Union members care about issues beyond their pocketbooks. If Democrats continue to push ideas many union members (and others) find odious - like reparations, abolishing ICE, cops are the bad guys, the evils of "white privilege", late term abortion, the loonier parts of the Green New Deal, etc. etc. - they're doomed politically and they only have themselves to blame.
7
Identity politics has been a loser for the Democratic Party for a long time now. The hoped-for demographic shift toward reliably “blue” voters is perpetually an election cycle away. Unless and until the Democratic Party returns to its focus on being the party of the working man and woman...PERIOD - white, black, hispanic, straight, gay, male, female, hispanic, Christian, Muslim, Jewish - we’ll lose in 2020 and wonder what the heck happened.
10
What a con job. The right doesn’t care about labour rights. Just look at labour legislation in the US. Health care tied to the boss whim. Labour in the US is close to a form of slavery.
3
To answer your headline question: not if the union members are bigots and vote for politicians that represent their bigoted exclusionary views, willfully blind to the anti-union views of those bigoted politicians.
2
Today, Edsall at his best.
Heed this column.
1
Today is May 1st and there is no mention of this international holiday to celebrate workers’ and their rights in the NYT. Why? Is it not news fit to print?
“May 1 is marked as International Labour Day, also referred as May Day. The day celebrates labourers and the working class. Labour Day is an annual public holiday in many countries. ... May 1 was chosen to be International Workers' Day to commemorate the 1886 Haymarket affair in Chicago.”
3
The problems are racism and greed.
2
Thank you, Mr. Edsall, for your superb International Workers’ Day article. (How many Americans even know that today is International Workers’ Day?)
From my perspective in Wisconsin, Republicans successfully thwarted organized labor using exactly the same strategy that Mr. Trump used in 2016 (and continues to use, today) to successfully thwart plain decency: Hyper-emotional, hate-infused — and generally dishonest — appeals to many voters’ eagerness to feel victimized by “the other.” Public-sector workers, and especially teachers, were endlessly characterized as government-coddled “parasites” sucking the blood of Wisconsin’s tax base while taking three-month summer vacations every year. After that con was accomplished, it was a slam-dunk to convince many voters that their non-public-sector — but unionized — neighbors were guilty of the same crime. Organized labor never had a chance.
I view Republican-Party efforts at organized labor-busting as one part of the evil that I know exists in the world. As understandable, in other words. I’m much harder on the Democratic Party: While Republican politicians act as if they hold American voters in undying contempt, most Democratic politicians act as if they have undying faith in American voters to “do the right thing” — AND THAT THIS FAITH IS “ENOUGH.” Talk about lame! Talke about delusional!
3
Evidently Edsall has a good point. POTUS is outraged over union membership for Biden.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/01/us/politics/trump-firefighters-biden.html
Find out what Betsy DeVos did to unions in Michigan.
1
Republicans distract working-class voters by dangling the abortion issue with one hand, and then pick their pockets with the other.
3
Union YES!
2
You gotta be kidding.
1
Trump responded to Biden's endorsement by the firefighter's union by attacking the "dues sucking union". The cost of dues are avoidable in these states since a worker opts out of paying but still gets the benefit if the union negotiates a benefit for paying workers. " Dues sucking" watch for this in Trump's campaign ads.
1
It seems that there is an effort to attack any gathering of people that is not organized fromt the top down, unions being just one example. In today's news our president, whose golf clubs apparently employed undocumented workers and then abused them by requiring uncompensated work, attacks a union president as "dues sucking". Ironic that the union president won a majority of votes from its members and our political president didn't.
1
Right-to-work translates to right-to-terminate - as I was after 22 years so that my boss could steal over $80K in documented wages then fire me with impunity. Yes, impunity! NC bars me from suing him and he's out on the street investing the stolen proceeds in a new nano-brewery in Beaufort, NC.
We need to bust up the union of monopolists telling us how much we're worth, how much we're to be paid, how much we pay them and how much lifelong debt we're to have.
Would you rather earn a decent livable wage with humane rights in exchange for a small membership fee, or lose that fee, a livable wage and worker rights solely to enrich those at the top further?
Norquist makes his livelihood by essentially advocating for the repeal of all taxation leaving a destitute government and society in full control of the freeloading wealthiest elites who pay him. Without a government to enforce humane laws results in slavery (that's the anti-labor part) and inhumane working conditions (that's the Blankenship safe coal working conditions part) to maximize profit and maximize wealth at the top.
The extreme right's biggest impediment to that goal is not unions, it's government. That's why they're sabotaging it as fast as they can under trump, weakening it and subverting it with criminals leading all government agencies. Indeed, the Republican criminal enterprise is converting the government of the people into a criminal enterprise to serve the powerful - the Constitution be damned.
4
It's a no-brainer to support teachers' unions and the like, because the members of those unions are producing something helpful to society at large. Our lives are better because there are teachers, health care workers, subway and bus drivers.
Supporting people whose products make our lives less healthy, less satisfying, more dangerous, worse--that's a much harder sell, yet we are being asked to do so, because "people want jobs," even if those jobs make our lives, notably including their own, miserable.
it's not difficult to think of professions we would do better to eliminate: start with the frankly unsavory (such as drug dealers: OK, they don't have a union), then to those who endanger lives (tobacco growers, gunmakers), to those whose products pollute (coal miners, automakers). There are products that are obsolete: what happened to all the folks who used to make buggy whips? They learned to do something useful, or at least different.
Rather than protecting obsolete professions, we need to care for the people working in them, and to retrain them in useful trades. This implies giving more value to education, not less.
2
The average American is an endangered species.
The rich control the government and make decisions to benefit themselves and their friends.
People who work for a living are being demonized and exploited by their “representatives” who are supposed to make America a fair and stable And vibrant home for all Americans.
Mitch McConnell voted against increasing the minimum wage time and time again while voting himself pay raises multiple times.
Why is our government only representing the rich?
3
We work 70/80 hour weeks in Silicon Valley. Very few have lives outside of work. Just the way our over-compensated executives like it. Wage slavery. Chew us up, spit us out.
3
Government employees should have never been allowed to unionize anyway. It's been a financial disaster. We were warned by none other than FDR and the leader of the AFL-CIO.
Here's a NYT article from their more rational days:
https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/02/18/the-first-blow-against-public-employees/fdr-warned-us-about-public-sector-unions
3
Establishment democrats have abused the presumption of Labor Union support since Reagan. Pundits refuse to see and acknowledge the Zeitgeist.
What was the big Trumpstorm about when Barr was testifying? The Firefighter's Union switching to Biden! The Firefighter's Union supported Trump! It is mind boggling that commentators still do Not understand why or why it matters. While that was a radically self-destructive decision, it was Not ill-informed. The Democratic party establishment, the Pelosis, the Bidens, all the big old school names, ALL support rule by the financial elite. Workers Should Hate That! Workers have gotten feckless and useless support from the democratic party because it fundamentally supports the other side!
But the use of unions as the political antidote to the power of corporations is counterproductive at this point. Direct public action aimed at Ending Systemic Corruption and getting Big Money, corporate and private, out of politics is the only thing that can save our representative democracy as we have understood it since the founding. Unions won't and don't address that fundamental problem.
Anti establishment, anti financial elite sentiment is rising from its record highwater marks in 2016. That sentiment rejected Corporatist Clinton, in favor of Lying Trump, who was the only candidate left at the time at least saying the words: I've not sold out the the establishment. That is how intense the resentment is and who it is actually aimed at. Get it yet?
1
There is blame on both sides. The ties between Democrats were broken over 30 years.
In the 1960s and 70s many future leaders of the Democratic Party noted the scandals linking unions to organized crime; saw that many unions fought desegregating; and how many union leaders were strongly pro-Vietnam War. Many unions resisted organizing service workers which many saw as racist since most of that workforce had become largely immigrant.
On the other side Democratic leaders like the Clintons pushed through anti-union legislation like NAFTA, World Trade agreements, China in the WTO. These agreements were written for big business with weak provisions reguarding the rights of workers and the environment. The Democrats allowed corporations to underfund retirement funds, or declare bankruptcy in order to avoid all obligations. Democrats stood by while corporations busted unions and Wall Street raiders bought and destroyed perfectly healthy and competive companies so that a few could make money at the expense of the many. Democrats also allowed tech companies to outsource work overseas, or abuse the visa system to bring to America temporary inexpensive workers that pushed Americans out of their jobs.
Many Democrats thought they didn't need unions. Many union members asked 'why vote Democrat when they give us NAFTA?'
However, it is long past time that Democrats and unions mend bridges and once again work together. United we stand divided we fall.
2
The drop in labor's relevance inside the Democratic Party is directly attributable to the New Democrats and the DLC, who, in the 70s, 80s, and 90s decided to spurn labor in favor of big corporate donors. They would continue paying lip service, promising card check reform, NLRB action, etc, but never followed through. Trump came in and promised the same, with a extra dose of nativist racism, gaining ground amongst key labor strongholds. Joe Biden straddles the generational divide of old-school labor Dems and the Clinton-Obama Wall Street Dems. Leaders like Sherrod Brown and, yes, Bernie Sanders, have been more reliable friends to labor. Democrats chose to let unions atrophy, figuring they didn't need them. 2016 should have woken them up.
4
What is surprising is how thoroughly the workforce has bought into the right wing dogma that unions are bad for the economy. So, how is that working out for them?
And why are "trade unions" of companies just fine and dandy but unions of workers are not?
3
Why on earth is the Democratic party surprised that they have lost the support of labor when they have been steadily abandoning labor since Bill Clinton? The modern Democratic party is no longer the party of labor, it is the party of finance and big Tech.
6
I don’t understand why any worker should be forced, through mandatory union dues deducted from the paycheck, to support political positions that he or she may not agree with.
4
I grew up in a pro-labor home. I inherited a brother-in-law who was employed by G.E. He climbed the Corporate ladder ending up with a position where his sole duty was to travel around the country to G.E. factories and keep Labor Unions out. He discovered in talking to GE employees is why employees were thinking of joining a Union. Increased wages, shorter work week, health and pension benefits. He reported back to the CEO of GE that if he wanted to keep Unions our of the factories, GE needed to offer better wages and benefits to their Employees. In some cases GE did exactly that.
Fast forward to now. The Leaders of some of the Unions lived the high life on those dues that were paid by its members. They started acting like their Management counterparts. These Union Leaders forgot what the mission was. Hence the gradual decline of Unions.
Unions serve a very important function in American life. They make it possible for employees to be paid better, have better working conditions and benefits. It is not just the fact that creepy deeds of politicians rob the American employee of a middle class life by voting in Right To Work laws, but also that Unions forgot to keep their Mission promise to its members. Hence the weakness that Unions now suffer.
The mere fact that labor is being exploited now more than ever is because of the demise of Unions. We had better wake up to the fact that Unions are needed to protect the American worker, including in white collar jobs.
4
Obviously, Mr. Edsall is looking at the nation as a whole, but even in pretty liberal NY and NJ, there are too many instances of labor unions making opportunistic common cause with some pretty unpalatable - by my lights and most Democratic voters left of Biden - characters/operators.
In other words, a Democratic candidate has to ask, "If these people are social conservatives ... or they somehow see a Trump-style of tax cut as good enough for their retirement assets to give them some sympathy for him, is it really worth going after their votes?!"
Remember, women, gays, people of color are not stupid. The politicians who go after firefighters' votes - for example - are likely to look for police unions support right after that, and it starts to be an anchor, not a booster rocket. That is, especially in a primary, for all that the UFT's phonebank is a prized asset here in NY, all but 2 of the 20 candidates are closer to 5% than anything higher,
They do the math and refuse to pander to groups no longer "natural Democrats" in terms of voting.
Too much union power corrupts just as too much of any power corrupts. The sad thing is that union reputation for corruption and over playing their hands has resulted in a much more accepted view that workers rights is somehow anti American. Please! Just ask anyone under the age of 40 if they would want their 5 day work week expanded to 7 days, or not to take a lunch break or their vacation days taken away or there employee healthcare eliminated. All of this things were on the table 50-80 years ago. Without those who fought hard, they would not be here today.
4
So-called “right to work” anti-union legislation is only passed by Republican-dominated legislatures, and signed by Republican governors. Wonder why that is?
Oh, they understand labor, all right. they know labor’s role very well. Work the hours we require, for the wages we set, under the conditions we establish, and don’t complain; then go quietly into pensionless poverty when we’re done with you.
5
Mixed feelings. First, it is true that Democrats depend on union financing, and electoral mobilization much more than most people realize. One of the best things Republicans can to do enhance political power in their state is enact right-to-work laws.
At the same time, just like any other powerful organizations, unions can become corrupt and complacent. One of my friends belongs to the foods services union in New York, and he deeply resents the fact that very elderly people who cannot physically perform basic job duties make $200k per year, because they have seniority.
In California, public employees have negotiated such good deals that they may bankrupt the state. Our public pension funds got battered in 2008, and now we’re counting on grossly unrealistic rates of return to justify current payouts. We regularly have stories about the insane sums people make for low-effort jobs. One story described a MUNI janitor who made $350k in 2017.
Unions need to remake themselves, and Democrats need to figure out how to broaden their base of money and volunteers.
2
One needn't be a great economist to understand the baleful effect of pay-to-play, public employee union politics on states. Those blue states with the strongest public employee unions are in the deepest trouble, with massive unfunded pension and benefit liabilities and no hope of being actually able to pay them.
As you note, public employee unions depend on " favorable government treatment." In short, they pay Democrats to shaft the taxpayers to fatten the members' bottom lines at common expense.
"Right to work" is NOT "anti-union"; it's pro-freedom. No one should ever be forced to join an organization to which she objects as a condition of employment.
Put simply, public employee unions have pitted themselves against the taxpayers, for whom their members purportedly work. Unsurprisingly, when the taxpayers see the spectacular benefits that public employees receive, at taxpayer expense, they get a bit peevish.
If unions provide services for which members willingly pay, great. That's freedom at work. If employees choose not to belong, then maybe, just perhaps, the unions should make their product worth the cost people are voluntarily willing to pay.
3
The title of this op-ed--"The right has a greater appreciation of labor's role that we do"--is seriously misleading. The content of the article reflects the fact that the right does not "appreciate" labor's role, which is to protect and defend working Americans, but rather hates and fears it. What the right "appreciates" in the sense of "understanding" is the political power of labor--which it is committed to destroying by any means necessary.
3
I worked for the late AFSCME president, Jerry Wurf, when Democrats created the Democratic Business Council after Reagan won in 1980. We told the DNC it made no sense to separate labor unions and business supporters. The DNC rejected our request and wouldn't let us join.
Labor got the same, second-class treatment from the Mondale Campaign in 1984, when we warned the nominee not to give his convention acceptance speech by calling for tax increases on all Americans to cut the deficit.
It was the same story in the Clinton years. AFSCME did everything it could, successfully mobilizing crucial support in Iowa and New Hampshire after the Jennifer Flowers stories, but as president, Clinton gave short shrift to Labor on health reform, resulting in tepid Labor support and a major Congressional defeat in 1994.
In the 2016 campaign, union members would tell me, "Look, I did what you said on Obama and I know the Clintons. Trump's at least saying what Labor says about jobs and trade. So I'll take a chance on him."
Biden's off to a good start with Labor. Trump's 50+ tweets denouncing him and the Firefighters proves it. Elizabeth Warren's also showing she sees Labor as key and has the best policy proposals. Let's hope Democrats see their way to more than just taking Labor's money and votes in 2020. Give Labor a place at the table!
3
I’ve been talking about these so called “right to work” laws for years, and what those laws were doing to the wages for the workers in republican controlled states, it was pushing them down, which is what corporations want. The whole idea that people who benefit from dues paying members stuns me. And it didn’t take a rocket scientist to see what the Republican Party was trying to do. Which was the same thing that the Republican Party wanted to do in the 1920s with the rise of organized labor, the sent out thugs to beak up strikes, Ford himself employed an army of ex WWI vets for just that purpose.
And the fact that they can look their coworker in the eye that has paid dues or rider fees, while they take money and benefits that they as non dues paying, non rider paying worker should not be receiving, is a disgusting, low life thing to do. I think that the only way to level the playing field, is to tell the companies, that those workers have no rights to the negotiated wages, benefits, card carrying, rider fee paying, members pay for.
Maybe then those workers in red states that complain that the democrats are the sole cause of their low paying, or no job having circumstances has zero to do with democrats and more to do with the “right to work laws”, because this is the only way the Republican Party can win, is to gut organized labor. It’s also because they’ve bought into the Republican trope of taxes are generally bad, while roads, bridges, schools, crumble all around t
Unions can be good. Public sector unions can have taxpayers working for them, rather than the other way around. This from a recent Boston Globe article on public transit employees:
"The (MBTA)'s pension system has...operated on a “23 and out” system, meaning workers could collect a pension and free health care after 23 years on the job, regardless of their age. The rule made for some rather young “retirees,” who even now are collecting lucrative pensions while in their prime and ready to start a new career.
The 2018 crop of retirees...include a 47-year old now getting a pension of $63,406 a year and a 48-year-old with a pension of $60,353."
16
@semaj II: And the progressive come back to your comment will be: All workers should have those pension rights!
Yes, that's absurd.
3
From Robert Kuttner at The American Prospect:
And here is where Edsall misses a key part of the story. The problem is not that “Democrats” fail to appreciate unions. It’s that the corporate and Wall Street Democrats who have dominated the presidential wing of the party since Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton actively loathe unions.
Carter, Clinton, and Barack Obama all had the opportunity and the votes to put serious teeth back in the Wagner Act, in the face of vicious corporate union busting. All decided not to lift a finger on behalf of labor law reform.
All three presidents had progressive labor secretaries. But the real power players were elsewhere.
Most Democrats in Congress get unions. The problem has been the corporate influence on the presidential party and its domination of key positions at Treasury, OMB, and Legislative Affairs. Some of this is about campaign finance, but not all of it.
2
You can be pro-private sector union and anti-public sector union.
Just ask Franklin D. Roosevelt, who opposed any collective bargaining in the public sector.
https://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2013/aug/13/scott-walker/Did-FDR-oppose-collective-bargaining-for-governmen/
IMO, the major reason that many state-level and local-level Democrats aren't more pro-labor is that they have personally experienced the arrogance of public sector unions and know that strong public sector unionism makes government more costly and often less effective.
NYC public sector labor leader Victor Gotbaum once said "we have, in effect, the power to elect our own boss" and public sector unions have used that power in states where they are strong to craft pension and retirement benefits that exceed state and local capacities to pay, thereby fiscally kneecapping the rest of the progressive agenda.
2
The newest ploy of the union-killers is to say, "Private unions are helpful, but it is the PUBLIC unions that must be eliminated." This makes it sound like they don't oppose all unions, just the "bad" ones.
Riiigghht. And I've got a bridge I can sell you.
