Stern's "interview" should have been balanced, on the same program, with an opposite view of the place for unions. I feel such biased media reporting is a great disservice to our nation.
Posted by: Janice Schock | June 17, 2007 6:12 PM
Hopefully!
Posted by: Uga | June 17, 2007 3:43 PM
The fall of the American auto makers and other such heavily unionized industries is evidence enough to me that unions too often do not benefit their members. I do not dispute that corporations take advantage of their employees too often but unions have not proved to be a viable solution to that problem.
Posted by: Dev Vaz | June 16, 2007 11:31 PM
Last nights show was excellent as usual. I'm so glad your back, Bill.
I think unions can still be very useful if there's a way to reach fair and equitable contracts. In some cases unions demand too much causing the price of services and products to rise and companies to look off shore as a way to, in some cases, survive and/or make larger profits. There has to be a balance or the system will remain in its current dysfunctional state.
Posted by: Jade | June 16, 2007 8:23 PM
This constant drumbeat of "Globalization is Inevitable" amounts to surrender of our civilization to the corporatocracy that is generating all this propaganda. None of this is set in concrete though it is a probable outcome as long as we continue to buy into the coordinated hype generated by the corporate run media and the oligarchy that currently passes for a Democratic government in this country.
I find that most Americans, while espousing the virtues of Globalization, have totally ignored the ultimate transformation that must occur for Globalization to become a reality; the end of the nation state. We are talking about empire and an imperialist world government where regional concerns for the quality of life no longer exist unless they are having a negative impact on planetary corporate profit. In simpler terms, our flag, our constitution, our bill of rights, and our dreams of freedom and equality are on the chopping block.
We have the power to thwart this movement by ignoring the rants of corporate lapdogs that proclaim dyer warnings such as, “isolationist policies hurt America”. Trade negotiations over the past 15 years have overwhelmingly benefited foreign countries, multinational corporations, and a group of international bankers at an enormous cost to U.S. workers and a number of U.S. companies that believe in maintaining U.S. dominance on the world stage.
We are seeing a transformation in other parts of the world as countries and entire continents cast off the shackles of corporate financed dictators and international banking loan sharks as they embrace a nationalist agenda with freedom and respect for individual human rights. Ironic that we are being coerced into terminating our experiment in Democracy just as many others are being born. The concern over the fate of trade unions is really the least of our problems.
Posted by: Richard | June 16, 2007 12:34 PM
dare not utter the "u" word these days anywhere near a workplace...it astounds me that companies are so fearful about a group of people (workers) who get together to ask for better: perhaps better wages, working conditions, etc.
it astounds me that companies are so loathe to even sit across a table and even hear what might "be wrong" for workers. it astounds me that companies are so terrified to work out a deal so workers will be happier and more productive.
it's called negotiation. isn't that what the big kids do?
i hear so much about "value-added." when writing resumes, i'm told to make sure i include what "value" i added to jobs i've held. little by little, underpaid service workers (the new economy workers) are catching on, and unions will grow again. see, those workers are beginning to understand that the "value added" to many companies is THEM. they make the sales; they keep the operation going; they are the company face that the public sees; that without THEM, there is, guess what, no company at all!
Posted by: songweasel | June 15, 2007 11:24 PM
I made a mistake by accident! The decline of unions is what I meant to say. Sorry
Posted by: Janet Chafe | June 15, 2007 10:30 PM
Unions raise all boats. Everyone including the rich benefit from unions. Innovation, efficiency, ethics - good flows from unions. The sorry state of the United States ethically and economically, is at least reflected by the rise of the unions. Unions are feared by those who fear freedom. No unions in the old USSR or in Haiti.
Posted by: Janet Chafe | June 15, 2007 10:27 PM
Unions, local political groups, and community discussion seems to be at a low. Indeed, the usefulness of these groups need to be reinvigorated and participation increased. The counter-balance to corporate power has to be organizations for the protection working conditions and a voice for fairness throughout all organizations. Union strength is being broken by the political and geographic boundaries faced by employees of large corporations.
Posted by: Gene | June 15, 2007 5:23 PM
1) The unions need to be more realistic when dealing with management. For example, I don't think it's reasonable to expect employers to bear the entire burden of healthcare costs. Unions should be flexible on this issue, while at the same time mounting a massive campaign against insurance and drug companies. 2) Also they need to get with the whole globalization program. We will never reverse the trend of losing manufacturing jobs to cheaper overseas labor markets, for example. Unions need to work with management and government in a constructive way to address these issues. If they fail to adapt to the 21st century realities such as these, then I'm afraid they will become irrelevant. If they can adapt then they can continue to be a positive force in our society.
Posted by: Mark Burgess | June 15, 2007 5:04 PM
With companies treating workers like game pieces to be sacrificed to obtain objectives and with upper management compensation many times that of the work force, unions are needed now more than ever. However, they need to be much smarter and more sophisticated in their approach to issues. And they need to stop giving in to companies on important issues of worker welfare. Unions need to hold the line on health insurance and retirement benefits for workers. If companies are going to move to find lower taxes and cheaper workers, unions are going to have to organize wherever the companies move. This will be downright dangerous but organizing has always been dangerous - remember the Haymarket Massacre.
Posted by: M. Richard Miller | June 15, 2007 4:53 PM