The Future of Organized Labor

  • Thread starter Thread starter jlw
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jlw

Guest
Sweeney’s Leadership May Split Union Movement

John Sweeney, a Socialist, has presided over the AFL-CIO for the past ten years. It has been a period of decline for the organization and the labor movement. The AFL-CIO’s annual convention is next month, and a coalition of unions that includes some of the organization’s biggest members is threatening to pull out if Sweeney is elected to another term. The coalition includes the Service Employees International Union (the AFL-CIO’s biggest), the Teamsters, the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW), Unite Here, and the Laborers–altogether, around forty per cent of the AFL-CIO’s membership.

The dissident coalition criticizes Sweeney for failing to invest adequately in organizing to try to win new union members. While the group is probably not much to Sweeney’s right politically, its message is an implicit rebuke to Sweeney’s elevation of far-left politics over the nuts and bolts of union work. As an independent group, I suspect that the coalition would be much less likely to support every left-wing fad that comes down the pike than the AFL-CIO has been in recent years.

At one time, a schism of this magnitude within organized labor would have been a major news story. The press’ ho-hum reaction to the threatened split is perhaps a reflection of how far the influence and importance of organized labor has fallen.

from www.powerlineblog.com
 
There was a long article on Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union (who is leading the anti-Sweeney coalition referred to in JLW’s posted article) in the NYT magazine back in January. It’s worth reading for those interested in the future of organized labor.

Unfortunately, the link is no longer free (if anyone know any free, legal access to it, please post it) but should be available at libraries or through databases such as EbscoHost, Proquest, and so forth. The bibliographical info:

Bai, Matt. “The New Boss” New York Times Magazine. 1/30/05.
 
Philip, what do you think of this??

Ballot issue targets union dues
By David M. Drucker, Sacramento Bureau

SACRAMENTO – California labor unions could lose hundreds of millions of dollars a year from their political war chests if state voters approve an initiative headed for the ballot, according to officials who cite other states that have adopted similar rules.

The initiative would bar public-employee unions from spending their members’ dues for political purposes unless the workers give written permission annually.

“In the future, if we had to go to the ballot to fight to protect our members’ pensions or for cheaper prescription drugs, we wouldn’t be able to fund those kinds of (campaigns),” said Dave Low, spokesman for the California School Employees Association.

After rules took effect in the states of Washington and Utah requiring unions to receive permission from members before spending their dues on political activities, an overwhelming majority chose to keep their money instead – in some cases seriously curtailing what organized labor was able to raise in political-action funds.

Michael Reitz, a labor analyst with Evergreen Freedom Foundation, a conservative Olympia, Wash.-based think tank, said as a result of Measure 134, passed by Washington voters in 1992, only 4 percent of members of that state’s largest teachers union – the Washington Education Association – gave permission to use their dues for political activities. By 2004, that number had crept up to 6 percent.

In Utah, where union membership is optional, contributions to the Utah Education Association union’s political fund dropped from 68 percent to 6.8 percent following the 2003 implementation of the Voluntary Contributions Act, according to Vik Arnold, director of government relations and political action for the UEA.

“When given a choice, union members prefer to keep their own money,” Reitz said.

In Colorado, 75 percent of state workers represented by the Colorado Association of Public Employees declined to contribute any money to their union after an executive order signed by the governor ended the state’s practice of automatically deducting dues from employee paychecks.

Although Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has not endorsed the California proposal, union leaders charge that the measure could give him a political advantage over organized labor.

“The governor wants to be able to raise $50 million or $100 million from corporate special interests, and he wants to make it so our side will have zero,” Low said.

Supporters of the California measure – which could go before voters this November if Schwarzenegger calls a special election – call it “Paycheck Protection.” The measure needs 374,000 signatures to qualify for the ballot, and proponent Lewis K. Uhler last week submitted to county registrars 600,000 pre-screened petitions he described as having a very high validity rate.

In 1998, a similar California proposal, Proposition 226, was defeated 53 percent to 47 percent. Advocates believe the new initiative has a much better chance of succeeding because it does not apply to union workers employed by private industry.

California law currently allows union workers to “opt out” of political contributions but they are not required to grant permission, or “opt in.”

Written by Uhler, an anti-tax activist, the initiative would require permission before unions collect money for lobbying and ads for and against issues and candidates. “Can you imagine a company telling its employees that it was going to automatically withhold money for political purposes – and that management was going to decide how the money would be spent?” Uhler said. “All hell would break loose.”
 
Sweeney’s greatest accomplishment at the AFL-CIO was lifting the ban on Communist Party USA members from holding leadership positions in the union.