1
@Madeline Conant
People can have nuanced opinions on complicated subjects. They can see shades of grey. They can differentiate subsets of larger categories.
There is nothing contradictory with supporting private sector unions while showing a greater sense of cynicism about public sector unions.
And I don't want to see public sector unions "eliminated" or weakened to the extent they were in Wisconsin.
However, the degree of influence that public sector unions exert in NJ, IL, CT, and NYS and their venality is, imo, detrimental to the public good.
3
Any union member that doesn't see the threat from the GOP and their billionaire overlords doesn't deserve union protection! Their "right to Work" movement and corresponding legislation is designed to eviscerate protections for labor, keep wages stagnant or reduce them, eliminate the minimum wage, eliminate benefits, and place the tax burden of society solely on the backs of those not born with a silver spoon in their mouths!
End the Soviet GOP!
What can one do? The Trumpian base believes their independence from unions and their irrational belief that they do not need government programs are the ingredients to the vat of kool-aid from which they keep drinking.
Union workers are complicit in their own destruction by voting Republican. For someone to say that Republicans appreciate unions more than Democrats is smoking something.
1
A big open question for me is why democratic policies are favored, and indeed win when voted on in elections (Red-state Missouri and its rejection of "right to work" legislation is an example in this article) while democratic politicians fall short. This is all the more amazing when we acknowledge that this is happening against the backdrop of today's version of Republicanism. What is it that leads society to chose one party's policies and the other party's representatives...when the representatives actively undermine these policies?
Anyone who prefers the short-term "benefits" from unions without paying dues - the classic "free rider" - deserves to be had up in the long-term from a weak union.
If I understand this correctly, the thesis is that by weakening unions, and particularly their ability to raise money from non members, unions are less influential in politics, even on issues that do not directly effect their members or those who wished to avoid non member payments. I have to say, I am torn. There are a lot of labour protections I generally support, so I am sorry that unions have lost their influence, but this seems to suggest that those mandatory payments by non members really were forced political speech. Maybe the answer is finding means of political activism more consistent with democratic values.
2
The countervailing forces against the oligarchy in the 20th century were unions -- groups of people organized in the arena or sector where the worked. This was an obvious choice since the majority of adults spent at least eight hours five days a week of their lives working.
Where else would they have organized people, under what context would they have done so? Back in the 20th century there were lots of unionizable jobs but no social media.
But in the 21st century there's lots of social media and not so many unionizable jobs.
Organizers of the masses must be more nimble and resourceful. When layout of society changes, organizers need to change with it. You better believe the oligarchs know this, that's why through all history they've generally managed to keep control of things. Oligarchs pay very smart people to work with them to notice trends and shift paradigms as needed: they don't care what paradigm of control they are in, just so long as the paradigm works.
Getting stuck on unions at a time of off shoring jobs and increasing robotic automation is so bad I don't know what to call it. Sure for the places where unions still offer results, great, keep them funded and energized. But for the rest of society of a gig economy and social media and a future dwindling workforce participation rate, get a new paradigm!
People rest for 1/3 of their lives, work another 1/3, and then loll about on their phones for the last 1/3: get them organized while they're lolling about!
2
@Chris -- I know, I know, you're gonna laugh at the irony to "get them organized while they're lolling about," but there's a lot of energy going to waste just waiting to be mined! Start mining all that potential energy.
I think that the only thing to get people organized is a threat to their lives that becomes real, either in their minds or in their physical reality. Either in their subjective reality or their objective reality, both individually or together will work to get them motivated.
This is what the right wing does brilliantly: they scare them emotionally and tell people that the aliens are coming to take away their way of life. Right wing leaders play into the minds of people and get them whipped up into fury while sitting on the couch watching small and big screens. The left wing is incompetent at doing this.
The left wing needs to organize people through the subjective fictional dramatic world of the screens -- that is where the playing field is, it is not so much in the objective reality of jobs anymore where unions used to work great for organizing. The right wing is winning because they are dominating this playing field, meanwhile most of the left wing is elsewhere.
And sure, if someone figure out how to motivate people in the objective world -- the real world of air, water, earth, fire and so forth, great! Most people spend as much of their time avoiding the real world due to its harsh nature (pun intended) that dragging them out into the cold is hard.
1
An amazingly well thought out and penetrating analysis
of a fundamental cause of democratic party trials and tribulations in purplish swing states. The justified efforts to
counter voter ID laws and gerrymandering must, evidently, also expand to push back against ALEC's well thought out and strategic efforts to neutralize the contribution of union to democratic party electoral success in swing districts.
My impression is that neither Sanders nor Warren has focused upon this enough, and it has not attracted the attention of any other candidate. Perhaps it is due to Sanders' apparent inability to connect effectively labor and wage inequality issues to racial discrimination issues? Please correct if wrong.
What Biden brings to this beyond rhetoric will be a good sign
of how serious he and that segment of the party supporting him are in countering the norquist + ALEC attack on the ability of organized labor to exert political power.
One obstruction to doing so appears to be the relative economic performances of states with right to work laws and
a weakened labor movement. It would be interesting to have
incorporated comparative economic performance indices (including wage rates) in the adjacent county studies.
The right's political/rhetorical justification for weakening labor political power is that doing so leads to increases in jobs (wage rates are never mentioned of course). Can one detect this at all in the studies summarized in this article?
As usual, a really fine article by Thomas Edsall. I was a trade unionist for many years, and I had the impression (very real to me) that the Democratic Party leadership from the 1970s on were not in my corner. As Thomas Frank wrote when he considered this issue in his book Listen, Liberal, "...regardless of how sclerotic and self interested unions were in 1971, closing the doors on working people's organizations also meant closing the door on working people's issues." That contention is clearly borne out by economic data on income inequality since the 70s, and by the underwhelming Democratic response to the PATCO worker replacement in 1981. For the record, I and all my friends on the job wanted to strike in sympathy for PATCO.
I regret that our Unions continued to support Democrats with so much of our money and time, with zero support in return. We have given the Democrats untold hundreds of millions over the years, and I can only imagine what we could have done with that money for our own purposes: increased organizing, even in the face of byzantine labor laws; increased benefits for our members; establishing storefront union offices across the country to establish a strong social movement for all workers.
It has long been my theory that the modern Democratic Party leadership has no use for Unions for one overriding reason: That like the corporate leaders who used to be their college roommates, they do not want to sit across the table from us as equals.
1
Had Hillary Clinton spent more time campaigning at union rallies in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin--showing herself (whether genuine or not) as a likable, down-to-earth person who understood the concerns of working families--she would be president today. There is nothing like the AFL-CIO presidential field campaign program to turn out workers to vote Democrat on Election Day. (I worked the program in Pennsylvania in '04 when we narrowly won the state for John Kerry.) Undoubtedly union officials on the ground in those states knew the situation was dire because Clinton was not a candidate who would naturally appeal to many of their members, and internal member-to-member phone-calling undoubtedly proved it. Why did the Clinton campaign make such disastrous decisions? To demonstrate that a Hillary Clinton administration would not be beholden to unions? Or merely to show off, mistakenly believing that those states were in the bag when labor leaders on the ground knew they weren't?
4
The headline is wrong. Democrats could be better, but Republicans are lousy.
They want short-term profits, cheap energy, cheap labor, the ability to poison the environment, no workplace protections, and devil take the hindmost.
1
Look at income inequality and the growing gap and it can all be traced back to the war on unions. Unions need to understand the political class regardless of party is no friend of labor. They prostitute themselves to the one percent to maintain do nothing highly compensated elected or appointed positions. If unions continue to wait for the elected class to legislatively grant them power, hell will freeze over first. Take power. A general strike with schools prisons and hospitals shutting down will only turn the tide. If unions are unwilling to lead in that direction than the decline shall continue.
I have been a pro-labor liberal for more than 50 years, but I think that unions have been largely responsible for their own losses. Until they regain public esteem they cannot recover, and to regain esteem they must clean up their own act.
Growing up in NYC I well remember the corrupt, demanding police, public, and theatrical union bosses who cared only for their own members (or just themselves in some cases), the public be damned. I remember Hoffa and the Teamsters, the ILA and its mob bosses, and many less notorious scandals. When my manufacturing company moved to New Jersey, a couple of union representatives showed up, asked to organize the work force, and offered, if I would support them, to keep wages and benefits low. I think thousands of small business leaders have had, or heard of, similar experiences.
Cleaning up the unions is not a matter of promises to be better, but rather of assuring the honesty and commitment of union leaders. There are millions of people who desperately need the support of unions that really work in their interest, and when supportive regulation provides that protection they will be able to revive.
23
@Keithofrpi Unions have not been responsible for the quite effective Republican campaign to destroy them via regulation and law. The assertion that labor is responsible for their own losses is obviously nonsense (I wonder why your comment became a Times Pick). I think unions have suffered some reputational damage due to corruption and bias and other factors, but so has the Republican party. One thrives, the other doesn't. Clearly it's more than reputation. I don't like these kinds of assertions that some failing of character led to a political result because it's an argument that ignores all the political and economic context, including power - who has it, what they want, what they do with it. The unions have primarily been a victim of the power that corporations have in our society, as expressed through political parties. The Democrats have not been labor's ally in decades. The decline of unions is a tragedy for the common good of America's workers.
6
@Keithofrpi
Hoffa was a piker compared to Trump.
2
@Keithofrpi
At the very least, we need regulations preventing exploitation.
Amazon is a trillion dollar company, and it’s poor treatment of workers is well known.
If America is going to be great, we must not allow exploitation of workers.
2
As an AFGE member I feel I need to call out the state and local unions and their greedy application of ovetime to retirement benefits. Applying overtime to a "high-three" is deceitful and pure candy for anyone trying to paint public sector unions as bad for taxpayers. Pensions should be based on base rates of pay and not on all of the OT a senior patrolman gets for sitting in a squad car beside a construction site.
1
The problem is the Democrats assumed unions represented theri people, they assumed organized labor was truly organized, and it wasn't. One place put it well, when times are good unionized members look at what other people are doing, and wonder why they aren't doing better, why white collar workers are seeing much better salaries, perks, etc and the members resent it, believed that the union "sold them out"; when times are bad and unionized jobs are disappearing, facing reduced benefits, no pay increases, they look at the powerlessness of the unions (in part because the GOP has so decimated the power of unions, along with the joys of third world dirt cheap labor, that they don't have much power) and think "what good are they?". Add to that the propaganda that the GOP has spread, that 'union greed' caused jobs to disappear, that unions reward slothful workers, etc, and the blue collar workers themselves swallowed the kool aid...then can't understand why it was poisoned against them.
The real problem is the Democrats failed to talk to the workers, they talk about the unions rather than the workers, they talk about 'job retraining' to bring the work force into the white collar world (which is idiotic), rather than talking about how to give workers of all kinds the ability to get good paying jobs that bring them back into the real middle class. It is ironic that both the GOP and Democrats look back to the 1950's, rather than forward;both are false, but the GOP is more appealing
1
The democrats failed to stay on point, especially since there has been an ongoing war on unions. I can’t help it that Trumplicans can’t see who is really hurting their wages, and it isn’t unions. Corporations want US workers to be like any low wage worker in Mexico, China, Thailand, South America, India. Corporations want us to live in filth, breath bad air, drink contaminated water, they want me to believe that when the rich get ice in the summer and I get ice in the winter and that’s somehow equitable, please, spare me.
Is this the same "right" or Republicans who voted down giving the auto industry loans? Didn't Republicans tell the President Bush, they would consider loaning money to GM and Chrysler under one condition, Union Auto Workers had to take a pay cut. Who supports Union, Sir?
The majority of American's live from paycheck to paycheck, 30 days form being homeless. Which means, your're either apart of the working class or you are apart of the working poor? We should organize and vote poor but white people continue to vote white. Reagan told use we were going to be a service economy, a lot of white folks didn't think Reagan was talking about them. Now some folks are mad because they played themselves. Rich.
The behavior of greedy, selfish people is often very aggressive, unrelenting, and predatory by nature.
The average person Is not driven by this level of “over the top” impulses, and therein lies the problem.
These predators have basically taken over the levers of power at the local, state, and federal level to take all of the money that they can.
We now have a system that works only for the rich at the expense of the rest of the country.
The only way to correct this is to have elected representatives who are equally aggressive in protecting average Americans from these predators - people like Scott Walker, Mitch McConnell, Donald Trump, and most of the Republican Party.
1
An appropriate article on May day.
The elephant in the room: capitalism.
Unions have been necessary in the capitalist construct, a sort of silent "partner." Yes, it adopted a resistant stance, but that was part of the "show." Capitalists went along with it, apparently appeasing the worker, yet maintaining all the control mechanisms. Ingenious.
In late stage capitalism (read: globalization, financialization,
commoditization) unions are useless & have outlived their purpose. They had been the INTERMEDIATE negotiator, not unlike the role of the "middleman" in business.
In the era of late stage capitalism, the only way to "unionize" is to encourage, promote, create an economy made up of CO-OPERATIVES. In short, the worker no longer needs a middleman, he/she owns & runs the enterprise, in a true democratic structure. The structure is no longer a pyramid---a hierarchical form that capitalism depends & thrives on, much like the feudal form that the lords of the manor relied on to maintain control & power.
There is no democracy without economic democracy--especially in the workplace.
I think you overstate your case a bit when you say that union busting deflated Democratic turnout. I would say what deflated turnout was the rise of the centrist Democrat, Democrats that went along with the Reagan legacy agenda and abandoned the working class (and found it a huge victory just to save Medicare and co.). Perhaps turnout deflated because there was not much recognizable difference between the two parties outside of social issues. And I would further propose that a platform of liberal social issues is not a big turnout incentive for whites, unfortunately, and they still happen to be the largest voting block. Conservative social issue platforms do however increase turnout for the right. Things will change now with the rise of the progressives, who have already changed the Democratic platform on bread and butter economic issues in a way that inspires hope and will get people to the polls.
Many voters, especially younger voters, don't understand the importance of unions. Unions also price themselves out of support with high fees. For instance, how can a teacher earning base pay straight out of college afford the union?
So let’s see I pay a little over $30.00 a month, so how much is the union dues for teachers in your state.
Markets climb, corporate profits climb - that is all that is important in our economy. No really, it is. Workers can’t unite while following Trump and characters like Walker.
Manufacturing is dying. Labor Unions are dying. Where manufacturing does survive employees are sourced out as independent contractors, or they are reduced to biological pieces of equipment that are
interchangeable with less expensive pieces of biological equipment somewhere in a less developed country, and those biological pieces in turn will be replaced by less expensive mechanical technologies.
Markets climb. Corporate profits climb.
I heard a Trump supporter use the words, “a manufacturing renaissance” is happening in the US, that manufacturing jobs are on the way back I huge numbers
It is not the "left" that misunderstand unions, but the centrist, corporate establishment wing of the democratic party that does not (or care). When Bill Clinton started to run for office he was accepting donations from various types of labor groups in his state of Arkansas, yet, he was not winning elections. It was then he was co-opted by several businesses and their much larger contributions, all but abandoned his previous labor supporters and started to win elections and then it all changed.
When he moved up ultimately winning the Presidency that is when the democratic party started moving significantly to the right abandoning the long-standing democratic FDR tradition of fairness(and its millions of supporters) that ultimately led to hundreds of lost seats at the state and federal levels during the Obama era, two-thirds of the states controlled by Republicans ultimately leading to them winning the Presidency and the remaining branches of the Executive. Harry Truman use to always say,"if you want to vote for a Republican, you might as well vote for the real one".
Unions fought for and created the "middle class" in America and the only way to regain that status and revitalize that same middle class is to elect those that will actually do something about it, not the same corporate/establishment neo-liberals that contributed to destroying them in the first place ultimately leading to a permanent "under class".
1
Democratic Party commitment to righting the wrongs of the past- thousands of years worth- will allow new, contemporary, wrongs to be committed. Why would any working class citizen support a party dedicated to unrestricted immigration? The importation of cheap labor, under the guise of 'humanitarianism' and 'values', is destroying the working class and the environment. No thank you to both. The children of working class citizens are being punished, and their futures stolen, because they have the audacity to not be the poorest people on the planet.
3
Unions were victims of their own success. After fighting bloody battles against even National Guard units and strike breakers in the early 20th century, they finally won rights and concessions like 5 day work weeks, pensions, paid vacations and holidays, sick leave, and health insurance. All of these benefits and more were then provided to non-union workers, even management.
By the 1980s, these were taken for granted as though they were "god given", but the 1% who control things in America never accepted these rights as fact. They worked tirelessly to find ways to claw them back, and when Reagan was elected they finally had their hero.
Reagan declared war on unions by firing the Air Traffic Controllers, and then put into place the foundation for the "trickle down" economy that rules to this day. Its great lie is that if we allow wealth to concentrate at the top, there will be so much that the "excess" will flow down to everyone else. Republicans, and new style Democrats bought it hook, line, and sinker, and we see the results in the extinction of collective bargaining, and the loss of wealth by the 99% while the 1% has returned to Robber Baron Era levels.
To reverse this we need to adopt the ideas of Sanders, Warren who know that healthy unions and collective bargaining are the answer to a balanced and healthy economy and nation. "You don't miss the water 'til the well runs dry".
2
The left consistently paints Reagans firing of the air traffic controllers as an intentional confrontation with labor while ignoring the fact that the PATCO strike was illegal. Under federal law, they weren’t allowed to strike. Yet they did and suffered the consequences of their actions. As they well should have.
This is an important article and its facets should not be ignored by the Democratic party. As a progressive, I love the policy proposals put forth by many of the liberal wing candidates of the party, however I am also a realist. Since the conservative decimation of unions beginning in the early 1980s until 2013, union membership of the work force in the U.S. has been cut nearly in half, from 20.1% to 11.3%. A direct correlation can be drawn with the shift in inequality of wealth. We are in an economic war which has morphed into a party war. The Republicans are winning because they lie about the message, but more importantly because the Democratic Party turned to the political influence of corporations and abandoned organized labor. Moving to the center emboldened the Republican Party to move further right. The Dems attempted to woo labor but only tacitly and symbolically. We need a Democratic candidate to support labor, develop a truthful universal message and policies to win them back, and then try to pass a progressive agenda from a position of power Wars are won with incremental strategic skirmishes gaining advantageous territory, not with emotional ideologies.
1
Being a pro labor progressive sounds antithetical to being critical of labor unions, but discussing union issues, as Mr. Edsall ably does, runs into the problem of ceteris paribus—all things being held equal.
Supporting the contemporary labor movement unfortunately too often means supporting some of its contemporary failings. One example is that most contemporary unions focus almost solely on bread and butter issues—that’s bread and butter for their members, not workers generally. It also means ignoring such structures as worker cooperatives,associated, for example, with German manufacturing.
