The Anti-Union Bias Persists Among Some "Liberal" Democrats

[Better Believe It]

In Defense of Unions
by Brian Schatz

Haleakala Times
July 15, 2008

Occasionally I run into a self-described liberal Democrat, the kind of person who reads the Haleakala Times, who might have donated to Barack Obama, who thinks George Bush is an abomination, you know the type, and they say something shocking. It sounds like this: “Well, I’m a liberal, and you know, and I think the unions were great in the 50’s and 60’s when there was exploitation, and they were fighting for equal rights, but I think they might have outlived their usefulness.” These otherwise clearheaded and left-leaning people reject right-wing talking points when it comes to foreign policy, global warming, and civil liberties, but when it comes to the rights of people to organize and negotiate with their employers, they sound more like Sean Hannity than Sean Penn.

.... the anti-union bias persists in some liberal circles, with some people insisting that they’ve gone too far. And that predictable claim will gain more traction as Hawaii’s economy softens, even in the face of evidence to the contrary.

The average pay in union states in 2006 was around 41 thousand dollars, and in non-union states it was around 36 thousand. Even though research shows higher productivity in union workplaces, people still cling to the myth that organized labor is a drain on the free market. We all reap the personal and societal benefits of the five day work-week, laws against child labor, the minimum wage, paid holidays, and the eight hour day, reforms made possible by organized labor.

Do some unions have their excesses? Of course, just like churches and temples, nonprofit organizations, multinational corporations, and the government. But if I were working cleaning rooms or cutting prime rib, sweeping floors or renovating a parking lot, and I didn’t feel like my employer was treating me fairly, I know exactly who I would call.

Please read the entire article at:
http://www.haleakalatimes.com/News/story3122.aspx

Brian Schatz

[Union Thug]

1. Thank you for posting this. N/T

[mrreowwr_kittty]

2. That opinion is out there. OTOH some polls show that over 50% of Americans want to join a union

I think most of the anti-union liberals are people who work for employers who treat them well and they don't see the point. I used to work for a HUGE company (hint: microprocessors) where the pay, benefits, and safety record were so excellent that people there didn't even consider unionizing. It's a good deal if you can get it, but too many workers are trapped in situations where they have no leverage.

[upi402]

3. RECOMMENDED! i agree, new dems are old republicans

just more foxes guarding the hen house. what slays me is to hear low wage workers complain that unions make everything more expensive, yeah right, big oil is rife with unionism. same ol propaganda over and over until it's catapulted.

[readmoreoften]

7. You better believe it.

If a Democrat has no interest in economic justice, they're usually just a Republican who likes art and urban fashion.

[Liberal Veteran]

4. As a union worker, I know a couple of people that are like that.

Liberal, but totally clueless about their union.

One woman, who I like a lot wants to get rid of the union, but I happen to know that in our "at will" state, if the union was ever gone, she'd be canned because the supervisor dislikes her intensely (she's a decent worker, but they have personality clashes).

I always have to remind people they work in a state where you can be fired for any reason whatsoever (or even no reason) and one of the benefits of being in a union is that you can't be canned on a whim.

[readmoreoften]

5. Considering that during my strike the scabs were about 100% Democrats and Greens, I concur.

On strike for 6 months. Not a single Republican among the scabs. The manager who organized against me most viciously was on the board of The Nation. Most of the excuses for scabbing was faux progressivism: "labor unions were racist during the early/middle twentieth century ergo labor unions are racist."

To me, the only difference between anti-labor 'liberals' and Republicans is that their excuses for scabbing and union busting are more offensive.

[Omaha Steve]

6. K&R

I left the DU for 36 hours after a similar story got no attention Saturday.


http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/07/10/do_blogs_take_labor_issues_ser/

Do Blogs Take Labor Issues Seriously?

By Nathan Newman - July 10, 2008, 10:45AM

I'll admit that part of my annoyance at the full court obsession with FISA is that it reflects the broader liberal blog obsessions with goo-goo process issues, as opposed to a populist focus on the core economic and social justice issues that matter in most peoples' lives. Doug Kendall, who I have the most serious respect for, has the best critique I've seen (written with Dahlia Lithwick) of Obama's defensive responses to the guns and death penalty cases at the Supreme Court. However, his point is that Obama should have played offense by highlighting the pro-big business decisions of the Supreme Court this session-- something most of the blogs haven't done either.

