Labor unions should be pro-life

[Pyrosapien]

part one of a two part post

I believe that the majority of rank and file union members would support incorporating a pro-life platform into their political agenda given the proper education and guidance.

As a professional firefighter I have the privilege and sometimes burden of belonging to a labor union. Being disappointed that my labor union had endorsed the candidacy of John F. Kerry for President I decided to try to do something about it. I began a firefighters for Bush “counter culture” in the firehouse. One of my main goals was to try to get the other firefighters to see that the number one priority of our job, (the protection and preservation of life) extended beyond our on duty time and activities and into our union/political activism. I would simply ask the other guys some questions like, why are you pro-labor? What does it mean to be pro-labor? A surprising number of union members don’t have very good answers to those questions. I would then explain to them why and how I held my beliefs. I would ask them if workers justice issues, (fair remuneration for labor, reasonable hours of work, reasonably safe/fair working conditions) are simply an opinion with an equally valid yet opposite opinion, or if they are a just and correct expectation for all working people. They of course asserted that workers justice issues are a right and that someone pursuing an agenda which promotes the opposite values would be promoting a societal wrong, or injustice. I would then ask them what makes workers justice right? Why is it right for a worker to expect fair remuneration for labor, reasonable hours of work, reasonably safe/fair working conditions? Because if it’s not just an opinion, the fact of the assertion must be based on a truth which is able to be universally recognized. The majority of those questioned could basically only ever come to the conclusion that it was right just because it was right, (score one for natural law). I then offered them the belief that it was right simply because all persons have not only the expectation, but the right to be treated with justice. I said that this was simply because of their status as a human person and not because of any laws written by governments. Even the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence only recognized this fact, and did not establish it.

 

[Pyrosapien]

part two of two

Since people have a basic human right to be treated with justice in the work place, we could continue to the logical extension of that. In this case it is a backward extension which reaches toward the base. My next assertion would be; “There are some forms of injustice which are more severe than others”. For example, firing someone from their job based on false reasons is more unjust than cheating them out of $1.00 per hour of their wages. Therefore, if injustice is hierarchical in nature, justice is also hierarchical in nature. The use of the word nature here is key. It means that justice has this hierarchical characteristic as a matter of fact, of it’s own accord. No human action influences it or lends it this truth. The truths of justice pre-exist human action, which is why all human activity can be measured on the scales of justice.
Since the nature of justice is hierarchical, then each extended form of justice flows from a superior truth of justice. Relating back to the injustice of firing someone for false reasons (which denies them their entire wage) -vs- cheating them out of $1.00 per hour makes this easy to understand. Workers justice issues are simply a part of the bigger issue of social justice. As a people we do all sorts of things which taken as a whole establish a society. We work, we worship, we speak, we live. A people must be able to live out these aspects of their lives in justice. Our Founding Fathers pronounced this when they recognized that all of us have “…certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness…”, arranged in that order out of right reason not coincidence. Each of those rights are contingent upon a superior truth, e.g. to pursue happiness you must be free, to be free (have liberty) you must first be alive, to be alive is the foundation of all these rights because we’re talking about a human person who is alive.
To work for protecting the rights of people regarding workers justice is good. But, it is only good as long as you are not denying them a superior right. You can’t promote a grave injustice while protecting a hierarchically inferior justice. To do so denies the integration of human rights, which makes it a disintegration of human rights.
In conclusion, the right to life must be safeguarded prior to all other rights. You can not promote a contingent right while at the same time erode or arrest the right which it is contingent upon.

Human rights are like a tree. The trunk is the right to life, the branches and leaves are the various freedoms such as speech, religion, will…, and the fruit is the happiness that we all pursue. Cutting off a branch to harvest the fruit will eventually lead to death for the branch and a lack of fruit. Chopping down the tree at the trunk will similarly lead to the death of your branch and an eventually cessation of nourishing fruit, it will also kill the other branches, not just your own.

Steve

 

[Lisa_N]

Steve nice thoughtful post and I think your efforts are to be applauded. I simply cannot accept that the average union man relates to what the Democrat party has become. There is a large construction project where I work and of course I see these guys with their pickups sporting “Kerry” signs. I suspect they are voting based on the tradition of the Democrat party as being on the side of the working man, of their long tradition as being champions of the weak and marginalized. But what has this party become today? Supporting abortion on demand, championing the likes of Michael Moore and George Souros and Whoopi Goldberg? Supporting gay marriage?

Is THIS the kind of company these “heart and soul of America” men really want to keep? I still remember watching the firemen, the police, the construction crews after 9/11 and thinking these people are the backbone of this country. I would trust them with my life. I just think they have been blinded by tradition and pressure to vote in a way that is against their true conscious.