Another more complex problem is that public, governmental unions, with workers presumably engaged in public service, are automatically faced with the continuing problem of weighing their own self interest against the interest of the larger public—it’s an untenable position and the very existence of unionization creates it. An independent bureaucracy is essential to good government.
But, the conflation of the problems associated with unions with the right to work movement is at most despicable and at least dishonest—baloney, to put it politely. The movement is and has been incredibly destructive and it needs to be shown for what it is, which this column helps to do.
Thanks for this informative column, Mr. Edsall. However, did I miss something? I didn't see any mention of the fact that the last three Democratic Presidents - Carter, Clinton, and Obama, a total of 5 terms or 20 years, failed to make reforming labor laws, the Union's top priority, the party's priority, and so nothing happened.
I think this is because at the idea level, always a precarious notion in action and inertia bound American life, there has been no general upsurge until very recently with the Green New Deal that puts the nature and shortcomings of our political economy - who gets what share of the national pie and for what purposes - in front of the people.
If I could make any one clear statement, or assertion, if you would prefer, after nearly a half-century in political and intellectual life since 1972, there is simply no public dialogue about these crucial matters: what is Neoliberalism, our governing political economy since at least 1980; what is the role of the federal government vs "The Market"; why have there been so many economic panics and crises since the 1970's; how much do the federal deficits and debt matter; what is Modern Monetary Theory...and finally, why has the Republican Right made tarnishing and dismantling the legacy of the New Deal a priority, such that Joe Biden would go for the Simpson-Bowles Commission...and until the Green New Deal arose, the Democratic Party followed Clinton in saying the era of Big Government was over?
Obama couldn’t have gotten any labor laws passed, the GOP controlled congress for 6 of his 8 years.
I'm all for strong unions and bigger unions. What I don't get are union guys who vote Republican.
Some say union guys left the fold when Clinton pursued NAFTA. If Republicans sensed an opening there and started catering to union needs, then this argument would make sense. But Republicans are openly anti-labor. They apparently gloat about it in their presentations and in the press. So why oh why would a blue collar worker vote for them instead?
Maybe they figured that if neither party was going to back their economic interests, then the members should be free to vote for other stuff they might care about (i.e., culture war distractions)?
If that's so, then Republicans enjoy a double victory. They get to attack unions and then turn around and grab their members' votes. It's sad.
I agree that Dems need to do more for labor, but any worker who voted Republican needs to take a long look in the mirror.
1
You can support personal issues like work, that run counter to whatever political ideology they operate under. Some people are smart enough to not bite the hand that has gotten them better everything, from a 5 day work week, to 40 hours a week, they forced labor laws, safety standards, etc.
It's amazing to me that mine workers and auto workers, both of which gave support to Trump in large numbers, seem to think that they always had the benefits they have now.
They seem to forget that those benefits came about because of the sacrifices of union organizers, most of them left wingers like the Reuther brothers of the UAW, whom the current crop of workers wouldn't even want to talk to.
2
Mine workers seem to have forgotten the lessons of the “Coal Miners Daughter”, and Tennessee Ernie Ford, “You load 16 tons and what do you get, another day older and deeper in debt. St Peter don’t you call me cause I can’t go, because I owe my soul to the company store” Back in those days, the company owned everything you lived in, the store you purchased your food from, clothes, etc. Unions broke that history, and gave those people safer mines, better pay, healthcare, etc, the list goes on.
To big business (the owners, the donors, the mega-rich, the powerful) labor is one thing only: an expense. American corporations have 1.) off-shored their companies to get access to cheap foreign labor, or 2.) imported cheap foreign labor to pay less right here at home.
Big business has spent 50 years relentlessly working to eliminate unions, pensions and job protections of all kinds. One thing Trump is demonstrating is that without a constant influx of low-wage foreigners, American business starts getting nervous about maybe having to raise wages. Panic time. Pretty funny since he is apparently a big employer of illegal workers himself.
The Democratic Party has been co-opted by Wall Street and big corporations. It is time for new leadership.
4
Google the phrase 'not coming back,' then 2016. See how many politicians, most of them Democrats, used the term 'not coming back' to describe the loss of manufacturing jobs in the heartland. They had zero solutions except, maybe, go back to to the community college and learn to be a barber. Democrats don't care about middle America. In many cases, they have quietly internalized a quiet belief that the loss of manufacturing jobs, especially for blue collar white men, is actually a good thing for other groups in the country. They can't say that out loud, which means they are also sneaky.
4
I believe in the idea of the government as a model employer and that having strong public sector unions, which comes with both positives and negatives, will act as a competitive counterweight to private sector jobs. Yes they bargain for our tax dollars, but they also drive up wages, etc for the private sector.
I'm surprised to see virtually no distinction made between public and private sector unions from either Edsall or in many of the comments I've read. I believe private sector unions are essential but with public sector unions, there is, essentially, only one side as the bureaucrats (and, ultimately, politicians) with whom the public sector employees are "bargaining" have little if any 'skin in the game.' Hence, we end up with states like CT (my home state) which have been, bankrupted by previous generations of politicians who 'gave away the store' with extremely generous retirement plans (including gold-plated health insurance coverage), all available at an obscenely early age and very little of it paid for.
Something had to give and my guess is that there will be plenty other states which find themselves in the unenviable position of CT.
1
This article is muddled because it flipflops between the causes and effects of initiatives that have curtailed the power and prevalence of public sector unions in Wisconsin (topic A) with the causes and effects of enactments of right to work laws that curtail the power and prevalence of private sector unions (topic B). The pros, cons and other relevant considerations concerning these two two topics issues are not the same, and one may be wholeheartedly in favor of curtailing public sector unions without supporting right to work laws. Consider: when a public sector union bargains for more money and better terms of employment for its members, who's on the other side of the table? Not an executive representing affluent shareholders, but rather a representative of the taxpayer (of you and me, in other words). As a taxpayer, I don't want there be a lot of high paying government jobs. I want my federal/state/ local government to pay the minimum necessary to get somebody competent to show up. I don't want that person to feel like a career in government is attractive - for if it is attractive (as so many public sector jobs have been in the last half century) it will be so because the government is paying more than strictly necessary. As most tax payers are less affluent than your average government employee, most taxpayers should be incensed that public sector unions exist at all and should support the Wisconsin GOP's accomplishments this past decade.
2
The weakness in American law a century ago was in failing to recognize that economic freedoms embodied in the Constitution were always to be balanced against individual freedoms from that same document.
The arrival of the corporation as an "individual" has upset that balance even further. We are moving toward civil war between immortal corporations and mortal humans. The vampire analogy works pretty well here. The civil rights analogy fails.
1
Right-to-work laws, they write, “permit workers in a unionized business to opt out of paying dues to the union, even if those workers reap the benefits of collective bargaining and union representation.” These laws weaken “the organizational clout of labor unions.”
This strategy is very similar to the road taken by Republicans to strip the ACA's enforcement and payment mechanisms, while leaving all of the ACA's benefits. Give the people what they want, lifetime healthcare benefits or coverage for preexisting conditions, without paying for it. Same playbook as unions - and it garners votes.
Republicans are now undoubtedly the party of buying votes irresponsibly via the myth that everything is free.
1
What I find interesting is how incredibly sensitive Democratic vote turnout is in response to multiple factors. Its almost like Democrats look for reasons (any reason - I don't like the candidate's shoes) not to vote. On the Republican side, all the President has to do is shout "Immigrant invaders and baby killers' and Republicans line up to vote irrespective of who the candidate is.
In Wisconsin, Walker was elected twice and survived a recall vote running on Act 10. You would've thought unions, their families, democrats would be out in force to defeat Act 10, but no, they did not like the Democratic candidate's haircut or self-described gender-identity and did not show up to vote. Republicans on the other hand showed up to support Act 10 and they won the elections and defeated the recalls. Voting works, whining doesn't.
3
None of these laws make unions illegal. They simply allow workers to leave unions and stop paying dues if they choose, or refuse to join one as a condition of taking a job. The problem with the union movement in the US is that workers do not feel that unions deliver value for the money. Even when companies are open and welcoming to a union, such as at BMW, workers do not vote for them.
.
The unpopularity of unions has to do with the limitations of their structure. They were designed in the days where there were large masses of undifferentiated and barely trained workers. In manufacturing today, an increasing majority of the labor force has a set of skills. Collective bargaining always tends to decrease differentiation among pay for the members of the bargaining unit, lowering the pay of the most skilled while increasing the pay of the least skilled. A skilled worker knows what he is worth, and can move to a different employer if he is not sufficiently compensated. He's better off as a free agent.
.
Unions in their current form are really only appropriate for large masses of undifferentiated workers with low skills and low training. Those groups are never going to be well paid, union or not. They're not joining the middle class. They're not going to have excess funds for politics. Unless unions change to become relevant for the 21st century, they're going to continue to experience declines in membership and influence.
@Tom Meadowcroft: Interesting argument. Of course, the class of worker with the skills needed to effectively negotiate with multiply employers is on the decline. It's becoming very hard to come up with useful things that a person can do better and cheaper than a robot. Consider that the next ten to fifteen years could very well see an entire class of transportation worker (public transit, truck and taxi drivers -- including Ubers) rendered entirely redundant. That trend isn't going to change.
I'd be interested in specifics on how unions might reform themselves to be more relevant in the post-industrial economy.
@curious
Unions can:
1. Collectively bargain for higher wages collectively, while allowing employers to decide individual wage rates and thus better match pay to skills. Think of it like the NBA players bargaining for what fraction of revenue goes to payer pay, and what form contracts can take.
2. Protect workers from arbitrary actions of managers.
3. Insist on high safety standards.
4. Provide a member pool for certain benefits.
5. Give workers a voice to upper management and ownership, particularly with respect to management personnel decisions.
@curious
Unions can:
1. Collectively bargain for higher wages collectively, while allowing employers to decide individual wage rates and thus better match pay to skills. Think of it like the NBA players bargaining for what fraction of revenue goes to payer pay, and what form contracts can take.
2. Protect workers from arbitrary actions of managers.
3. Insist on high safety standards.
4. Provide a member pool for certain benefits.
5. Give workers a voice to upper management and ownership, particularly with respect to management personnel decisions.
But no seniority privileges, no rules about who is allowed to do certain tasks, no rigid pay rates.
I was a union member for more than 40 years. I was with the Machinist Union for 27 years as an airline mechanic at JFK and 13 years with the Utility Workers in NYC. After Ronald Reagan fired the Air Traffic Controllers, there was a wave of union busting in the 1980s that it seemed that no one in the government tried to stop. When Reagan ran for president, I supported him. But after he fired the controllers, I never voted Republican again. However, switching to Democrat didn’t seem to matter for union workers. Bill Clinton pushed to get NAFTA passed and was a big promoter for China becoming a member of the WTO. Manufacturing was bound to move overseas, because of the cheap labor, but these two pieces of legislation just hastened the decline of manufacturing in the USA. As far as the unions were concerned, Clinton was no better than a Republican.
Yes, the unions do have a checkered past, particularly in the AFL with discrimination. However, it was the CIO that broke racial barriers in the 1930s by allowing African Americans to become members. You can’t blame the unions for Jim Crow, Redlining of housing districts and denying African Americans FHA mortgages after WW II. Discrimination was government policy.
Americans are clueless when it comes to labor history since it’s not taught in primary and secondary school. FDR made it easier for unions to organize.
The horse has been let out of the barn for decades. Without government support, unions can’t survive.
101
@Joe Jet
Union trade schools don't even teach labor history. It is a disgrace.Voting for any republican is too.
5
@Joe Jet:" You can’t blame the unions for Jim Crow, Redlining of housing districts and denying African Americans FHA mortgages after WW II. Discrimination was government policy. "
Yet NYC public schools are still racially segregated. It that because NYC is run by Republicans?
2
@Joe Jet
Excellent comment. Thank you.
1
When I was young and naive and just starting out, I didn't want to belong to a union, with all those strict rules.
After a couple of years of working non-union, where people would work you twelve hours without a meal break, or refuse to pay you after the job because "we have no money and we are not paying anybody," I got the point.
I'll never forget an early union job I did when the company called and tried to renegotiate my pay AFTER the job. They were bullying me, one person calling after another, saying the person who agreed to my rate "made a mistake". I called the union office: No more calls from that company and the check was in my mailbox within the week.
They made sure we got "turnaround" time for enough sleep between long work days, got decently paid for our skilled labor, and had medical insurance.
Although some unions go too far, it's just too easy for companies to bully and cheat individuals. We NEED unions.
140
@Tokyo Tea
1000 upvotes!
Having put myself through college and law school by working union jobs, I have long been in labor’s corner. The relentless Republican campaign to roll back worker rights has been hard to witness. It is, at its core, based on carefully constructed lies and dog whistles aimed at persuading workers to vote against their own interests. I will never forget seeing this first-hand 1972, when a lot of my fellow Teamsters went for Nixon. It was then only a matter of time before we saw pro-Reagan union members, folks with an unsettling political death wish. Couple all of this with a Democratic party that has lost touch with its core as its members have increasingly been drawn to the church of the SAT, where they bring up their children, and you have the perfect storm. But thankfully (or maybe just hopefully) we are coming to our senses, as evidenced by my state’s overwhelming rejection of the Orwellian “right to work” nonsense. There is, however, the little problem of our Republican legislature, which has a tendency to override the people wishes with lobbyist-driven legislation.
85
@Dale Irwin The republican's "carefully constructed lies" is nowhere more obvious than the phrase ‘Right to Work’. It is a deliberate misrepresentation of the Taft-Hartley Act. It has nothing whatsoever to do with granting anyone a right to get work or protecting those who have a job from losing it. It is Orwellian “1984” doublespeak.
17
Democrats have a labor problem. The problem is that supporting unions and the rights of workers is a rather low priority for Democratic administrations. What did the Clinton administration do to advance labor unions? The answer is little or nothing. The Obama administration passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act that advanced the rights of individual workers, but did little or nothing for unions. If my memory is correct, FDR was the last Democratic president to take significant action to support unions.
State right-to-work laws would not exist if Truman had vetoed Taft-Hartley.
Union representation in the public sector is a double edged sword, especially in small communities with declining employment in the public sector. That issue is apparent in Wisconsin. The public sector jobs are the the gold standard for jobs in the county. The workers have virtually guaranteed continuing employment, good to great benefits and wages that actually keep up with inflation. The local taxes that support those union jobs fall on private sector employees who work in jobs with little or no prospect of continued employment, limited, if any, benefits and stagnant wages. That is a recipe for resentment and it shows in the opinion polls Edsall cites.
Unions will continue to decline until a Democratic president and Congress redefine the rights of unions in the private sector.
70
@OldBoatMan
You said that for Democrats supporting unions is a low priority.
That's not what I have seen.
On the other hand, Republicans have been working to destroy unions.
8
@ Independent
If Democrats have worked hard to support unions, why do we have right-to-work laws?
Why did the Clinton administration negotiate NAFTA?
What precisely has any Democratic administration done to make union organization easier and improve the rights of union workers in collective bargaining?
10
@OldBoatMan Truman did veto Taft-Hartley. Congress overrode his veto.
16
One of the things that cost the Democrats the 2016 elections is that they and the Republicans switch sides. The Dems abandoned working people to chase big money. Their candidate calling a large swath of them "Deplorables." The Republicans realized that while they can't write big checks, there are a lot of people at the lower end of the economic scale. Most importantly they vote, and in strategic states, that was the key to Trump's victory.
Looking at the proposals so far, I see many that would benefit the highly educated liberals on the coasts, but not so much the everyday person. Unless this changes it appears that the Democrats will once again snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
3
Perhaps the best way to help unions is to take away their health benefits with medicare for all and then close most of the remaining unionized industries with The Green New Deal.
2
I hope Joe will not just talk about unions, but will do the walk. Start with grocery store clerks. Kill off the power of Wal-Mart by getting their clerks unionized just like Safeway clerks. I say this as a white collar upper middle class person. I know life was better when these were decent jobs, and workers like this could afford a decent life in a nice community. If Biden does this, he should go all the way.
3
@karen
Amen.
It's unfortunate that unions rolled with the Reagan Democrats.
@APS
And Nixon in '68.
I am a teacher in an union in NYC, and I find it very funny when I go to my husband's work outings (he works in corporate) and hear that teachers have it easy, don't work hard, benefit from taxes, etc, while they ignore their own sucking from the tax dole. Is any other sector in America as subsidized as much as corporations? Unions fight for rights that don't just benefit its members; they also benefit children. Without unions in place, teachers wouldn't be able to fight for the students in front of them to receive equitable educations. One example is kids with disabilities. I work in a large public school where students get the services they need and deserve because members feel the power to speak out without risks to their jobs. Unfortunately, both Democrats and Republicans have attacked public school teachers in the last twenty years, demanding "accountability" and providing giveaways to testing companies and tutoring services. Perhaps the tide is finally and rightfully turning.
4
@Mal Stone
Precisely! Well said.
Since the dems adoption of neo-liberal, corporatists positions we should not expect any change.
Good luck to us all.
1
Unions, especially pubic employee unions, are just a way of extorting money from the public using the power of the state to enforce involuntary transactions. They raise prices, taxes, and indebtedness without any mechanism for the public to protest or resist, except the way Wisconsin has done.
3
Grover Norquist has no qualms about private sector unions.
Employees and their private employers should be able to negotiate to a win-win.
Grover Norquist is actually in the same frame of mind of Franklin Delano Roosevelt who held that public service/sector unions were an evil invention that would destroy America.
And today...the vast majority of union membership in the U.S. are teachers and civil servants.
If anyone has a problem with the Teachers Unions donating huge amounts of money to get THEIR School Board candidates elected so those School Board members can turn around and award teachers great pay increases and benefit packages...then you understand the dirty little secret of public sector unions.
They use their members money to elect people who promise to give the members more money and in exchange..the members commit more money to the people they elected to continue the cycle.
Hence..the MTA union guy who made $355,000 last year so he could retire on a $165,000 a year pension.
Used to be you had to work for John Gotti to get such a good deal.
Now you just have to work for Bill DeBlasio.
3
Trump's recent tweets and several of Trump's executive actions against worker rights are Democratic gold. They need to be published often and early across all America. After Trump hateful attacks against Union leadership, no unions in the US should endorse Trump. The Trump and the GOP are anti Union overthought they tend to temper comments against the police Unions. Never forget it is a union and maybe it will be the last on their target list, but it is still on their list. The police union endorsements must be denied to the GOP.
Everyone should read "Capitalism is failing. People want a job with a decent wage – why is that so hard?" by Richard V. Reeves of Brookings:
https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/capitalism-is-failing-people-want-a-job-with-a-decent-wage-why-is-that-so-hard/?utm_campaign=Brookings%20Brief&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=72239869
This vividly offers the data that shows how the rich capitalists have seized control in the US.
There's another explanation for Democratic party neglect of labor: the Democratic party establishment hates activist labor nearly as much Republicans.