As I noted last week, state regulations of business lost out in nearly every single case decided, and even the "liberal" Justices joined many if not most of the major decisions. Which reflects modern elite liberalism too well that you can distinguish liberals from conservatives on a death penalty case, but when corporations are trashing workers rights, suddenly the differences can get a little fuzzy.

And what really annoys me is that in the major union decision of the term, Chamber of Commerce v. Brown, one of the most anti-union results in decades, there was essentially zero commentary across the blogs.
This is decision that orders state governments to fund union busters receiving government contracts-- i.e if government pays for health care and a company chooses to divert taxpayer dollars to fight a union attempt, rather than use that money to provide the health care contracted for, the state is helpless to stop it.

That's actually just the headline of the obvious effects of the decision; the underlying law is even worse, since it a radical take on labor law that will likely preempt a far larger number of state laws seeking to protect labor rights.

Full story at link.

It is time I said I'm sorry for my post Saturday night when I felt I was done with the DU. I was kind of nasty.

[billyoc]

8. "Unions have outlived their usefulness"

The Liberal credo.

[readmoreoften]

13. So the paid-off scabs kept telling me.

I'd rather be stuck on an island with a labor activist of any political stripe than the most "progressive" anti-labor reactionary. (At least the pro-labor person would work to get us off the damn island.)

S/he who crosses a picket line is dead to me.

[billyoc]

15. I'll admit that I'm biased, I was raised to despise liberals and all their works.

They never failed to stab the working class in the back at every opportunity, a lesson I was fortunate to learn as a small boy.

[readmoreoften]

33. To rephrase Stephen Colbert: Reality has a distinctly working-class bias.

Yes they do. I see it here all the time too. Especially in the discussions about the poor and "disadvantaged". It's even there in the word: the poor have lost all their advantages. This leads to the conclusion: {i]oh well, everyone can't have the advantage; someone must be left behind. After that it's all Mother Teresaesque pain management: how can we do just enough for the disadvantaged that we can feel good about ourselves while still retaining our advantage.

[billyoc]

42. Oh, yeah... Hey, here's one way!

Buy this!

http://store.theonion.com/images/get/499

:rofl:

[readmoreoften]

43. love it!

[billyoc]

44. I love that (RED) campaign, buy our sweatshop shit, made by slaves, we'll send a case

of Dasani to Burkina-Faso. :wtf:

[readmoreoften]

46. Bono and his ilk must have permanently dislocated shoulders from patting themselves on the back.

[aspergris]

9. As a union member myself

I am very glad that unions existed and I recognize that many workers' rights and privileges we take for granted are largely the result of union activism in the past.

I also recognize that unions are not always right, nor do they (necessarily) advocate for "the good". They advocate for their SIDE, and that is needed and often beneficial because management will often want unfair advantage and advocate only for THEIR side.

The two-sided conflict often results in a fairer and frankly better result than if the union wasn't there.

Perfect example of a supposed liberal that generally supports all the "right issues" for liberals, but when it comes to Unions and HIS business is staunchly anti-union is Howard Schultz from starbux.

[Orrex]

10. You know all those things that don't suck about the modern workplace?

We can thank unions for them:

Health Insurance
Paid vacation
Paid Sick Leave
40-hour work weeks
Workplace safety

and on and on.


Anyone who claims that unions are useless is a poorly informed idiot.

[cascadiance]

11. I want unions damnit! But I also want them not to make the same mistakes they made before!

That lead to them being infested with organized crime, etc. and people like Jimmy Hoffa disappearing mysteriously.

I think we do need that sort of power in these organizations now, but I think they need to be more than confrontive. They need to grow in their mission and do the following as well this time around:

1) They need to be international in scope and coordination. The coordination of the Liverpool dock workers and those in Oakland in their strikes against unloading a British ship that was loaded by scabs is a good example of what is needed. The corporations are now multinational, and as long as the WTO, NAFTA, etc. exist, organized labor needs to be global in scope on how they organize workers too. That's a big challenge, and one that we'll have to work through many disagreements on.

2) I'd like to see them work more with other professional organizations to get a lot of the white collar and service employees more involved too. Not just manufacturing blue collar employees. Maybe even evolve into something like a "Guild" for some industries, where they help put together professional certifications for people, and therefore help form the requirements for people to get a professional job done by certified workers. Then those unions would not only be a "force" for companies to deal with, but perhaps also something they HAVE to deal with if they want to have better quality work to compete in the marketplace. If for example, you had the ACM (Association for Computing Machinery) do more than just be a professional organization for tech workers and those studying newer technologies, but have them work with a union together to build a guild like structure that would have certification/education paired with negotiating power to empower their members to command not just a better job through qualifications, but also help them fight the outsourcing environment, and create a level playing field for all workers so that foreign workers have Green Cards instead of H-1B visas, and everyone truly is paid a decent wage.

