If you oppose unions, you are not a Democrat.

[Sebastian Doyle]

Agree or disagree. There is no "other" in this poll

[dmallind]

1. Have to define "oppose"

If "oppose" is seen as "be able to disgree with union positions in negotiations, disputes, and political priorities" that's different from "don't think unions should exist".

I have been told numerous times I am opposed to unions when I simply disagree with a particular action or stance of a particular union. Automatically assuming unions are always correct is not being a Democrat, it's being an unthinking mindless automaton.

Personally I support a union if I think it is right and oppose it if I think it is wrong, but I am firmly behind the ability of workers to form or join a union, or not, as the majority decides.

[Cant trust em]

7. That level of nuance is not helpful in a binary world. nt

[Touchdown]

44. He's still using binary language when pretending to be nuanced.

"The actions of a union"

Unions are not and never have been monolithic entities. They are democratic organizations made up of people as diverse as any other organization. It may seem like nit-picking, but this kind of language (along with the non-existent "Union Bosses" line) has led people to believe they are not participatory organizations, and I have to call it out when I see it.

[dmallind]

61. Let me know when all individual union members get to decide on individual actions. NT

[Bill McBlueState]

64. I can't think of any democracies that work that way.

In any democracy, whether it's your UAW local or the United States, there are going to be votes to decide how to proceed. And there's at least one losing side almost every time there's a vote.

[dmallind]

79. I agree - and believe that should be the way they are

It's not a crticism of unions that they work like that. They SHOULD work like that. It's a refutation of the silly claim that I am somehow wrong in referring to unions as a single organization rather than as a group of individuals, when the whole point of a union in the first place is to turn the group into a single organization.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

19. Well said.

I'm reminded of the prison-guard union in CA that has been instrumental in promoting the draconian "three strikes" law that profits them financially.

It's a far cry from say, safety concerns in a meatpacking plant.

[Touchdown]

45. Based not on what you said, but how you framed it, I would say you are at least ignorant of unions.

A Union is a collection of individuals, not a monolithic entity with a uniform stance delivered top down like a corporation. So when you take issue with a "particular action or stance", it is an action taken by either the elected stewardship, which can be replaced, or a policy approved of by the majority of the union membership. You being against an action or stance should not preclude you from supporting the union in question in a larger context, but you mentioned that you support or withhold support if you think "it" is wrong, and you make no distinction about how many wrongs it takes to withhold your support. 1000 issues or 1?

When referring to a union in your post, you called a hypothetical union an "IT" as opposed to a collection of people, which is what they really are. For this, it is pretty easy for others to say you are anti-union.

[dmallind]

60. Sophistry at best

A union does indeed take action as a monolithic entity, and that action can be supportable or not. In fact that's the whole point OF unions. If 52$ vote for a strike the union strikes as a whole. If the union leaders win election by 51% to 49% they speak for 100% of the union. The whole reasoning of unions is collective action as a single unit is more effective than individuals taking action one at a time. The very word itself tells us this.

[Touchdown]

80. Ok.

We don't agree.

[ScreamingMeemie]

2. I support putting a gray area into a poll before asking others to vote in it.

:hi:

[pipi_k]

70. Me too. Always. Not doing so is sort of like

trapping someone with the old question:

"Do you still beat your wife?"

"Yes" or "No"

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

3. Define "oppose unions"?

What if one oppose some unions yet favor others... do they "oppose unions"?

Is unanimous support for all unions required to "support unions"?
is opposition for almost all unions required to "oppuse unions"?
Where is the delineation?... there could be alot of grey area between "oppose" and "support".

[Touchdown]

46. Define which ones you support or oppose.

We can't narrow down your answer if we don't know which unions you are talking about.

For instance, are you against the Teachers unions because of Tenure, or are you against the CWA because you think phone service is too expensive? Or the Teamsters because try as hard as you might you just can't get over Jimmy Hoffa, and lay awake at night, seething with anger over his alleged mob ties. Which unions are you against?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

51. I'm not against major union like you're describing

Like all things I think there is time and place best suited for unions.

I do believe ALL workers should have the right to vote and then (if a majority favors it) unionize. Whether or not I disagree with union actions or practives or if unionization is best, I do not oppose their right to unionize. Ergo, I would have to say I do not "oppose unions"... however just because a union exists does not mean I support that union's actions either. So I would also have to say I do not blindly "support unions" either.