Consider the Democratic party faction which would rather see a Republican a president, than a liberal Democrat
who threatened donor relationships.....
1
Labor is Democrats reason for being even tho the Coastal elites would like to pretend otherwise. Without Labor in the party the progressive social movement is a pipe dream.
Yes!
Again, Democrats: the very best way to lift up people of color, women, minorities, LGBTQ people, immigrants, etc., is to stop talking about identity, about groups and sub-groups. Stop the Victim Olympics.
Forward a politics which is identity-neutral. Focus entirely on rebuilding and solidifying the middle class and creating some level of democratic fairness once again for ALL people. That will do far, far more for the non-white, straight male than any woke preening will ever do. And it will have the benefit of helping the dreaded average straight white male at the same time.
3
Republicans have been waging war against workers for a century. They continue to win this war by weakening unions. By supporting Republicans, workers and unions have been complicit in their own demise. Such self destructive behavior would be unthinkable in a country like Germany. Why only in America?
2
A very fine, timely, etc. review of an important "data point" (and a lot more.)
But 2 objections from this writer:
1) It may be true that Biden is likely to benefit most if the unions go "all in" on trying to prevent Trump 2.... But it's so crazy that maybe either logic or outrage will head it off at the pass. This *is* the Senator from Delaware, i.e., a Chamber of Commerce fave. What is wrong with a picture where hedge fund billionaires and "Joe 6pack" are in bed with one another?! [Plus teachers and other public service union members are now getting YOUNGER, and Biden is more than just OLD - he stopped growing intellectually 30-40 years back, before they were born.]
2) You can tell when an institution is so ossified that - as with brittle bones - it's likely to collapse under its own weight. Public service unions in places like Wisconsin - but my own NY isn't worlds different - are in a conundrum when they want raises of inflation-plus and "don't-even-think-of asking for us to pay more for health insurance" at a time when - literally - their next door neighbors are being downsized and squeezed every which way.
I get it how for the likes of the odious Mike Mulgrew, the only thing in the entire world that matters is whether a UFT member does better each and every year, both financially and in terms of how hard/long/pressured they work.
But that is PRECISELY what leads to Act 10 - the rest of a state getting "sick & tired" of psu's saying, "the heck with the rest of you!"
1
When John Sweeney interrupted Tom Donahue's ascension to AFL-CIO's throne in 1995 there was great hope for organized labor's return from the grave.
It would turn out it was organized labor's final death rattle.
Employers are on the verge of solving the 'labor cost' problem with the onrushing advent of AI and machine learning facilitated by quantum computers.
The reigning 'giant' of unions—SEIU—is riven by identity politics and internal dissension having bet the farm on a losing Democratic candidate for President.
Organized labor is irrelevant when it comes to the electoral outcomes of Presidential election.
Unions are no longer about organizing workers—even if they wanted to unions are incapable of organizing anyone around anything.
Unions only utility to the Democratic Party is their ability to write checks and the value of those checks in the scheme of campaign finance is one of diminishing returns particularly in Congressional races.
Organized labor is a spent force on all fronts.
2
@teoc2
It was under Sweeney in 2000 that the AFL-CIO started supporting amnesty and more legal immigration. After Sweeney replaced Donohue in 1995, the DNC seemed to have more weight there than the unions. I was working there then and I saw it.
It is the immigration issue, out-sourcing, and identity politics that have peeled the rank and file away from the Democratic Party. Why is anyone surprised?
I myself left the Democratic Party over the issue of immigration. The Dems are no better than the Reps when it comes to allowing the business interests to destroy middle class wages and benefits by importing cheap foreign labor - legal or illegal.
The AFL-CIO and Chamber of Commerce are both across Lafayette Park from the White House. They could hold a joint picnic today in the Park and as long as the conversations stuck to immigration, both groups would get along great.
1
Why, oh why, does it take the left so long to wake up to the obvious? Why do we think there has been a 30-year war against teachers and education? Do we think that rich and powerful people actually care about our kids and the education they get? Think again. Their kids go to private schools. No, what they care about is breaking the back of public school funding and the teacher unions.
Do you call yourself a progressive and have a sneering attitude toward teacher unions, or unions in general? Do you believe teachers are lazy and overpaid? Well, my friend, you have purchased and drunk the Grover Norquist propaganda kool-aid. Working people didn't abandon the Democratic Party, the Democrats abandoned working people.
1
So what the union and democrats need to do is an information campaign. They need commercials that explain what and how unions help all Americans. Cartoon commercials like they used to help explain government and grammar where a big hit. Remember conjunction function and bill on the hill where quick and to the point. Simple works!!
The problem in this country is that every single state can nilly willy make up new laws pertaining only to them, e.g. the ridiculously named 'Right to Work' and the asinine anti-choice ones of fetal heartbeat.
In other federal republics, e.g. Germany, union representatives, by law, have seats on the boards of directors in large companies, and no single state can make up laws that restrict women's right to chose.
From "bitter clingers" to "basket of deplorables", it doesn't help that the Democrats are also the party of sanctimony and condescension towards the working class.
1
Can Democrats figure out how to get unions back into the equation in 2020?
Industrial union power was destroyed in 1993 when Clinton signed NAFTA over the bitter opposition of labour unions. From then on, demands higher salaries would be met with "Ok, guys, if you don't like our offer we'll move the company to Mexico."
Study the history of GM, Carrier, New Process Gear Works in Syracuse NY- that's what happened
Public Union Power lives on - precariously. To quote a public Union President I interviewed in Syracuse "Cuomo fights us, except before an election, where he gives us what we want."
To get Unions back, Democrats would need to formulate a policy against outsourcing and the immigration of immigrants willing working for less.
Otherwise we will continue to see more Shannon Mucahy fates
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/14/us/union-jobs-mexico-rexnord.html
1
Do you support organized labor in the US?
Here's a question: What sort of automobile do you drive?
Is it one that is assembled in the US by unionized labor?
You can find a list here:
https://uaw.org/2018-uaw-union-built-vehicle-guide-lets-start-bringing-jobs-back-home/
Is your vehicle one that is assembled in a right-to-work state by non-union labor? That would include Toyota, Honda, Nissan, BMW and Mercedes.
How did you do on that quiz?
Now let's all sing a chorus of Solidarity Forever and get back to hammering on those folks in flyover country.
1
Public sector unions deserve all the brutality they can attract.
2
"Even as many Democrats appear to accept organized labor’s decline . . . ."
And why, any thinking person might ask, would the Democratic Party have acquiesced for decades in the systematic gutting of organized labor, whose greatest purpose has been to protect the interests of the working class against the predations of US corporations? It's obvious: The Democratic Party "accepts" these declines because the Democratic Party donor base is just as much against the interests of organized labor as is the Republican Party donor base.
Why is this so hard to see? Why do you pretend not to know this? If I were you, the cognitive dissonance would be killing me.
Put otherwise, ever since the time of Ronald Reagan, when the Democratic Party as defined by FDR rolled over and died, there's been just one party in the US: The Rich Party. This one party rule explains all the decline our nation has gone through for the last 40 yeas. Are you happy?
Biden: "I'm a union man." Riiiiiiiight.
3
My dad was a lifelong union man. But with the introduction of affirmative action, he was put in the crosshairs.
Originally designed to redress past wrongs, affirmative action them became making the union match the demographics of the area. But once that was attained, the machine could not be turned off or throttled back. So women and minorities became over-represented and the push for more continued. This increasingly meant my dad and his buddies got laid of again and again.
Adding to this, the Democrats fealty to the environment put them at odds with such unionized professions as the UMW, UAW, and steel workers.
So, once the democrats declared war--or indifference--to the plight of white working men and the professions that pulled them out of poverty, why would those workers ever vote for Democrats? Especially when they get sneered at as "deplorables."
3
The rise in the power of unions eventually coincided with the decline of the american economy. Reagan upended the situation in 1980 when he fired the Air Traffic Controllers Union.
The rise of the unions in post industrial revolution america from post civil war to the 1950's brought real decency into the work environment of 40 hour work weeks, holidays, health care, the banning of child labor. The push back against capitalist exploitation was necessary and successful.
The unions grew to abuse their power. They became the corrupt. The effect on the economy was to disrupt the risk tolerance of capitalists. Stagflation and economic decline ensued.
The situation has again reversed. The capitalist are glutted with greed and unions are the only way to counterbalance the reestablishment of capitalist power.
Democrats participated in this process. That is why they were defeated in 2016. It will be interesting to see if there is a way out.
1
Thanks for the great, data based article. Evidently the right in Europe has moved this strategy to another level: populism & pro working class rhetoric. There they use fear mongering of immigrants, accommodations for others & competition for state benefits to divide & distract workers' from their own financial security. All this per: Sheri Berman, Barnard College on the Ezra Klein Show, Vox 4/18/19. Her conclusion xenophobia trumps solidarity, except in financially perilous conditions.
Democrats can wisely see now that public sector unions are out of control and the government at some point is going to have to bail out cities like Chicago, states like IL and NJ, as the money is just not there to pay their lavish pensions that no one receives in the public sector. They are trying to wash their hands but the fact is they are the ones with blood on their hands - who's going to fund this?
3
"(Democrats) would be wise to commit to the politics of addition instead — amplifying the power of labor to lift up the most loyal Democratic constituencies."
Now that's a winning game plan for re-taking the Senate. The votes are what's needed. Rather than being disappointed in less juice from union coffers, just be energized - like those fearless school teachers who took-on their state legislators.
Anyway, union heads publicly setting conditions for Democrat endorsements is a turn-off and gets in the way of winning. Stick to goals.
The lemons from right-to-work laws are smaller monetary contributions from unions. So, make lemonade by embracing the trend to get Big Money out of politics.
Mr. Edsall provides a real masterpiece of insight into the billionaire seige of Democrat strongholds. For me, the Grover Norvquist quote to illuminate the Republican battle plan was the cherry on top.
Voter excitement was a serious problem with the 2014-16 Democrats. When the Democrats bailed out the auto industry they were rewarded by WI voters in 2012. Clinton was not on board with a 15.00 per hour minimum wage. Scott Walker played the GOP card of making middle class voters angry over union pay levels. A state union janitor made a living wage a private sector one was below the official poverty level. Walker convinced voters that all janitors should be paid below the poverty level.
1
Mr. Edsall,bravo! A nuanced ,complex column on labor, finally! So many factors you included that explains the decline of Unions. It is a given that the gop will do anything and everything to destroy labor and their rights; they won't be satisfied until every employer is an "independent worker".
The Democrats, as you mentioned, have neglected the labor movement for decades. Labor, too, has a big responsibility in their own decline. Some of this can be traced back to the Viet Nam war era,and the attempts by the Federal government to promote equal employment opportunities,or hiring quotas in Union memberships;which drew very strong resistance from many unions. This fissure has never really been closed. The Democrats need to make labor its number one priority,as you said. And labor needs to educate its members regarding who is on their side. We can't have sixty percent of rank and file members voting for gop candidates in 2020 as they did in 2016. That was THE most devestating aspect of the election. It appears that teachers are still strong, and AFSCME is too,but it is in the private sector and building trades where the weak links lie.
1
In addition to the decline of union membership is the fact that many union members vote Repbulican even when their respective union backs the Democrat candidate. In other words, many union members do not vote in their own economic interests.
3
@Bernard I don't agree that all union members voting for the GOP are voting against their interests.
Let's just look at teaching.
Union rules require all teachers be paid the same amount per years of service, but what if a person teaches a high-demand subject or is a high-performer? Then the union salary guide is detrimental to him.
Further, unions devise salary guides that are back-loaded and which provide a huge percentage of compensation to the longest serving members in retirement.
If anyone knows that they are destined to teach only for a few years, then the union salary guide is also highly detrimental.
Even if someone is going to have a long teaching career, even moving to another state is detrimental since pensions are not portable.
1
@Honeybee Also, union members are taxpayers too, and the higher taxes that public sector unions cause effect union members as taxpayers.
Between the higher taxes and union fees (plus how unions hold back salary increaases in-demand and high-performing workers), the economic benefit isn't as large as union-defenders would have you believe.
@Bernard
True,too true. Many are just plain bigots.
Make no mistake about this, unions are a business. They are a business selling what very few people want. In a free market, an environment where union membership is not compulsory, they fail to attract and hold members. Republicans have not been anti-union as much as pro-employee giving them freedom of choice. In a free choice workplace the unions loose every time. The only success unions have had is in the public sector and that's because democratic politicians pandering for votes allow unionization without freedom of choice. Even worse in the public sector unions essentially sit on both sides of the bargaining table with union friendly politicians in charge. Unions make it hard to reward good work. Unions protect the lowest common denominator in terms of work performance and behavior. Unions stifle innovation. It is no wonder they are in decline.
3
@Donald Smith: You ignore the long history of worker-employer relations. No doubt, you base your thinking on limited American experience. And make no mistake, your unions are American, and have, in some cases, conformed to the modern American ethos. It was not always so, and signs are, it will not go on being so.
2
@Donald Smith
"Unions make it hard to reward good work. Unions protect the lowest common denominator in terms of work performance and behavior. Unions stifle innovation. It is no wonder they are in decline." But that raises a very interesting question, one that the GOP cannot answer, that many blue collar dunces can't seem to grasp, and that is how come if unions were the cause of problems, how come we are in a time when at least 95% of workers have seen their fates decline? Unions aren't in decline, leaving out the public sphere, they are pretty much dead. In the mid 1950's, 35% of private sector jobs were unionized, today it is roughly 10%, and most of those losses happened in the last 45 years or so. If your theory is correct, then people should be doing much better than they were back then, but they aren't. In that same 45 year people 95% of wage earners in the US have seen their incomes decline, their costs increase, while the top 1% have soared....so if unions were responsible, when the unions declined, how come workers fates didn't soar?
4
@Donald Smith: course they fail to hold and attract members when not compulsory. "Right-to-work" is just code for "divide and conquer". Employers and their agents are quite skilled at using quasi-legal methods of discouraging union membership when you open that loophole.
Put another way, I don't recall Pinkertons bashing any management heads on any picket-lines. You think that's a coincidence?
I owe everything thing that I have earned to the union. They provided a middle class wage, a pension, affordable health care and protection against capricious management. Workers in this country give up their rights to power over their future when they lose union representation. The public should understand that organized labor sets the bar that filters throughout the organization including salaried employees and other non-unionized workers. This article correctly points out the relationship between success of labor and the Democrats. The party's ambivalence towards labor is exemplified by progressives bashing of teachers' unions and the lack of union acceptance in the top growing "progressive" employers including all of the FAANGs, Target, Costco, etc. They fear unions because unions provide dignity and demand dignified work conditions for their members negotiated in partnership. Workers such as those at McDonald's and Walmart that must use food stamps to survive deserve better. The Democrats must advocate for their needs by providing them the power to organize and be partners in the enterprises not servants to the management. Progressives who complain about the power of unions to protect their members should know that this is not absolute, and properly implemented also protects the employer by clarifying standards while minimizing turmoil and turnover. It is no coincidence that the decline of unionism parallels the decline of the middle class and the power of the Democrats.
10
The problem with any money besides nominal individual amounts going into a political campaign is that it always comes with preferential treatment strings and an expectation that at the very least that the contributors are going to be heard first. I still find it disappointing that the Citizens United decision has not been overturned, but I also find it problematic that union support for Democrats hasn't been de-clawed either. There are a multitude of instances where union members don't want their money spent on candidates or causes they don't personal support, and yet their dollars from union dues still go there. Politicians have historically bought votes from civil service unions in state and municipal elections in exchange for pay raises, pension and benefit enhancements, and other special treatment that the average citizen has to pay for and they have no say so on (view Bill de Blasio's history). The overall point, IMO I don't think that civil service unions should be making contributions to individual politicians or political parties, and other unions need a mechanism where members get to opt out of paying those part of their dues going for political purposes they don't support. It might be disarming before corporate and wealthy individuals are equally de-clawed, but it is well past the time that some political party take the moral high ground instead of using the excuse that nations utilize when mutual disarmament is brought up.
2
This is one of Mr. Edsall's best recent columns. Why did he, then, publish one on how Bernie Sanders might be too far to the left? Sanders has a better record - NAFTA, TPP, etc. - in supporting labor's agenda than Biden (whether he calls himself a "union man" surely matters less than how he voted and what he advocated in *policy*).
It's emergency time now, almost like the 1920s all over again, for organized labor, which is in near-terminal decline. Hoping that centrist Dems recognize their own self-interest lies in labor's strength misunderstands the role centrist Dems have had in undermining labor. And it misunderstands who pays that piper is more Wall Street than labor.
4
I spent a few years in the 90s as a Teamster when I worked part time for UPS. That left me with a very negative view of unions.
2
I was a member of a maritime union for thirty years. That experience left me with a very positive opinion of unions.
5
Left unstated is why people dislike unions, especially public sector unions. They cost the government more, make it more difficult to remove poor performers, and make it difficult to change work rules. How is that in the interest of the citizens? Or is it that the public unions are "the people" and the taxpayers are "the oppressors"?
9
Political will is the easy part.
The hard part of rebuilding the labor movement is practical. I tried and failed to organize a teachers union at one of my places of work, when I lived in a very pro-union area in New York State. I was heart broken, switched careers, and left the state.
As a general rule, successful union organizing depends on political support from the community and at least non-inference from government. (Eric Loomis's History of America in Ten Strikes is a deeply researched and highly readable book showing this.)
But for example, when Illinois tried to assist home health aides unionization, this was shot down in 2014 by the Supreme Court in Harris v. Quinn. This was exactly the kind of organizing needed in the contemporary service economy, where workers are often indirect employment situations. But it turned out to be easy for courts to block.
Strategy and realism are everything. Political will is easy. Practical union work is hard.
12
I have been an educator in Wisconsin for over 30 years and I have seen firsthand the negative effects of Act 10 and other Republican efforts to destroy unions.
Teachers were among the whipping-boys for Walker and Republicans in our state during the depths of the national recession. After Act 10, districts which once worked hand-in-hand with teachers' unions were free to do whatever they wanted.
I wouldn't say that most district administrations acted maliciously, but by ignoring the voices of educators, they have implemented a flurry of policies that are poorly thought out and poorly implemented. Teachers are feeling tossed around and are powerless to control what are proving to be some negative changes in education.
It is getting ever harder to attract and retain highly-qualified individuals. I went to college to become a physician, but chose to become an educator instead. I was willing to trade the higher pay and prestige for the stable health benefits, job security, the autonomy, and the satisfaction that comes from performing an important and meaningful job.
Unfortunately, I can no longer say that all of those things are true about education.