[bluestateguy]

12. Unions are not perfect

And sometimes they are as resistant to common as the corporations they stand up against.

I was working a summer job 13 years ago between freshman and sophomore year of college as a cashier in a drug store. The workers were unionized, yet my pay was only slightly above minimum wage. Anyway, I didn't mind because this was just a summer job to earn extra cash for sophomore year, and the job was close to my house. Days after being hired I received an item in the mail from the union "inviting" me to join (the store was a closed shop). I would have joined were it not for the $200 initiation fee and the $24 monthly dues I would have had to pay. I'm sorry, but that would have been a significant chunk of my summer earnings. I called them and explained to them that I was just a college kid working a temporary summer job to earn money for college expenses like textbooks. This was not a long-term job, otherwise I would have joined without hesitation. Yet my arguments seemed to fall on deaf ears. I dragged my feet for the rest of the summer, and blew them off. By the time the union's bureaucracy came looking for me (they called my house) it was September, and I was back East, and back in school.

[Better Believe It]

20. We Do Need More Effective, Militant and Democratic Unions

But that can only be accomplished by workers who join or organize unions.

Less than 8% of workers in the private sector are currently members of labor organizations!!

And many workers who are currently in labor unions are seeing the employers take away many of the economic and decent working conditions that had been won in the past.

The labor movement has been in decline and retreat for nearly 30 years now.

That's can't and won't continue.

Either the existing labor unions will change their policies and install a new competent leadership, or they will be replaced with new workers organizations in the near future.

The labor movement is due .... over due .... for a radical transformation and shake-up. The developing economic crisis will change the way most working people think and act about organization. The labor movement will once again became a real living and breathing social movement that won't limit itself to "on the job" bread and butter issues.

It can become a very powerful and progressive movement leading tens of millions of people on a wide range of economic, social and political issues.

We can get just a little hint of what is coming if we become familiar with the 1930's organization of the CIO and expansion of AFL unions.

[readmoreoften]

22. Good for you, you cheated a union. Congratulations.

That "significant chunk" of union dues goes to fighting the management to get better wages. Those "union dues" support other workers fighting for rights that will effect rights across the board. Those "union dues" ensure that when you get fired and your union is legal RESPONSIBLE for representing you, that they will be able to take care of the costs. Where is the money to support a union supposed to come from if not workers? Who? Management?

When I was on strike "general union dues" paid me $200 a week when I lost my salary and ensured that my health insurance wouldn't be dropped. It paid for coffee on the picket line so we wouldn't freeze while walking in circles for 8 hours a day in below freezing weather. It also paid the salaries of the data entry workers who processed our checks.

Open shops or "charity shops" where workers pay "if they feel like it" are usually as bad or worse than having no union at all.

So you were a college student on summer vacation? What about the local and community college students who don't get to go off to college? Should they not have to pay their dues as well? What about people who have kids in college?

I get it: you weren't "working class enough" to have to pay your dues. You're weren't a worker! You were just a college-student-who-happened-to-be-working! Why should someone of your class stature have to pay lowly union dues? You're gonna be management someday!

[bluestateguy]

25. It was 13 years ago. Get over it.

I was 19. If I had known that you would have been willing to pay for my textbooks and winter clothes back then, maybe I would have made another decision.

And for the record, I would be happy to join a union in my current job if given the chance.

[readmoreoften]

32. Then maybe you should retitle your post "My attitudes towards unions have not been perfect"

Because whether or not unions are perfect has little to do with your post. Other working class people have the right to pay for their textbooks and winter clothes as well. Get over it because it was 13 years ago? Hell, you're the one bragging about cheating the union out of your dues today.

Everyone always wants to be the exception when it comes to paying dues or crossing picking lines. That is one of the reasons why unions are weaker in the US than elsewhere.

That being said, I wholeheartedly encourage you to unionize your current workplace and would help you in any way I could.

[Better Believe It]

36. No Problem I Understand

Most people who are or were 19 don't have a clue about what a labor union is, what is represents or any of the history of organized labor.

That's not their fault.

The schools just don't teach it.

And unfortunately, the labor movement, with rare exceptions, doesn't teach members and potential members anything about labor and working class history in this country and the world.

