Big unions have big budgets, but how much of that loot is spent on organizing? And how much is given to "moderate" democrat politicians who only give lip service to labor issues. I organize small shops (IWW) and i have often heard "we called the other unions and they didn't show interest in us." Big unions are too focused on mainstream politics and their own bottom line. Sorry--I'll end my rant here.
The only staffer of my big, national union who ever shows up or answers inquiries is the one whose job it is to get us to contribute to the union’s $ for mainstream Dems. I was trying to get info on how we could use our strike fund as a rolling fund for lower wage feds when Congress fails to pay us and he wanted to show me photos of himself with politicians. Nice guy. Different goals.
So, in order to form a more perfect union, corporations and selected state governments chose to uphold the rights of the employers by establishing “right to work” and “at will termination” legislation that protects them from those who would unionize. unions, at least the ones I had direct dealings with, chose to deny membership to those who they felt didn’t qualify for membership and play favorites when it came to the choice jobs and advancement in the ranks. Trade schools were in vogue for a while but after paying hefty fees to learn the trade, the jobs no longer offered the benefits and pay rates the union jobs had once guaranteed. This was coupled with the rusting of our industrial infrastructure and foreign competition building BRAND NEW, well designed factories that could crank out cheaper, faster and ever improving product, using less labor and a well trained cheaper work forced. Union density as you define it is the answer, but only Uniting our entire workforce to insist on living wages and working conditions regardless of, lineage, skin color, cultural beliefs or task…will form an ever more perfect Union. I believe we are on the precipice of such a society, because Self destruction is not in anyone’s best interest
Great points, Hamilton. Somewhere I have your book. One problem is that almost half (49.7%) of union members are in the public sector (https://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm). And most of the rest are employees of large private companies, although some medium sized nonprofits have unions. (I organized one in a small nonprofit.) But most are in the primary labor market, a market where there are human resources departments, employee benefit systems, and so forth.
Workers in the secondary labor market are in small companies, are self-employed, etc. They resent the fact they pay taxes to subsidize public employees who get much better benefits and pensions. The fact that employee health benefits are tax deductible means that even that that expense of large private companies in some ways is externalized in the form of higher than necessary taxes from those in the secondary labor market.
The post-WWII social compact between business and labor didn't provide universal benefits, just benefits to unionized employees. That is why only six states have short-term disability; the union movement never really fought for that to be part of public social insurance systems. That is one example of a negative about density, along with the fact there never was enough real density!
MAGA promotes resentment in the secondary labor market about the above realities. This is a serious political problem. Yes, we need more union density, but we also need to struggle for universal social insurance, including strengthening Social Security, folding ST Disability into SS Disability, bring what is now SSI into the SS lockbox, rather than being a welfare program. Finally, we need what I call Real Medicare for All (universal but still contracting with the insurance companies who now pay claims at a very low profit margin, and do a good job at it, and folding in Medicaid and Medicaid in-home long-term care.) I'm working on a policy brief to do that by amending Bernie's bill, but need help.
Until we eliminate the twin concepts of corporate personhood and money as speech, nothing substantive changes. People have to understand it’s the quickest path to the radical change we need; counterintuitive, but the 18-yo vote amendment passed in less than a calendar year.
Do all the labor organizing you want, and electoral organizing as well, but we need to break the back of Supreme Court corporate fealty if we want anything more than crumbs.
It would be great to have ways for people not currently in unions to be engaged in the overall effort. “Here’s a picket that would love you and the snacks you bring,” and “The NYC Amazon drivers are looking for venues to have social events, do you know places near but not too visible from the hubs? Would you pay to rent a space or sponsor some snacks to help them maintain momentum?” and “Here’s model driver protection act legislation to get passed in your county so gig workers don’t toss bottles of pee in your community because they get proper working conditions” etc
Union organizing is not going to change things significantly in any way. The organizers who are hired become part of a bureaucracy that is interested in fulfilling its own needs, not that of workers. Compromise with the employers has been at the heart going back to early industrial trade unions in England during the 19th century. It has gotten worse as unions have come in full alignment with the interests of corporations to become the enforcers of labor peace. Rank-and-file workers breaking from the unions can create an independent political organ that doesn't have to always make compromise with the ruling elite. Follow the lead of Will Lehman, a socialist, who is running for UAW President and running on placing power in the hands of the rank-and-file on the shop floor, not a union bureaucracy. Unions will always tell you that a better bargain is all that is needed.