24
I think the article fails to grasp the essence of the union problem. The value of anything is directly related to the demand and inversely related to the supply. Unions were strong (valuable) when there was a high demand for unskilled labor and a limited amount of workers available. Two things have happened to dramatically change that picture. The world is awash with unskilled labor, and with the inevitable advance of globalization the world wide supply of workers greatly exceeds demand. This has been further aggravated by the advance of mechanization and robotics. The strength of unions, especially those that represent the unskilled worker, has therefore been considerably reduced and won't be returning any time soon.
10
@W.A. Spitzer
Teachers are not unskilled labor.
@sjn....Exactly so and as a consequence teacher unions have remained relatively strong as compared to the decline in most other unions. One difference that should also be noted is the difference between public and private sector unions. For the most part the work of public sector unions cannot be out sourced.
I wonder, though, if the 20% will ever see their lives destroyed by the party they continually vote into office. It seems like some kind of need for suffering. I get it when it's evangelical Christians with the need to suffer to get into heaven, but may right-wing voters are not evangelical Christians. It's a conundrum that continues to confuse, and works for the Republican Party to have tens of millions of voters who will still vote for them as they destroy their life, liberty, and happiness.
10
Writer Edsall conflates the interests of unions with the interests of employees. If public sector unions were the unalloyed "economic good" which he purports, membership would not decline in an environment where people are free to choose.
4
@jackinnj: Oh, come on. Who wouldn't choose free rider status if that choice was openly available to them? Enjoy the benefits of union membership without incurring any of the costs? I don't have to pay union dues or sacrifice my salary when the union strikes, but I still get to benefit from whatever gains they win?! That's a wonderful bargain.
People as individuals are wonderful at rationalizing why they are (or should be) considered "special" with a unique set of rules that apply only to themselves. How many times do we hear "but couldn't you make an exception for ME" argument as we go through life? In fact, it's no exaggeration to observe that the entire labor "strategy" of the right (which boils down to nothing more that "divide and conquer") is based on an fundamental understanding of that basic flaw in human nature.
3
Right, except people are not free to choose & haven’t been for a long time. Management and capital have been engaged in a campaign of harassment and intimidation since unions were first founded. In the beginning it was Pinkerton’s, police and national guard, clubs and violence. Now its lawyers, conservative think tanks and corrupt politicians. Unions for their part became complacent and many members apathetic about participating in the process and taking their rights and contracts for granted. You can pretend if you want that we have choice but it’s an illusion that conservatives promote while behind the scenes they work to take all choice away.
1
Freedom is everything. Never interfere with a worker getting a job at any employer available.
She or he should not be compelled to pay a union to possibly support politicians that worker is opposed to.
Unions got fat and lazy - and quit working to meet workers' needs, which is why unions are in so much trouble today outside of the federal gov't.
Had the Democrats shown as much diversity and differences of opinion as the GOP, in one
or more states, a Democratic Party governor would have carried out the reforms the writer today blames on his political opposition in the GOP.
The ultimate enemy of these workers? That would be the party now fully engaged in bringing as many non-citizen workers as possible into the United States, each of which makes a push downward on American workers' pay.
Mr. Soros' Centers for Americn Progress insists that Dems must import uneducated (and thus controllable) foreigners into the country to be made voters in federal elections if the Dems are to EVER control D.C. as they did in 2009-11.
4
@The Observer
Really? Um, who exactly was using these "non-citizens" workers for profit? It seems the root of this sprang up in Red border states: hiring 2 or 3 for the price of one "citizen worker". Paying no payroll taxes,no workers compensation. Republicans are great at creating problems then blaming others .
@The Observer" "That would be the party now fully engaged in bringing as many non-citizen workers as possible into the United States, each of which makes a push downward on American workers' pay."
Did you really expect not to be called out on this? Of course neither party holds the position as you put it forth, which means your entire argument a based on a false premise. Opposition to a pointless publicity "gimmick" (the "Wall") is not opposition to sensible immigration laws, and it's well-document that Democrats are perfectly willing to vote money to improved border security -- so long as the form of that improved security actually has a chance of being effective. Which might, as it turns out, include measures penalizing those who employ undocumented workers. Something which the current President seems to have done throughout his "career" as a matter of course. No wonder he'd prefer to talk about that Wall, as opposed to real immigration reform.
Frankly, it's a telling point that the entire GOP "platform" -- such as it is -- upon pretty much any issue is dependent upon an entirely false characterization of that issue.
1
@The Observer Fine they are not represented by the Union nor can they participate in Union seniority rules. Unions are forced to serve these leeches, The Republicans never have a problem with that. They never have problems with professional organizations dues pushing political agendas. Dues that you must pay if you want to share in the benefits the organization offers. Corporations work together to control benefits and wages/ Have you ever noticed hospital wages are similar in all hospitals. Do you honestly believe that is by chance.
Notice you folks never suggest the anti union members look for work at a non-union factory or workplace. you demand the unions kowtow to them. You demand unions accommodate the individual and never suggest the individual compromise with the Union.
1
Although my father never graduated from high school, he was able to provide a good standard of living and excellent health insurance coverage for our family of 5, in addition to an excellent pension when he retired. All this was possible from membership in a labor union. He attended adult education training programs managed by the unions at our local public high school that remain open, late into the night to accommodate such programs. There, he acquired the skills required to master his trade as a pipefitter/welder. Similar training was provided for those who wished to become brick layers, plumbers, electricians, auto mechanics etc. The unions, through a series of written and practical performance tests certified all those who participated in the program so that each was able to earn a certificate (card) documenting their qualifications as a pipe fitter, welder, electrician, etc. third, second, or first class -- the highest level of performance. Such certification enable those who completed the program to be hired by any employer seeking workers with that degree of training at a salary commensurate with their skill level. Note, that this was a cooperative program managed by the unions who provided the training and certification, whereas the local government provided the facilities in their public school system to implement such programs, that were very successful. The Democratic Party needs to renew the close ties it once had with labor unions restore such programs.
21
The Democratic Party makes no distinction between public sector unions and private sector unions. It is not dissimilar to the way that the Democratic Party makes no distinction between illegal immigration and legal immigration.
Public employee unions are not necessary. Civil service regulations at both the local, state and Federal level provide all the protection necessary to the individual employees. To allow collective bargaining by public employees for terms and conditions of employment, when the citizen taxpayers are the people that would have to pay for the demands of the unions, should not be allowed. No one is forced to work for government at any level. Government employment is rarely the only employment option.
Private sector unions are distinctly different in that collective bargaining by unions representing employees seeks a private agreement between two willing parties. If an agreement can not be made, the union may withdraw its labor (strike) or the employer may go out of business. The consequences of a strike or the closure of a business normally encourages an agreement.
Government performs required services that may not be suspended because members of a public sector choose to withdraw their labor over terms and conditions of employment to the detriment of society in general. The Republican Party's policy of hostility to public sector unions is an effective and appropriate political strategy when contesting the Democratic Party at any level of government.
7
@John Quinn Correct. Even FDR opposed public sector unionization.
3
@John Quinn Nice try, but those local, state, and Federal level protections you note are disappearing, as in Wisconsin. Then what?
5
@John Quinn - Balderdash!
It is difficult to counter the misrepresentations in this comment as there are so many, but I at least start:
1. There are many private jobs that are as crucial as public jobs--Doctors and Nurses, private bus drivers, railroad workers, oil delivery companies. etc., etc., etc. I am sure you can think of many others.
2. The Democratic party does distinguish between legal and illegal immigration, they just believe that people guilty of a misdemeanor like overparking or undocumented entry have some rights, too.
3. This stuff about public employers having some extra protection is nonsense. Until recently, even with public unions, and even counting the cost of benefits, public employees earned LESS than comparable private ones.
There has been some shrinkage of the gap, but that was not because the public employees caught up. That was because with the crushing of unions in the private sector, the compensation of workers has decreased. Now the Robber Barons are beginning to successfully assault public unions to bring down workers compensation even further.
If you want to see the data, look at "Capitalism is failing. People want a job with a decent wage – why is that so hard?" by Richard V. Reeves of Brookings
https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/capitalism-is-failing-people-want-a-job-with-a-decent-wage-why-is-that-so-hard/?utm_campaign=Brookings%20Brief&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=72239869
I am out of characters.
17
The GOP political strategy over the last 40 years has been a very simple one: fealty to the donor class for the money and divide-and-conquer the working class by race for votes. And it works. As much as I respect the right to organize, the GOP effectively taps into the resentments of white working-class (read: unionized) for votes and, as usual, leaves them high and dry. They get the shaft and Democrats get the blame. Can the Dems do better? Sure. But I think some self-reflection is also in order, once again asking the old question of "why we keep voting against our own interests?"
6
Back in the 1980s the gop lead by Gringrich, Norquist, DeLay and a few others devised a plan to ensure the republican party became a permanent dominating party. This plan had four main strategies:
1. Get money into politics since big business can afford to pay. This pay to play was called the K street project.
2. Suppress democratic leaning voters through changes in voting, Garrymandering, and voter suppression tactics.
3. Eliminate democratic supporting organizations such as unions, social welfare organizations, environmental organizations.
4. Engage in propaganda campaigns to sell their product and smear candidates. Blame the media and cast liberals as anti American and anti Christian.
The strategy has served the republican party well. Despite the fact that many of the republican platform policies are not popular they keep winning. Once the public wakes up to their tactics it may be difficult to reverse many of their anti worker and pro business policies. Packing the courts with judges chosen by the federalist society will result in profound changes in the laws such that the power of big corporations and deep pockets will rule. This is how we become a plutocracy brought to you by the gop.
31
In regards to reversing growing income inequality, I've been saying over and over again that buttressing labor laws, which includes raising the national minimum wage, is *at least* as important as tax policy changes.
For the blueprint to reduce income and wealth inequality we don't need to look any farther than our own history. In the mid 20th century income inequality was low and we had: much higher minimum wages than today adjusted for inflation, much stronger labor laws that resulted in higher union membership and stronger collective bargaining, a much more progressive tax code, higher government investment in infrastructure and education.
All of these together resulted in a robust and growing middle class and much higher income and wealth equality. And to those on the right who would argue that these policies will 'kill the economy', our GDP growth was stronger than today.
9
@Mike
When they say "kill the economy", they just mean "deprive us of every profit imaginable".
They are just like Dumpf, who conflates his personal interests with those of the entire country.
Your right-wingers have only their interests in mind, conflating their narrow interests with "the economy" generally.
1
Democrats used to be able to campaign on Unions and the labor movement. This appealed to the industrial/manufacturing working class, which happened to be mostly white.
Then party demographics changed, and republicans were able to monopolize "whiteness" as a party ideal, which appealed greatly to a lot of white males -- a major part of union constituency.
The shift from democrat to republican was never about labor policies. It was entirely about whiteness. The picture at the top of the article tells you all you need to know about why Trump won Wisconsin.
6
@Clem
Just recall the "hard hat" riot of construction union workers who beat up people protesting the Kent State murders.
These guys were all for Nixon in Vietnam.
1
Mr Edsall writes:
One of the key elements of Act 10 is that it uses the savings in reduced government employee pay and benefits to restructure the financing of state and local governments. As a result, repealing the Act would set in motion a chain reaction of politically damaging tax hikes ...
Yes - but(!) - Wisconsin, under Walker, in light of the state windfall from Act 10, has enacted tax cuts that have (predictably) favored the wealthiest. Were Act 10 reversed, those 'politically damaging tax hikes' would largely fall on the middle class. In short, labor can't win and their slice of the pie is diminished regardless.
3
And then there's the small problem of mass immigration's impact on the environment. Remember the environment that was the talk of the town decades ago? Cheap labor has to have somewhere to live. These workers also mean more traffic, more money for education, healthcare, etc., etc. I think the American Farmland Trust puts things in better perspective when it says that between 1992 and 2012, we lost 175 acres of farmland to development every hour, or about 3 acres every minute. Employers are the biggest beneficiaries of our unending flood of workers willing to work for less, and they live only for the short-term. Forget about tomorrow.
5
I’m pretty liberal but I recognize that public sector unions are a mistake that will bankrupt every municipality that has one. Mayor/governor promises benefits in exchange for an army of boots in the ground. It simply does not work. If a Democratic candidate in my state ran on disbanding public sector unions, I would support them. Because I care about the long term fiscal health of my state.
6
In CA dem pols foolishly enriched firefighters and police over the needs of all other public sector union jobs. Their thanks has been fiscal disarray you describe and no political support, as both groups lean strongly to the right. No quid pro quo.
5
@Djt
Rather than the "fiscal health" of your state consider instead the health of the environment and the community of your state. Without public sector workers, and strong public sector unions, both would be destroyed by greed in a year.
The cost of a strong public sector union is some of your money. The cost of not having that union is your quality of life; perhaps even your life.
1
@karen - Well, that was only after they'd received the money, and deposited it in their bank accounts. I'm sure that when their salaries were lower, the leadership promised support and votes.
Norquist was recently on "Real Time with Bill Maher," and while the panel was discussing allowing convicted felons to vote while still imprisoned, he spouted the tired trope of eye-for-an-eye, all while his eyes glazed over. He had absolutely nothing original or useful to add to the discussion.
It is interesting that Norquist would put his anti-union rhetoric into print, unless it was another "Mother Jones" capture as with Mitt Romney and the 47%; kudos to the waiter who caught that on video! No doubt the service staff are no longer permitted to bring their phones into these types of affairs; perhaps one day they will all walk out and leave the attendees to serve themselves; but I digress.
Gov. Scott Walker sold out the real voters of Wisconsin, and hopefully they will not forget, and are busy mounting a grass roots campaign to free themselves of the stranglehold of the unelected and gerrymandered Republican legislature. My nephew said recently that a friend of his, a teacher, said she was considering moving to Wisconsin because she cannot find a job in the NY Metro area; my reply was, "Why would she want to go to Wisconsin?" The unelected Republican legislature, and the disgraced former Governor Walker, have eviscerated the unions and sold the educators out to the 1%; why would anyone want to live there who still believes in the so-called American dream? Oh, wait; the American dream has been turned into a nightmare by the 1% and their unindicted co-conspirators.
4
Thomas B Edsall quotes Professor Joseph McCartin about the Democratic Party being the "more congenial ally" of the unions and labor but the party's "willingness to prioritize labor was never quite there." What is the Democratic Party? A corrupt political machine in service of Big Business. The difference between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party is in the detail. Republicans and most Démocrates opposed a public national health care plan or Medicare for all. Republicans support right-to-work legislation, Democrats do not, but they are the one who initiated it in the South. Republicans passed the Taft-Hartley anti-labor legislation in 1947 over the veto of President Truman. The Democrats never repealed it despite the lobbying of labor. And now the Democrats in Wisconsin will not repeal Act 10. May be it is time for a working class party which will fight for the people against Big Business.
And in Canada we have the same kind of problem, two political machine (Liberal and Conservative) in service of Big Business, and the New Democratic Party, a social democratic party which is also now implementing right wing policies and doing the bidding of Big Business.
6
Excellent article. The Democrats must do a better job of informing working-class voters that Trump and the GOP are a disaster for workers. The Trump NLRB is even more anti-labor than the Reagan board, and Trump's appointments to the federal judiciary are very hostile to workers. It's also important for all of us that when we think of the "working class," it's not just a bunch of white guys that are affected. That stereotype of union workers hasn't been accurate since the 1960s. Unions have been very important in elevating the economic status of minorities and women. A good book that demonstrates the disastrous results of labor's decline for all working people is Jake Rosenfeld's "What Unions No Longer Do."
5
@Kenneth Don't count on the dems informing working class voters of anything. The current neo-liberal leadership share their corporatist goals with that of trump, really.
They prefer trump to Bernie, so they're not going to fight too hard.
4
I've worked in a union and without a union. Working in a union organization gives an employee alot of protections and job security. Unions within an organization force private businesses to treat their employees fairly because they have to give the same benefits to non union employees as union employees within the building. So whether you work within a union or in a building where unions represent other workers within the organization - Unions are what make sure everyone gets treated with some decency, fair wages and benefits - Unions make sure the working class which are the majority of Americans - get treated fairly by private business owners who would rather keep all the profits for themselves and just throw a pittance to the working folks that are the backbone of their businesses and make the owners rich.
15
Labor wasn't emasculated until after the 2010 elections that saw Republicans sweep into state house power. That allowed them to redraw districts after the census results to hold that power for a nearly a decade. Labor is suffering because they failed to take this obvious threat seriously during Obama's first mid-term. Republicans and their business allies treat elections as the serious opportunities they are. Democrats and their allies throw them away like hamburger wrappers - see 2016. The good news is that the lesson was learned in the 2018 with the election of Democratic governors and better be again in 2020.
3
The decline in unions paralleled the decrease in single income families. My father, a Rail Road Telegraph Operator, did on his income for my sister, her family, myself and his surviving widow what today would be impossible. As this paper has written, the deregulation of the trucking industry, (de-unionization) removed truck drivers from the middle class and put them in the poor class.
15
The jobs that have been most hurt by the de-industrialization of the Midwest and elsewhere by "Free" Trade Agreements were what most Americans would think of when they think of Union jobs. The DNC and other leadership in the Democratic Party have been backers of the push to move these blue collar jobs overseas (Bill Clinton - NAFTA, President Obama - Trans Pacific) to factories that often do not have the same labor or environmental standards that American factories are held to.
Is it any wonder that voters in the industrial heartland or places like the Inland empire of California supported a candidate like Trump, who at least makes an effort to bring good paying jobs back to America by renegotiating failed trade agreements with Mexico and China that benefited the foreign countries more than the US worker?
Bernie and Trump are the only two candidates at this point serious about bringing jobs back to America. They have different philosophies but share a common focus.
Most Americans do not view white collar office union jobs as needing the same level of unionization protection as a workplace like a coal mine or a steel mill. Unions for firefighters, police etc. are a different matter given the job hazards that those public employees face. Americans are more sympathetic to those unions or to teachers, whose pay and poor treatment by administration and parents needs to be improved.
10
@EE
The facts on the ground suggest Trump's tariffs and trade war have significantly hurt our economy in multiple sectors. Other countries -- eg
Germany-- have managed to create a role for labor while not retreating from what is now a global economy.
The latest tab the government has paid to Mar-al-Lago is about 13.6 million dollars-- the staff being likely poorly paid (or, at times, illegal). In what way does this suggest any commitment to the American worker?
4
@EE Trump isnt serious about jobs, he is serious about diversion of the federal treasury to his and his buddies pockets. Amazing you people cannot even see it.
When did unions really have power in this country?
Think Archie Bunker.
In the 50s and 60s, when unions were entirely populated by middle class white men.
When the 70s began and minorities and women wanted in, things slowly changed. Over time, most unions have gotten weaker and weaker. Change was forced upon them.
Because the people at the top, no matter what party you talk about, just do not care about the fate of women and minorities. A union job is a breadwinner's job, a man with a family.
By all rights a job should be open to anyone, but you just cannot alter the attitudes that have existed for decades in this culture when it comes to unions.