That too must change.

[proud2BlibKansan]

40. You should pay that union now

Karma's a bitch. It's not too late to fix it.

[proud2BlibKansan]

39. I had a similar experience and gladly joined the union

I guess at the same age I was mature enough to understand that the union was the reason I was earning slightly above minimum wage for a summer job, especially when management knew I was only a temporary employee. At first I was irritated that I had to pay a union for a summer job but almost immediately I was grateful for that union when my supervisor turned out to be an asshole with a mean authoritarian management style. The union was there to back me and insist on fair treatment. And the union also knew I was going to be gone in three months.

It never would have occurred to me to not pay those union dues. And I have been a union supporter ever since.

[Sancho]

14. 40 years ago, I started BC (before college) working in a textile mill, and I ...

learned the value of unions. Last year, I was our union representative (university employees) and I have a union sign on my office door that I had to fight to put up.

Yes, there have been good union leaders and bad union leaders and dues to pay and political mistakes. In the long run, you cannot have progressive democracy without unions as long as there are power-hungry, lying, SOB's like GWB and all his corporate buddies.

Solidarity!

:dem:

[Alexander]

16. I was a union member when I worked in a grocery store.

And I'll never forget it.

[Political Heretic]

17. I guess I didn't realize that anti-union sentiment was widespread on the left

Of course I live in Idaho where strong unions are a pipe dream. But organized labor is the only recourse a worker has for matching the powerful and well-backed interests of management.

I frankly don't care as much about the arguments of people who point out union's shortcomings. As soon as they can suggest a better alternative for helping ordinary working class people have an equal advocacy voice for fair work then I'm all ears. Until then, shutup.

[Hippo_Tron]

21. I agree with this sentiment

My fellow econ majors hate unions because they think workers should be paid by their productivity. Of course unions or no unions management is going to pay all of the low-level workers the same wage no matter how productive they are. And yes there will be more unemployment if wages go up. But except in certain areas of the country (Michigan) unemployment isn't the real problem. The real problem is people having to work two or three jobs to pay the bills.

[readmoreoften]

27. Anti-union sentiment isn't widespread on the left. The Democratic party isn't on the left anymore.

You are correct.

The only argument on the left against unionization is the communist position that the capitalist state should be completely overturned an run by the workers, ergo, there would be no theoretical reason for workers to organize against capital interests because there would be no more capital interest.

Other than that, it's just right-wing tripe that has infiltrated the Democratic party. Sure the infrastructure of the union is wide open for critique, but that's only something that can be done from the inside, fighting on organizing committees or even going so far as to risk creating more radical unions.

[Political Heretic]

30. Point taken (from your subject line)

[CTD]

18. This issue isn't nearly this black and white

Please don't make me recite all of the good unions have and continue to do for workers. I understand all of that. But...

Whether we like it or not, labor now competes on a global marketplace. Manufacturing jobs left the US because of union salary demands, not because of workplace safety standards or workweek hour limits.

I'd rather the US still had those jobs, even if the salaries ended up 20% lower than they peaked at. Those jobs would still be better than working at Walmart.

Sure, you can blame the corporations for valuing profits over these jobs. But the reality is that if these corporations didn't compete with their foreign competition, they'd be out of business anyway and the jobs would still be gone.

So while they have done and still do a lot of good, the simple fact is that unions did kill a whole segment of middle class employment in this country - the manufacturing sector.

Call me some right-wing lunatic if you want, but it doesn't change the facts. So my opinion of unions and their continued role is more mixed.

I won't say (nor do I believe) that they have "outlived their usefulness". But they have done some serious damage to the country along the way,

[Hippo_Tron]

23. Those jobs were going overseas with or without unions

Even if a non union worker would get $10 an hour for a job that a union worker could get $15 an hour for, that's trivial compared to when you can pay a Chinese worker 25 cents an hour with no benefits.

Part of the problem is that we don't have universal health care. That would allow American workers to compete better. And also I think we desperately need to unionize service sector jobs.

[readmoreoften]

29. Right because it's better to workers making $4 an hour in the US than losing manufacturing jobs.

The only realistic criticism here is that unions have failed to be as global as capital. Not "the unions asked for too much and the poor desperate capitalists had no choice but to exploit people of the Southern Cone."

A London Fog trenchcoat costs $.18 to make instead of $10.80. It still sells for $180 so give me a break.