I'm just questioning what delineates supoprt or oppose.
The question is a little too vauge to expect a black or white answer.

[NoNothing]

4. I see a distinction

There's opposing union *rights*, which I don't think any Democrat can do, and opposing unions on certain issues or in contract negotiations, which is sometimes a part of being a responsible official.

[KonaKane]

5. The fact that there are six disagree votes on this question

is a more startling part of the post than your OP.

[NNN0LHI]

6. Does driving imported and non-union made cars count as someone being opposed to unions?

Do you drive an American made car built by union workers?

Don

[Codeine]

16. In my book it does,

but DU loves its Hondas.

[jp11]

36. I drive an 'American' car built in Canada by Canadians, made with parts 'Henche en Mexico'.

I guess I'll sit out this poll.

[Touchdown]

49. It's very hard to define that anymore, isn't it?

The other response to you mentioned Hondas. Of which, Accords, Civics, Elements, Pilots, Odysseys, and CRVs are all assembled in Ohio using an average 40%+ American made parts. Are they union? I don't know the answer to that, but the Accord has been considered an American car since 1994.

Now, take German made VWs, BMWs, Mercedes, Porsches. They are all made in Germany. They are all built by 100% union workers who's rights are backed up by the German Government and force of law. Other citizens of the world, but our brothers and sisters in labor none the less. Do we exclude them because they did not built those cars in the US? Or do we exclude the US made Honda Accord because it may not be built by union labor?

[Lorien]

55. No.

Saying that a person is "pro-union" or "Anti-union" based on the purchase of a single product is the sort of simple minded extremism that belongs on the other side.

[Dappleganger]

66. And some of us can only afford used cars, too.

If we buy a union-made used car does that support the unions?

[Romulox]

77. It's a person #2 largest purchase. Your actions speak louder than words.

:hi:

[Bill McBlueState]

65. Does going to a college with non-union faculty count as being opposed to unions?

Does shopping at a big box store with non-union cashiers count as being opposed to unions?

While it would be nice to do business exclusively with union shops, it's difficult.

[NNN0LHI]

68. When you have the choice between something built by union workers or scabs which do you choose?

[Dawson Leery]

8. Not for all workers.

[tekisui]

14. Which workers should be excluded?

[Dawson Leery]

17. Law Enforcement, Military, etc...

when you have their power and the level of deference, you do not need a union.

[spoony]

22. soldiers face horrendous mistreatment by "management"

Their safety and compensation are after-thoughts if thoughts at all, and it seems they need a voice, too.

[JonLP24]

58. I don't recall any unions

when I was in the Military. I was worked long hours with no overtime which is moot because I was on a salary. Still, I don't recall any unions in the Military and I was out only 2 years.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

53. The POTUS should not be allowed to unionize...

even if all of his vote is pro-union. :crazy:

[brendan120678]

9. I support every worker's right to unionize...

but it is also one of my job functions to negotiate with union leaders, and that includes trying my best to get them to give some concessions when necessary, such as raising out-of-pocket health costs by a few dollars per pay check, freezing wages for a year, etc.

Sometimes, I can understand why some folks may view unions as overzealous and greedy. It's not my opinion, I think they are just trying to get the absolute best for their members, but I understand the viewpoint.

[Dawson Leery]

20. If the executives can get the best deal, then why not the workers?

[brendan120678]

23. Well, honestly...

because they don't sign my paycheck.

Yes, I whore myself out to the person holding the purse strings.
If I was a union negotiator instead, I'd be fighting for the workers to get every single penny possible.

[guitar man]

30. They might not sign your paycheck

But they create it. Without the rank and file workers producing whatever goods or service the company offers, there is no money for anybody.

[Hannah Bell]

41. labor's given *plenty*. capital takes a bigger proportion of total wealth than they have since the

20s.

so people who think that have opinions wholly informed by corporate propaganda.