Unions aren't going back to be jobs only for middle class white men and they'll continue to get weaker as those at the top continue their apathy when it comes to employment for women and minorities.
5
@Joe
There are lots of ways to turn people against unions and this is one of them: whispers that unions hate women and minorities. Divide and conquer hurts us. Unity makes us strong.
6
@Joe: God love your wit! Unions had clout in the decades you mention because the destruction of WWII made America king of industrial production. Then came automation, outsourcing etc.
@Madeline Conant Thank you. No more division.
This astute analysis should be required reading for all Democratic strategists, candidates and voters. Its message deserves a high priority among those concerned about the dwindling political power of Democrats at all levels of government.
5
"Act 10 reduced collective bargaining rights..."
By all rights, labor should have the same right to organize as management.
To fight things like the Wisconsin Budget Repair Bill (Act 10), labor should fight the very notion that the right to organize is subject to legislation.
The very idea that you can legislate collective bargaining rights is repugnant.
I suppose you need laws to keep labor as well as management from stopping essential services. Neither side should be allowed to shut down the police or fire department, or the delivery of utilities, over a labor dispute. So while their actions can be reasonably constrained by the law, their right to have an organization that operates within the law is fundamental.
By "granting" labor the right to organize under certain conditions, the law assumes that it has the right to dictate the conditions under which unions can exist. That belief serves management very well.
6
Jiminy Crickets! EVERYthing rests on a balance between labor and management. Labor is the one force able to resist oligarchy, and solidarity/union is the form labor must take to do so. Suppressing labor is like suppressing a vital chemical in your bodies system...it goes out of whack and wrecks your health. Caveat: “management” in public enterprises is elected officials who have different motivations than private management. Which simply means that we as voters have to be vigilant, but does not diminish the case for unions.
2
Right-to-work laws can be summarized as the right to work for the lowest wages and subpar, inadequate benefits. Yes, union management has at times been abusive and corrupt; however, the role of unionizing in the elevation of living standards and safer work places is undeniable as the history of labor in the U.S. incontrovertibly demonstrates. Sadly, collective memory of what it was like to labor in adverse conditions prior to the labor movement of the early 20th century has vanished. Yet here we are, in the 21st century, taking pick axes and dynamite to the very foundation that made the rise of the middle class possible in the form of electing officials that systematically undermine this foundation by passing laws with clever and misleading names like right-to-work. Too bad there isn’t another Dorothy Day to champion labor against this unrelenting assault on labor. And too bad that those most affected are unaware of the history of those who struggled in the past to undo a system that exploited their labor in favor of wealthy capitalists.
12
Unions in Germany are very popular and successful. Germans don't work much more than 40 hours and have good benefits from both their employers and the government. The skilled trades are booming, apprenticeships are available for non-college bound students, and allow Germany to make lots of high value manufactured goods. Labor sits on corporate boards to represent labor interests but also to build companies that reward labor, management, and investors ..
If we are looking for how to bring back unions .. maybe this a good place to start.
22
I became a nurse in 1983. My starting wage was about $2.65 per hour. My husband was a UAW union man and his wage was about $2.95 per hour. Several of the hospitals decided to become unionized. By 1985 my wages were around $8.00 per hour, my husband's due to union contract negotiations was closer to $8.50 per hour. The only reason my wages went up is because the hospital was afraid we would unionize our hospital, or quit for a job at a unionized hospital. To retain employees, the hospital tried to give its workers the same benefits that the union hospitals had.
When the Union threaten to strike, the new contract usually has wage increases and increases in benefits also. All workers as a whole gets an increase in wages and benefits right along with the unionized employees.
We haven't had a union UAW strike since 1970,which coincides with Regan's and the Republican's assault on unions. Wages have barely kept up with inflation. Want a wage increase support a Union.
The Supreme Court in 2018, upheld that workers do not have to pay union dues but get the same benefits as the union workers. This drops the $$ reserves that would pay strike benefits and retirees benefits.
My husband died in 2006, and I receive most of my husband's union benefits. My New husband's wife died also. She was a member of AFCME in MI. He also gets her union benefits. If you died, would your wife / husband get the same benefits as you did when you retired?
Support Unions.
34
“The Right Has a Greater Appreciation of Labor’s Role Than We Do.’
And more to the point, they have a greater appreciation of labor’s grievances. These matters are not often discussed in the bubbles. Our last hope is that someone, most likely Biden, can speak to the “forgotten man” as FDR did. Maybe “forgotten people “ will do in this decade. If too many people get bent out of shape over the word “man“ and don’t save it until after the election, we are toast.
1
Consider this: Overreach on both sides causes the pendulum to swing wildly on labor issues. Wouldn't it be great if we could find a way to keep the pendulum more toward the middle?
6
I agree. I joined the labor force in 1965, as a “manager”, and distained the role of unions. I subsequently learned that many of the benefits I enjoyed had originally been won by the unions. Over the course of my career I saw the influence of unions drop, and by the end of that career I realized the the pendulum had swung too far and our country was worse for it.
17
The actual decline of union power began when Reagan won the presidency in a landslide made possible by the support of blue collar workers.
Forced busing was a major factor- working class whites then (and probably now), didn't mind integration, as long as it didn't affect their neighborhoods and the relative whiteness of the schools their children attended.
You can call that racism, fear of crime, fear or competition, fear of a loss of property values and be partially right with any explanation, because this is just the way people behave in such situations. People not suffering any of those outcomes can afford to take the loftier liberal perspective.
That isn't to forgive the GOP for exploiting and fueling racial fears, but Democrats have to understand the underlying emotions that have led to white working people voting against their economic interests and hobbling union power in this country. Such voting has also led to less Dem support for unions, particularly at the presidential level.
At this point, conservative media outlets have sealed the deal by making non-union workers suspicious of unions and behaving as if they are the enemy, and not the GOP elite who are manipulating them.
Union power helps raise the wages of all working people and the loss of it has led to poverty salaries for many workers in this country. The Dems can't really be blamed for the decline- to some degree they have to represent the people who vote for them.
5
As a progressive, I recognize that the decline of unions presents a problem for the Democratic Party. But as someone who came of age during the civil rights/Vietnam eras, I have trouble overcoming my ambivalence about unions, most of which supported the war and many of which fought through seniority provisions and otherwise to block African Americans from advancing in traditional union jobs. And it’s troubling today how police unions rally behind killer cops and how it’s virtually impossible to fire a bad police officer in a unionized state. I wish I felt otherwise, but I just can’t see unionism as an unalloyed good.
79
@Paul S. It's not just bad cops protected by unions. Bad teachers are almost impossible to fire also.
8
@joe
The same can be said for difficulty in firing very high-level Federal employees...
8
@Martin is absolutely correct. In "Wealth and Democracy." Kevin Phillips points out that there is a feedback in economic distribution because as the rich get richer, they use their wealth to get more power. They then use their power to get more wealth and so on. In the olden days they hired gangs of thugs called knights to extort money from the peasants and merchants. Today they hire politicians to pass laws that benefit them financially.
There seems to be a tipping point where this process becomes impossible to reverse. When inequality becomes bad enough, the country soon goes down the tubes. He gives several examples, e.g. the 18th century decline of the Dutch Republic. Chrystia Freeland used 14th century Venice to illustrate this process in a Times article, but history is replete with other examples.
According to Phillips, the great success of America has been that before the tipping point was reached, something has always happened that reverses the flow of money upwards, e.g. the rise of unions, FDR's reforms.
But it ain't lookin' so hot today.
15
Growing up in New York City, families benefited from the dual strength of strong unions and excellent public education with unionized teachers. We had many large families in the Bronx whose parents worked for the fire and police departments and Board of Education and they were able to own homes and raise a family. Those of us who were motivated could attend CUNY, which still has very low tuition, and go one to a nice life. It makes me proud to know that unions are still strong in NYS with its strong, progressive history. I'm very sad about Wisconsin but it was in the crosshairs of the Koch brother's plan (read Dark Money and Democracy in Chains) and it really gave them a return on their investment by helping elect Trump, the ultimate anti-worker president. We must vote Democratic in 2020 or we're going to experience the end of the our democracy, or what's left of it.
147
Cathleen. We have a Democratic governor in NY who has been relentless in his attack on unions in general and teacher unions in particular Clinton and Obama Dems are not the answer and the party screwed Bernie
@Cathleen: Let's give some crdit to Scott Walker and the other Republicans who won state houses and legislatures while Obama was looking at himself in the mirror. The exclusive focus on the White House has eviscerated the Democratic party. The Clintons would have been "moderate Republicans" in the 1950s/1960s, and Obama had no political philosophy and knew nothing about economic policies, especially labour market policies.
2
The Republicans correctly reasoned that they could fragment the labor movement by appealing to the core human emotions of greed and envy.
Their so-called "right to legislations" appealed to the greed of some people who liked the fact that they could get union benefits without having to pay days. This also appealed to the increasingly impoverished rural poor (for instance, the declining dairy industry) who didn't like the fact that fact that public union members had -- as compared with the nation as a whole -- disproportionately high job security, wages and benefits, while their own economic security was worsening.
This sentiment is something like "my situation is worsening and that guy's isn't. Therefore, he's a freeloader and we should remove his job security and salary protections and bargaining power make him have to fend as much for himself in this ravaging economy as I have to." This "bring the other guy down to my level" is not really morally defensible, but it is emotionally understandable.
The real problem is structural. We need a minimum wage floor with a livable wage and national health care, paid for by the ultra-rich and oligarchs and corporations. Once people are economically safe, then we can discuss modifications to the system. But without structural reforms, it will be a race to the bottom for the lower economic half of the electorate.
7
The Trump base republicans have found what the Democrats have lost: solidarity.
The classic union anthem, Solidarity Forever, is instructive:
It is we who plowed the prairies; built the cities where they trade;
Dug the mines and built the workshops, endless miles of railroad laid;
Now we stand outcast and starving midst the wonders we have made;
But the union makes us strong.
The effete Democratic party of Clinton and Obama never connected.
98
@Mack Yes, but if you look at any construction site nowadays you'll notice the workers are almost 100% Hispanic (and no questions asked about citizenship.) So who is the "we" this dated song is referring to?
15
@joe, The "we" is the people who perform the labor. Despite your blanket statements, there is a point: Why support unions when you can have cheaper, non-collective bargained labor. Why punish the company for improper hiring when it is easier to attack individuals looking for work as the problem and point to them as the "others"? Capitalism requires squeezing as much profit out of every venture to expand and unions keep capitalism from squeezing the laborers to pulp.
27
@Mack
You say the Trump base has solidarity....? It's more like a phony solidarity, which is built on prejudice, fear and resistance to change. Many of these folks are at a certain level of development, a mindset that says, "my group right or wrong". There is a certain obstinacy, and often a course belligerence to this mindset.
Trump is, of course, belligerence incarnate. Never apologize! Fear the other! Project all fault on to the other! He is thus successfully able to connect with a mindset, which is willing to compartmentalize any harm done to it, by republican policy, as long as it believes that someone else, someone it detests, will be hurt even worse. Fox News has made a fortune pandering to er....I mean forging solidarity with, this type of mindset.
The supposition in this piece (and in most of Edsall's NYT pieces) seems to be that if the Dems could only get back to focusing on the needs of white workers, they would be more successful in elections. I don't necessarily buy this argument. Many of these "white workers" -which in and of itself insinuates that other races aren't workers- are more than willing to choose the phony dream of perpetually holding on to their way of life, over the harsh reality that it is changing.
9
"Can Democrats figure out how to get unions back into the equation in 2020?"
Sure. They can get behind Sanders who has been a tireless advocate for union rights and empowerment and discard the platform of free market fundamentalism espoused by remnant of Third Way Democrats. Real simple.
9
As a Union guy for,... has it been 45 years? I’ve seen it all. After all this time would I do it again? My Union protected ME and my family from some classic employment tropes, whistle blowing, work quality, proper sleeping, having complaints fairly addressed.
In the race of life,being a part of a Union soothes the hazardous route through time. Not everyone is Rambo.
I’ve never understood the anti union union guy.
The problem is testosterone.
195
@John The problem used to be over reach. When they wouldn't let me carry my own hammer over to my own little corner of the workplace as a visiting student researcher because I'm not union, when they kept my brother out of the union as a seasonal employee because management did not want to afford the one guy they could count on to actually do the work required, you know unions have a teensy, tiny downside as well as many upsides.
5
A sincere question: the employer misdeeds you list have long since been codified into law. Do you still value iunion representation when you could take your concerns to the EEOC or other appropriate agency yourself?
I think the unions began declining when the older (and now retired) members quit voting democrat. They wanted all the benefits, but personally identified with republicans philosophically, and voted for them. They didn't care if republicans were hellbent on gutting unions, as long as they got their pensions and benefits, which they have. The "brotherhood" was over.
193
@Tom J
Correct, and as those same former "brotherhood" members lament the fact that their children (and grand children) will probably not enjoy the same retirement that they have.
41
@Tom J
Agreed. While union leadership is Democratic, rank and file has been moving Republican. See Archie Bunker
33
@Tom J
True. Many union workers love all the benefits of a union, good wages, overtime pay and health care, but they will not support it in the voting booth. The demise of the unions has a lot to do with its own members. Shame on them. Concerning the the present Republican Party, the only union they like is disunion.
Union Yes!
25
There is no discussion of the split between unions' leadership on the matter of civil rights and rank and file. It was this split and the Republican Southern Strategy that lead to the "Reagan Democrat." The other problem is that unions demand for various work rules, rather than wages and benefits led many to see unions and as wasteful and an impediment to well being of most Americans.
1
Public sector unions are inherently corrupt as friendly politicians give increases and unsustainable benefits to unions like AFSCME in exchange for political contributions and campaign assistance. The loser is always the citizen taxpayer who is compelled to fund benefits and salaries they often don't receive in their private sector jobs. Even private sector union households see the problem and that is the disconnect the democrats have had with a segment of their coalition.
7
@Chris
Public sector unions are not corrupt.
There are many rules and adherances that public unions must abide by. In fact many of the rules keep a strict barrier between the public sector worker and those who would love to take advantage of a corrupt public worker. This is a right wing talking point.
4
@Lady in Green Police union garners 10% raise over two years - Police union endorses local pols who approved the raise - Police union PAC contributes to politicians who support them. If that is not a corrupt system, I don't know what is. It is absolute insanity for the citizens to allow those who work for government to organize against them.
2
@Chris
Unions gave you five-day workweeks, weekends off, paid vacations, bargaining power against Robber Barons, decent wages, work safety, and more.
But yes, it's all about corruption.
What's it like to be half-baked ?
1
I find this article very disturbing. To blame the Democrats for somehow not stopping the Republican Party from crushing unions is absurd. Scott Walker and his party of thieves did this all on their own. The Republican Party has been doing this for years and getting away with it.
6
We can blame Democrats for being careless or Republicans for being ruthless, but the core problem is American culture. In particular, Americans are so worried that someone else may be getting something for nothing—and that they'll have to foot the bill for that someone else's freeloading—that they'll vote for policies that hurt themselves as long as those policies can be presented to them as sticking it to the imagined freeloader.
17
It's a stretch to think that Trump can be reelected 'despite' everything. Again, Trump is President because of the massive turnout of his supporters and the massive sit out of Hillary haters. That won't happen again. The demographics are correct, the White vote is shrinking in proportion to the non White vote. A vanilla white ticket like Trump-Pence may never be seen again. Biden-Harris would be so popular, not even Trump could shout 'Rigged Election.'
2
I work construction. The illegals have definitely lowered my wage. I would be making much more if not for the illegals. But that is why both sides allow them to come in. The right wants the cheap labor. They want me to have to compete with more then just my own countryman.
The left wants more poor. It is future votes. They don’t want the poor to make money and pay taxes. They would then maybe vote republican.
The government officials and workers is one of the exceptions to the competition the illegals created. To work for the government you have to be a citizen. To run for office you have to be a citizen. If a politician fights for the illegals. If they create sanctuary cities. Then let the illegals run for office and do government work too. Let the illegals take the high paying do little jobs that have great pensions and benefits. We have government workers with massive pensions retired in Florida having their lawns cared for cheap. House maintenance and food for cheap. Government is setting themselves up for a comfortable retirement while the poor suffers and does the work.
For the workers in this country we most stop the illegal immigration. The only one in government that seems to really care is Trump.
9
@Jim Yes, Pres. Trump gives 'lip service' to reducing the number of aliens working illegally in the U.S., even as there is more evidence that his businesses have employed substantial numbers of 'unauthorized' aliens. Trump talks constantly about "the wall' but says nothing about reducing the number of visa overstays or about passing E-Verify to prevent 'unauthorized' aliens from working in the U.S.
5
@Jim I wish I could recommend your first paragraph a hundred times - too few people state what is obvious to men like yourself - illegal immigration and labor has been used to break unions.
The law also has not been applied to employers, who never seem to be held accountable for hiring illegal laborers. So everyone except the ones with the most wealth and power lose.
However, I would disagree with you about Trump - he himself used illegal labor at his various hotels, and he is not addressing the root cause at all - those who employ illegal immigrants, who are desperate people also getting the shaft by these companies.
4
If you worked a union site, the “illegals” wouldn’t be lowering your wage. But because WI supported Union-busting Walker, you are left with the consequences. Trump is not the answer.
2
So is an amendment protecting the right to organize needed?
2
Republicans: Citizens United, corporations as people, arbitration panels, profits before anything else, unions outlawed, workers as indentured servants with no rights or power is the beginnings perfect. The restoration of the aristocracy to its rightful place before the nasty little uprising of the peasants in 1776.
4
Why be jealous when you too can make your own way with strong support? Unions help individuals avoid indentured service. Great way to work. Without servitude, that is.
3
VP Biden, in spite of his claims to being a “union man,” has a lot of explaining to do. Teacher unions, with large women membership, may a great deal resistance to his candidacy. His treatment of Anita Hill, and his creepy pawing of strangers, do not endear him the members of those unions. His role in the Senate backing the banks’ bankruptcy law undercuts his image of being a friend of workers. My take, as union member, is that the former VP is all image and no substance.
The labor movement and workers need a clear friend not a corporate shill.
4
Bernie.
Unions are pathetic on defense. Time to get more militant...much more militant. Unions have to make the argument that without unions there is no healthy social contract, and pour out onto the streets to enforce its argument. Republicans aren't afraid to get in our face. Time to return the favor.
3
It is my uninformed opinion that the effectiveness of labor union management declined prior to the general decline of union membership
2
I think it’s funny how Republicans have the audacity to go around talking about freedom when they are the ones taking away freedoms!
If this country wants a strong middle class workers need the right to bargain and unionize. Unions have to come back—they are the secret sauce to not only a thriving middle class but also a greater expanding economy.
Republicans have worked very hard to decimate the middle class. How stupid of people to keep electing them!
4
In the state of West Virginia, card carrying union holders in the coal industry always supported Democrats.