[Better Believe It]

31. And It's Not The Way You Present It

In my opinion, you've been a victim of that constant stream of corporate propaganda which is designed to mislead the American people.

One of the main arguments that's advanced is that companies leave the United States simply because they just can't make a profit when "forced" to pay the living wages and benefits of their workers and can't compete with "foreign" companies.

But we have hundreds upon hundreds of U.S. companies that flee the United States for the cheap labor markets abroad even when they are making substantial profits at home! Millions of jobs have been destroyed by companies that were doing very well in the United States.

In many cases they didn't even claim they moved to be "competitive".

They moved to make even higher profits at the expense of the workers and communities they abandoned.

The corporate executives just love the cheap labor which enables them to reward themselves with huge bonuses and bigger dividends for stockholders.

Needless to say, they don't pass on their "savings" on labor costs to consumers. They pocket it!

[Selatius]

37. Manufacturing left because the tariffs on imported goods were removed.

It wouldn't have made sense to make an item with foreign labor and bring it back into the US if a tariff on that good was applied. This was the whole reason the US developed extensive manufacturing in the first place. That was the very basis of why the US became a manufacturing giant.

The reason tariffs were removed was because corporations were arguing in favor of comparative advantage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage

But the problem is comparative advantage rarely came to fruition because it is built upon two fundamental assumptions.

1. Full employment
2. Perfect competition

Neither exist in real life. If it weren't that case, then it would not be so difficult to realize the benefits of comparative advantage, but we don't live in that world. It's far easier to realize lowered labor costs, though, by laying off more expensive workers and replacing them with cheaper ones.

I'm not saying all trade is bad, but the biggest factor in the world today as to why manufacturing jobs go to the poorest countries is precisely to lower labor costs in the pursuit of profit maximization. This is done essentially by playing off labor in third world countries against labor in first world countries.

It is an example of divide and conquer. If labor unions were international in scope, things could get better for workers on all continents provided there is a sincere desire for cooperation and a realization that everybody is in the same fix.

[burythehatchet]

19. Whether one calls it a union or not, there must be a complete assessment of how

labor can be represented in the economic landscape. I believe our economic ills are directly tied to the decline of unions and the rise of "right-to-work" statutes (I love the Orwellian phrase - more like "right-to-screw").

I think we are missing a great opportunity right now in terms of organizing outside the traditional framework.

[Trekologer]

24. I was a union member

When I worked in a supermarket, I was a union member. I was there for two contract re-negotiations and each time the union made promises about how they were going to fight for more benefits, pay increases, etc. In the "11th hour" both times the union caved. I also had an issue caused by a paperwork error that HR wouldn't fix. My union representative basiclly told me to take a hike (actually, that it wasn't worth fighting over). I eventually got it resolved but no thanks to my rep. On the flip side, the union always would back up the full time employees (I was part time) over things like showing up intoxicated to work.

I certainly understand that a lot of the workplace protections, benefits, etc are a result of unions fighting for them in the past. However I just didn't see the same effort and passion today.

[spanone]

26. not me, card carrying member

[WillyT]

28. Me Too !!!

:kick:

[rucky]

34. Give them this UMASS study to chew on...

http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/DWA.pdf

Study develops an index that indicates work environment by sate. The worst states to work in were the "right to work" states - all red states and mostly from the South.

[KamaAina]

35. Brian was my first state rep when I got out here

from the Makiki neighborhood of Honolulu (state House districts on O'ahu are only about a quarter the size of City Council districts!). Like Neil Abercrombie (D-HI01), he's been an out-front Obama backer since Day 1, and he's our new state Dem party chair.

And just how did you come to be reading Haleakala Times (an alternative paper based on Maui and named for its volcanic summit)? Could we possibly have a new Hawai'i DUer??

[Better Believe It]

38. I Found That Article At One Of The Best Labor Websites Around

In todays "Daily Labor News Digest" at

http://www.kclabor.org/

[proud2BlibKansan]

41. I am very grateful for my union today

Just posted about what we are dealing with earlier tonight.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=219&topic_id=10553&mesg_id=10553

Please send good vibes our way. This is the worst negotiations we have had in 40 years.

[madfloridian]

45. See my post on The Family's Vereide and his vitriol toward unions.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3632182

[Bill McBlueState]

47. I can tell you all about that

I've had it up to here with the self-proclaimed liberals who sit across from us at the bargaining table.

They're all over the lists of donors to various Democratic causes, but they say things like, "It seems to me like some of your members who receive childcare subsidies are choosing the Cadillac of daycare."