[jobycom]

10. GD reminds me of the old Emo Philips routine.

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said "Stop! don't do it!" "Why shouldn't I?" he said. I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!" He said, "Like what?" I said, "Well...are you religious or atheist?" He said, "Religious." I said, "Me too! Are you christian or buddhist?" He said, "Christian." I said, "Me too! Are you catholic or protestant?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me too! Are you episcopalian or baptist?" He said, "Baptist!" I said,"Wow! Me too! Are you baptist church of god or baptist church of the lord?" He said, "Baptist church of god!" I said, "Me too! Are you original baptist church of god, or are you reformed baptist church of god?" He said,"Reformed Baptist church of god!" I said, "Me too! Are you reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1879, or reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915?" He said, "Reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915!" I said, "Die, heretic scum", and pushed him off.

[Cant trust em]

11. hahaha.

Not fully relevant, but relevant enough for me to chuckle.

[jobycom]

12. It wasn't so much the OP

as the responses. "What if you support unions in theory but don't support unions you don't support?" I mean, I get what they're saying, and agree with it mostly, but the whole concept of that closely defining who is allowed to be a Democrat and what nuance of belief disqualifies one from Democrat-ness had me screaming "Die heretic scum!" in my head.

To me, people have to decide to what degree they agree or disagree with any party or candidate, but to some it seems they believe you have to force your beliefs to fit a particular partisan definition. That's the part I was commenting on, really.

[Cant trust em]

15. I'm with you.

See my response #7.

[Johonny]

13. I enjoyed this

[nyc 4 Biden]

24. thats a great one. i knew what was coming and i still laughed. n/t

[Speck Tater]

18. Unions in theory are wonderful. Unions in practice are too often corrupt.

When I was two weeks old in 1945 my mother, a young newly-married country girl was living in in the city for the first time in her life (she had grown up without electricity or running water). My dad had just been promoted up from labor and into the first rung of management, and for the first time in his life was on the other side of the table when a strike was called against the plant.

On several occasions, in the middle of the night, there were threatening phone calls from union thugs. They threatened my mom, who was scared stiff by the whole thing, and threatened her little baby (me) which scared her even more. The police would do nothing, even after thugs drove by and threw rocks through a window in our home.

And that wasn't the only run-in with union thugs in my early childhood. As I grew older and my dad moved up in middle management there were more threats and acts of violence against my family.

Even today, 65 years later, my mom seldom misses an opportunity to relate the story of how the "union mafia thugs" (she almost always used the words "union" and "mafia" together) had threatened her and her new family with bodily harm. I grew up in an atmosphere of fear of union thugs and strong anti-union hatred. (My dad had been in the union, and after his promotion to management was still a strong supporter of unions. A fact the thugs didn't seem to give a shit about.) It took me a very long time to learn to see the up side of unions, having grown up seeing only the actions of their thugs.

I still see unions as a necessary evil which can hopefully be kept free enough from corruption to be tolerated, though I have my doubts. Truthfully, unions still give me the creeps.

[Quantess]

21. No. People can be Democrats and still oppose unions.

People who oppose unions probably don't belong on DU, though.

[nyc 4 Biden]

25. i agree, they can be called democrats, unfortunately, but...

i don't think they can honestly call themselves liberals/progressives.

[Occulus]

27. No. They can't.

ANYone who does not fully support the ability of workers to organize is not a Democrat.

They might try to pretend they are, but they're not. Period.

[closeupready]

29. Completely 100% agree.

n/t

[uponit7771]

26. Unions are more for the working person than not even though I believe they should focus on ownership

[KansasVoter]

28. What a totally DUMB statement! That is the deciding factor? -1

[Sebastian Doyle]

31. So what factor should we decide on?

Perhaps the number of pro-BP threads someone has posted? :shrug:

[Amaril]

32. Ummmm........

"If you oppose unions, you are not a Democrat"

Since when do we have to march in lockstep in order to be a member of the party? Isn't that one of the things we make fun of Republicans for?

[Touchdown]

50. So we can put you down for a "disagree" then.

Thanks.:hi:

[Moochy]

75. who is we kemosabe?

[DailyGrind51]

33. I would vote on this one, but that damn T.Rowe Price ad is covering the responses!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

34. If you will not support a democratic candidate over a republican candidate...

you are not a democrat.

Agree or disagree?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

35. Wait a minute...

isn't it a little ironic when a guy sided with Blanche Lincoln and against the unions when it came to passing health care reform is now suddenly pro-union in an attack against a sitting democrat in a general election?

Maybe "ironic" is not the best adjective.