I agree that educating these men and hopefully eventually the unions themselves on what they are REALLY supporting when they pull the handle for a Democrat would help change some minds and hearts. Best of luck in your cause.
Lisa N

 

[theTaxCollector]

Steve -

I agree with Lisa. Most people support the core values of unions. It just seems to most of us on the outside that union leadership has hijacked the unions and gone out of their scope in order to satisfy political agendas.

I can criticize unions all I want, but I am not a union member. Therefore, change will never come at the sound of my voice. It must come from inside. That is why your approach is truly wonderful. I applaud you and will pray for your success.

Keep up the good work.

 

[chicago]

At one time, a union member was on board with a vision. They knew what it was they were fighting for and they were involved with it. Nowadays, most people who are members of unions don’t really recognize what the union’s agenda is. They just belong because they have to as part of their job and because they know that this strength of organization protects and defends them against any unjust actions of management.

Most people who vote (generally speaking, for whoever and for whatever) are voting out of self interest in those concerns which strike most closely to them. So from that perspective, union members who support Democrats do so primarily because they see that party as enabling them to keep their strength of organization and work while they see Republican policies as threatening that. Basically, they see their livlihood, their family’s wellbeing, and their life directly on the line and they are voting to protect that. For without such things, they may reason, what good is anything else?

 

[Lisa_N]

chicago:

Most people who vote (generally speaking, for whoever and for whatever) are voting out of self interest in those concerns which strike most closely to them. So from that perspective, union members who support Democrats do so primarily because they see that party as enabling them to keep their strength of organization and work while they see Republican policies as threatening that. Basically, they see their livlihood, their family’s wellbeing, and their life directly on the line and they are voting to protect that. For without such things, they may reason, what good is anything else?

Without a right to life, what good is any of it?

Not that I disagree with your major point, that union members see their strength preserved by the Democrat party. But from a values point of view, I see the union member as being socially conservative. Somehow I just can’t see a guy with a Teamster’s sticker on his car relating to gay rights or the peaceniks in the Dem party.

What we need is a party that combines the best of both worlds.

Lisa N

 

[chicago]

Lisa N:

Without a right to life, what good is any of it?

Well, I think that is precisely the question which the worker is asking himself, “If my livlihood is threatened, so is my very well being, life, and family. If I don’t have that, what good is anything else?” He is just seeing the matter in a more immediate light; in so much as it directly affects him and his loved ones.

Not that I disagree with your major point, that union members see their strength preserved by the Democrat party. But from a values point of view, I see the union member as being socially conservative. Somehow I just can’t see a guy with a Teamster’s sticker on his car relating to gay rights or the peaceniks in the Dem party.

This is why I think that if the Republicans would just become more pro-labor, they would seal their control and increase their strength for years to come.

What we need is a party that combines the best of both worlds.

Undoubtedly.

 

[Lisa_N]

chicago:

This is why I think that if the Republicans would just become more pro-labor, they would seal their control and increase their strength for years to come.

.

Chicago can you give me specifics? IOW what does the Democrat party DO for unions (other than finances some of their bosses?). Are there specific Republican positions that are detrimental to working people?

I know there was a big brouhaha about the “overtime rules” but those have such a high cap that it’s going to be a pretty rare union man rank and file status who will be impacted negatively.

I imagine trade policies and tariffs are part of this mix. Do unions want protectionism? I would really like to understand this a little better.

Lisa N

 

[Pyrosapien]

Lisa,

Thanks for your kind words,

I will try to answer some of your question to Chicago:

In order for a group of workers to have the ability to sit down accross the table from their employers they must be able to be on equal footing. Much like when two seperate countries sit down to negotiate over some contentious issue, they meet as equals. The way this happens in the workplace is through collective bargaining. That is a key word. Collective, because they are both there together equally . Bargaining, because there should be a true spirit of give and take on each side. Traditionally the Democrats support collective bargaining, the Republicans oppose it. Many States, such as mine, have mandatory collective bargaining laws. Collective bargaining is only mandatory when it involves matters of wages, hours, and working conditions. Anybody who has been in the workforce for several years understands that all employers are not benevolent. Collective bargaining protects workers from malevolent bosses. The flip side is that it puts some bosses in conflict with malevolent employees. However… Unions have a tendency to become their own business. A machine that needs to be fed by union members paying dues. More members equals more dues revenue. More dues revenue means that the union bosses have more power and influence in Washington. This would be o.k. if people weren’t corrupted or tempted to corruption by all this money and power.

Then there are specific political action items that unions pursue in the halls of government. Like any PAC group, unions get more mileage from one party over another. In my opinion the causes which are championed by each party are greatly influenced by the ammount of money “donated” to the party or the party’s friends.