That changed dramatically when a man with a funny name and darker skin ran for president and won. That 97%+ lily white state, one of the poorest and uneducated one, could not bear to see a mixed rate president in the Oval Office and has moved arch-right, while not understanding that they are voting against their very own interest.
8
Although not a representative sample---the firefighters and police officers I know can't get enough of Trump---they love the guy---the same guy who would gut their union in a heartbeat.
3
@Amanda Jones I hope you are gently and persuasively reminding them of this every time they bring him up--we need to be talking across our differences more and more in order to fight this menace (and by "this menace" I don't mean Trump, who is a convenient distraction).
2
"Can Democrats figure out how to get unions back into the equation in 2020?"
If money and power have anything to do with it, then YES!
2
Democratic big shots, consultants, high brow activists look down on Labor. When I've attended Netroots Nation wearing a USW shirt I've felt looked down upon by the young kids wearing a tie. Bill Clinton started this, by choosing Wall Street capital over labor.
6
Unions have become the unwitting victims of their own success.
Particularly public sector unions who are far more color aka race and ethnic sectarian and national origin diverse than private sector unions and America at large.
Organized crime infected key private and public sector craft unions.
And some unions reflected the color aka race of their workers aka The Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters. Industrial unions are disproportionately not white European Anglo-Saxon Protestant. Eastern and Southern European Catholics and Jews predominate in unions.
Unions born and bred in blue- collar industrial factory jobs have not been nimble and creative enough to deal with unionizing white-collar service jobs.
1
Easy: stop running centrist corporate shills. As we speak, the DNC is pushing Biden, even going so far as to tweak poll numbers. Yet Biden is as anti-labor as any Republican.
Bernie has no problem connecting with workers, and yet...
6
The exponential loss of power by Dems Over Several Decades because they let unions go down ... and allowed representation in local and state offices go precipitously down is beyond belief.
For example, most recently, what can in any way be excused: Obama allowing it to be destroyed completely- Dems in office at local and state levels.
And why over five decades did Dems passively allow the death of unions to occur?
Stupidity and Laziness and Individual Self-serving?
1
I've worked in unions. I was arrested with MLK in Cleveland, Ohio over a strike of black bakery drivers. I've witnessed the relentless power of money in politics that emasculated the unions. The Republicans have no principles. The Kochs, and their minions, have no principles, only power to corrupt. Only when the time finally returns that once middle class working white men recognize they've been duped, lied to and cheated will those men become free men again.
3
Anything we can do to shrink and eventually eliminate unions we should do. Unions may have had a place in the industrial past, but today they are made up of thugs who border on criminal behavior. Having dealt with them personally, they don’t just collectively bargain in good faith, they threaten, extort, and act in bad faith to get what they want. Union members should be ashamed of belonging to such organizations.
3
Maybe you should reflect on your business practices if you are having trouble with unions.
1
@DRS
Great--you can then say good-bye to your weekends, if you haven't already. Anyone who is not an oligarch who takes this view is shooting themselves in the foot--has no sense of history, or our present situation, at all....
1
@DRS
Sounds like the President.
Why blame Democrats when it is the Republicans who are attacking unions?
And when the uneducated white working class come crying about pay and working conditions, they have no one to blame but themselves for falling for the propaganda of the Koch brothers and pawns of the rich like Norquest.
3
The vvery wealthy have grown in numbers and wealth with the a tremendous increase in the % of corporate chiefs have great increases in their salaries compared to workers. The stock market and value of business to stakeholders ranks above the care and feeding of employees for that business. That nasty Grover Norquist wanted to drown governent, not unlike the other extremist, Bannon, or, for that matter Bolton. Yes Labor, organized, had its cons and killed and pushed to get their way. Surely the disfavor and shutting down of unions has led to this disequilibrium in the economic world of some of us, whether women mothers men or women of color or with gender issues in the workplace must be able to rely on something other than just a lawsuit or strike. Labor's labors to have some say in their present to their future via better working conditions and rules and laws to that end must be protected, indeed strenghtened as we face automation, AI, driverless trucks and cars, trips to Mars. Hello. We're here. Please address us w/the same excitement and care given these facts.
1
"At Honda Motor's East Liberty Auto Plant in Ohio, robots stand in rows on its welding and steel-plate processing line. The few humans who operate them do so remotely. Much of their work consists of monitoring automated processes. More than 700 robots quietly and precisely turn out the sleek bodies of sport utility vehicles at the factory."
I thought the first rule of Capitalism was that it needed a population that bought its products. When they begin selling Roombas for cleaning toilets, cooking and cutting grass America will be a walled in nation of the super rich.
2
As usual, an excellent and detailed analysis of an important issue by Edsall.
It's certainly true that one of the great triumphs of conservative politics in the latter half of the twentieth century was the demonizing of unions and the ability to pull working class votes away from more liberal politicians who supported them. Of course, unions must take at least a bit of the blame for this in that many had their problems with corruption and featherbedding; they didn't do their own public relations any favors.
Still, there's no question that the decline of unions coincided with the decline of the fortunes of the working class overall, and in this age of widening income inequality and oligarchic control of politics the pendulum really needs to swing back in labor's direction.
2
"The problem in building support for a resurgent labor movement is that many liberals and Democrats do not appear to recognize the crucial role that unions continue to play not only in diminishing the effects of inequality, but in voter mobilization and campaign finance. "
So you admit that these government employee unions, in fact, make the government a branch of the Democratic campaign committee, at the taxpayers' expense, yet still maintain that the GOP is wrong to try to stop this? They can say, and truthfully, that the Democrats' aim is to hijack the entire government budget to finance their party, and that every tax you pay goes to support the Deep State.
That is why 'resurgent liberals' cannot openly state their true goals.
4
The endless contempt that the Republican Party has for workers, voters and non-rich Americans is impressive.
And in classic Stockholm Syndrome fashion, poor tribal white voters continue to vote for their own economic disenfranchisement.
Democrats need to focus on supporting living wages, higher minimum wages, universal healthcare, economic human dignity, Social Security and Medicare and worker rights.
The Republican Robber Baron class is no one's friend outside of the oligarchic and corporate class.
D for decency; R for Reverse Robin Hood.
52
Democratic complicity in the attack on public employee unions has been substantial. Legislation to weaken collective bargaining and due process rights for federal employees at the Department of Veterans Affairs passed with very strong Democratic support. Legislation to privatize the VA passed with very strong Democratic support. They're coming for the rest of the federal government next, and we're fighting an uphill battle to protect our union (AFGE).
1
The Democratic Party was once the unapologetic champion of working people. But it took union support for granted. It forgot FDR’s legacy, fell in love with corporate and Wall Street cash, and stood by while union rights were whittled away. In 2008, when Democrats held the Whitehouse and strong Congressional majorities, little was done to strengthen union organizing rights. President Obama, who promised to don sneakers and walk picket lines, was largely silent when Scott Walker trashed Wisconsin unions.
Union leaders also bear some blame. Union strength is based on a committed rank and file. Too often, union leaders ignored internal organizing and put their faith in lobbying and maintaining cozy relationships with politicians, even if it meant going against the will of the members.
There are hopeful signs. In West Virginia, Oklahoma, California, and most recently in New England with the Stop and Shop strike, workers have said “enough” and taken old fashioned, successful strikes. Often these strikes have been driven by bottom up organizing. And smart union leaders are returning to organizing and listening to their members, not to politicians.
Millennials—legatees of America’s gross economic inequality, seem to be all in on unions. And Democratic leaders, including Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden, are once again “talkin’ union” and walking union picket lines.
Strong unions built the middle class. Maybe there’s still hope for American capitalism.
10
I have mixed feelings about unions. In the beginning, it was companies who brought unions upon themselves by horribly abusing workers.
Later on, as unions started to gain the upper hand, the pendulum swung, and we often found ourselves with two or three people doing one person's job due to featherbedding work rules. This began weakening the U.S. position and competitiveness in the global market place.
For example, there is plenty of blame to go around but union overreach and sloppy management were responsible for the rapid decline of our country's big three automakers.
5
@Bobcb "we often found ourselves with two or three people doing one person's job due to featherbedding work rules." Can you please tell me exactly where
this is the case? Glittering generalalities like this should
be backed up with specific facts.
1
@Bobcb
Nonsense. The German auto industry is strong and completely unionized.
1
Business is made up of administration and labor. Current Republican policy favors administration and denigrates labor. Unions were born to provide labor with a voice in business. The 40 hour work week, overtime pay, safe working conditions, child labor laws all grew out of the power of labor to negotiate.
Corporations are not people. But teachers, medical personnel, reporters, technicians. electricians, firefighters, plumbers, chefs and service staff (the list is almost endless) are. Believe me, no CEO is going to come out in the freezing rain to fix your overflowing toilet.
I am terrified of the Republican future my children and grandchildren will face.
14
When under Jimmy Carter the Democratic Party started to turn away from organized labor, that decision was incredibly counterproductive for the party. Neither Bill Clinton nor Barack Obama championed labor either; they were both too busy cozying up to Wall Street.
Now the Democratic Party is fighting not only for its life, but for its identity. The new progressives in the House clearly want to return the party to its pro-labor, FDR-era roots, but that is a prospect that terrifies the corporate-centrist (Read Clinton-Obama) wing of the party.
If the Democrats are to beat Trump and once again become "the party of the people", they have to cast off neo-liberalism and actually care about the 90% that aren't "elite". They tried being "Republican Lite" under Clinton and Obama, and look where it got them.
4
In construction trades, unions account for over 70% of apprenticeships in the United States. With all the concern about lack of workers and alternatives to college, the destruction of unions has resulted in a large drop in the very training programs needed for the workforce. Second, it depends on which union. Third, wages. Data shows wages in right to work states wages are between 10 and 20% lower. Fourth, the free rider problem in union busting legislation. The non union worker gets all the pay and benefits negotiated by union members without having any skin in the game. The non union members love their free stuff. Change in unions have to come from within and overcome leadership that is the real problem.
7
It is perplexing that the author is correct, but one issue he ignores is the Silicon Valley cultural dictatorship against unions. There is no plausible reason for the absence of an Employment App that creates a virtual union. Jump-starting a union movement would be easier when you have an information-sharing app that management cannot control. Employees could safely share information about wages, benefits, managers to avoid, wage theft, job openings that are unannounced, within and across companies without fear of retribution from employers.
But why has no one developed it? I think because Bill Gates wannabe-types are afraid if being blackballed in the industry.
In the age where millennials have an app for EVERYTHING, it seems odd this void has not been filled.
8
@Revoltingallday Where's the money in this union organizing app? Silicon valley is about making potentially 10x-100x returns on investor money. Organizing activities can be done using Facebook, whatsapp, reddit, and plenty of other web 2.0 companies and sites already.
@Revoltingallday. Not being a social media guy, I think that is a great idea. If terrorist can use social media so effectively why can’t labor!
2
"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." -Adam Smith
Unions do not have a good history. They frequently benefit their members but hurt the rest of society by making it harder for their customers to shop elsewhere or for outsiders to compete with them. We see this with police and teacher unions shielding many bad apples, and unions in some professions establishing high certification requirements making it very hard with people of limited resources to enter their professions. Sometimes, this even shades over into racism or xenophobia, as when South African miners' unions opposed allowing blacks to take the same higher-level mining jobs as whites under the ironic slogan "Workers of the World Unite to Keep South Africa White." Many labor advocates today use similar language about immigrants. Democrats should not be beholden to unions, but should promote equal access to the marketplace for everyone.
3
@Aoy. Although unions do have a dark side, even non-union workers benifit when unions are strong. 40 hr week vacation benifits and competive wags were enhanced when unions were strong.
5
It might be useful to look at labor before unions and after unions.
Before unions, it was common to make laborers work 6 days a week, and for as much as 12 hours a day. It was common to not have any health care. It was common to have no benefits other than weekly pay.
Unions put an end to that kind of exploitation, but the GOP dangles a little racial animus or other wedge issues to ensure a return to those “glorious” pre union days.
Thus, it’s pretty clear that the Democrats need to emphasize those wins. Don’t let the GOP create the terms of this fight.
7
@Bill Seng: Right. Children worked in woolen mills, slept by large looms, and died of dust diseases of the lung. Women and children worked in coalmines, and were crippled or killed by the conditions of their work. Gatherings of workers were sabred by mounted police, as in Manchester. England 1819 and Dublin, Ireland, 1913. After WWII, America's industry needed workers, and there then followed three decades of prosperity for all because unions were treated with respect. How things have changed, and even the POTUS hires undocumented foreign labor.
4
@Bill Seng
I know from experience, too, that when you work at physical-labor jobs, when you are overtired at work, accidents can easily happen.
And in pre-union days, all that meant was the person who had the accident was fired as no longer useful.
3
Unions are monopolies on labor supply, and they raise the cost of goods.
We need strong government regulations to keep workers safe, at least decently compensated (minimum wage), and prevent abuses by employers. We need (some day...) universal health care. But, we're better off without labor unions. They've never benefited me in the least bit IMO, and they don't benefit society as a whole.
2
@Astrochimp, modern work safety rules, limited work hours, anti-child labor ALL benefit you.
1
@Mary A I don't think these have anything to do with unions. They come from government working in the public interest, and we need to give credit where it's due if we want a government that works for people.
If Dems can figure out how to be pro-labor without kowtowing to the unions, they'd be set for a generation. But they have a blind spot here, equating union support with labor support. They cannot see the destructive force that all too many unions have become, consuming their hosts until the hosts can no longer support union jobs.
5
I ceased to have any use for unions long ago and I am the Progressive son of staunch New Deal Democrats.
Somewhere along the way, the labor movement in the US lost it’s way. After Taft-Hartley was passed the Unions and bosses settled into a position largely content to maintain the status quo, while not fighting for the rights of workers in the South and other places hostile to organization.
As technology progressed they stupidly fought improvements to the factory that would improve productivity and quality because it would cost “union jobs”. Rather than be partners with management for the success of the company while protecting the rights of employees, they largely became adversarial and impediments to change. Many union officials tolerated gold bricks instead of weeding them out under the us versus them mentality.
Then came the broad switch of voting by many union members to support Nixon and Reagan despite the fact that neither was friendly to organization of workers. That trend has continued to this day- it is “I’ve got mine” not we’re in this together.
I support the concept of unions in that it allows employees to have a contract that can afford then some protection. Beyond that, unions have no place in organized political activity.
4
@David Gregory Honda's East Liberty auto plant in Ohio: "More than 700 robots quietly and precisely turn out the sleek bodies of sport utility vehicles at the factory."
You were saying!
4
I'm not sure how people expect the Democratic party to redefine itself as representing the interests of working people. They, like the Republicans, must work for the financial interests who have taken control of politics as laws governing bribery, conflicts of interest, campaign finance, media, etc were dismantled over the past few decades. Politicians of both parties are now on the management side of the business of politics.
Each party deals with this impossible situation mostly by marketing its own version of identity politics. Republicans divide workers against each other based on race, gender identity, and, above all, on political party & ideology. Democrats must pretend that the corrupt system that sustains them would serve everyone if it weren't for racism & misogyny & other attitudes. It makes a mockery of democracy, and a con game of capitalism, but what can be done? Who or what stands outside this system enough to challenge it?
10
Let’s talk about the other side of the equation - the lack of effective anti-trust action. Private sector unions are in even worse shape.
The rise of ever bigger corporations through consolidation into a handful or less across different industries has been a huge factor in the destruction of unions. As their power has grown, worker leverage has decreased. (As has the ability of society in general to restrain corporate bad behavior.)
The prioritization of increasing shareholder ‘value’ on the backs of workers has driven inequality to record levels - and has funded further anti-union efforts by the investor class. (Warren’s wealth tax would help push things in the right direction.)
The consequences show up in all kinds of ways. Take Boeing - their decision to shift aircraft construction to non-union plants has led to serious production quality issues, to the point that some customers won’t accept aircraft deliveries until they’ve been gone over by the unionized work force in Seattle.
It’s part and parcel of the management decisions that made the safety of the 737 Max something to be sold as an extra-cost add-on.
Greed is NOT good, no matter how much conservatives try to make it a virtue. The war on workers is a war on all of us.
14
"One of Walker’s primary initiatives was to require state and local employees to start paying towards their pension and health care benefits, which saved both levels of government money."
Start paying towards, not just pay more towards. Not having to contribute to your own retirement and health care benefits is no longer a realistic or sustainable business model, especially for public/state employees. Get with the times..
6
@Midwest Josh. This surprises me - I pay towards both.
As a retired union worker and the wife of a retired union worker, I heartily support unions but must admit that there are many reasons for their decline. These include short sighted behaviors by some unions: corruption, racism and overreach to name a few. Some people, particularly African-Americans feel that unions are simply not their friends.
In addition, the changing nature of work acts against solidarity. By this I mean the "I'm not going to have this lousy job forever" attitude and the equally pernicious "I'm such a valuable asset I can make my own conditions."
Another reason for the decline of unions has been the Democrat's movement away from strongly backing workers rights to a more corporate friendly stance that emphases civil but not economic rights. Yes, mainstream Democrats may sound more labor-friendly than mainstream Republicans but both promote free trade, tolerate outsourcing and prefer to turn a blind eye toward illegal immigration rather than penalize those employers who hire illegals.
Democrats could argue "Hey we're not as bad as those guys" but Trump in many ways overturned the tables by opposing trade deals and illegal immigration.
To counter this appeal, Democrats will need to nominate a strong labor candidate. Sanders or Warren are the most consistent supporters of workers rights. Biden has appeal but a more mixed record of support having voted for NAFTA and promoted PTP. As for the rest, union rights don't seem to be a priority.
7
Using the power of the presidency to reverse this trend represents one of the greatest failures of the Obama presidency but it is a logical outcome of the repositioning of the Democratic Party over 30 years into what it has become; a coalition of identity and professional groups.
Give the Republicans credit; they may want to drive down wages of working people and diminish the public services and goods they receive but they focus, lazer-like, on the 'main' game.
Can the re-emergence of a left wing in the national Democratic Party push the party to reconnect to its laborist traditions? We'll see!
1
Bravo. In NC right to work mentality keeps wages low and benefits marginal across the board, unless of course one is a CEO or other C something.
3
In a nutshell, "Divide and Conquer".
When labor is organized and can bargain collectively, workers benefit, their families benefit, and even non-union workers get better treatment (call it "Trickle-Across").
But when unions are busted and de-unionized workers must bargain as individuals, their own wages and benefits suffer, and that spreads across to other workers.
It took a lot of sweat and blood to build labor unions in this country. And it looks like we may have to do it all over again.
Thank you, Mr Edsall, for this excellent column!
13
The problem is the white men. Some labor union members are white men. Democrats will not take an action if it might help some (non-rich) white man somewhere.
Meanwhile the GOP in State Legislatures and Congress remains the captive of other wealthy people who are only too eager to keep workers down.