Big unions have big budgets, but how much of that loot is spent on organizing? And how much is given to "moderate" democrat politicians who only give lip service to labor issues. I organize small shops (IWW) and i have often heard "we called the other unions and they didn't show interest in us." Big unions are too focused on mainstream politics and their own bottom line. Sorry--I'll end my rant here.
The only staffer of my big, national union who ever shows up or answers inquiries is the one whose job it is to get us to contribute to the union’s $ for mainstream Dems. I was trying to get info on how we could use our strike fund as a rolling fund for lower wage feds when Congress fails to pay us and he wanted to show me photos of himself with politicians. Nice guy. Different goals.
So, in order to form a more perfect union, corporations and selected state governments chose to uphold the rights of the employers by establishing “right to work” and “at will termination” legislation that protects them from those who would unionize. unions, at least the ones I had direct dealings with, chose to deny membership to those who they felt didn’t qualify for membership and play favorites when it came to the choice jobs and advancement in the ranks. Trade schools were in vogue for a while but after paying hefty fees to learn the trade, the jobs no longer offered the benefits and pay rates the union jobs had once guaranteed. This was coupled with the rusting of our industrial infrastructure and foreign competition building BRAND NEW, well designed factories that could crank out cheaper, faster and ever improving product, using less labor and a well trained cheaper work forced. Union density as you define it is the answer, but only Uniting our entire workforce to insist on living wages and working conditions regardless of, lineage, skin color, cultural beliefs or task…will form an ever more perfect Union. I believe we are on the precipice of such a society, because Self destruction is not in anyone’s best interest
Great points, Hamilton. Somewhere I have your book. One problem is that almost half (49.7%) of union members are in the public sector (https://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm). And most of the rest are employees of large private companies, although some medium sized nonprofits have unions. (I organized one in a small nonprofit.) But most are in the primary labor market, a market where there are human resources departments, employee benefit systems, and so forth.
Workers in the secondary labor market are in small companies, are self-employed, etc. They resent the fact they pay taxes to subsidize public employees who get much better benefits and pensions. The fact that employee health benefits are tax deductible means that even that that expense of large private companies in some ways is externalized in the form of higher than necessary taxes from those in the secondary labor market.
The post-WWII social compact between business and labor didn't provide universal benefits, just benefits to unionized employees. That is why only six states have short-term disability; the union movement never really fought for that to be part of public social insurance systems. That is one example of a negative about density, along with the fact there never was enough real density!
MAGA promotes resentment in the secondary labor market about the above realities. This is a serious political problem. Yes, we need more union density, but we also need to struggle for universal social insurance, including strengthening Social Security, folding ST Disability into SS Disability, bring what is now SSI into the SS lockbox, rather than being a welfare program. Finally, we need what I call Real Medicare for All (universal but still contracting with the insurance companies who now pay claims at a very low profit margin, and do a good job at it, and folding in Medicaid and Medicaid in-home long-term care.) I'm working on a policy brief to do that by amending Bernie's bill, but need help.
Nice Simpsons reference
MoveToAmend.org. HJR-54
Until we eliminate the twin concepts of corporate personhood and money as speech, nothing substantive changes. People have to understand it’s the quickest path to the radical change we need; counterintuitive, but the 18-yo vote amendment passed in less than a calendar year.
Do all the labor organizing you want, and electoral organizing as well, but we need to break the back of Supreme Court corporate fealty if we want anything more than crumbs.
Walk and chew gum.
Good point! We have activism here in Cleveland for Move to Amend.
It would be great to have ways for people not currently in unions to be engaged in the overall effort. “Here’s a picket that would love you and the snacks you bring,” and “The NYC Amazon drivers are looking for venues to have social events, do you know places near but not too visible from the hubs? Would you pay to rent a space or sponsor some snacks to help them maintain momentum?” and “Here’s model driver protection act legislation to get passed in your county so gig workers don’t toss bottles of pee in your community because they get proper working conditions” etc
Joining DSA is a good way to do this.
Union organizing is not going to change things significantly in any way. The organizers who are hired become part of a bureaucracy that is interested in fulfilling its own needs, not that of workers. Compromise with the employers has been at the heart going back to early industrial trade unions in England during the 19th century. It has gotten worse as unions have come in full alignment with the interests of corporations to become the enforcers of labor peace. Rank-and-file workers breaking from the unions can create an independent political organ that doesn't have to always make compromise with the ruling elite. Follow the lead of Will Lehman, a socialist, who is running for UAW President and running on placing power in the hands of the rank-and-file on the shop floor, not a union bureaucracy. Unions will always tell you that a better bargain is all that is needed.