[Sebastian Doyle]

38. Surely you can build a better GMO strawman than that?

This thread has nothing to do with any candidate, or any connection to health care reform (either the real thing, or the sham that was passed)

[Geek_Girl]

37. if your run on the dem ticket and get a ticket and you are voted into office then you are a democrat

The problem is the democratic party is pretty much run by pro corporatist moderate conservatives because the left wing of the party has pretty much let them take over, during the past 2-3 decades. I don't think our party is doomed but liberals need to work towards reforming the party and booting out the DLC (GOP lite) pro-corporatist that are running this country into a ditch.

I think many democrats were duped into believing that Obama was a liberal. I personally never believed he was a liberal. But I also didn't realize that his administration was going to have their heads up the ass of big corporations in such a big way.

So the answer to the question is yes a democrat can be anti-union/anti-labor but it's up to the voters to filter these politicians out of the party.

[xchrom]

39. i'm not sure i know what a democrat is in 2010.

it seems to me the 'big tent' provides shelter for some pretty irrational whacks -- arlen spector any one?

why would you be a dem and anti-union?

anti-choice candidates?

what ever.

[WinkyDink]

40. I view this as a defining element.

[kgnu_fan]

42. I want to vote but the ad is hiding the button and I can not vote

[Sebastian Doyle]

52. Here's how to never see ads here again.

Use Firefox as a browser (works with Windows, Linux, or Mac). Use the AdBlock Plus extension.

There's also the option of donating to this website, but the Firefox/AdBlock combo will clean up the ads on ALL sites you visit, so it's probably a great idea whether or not you're able to buy a yellow star here.

[NorthCarolina]

43. This one is a no brainer. Guess that's why DLC New Dems oppose unions. eom

[WeDidIt]

47. ABSOLUTELY 100% AGREE

The Unions are the backbone of the Democratic Party and you can tell the Democratic Party has lost it's backbone on most issues.

[saracat]

48. I agree.

[WeDidIt]

54. Kicking this due to the importance

Without Labor, the Democratic Party is a shell of what it should be.

[Boxerfan]

56. For the life of me I don't get how we disregard what the union has done for working Americans

And if you throw the last remaining bastion of sanity in the workplace under the bus...Well you don't get it IMHO.

I admit I didn't get it when I was younger so I can guess it may just be a bit of ignorance. But mark my words-kill union support & the last shred of hope for middle class America goes Poof in the ether.

[Dappleganger]

67. Very well said.

Kill the union and you kill the middle class, which what's essentially happened thanks to Ronnie Raygun.

[New Dawn]

57. If you oppose unions, you are a Fascist.

[bvar22]

59. !

The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[old mark]

62. So what does this make the current administration? And Bill Clinton?

I voted yes.


mark

[baldguy]

63. Unions shouldn't automatically support the Democratic party.

But The Democratic party should automatically support unions.

[gulliver]

69. If you support more Democratic positions than Republican ones...

...you are a Democrat. That simple.

On edit: Even if you oppose unions (few Dems, including myself don't support unions), if you support Dems, you are supporting unions. It's called coalition. I hope everyone who oppose unions votes Dem for other reasons. Then all of Dem politics strengthens.

[MyNameGoesHere]

71. I cannot defend the practice of going on strike and then

selling away job security and benefits. I do not understand unions today.

[freddie mertz]

72. Absolutely agree. There already is a strong anti-labor party.

That is the Republican.

Opposition to unions equals Republican, whatever the label on the package might claim.

[freddie mertz]

73. 100 % Agree. Anti-unionists already have a party.

The Republicans.

[Moochy]

74. And the powers that Be (here) work overtime to protect that 15%

and their right to work against everything that the 85% hold dear.

[Roon]

76. I disagree and I have been in unions...

The only unions I don't like are the grocery unions. Safeway and king soopers are within walking distance,the closest non-union grocery store is about 5 miles away and I have no car.

I hate that they make it so uncomfortable just because I cross the picket line.Sorry, I am not going to travel five miles by bus and get my groceries.

Another thing annoying about grocery unions is they tend to go on strike every 2-3 years like clockwork.

The grocery union is one union I wouldn't mind seeing fade away.

[Crystal Clarity]

78. Just for the record

I'm very supportive of Unions and always have been.

However what is it about this site that seems to continually foster this "either you're with us or against us" mentality? Not just on this issue but many others? Whatever happened to the 'big tent'?