The American worker has NO representation in Washington.
8
It should be pointed out that Walker's act to gut public sector unions was largely directed against the teachers union, leaving the male GOP-leaning police and firefighters unions alone.
110
@vibise The police and firefighter unions were significant financial contributors to the Walker 2010 campaign.
4
I agree with Edsel on the value of unions to the Democrats and that the left ignores or under values their contribution. He does, however, ignore that the left is not all Democrats. But the real felon here is the unions themselves. They may have relied too heavily on politics rather than public relations to win over the opinion of their own base and the greater public itself. What is happening to public sector unions was proceeded by the Rights successful destruction of the private sector unions. The Right successfully portrayed them as too powerful, too criminal and corrupt and too antidemocratic and pro socialist. The success of this strategy led to a step by step repeal of the Wagner Act in the 30 years falling it enactment in 1936. We forget that Taft Hartley and Landrom Griffin came after labor struck during WWII and Jimmy Hoffa became the face of 19500s unionism. The now isolated public unions are falling in a similar manner. If unions are to regain their status they need to regain the respect and allegiance of their own members and the public. The Democrats, including the non left, will follow.
7
Just think. If Republicans really wanted to end unions and their influence, all they would have to do is support national plans for universal health and education while shoring up Social Security.
14
Here in Colorado, the far right has infiltrated higher education thanks to rural Republicans voting in and maintaining a Republican majority on the Board of Regents. They have been able to destroy the worker-protective State Classified system so that wages are suppressed and workers have no protections under their ‘University Staff’ system. I feel like I am isolated and alone in trying to fight them. Come on, Democrats! Read this article and wake up!
12
@Eugene Debs: How do Democrats change your rural Republicans? A cry for help is unhelpful unless accompanied by some action plan.
I see we are playing let's pretend again. At best the Democratic ....acquiesced to the breaking of Private Sector Unions. More often there was a nudge nudge wink wink to their big donors. Mean while the Democrats passed and voted for in large numbers for policies that broke the Unions Backs long before Right to Work Laws became popular. I am looking at the assorted Free trade agreements and the admission of China to the WTO which the Democrats supported so overwhelmingly in the Senate and the Presidency if less so in the House. That finished the unions has the jobs that furnished a union living in the Private sector were shipped to third world. I was on a union negotiating team when they told us that we took a 25% cut in pay or they shipped the jobs to Mexico we didn't they did. And it isn't unique or unusual its pretty standard. Now the Democrats are crying because the people's whose livings the Democrats helped ship overseas don't like them much. Why exactly are the Democrats or commentators here surprised?? What's left of the blue collar working class views the Democrats with suspicion for good reason. the Republicans aren't any better. But the Democrats assumption they will vote Democrat (irregardless of how the Democrat policies benefit the donor class over the working class) they have nowhere else to go might have been a mistake. But pretending the Democrats haven't helped break unions.. That's a delusion.
36
Unions are their own worst enemies. This week the New York Post exposed overtime abuse in the MTA, track workers with a base salary on $55,000 making $500,000. Why did it cost almost three times as much to build a mile of subway track in Manhattan than it did in Paris and London - Union gauging. Is it any wonder that support for unions is at an all time low?
16
@Dan M I notice critics of unions always hold up one extreme example of a union to justify EVERYONE ELSE not to form a union. Unions are an example of people coming together to watch out for their own self interest. I've never understood in this country that we can have 2 political parties, but any other organizations that advocate for their members are suspect. Unions gave this country an 8 hour work day, the elimination of child labor, apprenticeships and other benefits that EVERYONE shared. Blessed are the troublemakers.
65
I just want to point out that Bernie Sanders was a staunch backer of unions before Biden began getting his act together. Not only that, but Bernie's donors probably all back unions; whereas Biden's donors (big corporations) don't.
Just as in your example of Wisconsin, it all begins at the local and state level. They wield the power to make or break unions. That's where Bernie is concentrating on electing progressives. That's where change begins.
24
The left can get control of the three branches of gov't in 2020 and
revitalize unions if they do it the right way.
Stress progressive issues that a major of Americans are for like universal health care, minimum wage, no corporate welfare, common sense protection of American blue collar workers from foreign slave labor etc. etc.
How not to do this? Lobby for identity obsessed, social engineering projects that a major of of Americans are not for and guard against supporting corrupt, greedy unions.
9
The underlying problem is that the labor movement has not evolved along with the economy.
For much of the 20th century the unions flourished in industries linked to manufacturing. They are gone. There are unions for skilled trades, for some service workers, and for public employees, but they are not as strong.
What is needed is a new union movement to organize the "gig economy" and other areas. Perhaps these unions would focus more on legislation than on collective bargaining. But they would be in a position to advance their members' interests. (See the Fight for 15 movement.)
Finally, the public unions in the federal government cannot for the most part bargain over wages and hours, and membership is voluntary. But they are doing well. Public unions in Wisconsin and elsewhere should see what they are doing right, and follow.
24
The need for strong labor unions can be mutually beneficial to the workers and to employers. But when the unemployment is low such as now, employers and employees have to negotiate a personalized package. It is not just salary that is the overriding reason for a person to take up a job, several other consideration come into play. Examples include flexible hours, health care insurance, life insurance, retirement plans, job stability, pregnancy leave, child care, moving expenses, parking, stock option, profit sharing etc
A cookie cutter approach to mass recruitment that Unions were so good at are no longer the way to the present or future.
Democrats cannot figure out to get back unions into the equation in 2020 is because of union dues to be paid along with number of taxes which impact take home pay. Every individuals needs are different and equal pay for equal work no longer impresses an individual. Whats good for the goose is no longer good for the gander. Contracts signed by individuals at the time of being hired override what unions can negotiate. Also people can move jobs unlike in the past when a person stayed with the same employer for a life time. Now if a person does not like the job they are in they can say take this job and shove it and move on to another and negotiate a better deal. Democrats lost the working class by their identity politics and numerous regulations that made their employers find it harder to run a business which affected their own job security.
3
@Girish Kotwal
"Also people can move jobs unlike in the past when a person stayed with the same employer for a life time."
You say that as if was a bad thing. I take it you are on the management side of the equation.
"Now if a person does not like the job they are in they can say take this job and shove it and move on to another and negotiate a better deal."
Unless you are over 50, then you are generally out of luck. The lifetime gig was actually a pretty good deal - for workers (but who cares about workers, right?)
4
@Girish Kotwal
What percentage of people really have the clout to demand good pay or benefits from an employer during "negotiations"? How many people have "hot" skills? How many people really can demand 2x or 3x starting salaries of young people with computer skills, new tech, and a tolerance for working obscene number of hours without overtime pay?
It is always great to think you are one of these special people, and maybe you are. But a rising tide does raise all boats, and it sure would be good not to have to negotiate to get even a decent package (and benefits do equal salary, you may not get both).
My dad worked in a union shop as a non-union member and enjoyed cheap health insurance, lots of leave, great retirement benefits, etc ... because union negotiated deals were spread to all ..
2
@SB from NY. Don't put words in my mouth. I am just trying to find answers to questions in the current context as opposed to the good old days when the good old boys network ruled. A lot has changed since the father of innovator worked in a union job. Threats to Union have come not from the employers but from regulators that changed the dynamics of job security.
Baby boomers are holding on fine, reliable and stable and these qualities some times over ride youth and inexperience. Look at the run for the job to be president. Who are the front runners from both parties? Men over 70. Yes a person over 50 may have difficulty getting an entry level job requiring training and lower salary but may have a better chance if experience and maturity is given more weight.
What you do not understand is that the work place is more complex than it was during the hey days of unions. The downfall of unions began with Reagan and Thatcher cutting them down to size. The era of powerful unions with significant political influence is over. Each individual thinks and is not ready to follow the herd. Humans are not acting like cattle any more. Plus governments have made labor laws more strict making the unions redundant.
2
Edsall (and others) makes a critical error in equating public sector unions (whose members are government employees) with private sector industrial and service worker's unions, who are employed by corporations. Public sector unions, while under great pressure, are much stronger now than the industrial unions, which have lost most of their members and influence.
The need for industrial and service unions is clear: corporate capital will squeeze every drop of work and pinch every penny out of its labor force, and unions are the best way to guarantee a fair wage and safe working conditions in a capitalist system where most of the power resides with shareholders and management. From agricultural fields to mines to factories, workers are better paid, safer, and healthier when they have the protection of unions.
Public sector unions are another matter altogether. With no profit motive, government seldom create the kinds of extreme conditions that demand workplace protections. Also significantly, governments need not excel or compete—unlike business enterprises, badly run governments that fail to deliver a quality product can nevertheless keep growing and growing, and public sector unions, when they become as entrenched as police, fire, corrections and, yes, teachers, make it nearly impossible to reform government in more efficient, responsive, productive directions. To their credit, public sector unions are more diverse, but they rest on a shakier premise.
13
Grover Norquist's gnawing termite machinations don't get enough attention - thank you Mr. Edsall. We too often see Norquist's "drown government in the bathtub" ethos facilitated by propaganda from the State Policy Network crowd which infests state politics like kudzu with its pipeline of dark money financing.
Edsall's observation:
"The problem in building support for a resurgent labor movement is that many liberals and Democrats do not appear to recognize the crucial role that unions continue to play not only in diminishing the effects of inequality, but in voter mobilization and campaign finance."
reminds us of the famous Gillens/Page study showing what gets addressed by politicians are the priorities of their donors, instead of attention being paid (by Dems) to efforts by GOP'ers to choke off Dem funding:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/political-inequality_n_7183556
Dem donors should be paying more attention to protecting all the funding streams which are the lifeblood of the party.
17
The question here should be “Can Democrats agree on how to make work revenant in 2020”? Generally Democrats can’t even agree on “the dignity of labor”!
A number of potential 2020 candidates are openly anti-work ethic. In their world where everyone receives a check, healthcare, food and housing how can there be a place for labor let alone labor unions?
Private Labor Unions, as opposed to Public Employee Unions need to ask Democrats what they have done for them lately? All Union members pay both dues and taxes! Past that all Unions and their members are not treated equally by Democrats.
Increasingly “Unions” mean “Public Employee Unions” to Democrats. California comes to mind as a bad example of this change from the past. FDR was opposed to the very concept of Public Employee Unions because of his belief there was an inherent conflict of interest in their funding the campaigns of those elected to oversee them.
Nowhere is this more evident than in California and several other of the big states. Taxes are high, roads, as well as public services are poor and there are huge unfunded liabilities for Public Employee benefits.
Democrats need to decide on the relevance of “work” going forward before they attempt to attract the support of unions who’ members are workers!
5
My observations is that a lot of union members were Democrats but not liberals.
During Civil Rights and the Vietnam War, our politics began changing from Democrat / union versus Republican / management to liberal vs conservative.
I remember father Mayor Daley in Chicago of 1968. He was a Democrat. He was not a liberal, a little on the authoritarian side. Same for union leaders.
And unions didn't want to admit blacks or women back then.
With that came the Republican Southern Strategy.
And Republicans began appealing to that traditional, conservative personality.
With that, Republicans have been able to get working class union members to vote Republican based on social issues.
Then Republicans cut taxes for the wealthy and tell us it will trickle down.
So when union members vote Republican, they are voting against what is good for them and what is good for the country.
3
@Independent
That observation is correct, 100%. The trumplicans believe the rhetoric that they are better off fighting for their jobs by themselves. It goes along with I built this company by my self. Labour has been divided by identity politics and greed. Some union members just can't see how pooling money can help all members. They themselves are cheep.
6
A most important reminder of the importance of Labor Unions, if we want to cut down the odious inequality in the current toxic environment, where workers have lost the power to bargain for better protections and sharing of the economic pie. Why is it that we have to lose what we have before we appreciate what we had...and when all there is left is the crying? The huge benefits that dignified jobs came from Unions; are we supposed to take for granted such an important yet delicate framework while standing idle? Democrats have their work cut out for themselves and for the public they claim to represent. The 'Scott Walkers' of this world are a shameful reminder that we must fight for what's right, however difficult the task.
5
I support the IDEA of unions who have a strategy for the future, understand how to negotiate fair wages buttressed by job growth and economic stability for members. Today, we mostly have bloodsuckers who collect dues but demonstrate no strategy or responsibility for today’s or future workforce.
4
So, when not forced to pay union dues as a condition of employment, workers don't and union membership declines. Why is that?
Remember when the auto industry unions accepted that new members would get a worse deal, to preserve to unsustainable benefits to older workers? Is that solidarity?
Unions wouldn't be where they are today if they hadn't made their own bed. Paying for political actions on behalf of a Democratic party that their membership supported less and less, providing union leaders with cushy jobs and benefits above all, and antagonizing employers right out of the country - who could have predicted the backlash?
This isn't the post-WWII era anymore; companies can move all over the world, and having to run your hiring and compensation decisions past a belligerent union rep is an experience that all would prefer to avoid.
So, by 2008, union membership was concentrated in the public sector, where taxpayer-funded salaries were being inflated to permit the extraction of de facto political contributions to Democrats. Does anyone think that's appropriate?
The economy, the regulatory environment, and the political landscape have moved on from unions. If you think you want them back, do yourself the opposite of a favor and try to exhibit at a trade show at the McCormick Center in Chicago - you, like all the industry shows pulling out for Florida and Michigan, will have a Kafkaesque experience with the unions there that you will never desire to repeat.
7
What needs to be laid out front and center about Act 10 is that it preys on the previous social compact implicit with local government pay, namely that they accepted a lower rate of pay instead taking steady benefits, health insurance, pension, and time off.
The are now being made to pay for their benefits WITH THAT SAME LOW PAY so that they are that much less well off than non state government workers. The so called "savings" is the state's reniging on the original promise of that compact. That is what needs to be fixed.
These workers are barred from sharing in the $15 minimum wage's effect on increasing wages for everyone being capped to inflation. They won't share in the other measures brokered by a democratic governor either.
A second major issue completely not on the radar here is that the "new" jobs were never, ever part of a labor union. There is no labor union for, say, customer service workers, warehouse workers who make Amazon happen and millions of other workers.
This is a failure of the unions themselves as much as democratic support. Unions today are still the ones of our grandfathers and have not kept up with workers needs today.
30
While the article clearly demonstrates the effect on the Democratic party by the decline of unions, it does not speak about the relationship of the decline of unions on wages and household income.
More important than the importance of unions to political parties is the importance to working people.
It seems like the worker has lost sight of that.
47
Stopping the practice of forcing government workers to fund the DNC is the real threat to your party. Hopefully more states will follow Wisconsin’s lead.
2
Grover Norquist writes: "If Act 10 is enacted in a dozen more states, the modern Democratic Party will cease to be a competitive power in American politics. It’s that big a deal."
So Republicans find competitive elections and even the concept of a democratic republic inconvenient? Where's the professed allegiance to the Madisonian ideal of checked power?
105
Madison revised by current GOP oligarchs. "When I write the check, I get the power."
2
What jumped out at me was the photograph at the top of the essay. Every person is white. They're blue-collar or pro-union. This picture is dated 2015. Donald Trump won the state of Wisconsin a year later. What happened?
I have maintained for some time that white workers don't realize the deleterious effects of the Republican Party which means, ultimately, to beggar them by crushing the gains that they made in wages and conditions through collective bargaining. Donald Trump, in 2015, distinctly said, "Wages are too high." It was one of his first statements on the campaign trail. What happened? Did not white workers "get" what he was saying? That they and their financial status were unimportant to him? And that they ultimately backed him and his anti-union party anyway?
As stated here, the Democrats are at fault, too. They have prioritized all over the sociological/demographic map to keep in the fold--or to entice into it--women, non-whites, and, to some extent, labor. But their opponents, Republicans, never went out of their way to disguise their hostility to collective bargaining. And they win statewide and national elections, especially in Rust Belt states? Why? Can it be racism and fear of job losses to immigrants that Republicans seemingly successfully bank on?
Simply put, working-class folks have always been anathema to Republicans but they maintain power--or regain it after electoral losses--by continuing their assault on their livelihoods.
What are they thinking?
125
@Red Sox, ‘04, ‘07, ‘13, ‘18 "Republicans, never went out of their way to disguise their hostility to collective bargaining. And they win statewide and national elections, especially in Rust Belt states? Why?"
My sense of the answer to you question is that too many Democrats fail to understand that working men and women in the Red states do not believe that Democrats, if elected, will actually improve their lot in life. In many ways history supports their skepticism.
Democrats have not supported legislation to advance unions since FDR and the New Deal.
During the 50's and 60's Southern states sought to encourage manufacturing companies to move to the Southern states. Jim Crow laws benefited white workers in the South. Unions that demanded equal access to union jobs for black worker threatened Jim Crow. That is why Taft-Hartley was passed and right-to-work laws took hold.
The Clinton administration reflected the neoliberal economic policies favored. Clinton negotiated NAFTA and disregarded unions and union workers in the private sector.
Obama largely followed Clinton's lead.
10
@Red Sox, ‘04, ‘07, ‘13, ‘18 They're thinking, "At least I'm not black, Hispanic or a woman." It's what they've always thought and it's what they'll continue to think.
15
@Red Sox, ‘04, ‘07, ‘13, ‘18
My husband works for a union utility in central MA. Almost every worker votes republican. Why? Because they're racist, bigots, homophobes, xenophobes, misogynists, selfish, conspiracy theorists. Any or all. They don't care about the poor, they don't care about the sick, they don't care about public education or the environment. Some are actually scornful of any environmental protections and most sneer at global warming. They make a really good living, have great benefits and job security with a negotiated no lay-off clause but they are the most miserable, bitter people one would never hope to come across. They couldn't care less about abortion or religion but they love their guns. The election of President Obama who had the audacity to run and win the presidency as an African American and the election of trump made all of these hidden negatives attributes. It is now perfectly acceptable to be a racist, a bigot, a homophobe and to contrarily support the party that has no other purpose than to crush both unions and labor. They are hatred driven, angry beyond seeing reason. They have two of everything but act like they are destitute. They're all victims of the nasty government. They hate the social programs, except those that they will benefit from. The hypocrisy is sickening but the willful ignorance is even worse. The brainwashing through fear and hatred is complete. When all of labors' gains are lost they'll blame the Democrats. The GOP is GOD.
57
Yes, unions are crucial in enabling workers to be able to stand up to their employers.
But not all unions are the same. Unions can be selfish or they can be altruistic. Fighting for a group of workers' pay raise is certainly legitimate, but not when it ignores workers outside that group. For such a struggle becomes a selfish struggle of one group over another. Unions need to be the local organizing point for national and international rights and benefits for workers. They should focus on voting in representatives to our government to legislate fairness in bargaining and basic human rights for all -- health care, retirement, and protecting our environment/climate. It's a big challenge, and can be met with the right kind of unions. Workers are not a small separate category of us, they are us.
19