Why the Democrats Need Labor Again

[Omaha Steve]

X post in GD & Socialist-Progressive




http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/democrats-need-labor-again-113583.html#.VKhfJSvF-So

Thomas Geoghegan is a labor lawyer and sometime journalist and author best known for his 1991 book, Which Side Are You On? Trying To Be For Labor When It’s Flat On Its Back. Geoghegan’s new book, Only One Thing Can Save Us: Why America Needs A New Kind of Labor Movement, is a sort of sequel. Like the earlier book, it’s part Spalding Gray monologue — equal parts comic and despairing — and part policy tome, full of provocative prescriptions for a patient that’s only gotten sicker during the past 23 years. POLITICO Pro Labor & Employment editor Timothy Noah interviewed Geoghegan by e-mail recently.

Timothy Noah: Your book appears at a notably bleak moment for the labor movement. Union density has fallen below 7 percent in the private sector. In the midterms, the AFL-CIO targeted six Republican governors and managed to defeat only one. Nearly half of all states are now “right-to-work,” meaning workers don’t have to pay union dues or their equivalent to a union that bargains collectively on their behalf. Would it be fair to describe this book as a last-ditch effort?

Thomas Geoghegan: For labor, it’s past the last-ditch stage. I think of it as a last-ditch effort for the Democrats. I’d say the book is addressed not just to labor but to the Democratic party — and to the left in general. Without a real labor movement in place, the Democrats will not be the party of the working people. And until it is such a party, it will not be a governing party.

At least in my view, the GOP is just not able to be a governing party — to stop the decay in our institutions, the continued growth in inequality, and a kind of hopelessness among people who just feel abandoned by our institutions — our political ones, corporate ones, and, yes, often labor too.

FULL story at link.

[Basic LA]

1. Employee Nation

Great post of an urgent cause. But eyes glaze over with words like Labor, Workers, & Proletarians because no one relates to these historic terms. But everyone identifies with the word Employees (even the self-employed) because we are predominantly an Employee Nation. Let's all connect.

[OrwellwasRight]

4. AFL-CIO tried that.

Unfortunately, it dropped like a stone.

Besides: we are the proles. If we pretend class doesn't exist in America, we're the same as Republicans. It does exist. The rich are more powerful and have different interests (e.g., they want taxes on investment income to be less than taxes on labor income). These differences are real and if we, as labor, pretend they aren't we'll never get anywhere. We have to point out that the game is rigged, the rich are in it for themselves and our job is very specific: to derail that agenda and impose a different: one that gives all of us a decent life.

[Basic LA]

5. No connection.

Can't find any connection between my post & your reply. That video doesn't use the word Employees to denote the working class, which is what I suggest. A word we all can relate to in the present day. Employees Unite. Throw off your chains, etc. We can't create class consciousness using words people don't understand or think includes them. Maybe I'm wrong.

[OrwellwasRight]

6. "People who work" is what they used, and contrary to your assessment,

I think it is pretty damn close to what you are saying. You find "no connection." Perhaps you don't see the relationship between being an "employee" (i.e., someone who works for someone else) and being a "person who works." There's no explaining what connections the mind will and will not make.

FWIW: Based on everything the AFL-CIO did for its 2013 rebranding convention, I would surmise the AFL-CIO tested "employee" and it didn't work. You can search the AFL-CIO's You Tube channel and find lots of videos about the reform efforts. Not that it has changed anything so far. It's an institution that turns on a Gold Crown instead of a dime if you get my drift.

To me, I don't think "employee" actually grabs people. Obviously, I could be wrong since it grabs you. However, to me, it automatically puts one in an inferior position. To be an employee, one must have an employer. And I think most people would rather "be the boss." It's just like when the Democrats abandoned labor and instead promoted "poverty" programs. No one is for poverty programs because no one wants to identify with being poor. (and by no one, I mean fewer people -- I don;t literally mean no one -- I'm for poverty programs for cripes sake)

On the other hand, we all work, we all put in labor, even if we are the boss (in fact, to get to be the boss is supposedly the result of working hard), so identifying as someone who labors, who puts in effort, I think certainly speaks to people -- and differentiates us from the idle rich who live off of wealth someone else created. That's how I see it. Obviously, not how you see it. We're all entitled to have our own view.

[Basic LA]

7. Now I get it.

You're talking about how we use language to define ourselves. OK, I'm on board with that.

[OrwellwasRight]

3. As long as the Dems keep pushing corporate-designed trade agreements,

they will keep shrinking unions (by sending union jobs overseas to reincarnate as sweatshop-type jobs) and will keep losing union votes.

There was a reason Democrats stayed home in 1994 and it was NAFTA. People get pissed when the party they support keeps abandoning them. I'm not advocating NOT voting for Democrats -- let's be clear -- I'm describing reality. When the Democratic politicians abandon the working class, the working class abandons Democratic politicians. This has been happening for about 20 years and was well described "What's the Matter with Kansas." Yet the Democratic party won't learn -- they keep sucking up to corporate masters.