The Democratic Party has drifted off course to the left. This has happened because of all the baggage taken onboard which is being stored on the port (left) side of the ship. If the Democratic Party would toss all the baggage (Abortion rights, Gay marriage, embryonic stem cell research, environmental extremism, etc…) it would come back on course. Until then, the Democrats will continue to be marginalized and the issues they support which are just, will suffer.

Steve

 

[Pyrosapien]

chicago:

Well, I think that is precisely the question which the worker is asking himself, “If my livlihood is threatened, so is my very well being, life, and family. If I don’t have that, what good is anything else?” He is just seeing the matter in a more immediate light; in so much as it directly affects him and his loved ones.

This is why I think that if the Republicans would just become more pro-labor, they would seal their control and increase their strength for years to come.

Undoubtedly.

You are right on.

The question is, what is more likely to happen? Republicans becoming pro-labor or Democrats becoming pro-life?

 

[Pyrosapien]

Lisa
Lisa N:

…I simply cannot accept that the average union man relates to what the Democrat party has become. There is a large construction project where I work and of course I see these guys with their pickups sporting “Kerry” signs. I suspect they are voting based on the tradition of the Democrat party as being on the side of the working man, of their long tradition as being champions of the weak and marginalized. But what has this party become today? Supporting abortion on demand, championing the likes of Michael Moore and George Souros and Whoopi Goldberg? Supporting gay marriage?

Is THIS the kind of company these “heart and soul of America” men really want to keep? I still remember watching the firemen, the police, the construction crews after 9/11 and thinking these people are the backbone of this country. I would trust them with my life. I just think they have been blinded by tradition and pressure to vote in a way that is against their true conscious.

I agree that educating these men and hopefully eventually the unions themselves on what they are REALLY supporting when they pull the handle for a Democrat would help change some minds and hearts. Best of luck in your cause.
Lisa N

In my unscientific polling at my fire department about 50% of the firefighters (all union mind you) voted for Bush. This was because of Bush being pro-life and because of Bush’s resolve and determination in fighting terrorism.

343 firefighters (around 75% Catholic) died in the towers on 9/11 including the Chief and the department chaplain, Fr. Mychal Judge (who was there praying for his boys and actually had people trying to get him to hear their confession before entering the tower. I hear he gave general absolution to a line of firefighters and police officers, but not 100% sure of that). Terrorism is the number one cause of firefighter line of duty deaths over the last four years.

 

[Lisa_N]

Pyrosapien:

Lisa,

Thanks for your kind words,

I will try to answer some of your question to Chicago:

Then there are specific political action items that unions pursue in the halls of government. Like any PAC group, unions get more mileage from one party over another. In my opinion the causes which are championed by each party are greatly influenced by the ammount of money “donated” to the party or the party’s friends.

The Democratic Party has drifted off course to the left. This has happened because of all the baggage taken onboard which is being stored on the port (left) side of the ship. If the Democratic Party would toss all the baggage (Abortion rights, Gay marriage, embryonic stem cell research, environmental extremism, etc…) it would come back on course. Until then, the Democrats will continue to be marginalized and the issues they support which are just, will suffer.

Steve

Steve, thank you very much. That is helpful. Really I think the REpublicans COULD make some progress in the union membership. Obviously as you said, money and union support, is part of it but since Republicans are always so involved in the economy, that would be another reason to create policies that stimulate our economy and keep good jobs here. It’s really a tough challenge with the global economy. But surely we won’t solve the problem until it is addressed.

Honestly the Democrat party is trying to commit suicide with all the baggage that poor ship is up to the topdecks and drifting

Lisa N

 

[katherine2]

I’ll make two comments. First, corporations and the Chamber of Commerce have the same obligations to be pro-life as labor unions, a test they fail.

Second, the Republican Party seems increasingly firm in its anti-labor policies and is even quick to throw the pro-lifers overboard when it gets in the way of their anti-labor agenda.

 

[Pyrosapien]

katherine2:

I’ll make two comments. First, corporations and the Chamber of Commerce have the same obligations to be pro-life as labor unions, a test they fail.

Second, the Republican Party seems increasingly firm in its anti-labor policies and is even quick to throw the pro-lifers overboard when it gets in the way of their anti-labor agenda.

I was not offering up a defence of Chambers of commerce or corporations. I was simply expressing my views about organize labor and how it is wrong to indirectly, and sometimes directly, support the killing of innocent life in the womb.

Organized labor should be pro life. I did not say the Republican party should be anti-labor. What does that have to do with the assertion of my post?

You obviously have strong convictions in this political area. What do you do to influence the Democratic party and other entities to bring about an end to abortion? What method do you employ to educate the Republicans and other entities on the need to treat workers with justice?