Now they don’t have to hide in the Working Families Party or the Green Party to rise in the AFL-CIO.
 
You break public employee unions, and we will see more efficient government, better public education, and less needless taxation.
 
jlw…it’s Job Number One.

How to do it is the problem. They are so powerful. And loaded with cash. Nearly 7 million unionized government workers are out of Social Security. Their pensions are 100% invested in the markets. The day may come when government unions own the DOW. In Canada, a teacher’s union bought controling interest in the second largest coal mine in the country. We might all be working for that clerk in the DMV or our kids teacher.
 
I doubt that…they’d just figure out a way to waste the money. Not to mention…screw the workers.

My wife is in the CA State Union and its great. Nice to know your job is protected.
40.png
jlw:
You break public employee unions, and we will see more efficient government, better public education, and less needless taxation.
Click to expand...
 
I can’t stand unions. The workers are inefficient, wasteful, and lazy (in my experience). I refuse to work for a union company, and I’ll happily take one of their jobs if they go on strike.
 
For less money and less benefits. If you have a good union…and its ran right. They are good.
40.png
Isidore_AK:
I can’t stand unions. The workers are inefficient, wasteful, and lazy (in my experience). I refuse to work for a union company, and I’ll happily take one of their jobs if they go on strike.
Click to expand...
 
And they give your Union dues to the Dem’s…whether you want them to or not (My very conservative Republican mother-in-law is very upset that her money goes to the Democrats).

Also, once you get more than one union involved in a situation, nothing gets done.

Example:

Local phone company is all union…

A friend of mine got a job there in the IT department. When he went to work the first day his boss showed him his future office, and told him that he might as well take a week off (paid) because his workstation wasn’t set up yet, but if he wants to he can come in to work and just hang out.

He spent 2 days at home, got bored and went to work, to find that his computer, desk and other equipment were in packing boxes sitting in his office. So of course he unpacks, and starts setting up his office. His boss walked in on him and flipped out on him. Apparently **all ** wiring and cable work (including PC set up) had to be done by a particular set of union employees that were part of the IBEW. The reason he was given time off was because they didn’t have time to set him up until the weekend as they were busy with another project.

Unions may have had a purpose in the early days, but I really don’t see their usefulness any longer. All they do is drive up costs and keep crappy employees from getting fired (IMHO). :mad:
 
40.png
jlw:
Philip, what do you think of this??

Ballot issue targets union dues
By David M. Drucker, Sacramento Bureau .

…
Click to expand...
I think it’s a sham. After all, no one is making a similar proposal that a coporation or business group secure the permission of all its shareholders or members before engaging in political activity. Why should labor be restricted in such a way but not capital and management?

And for all those who complain about unions, if you belong to a union then it’s up to you to reform yourselves. If you don’t, then then your comments amount to little more than ideological pot shots. Certainly unions, like any other human association, have their problems. But organizations of workers serve as an important counter to organizations of capital and management (not to mention that the right and necessity of unions has been recognized and championed by popes for over one hundred years now). It’s one thing to criticize with a view to correct; it’s quite another to criticize as a pretext to argue against the very existence of that which you are criticizing.
 
I guess I just let my disgust show through a bit to much…I know plenty of union workers that are nice people, I just don’t like the politics that the Unions support, usually against the will of many of their own members.
 
the labor movement committed suicide when it decided to sacrifice pensioners and new employees to preserve jobs, inflated pay rates for existing members and to sacrifice members needs to accumulate and spend huge sums on corrupt leadership and for PACs supporting politicians who vote against the interest and wishes of most union members.
 
Philip P:
I think it’s a sham. After all, no one is making a similar proposal that a coporation or business group secure the permission of all its shareholders or members before engaging in political activity. Why should labor be restricted in such a way but not capital and management?

And for all those who complain about unions, if you belong to a union then it’s up to you to reform yourselves. If you don’t, then then your comments amount to little more than ideological pot shots. Certainly unions, like any other human association, have their problems. But organizations of workers serve as an important counter to organizations of capital and management (not to mention that the right and necessity of unions has been recognized and championed by popes for over one hundred years now). It’s one thing to criticize with a view to correct; it’s quite another to criticize as a pretext to argue against the very existence of that which you are criticizing.
Click to expand...
You think a business funded by willing private investors is the same as a public union whose entire operations are funded by taxpayers NOT associated with the union at all???

Do you think that union members should have a say in where their dollars are being spent??? Do you think taypayers ought to??
 
40.png
jlw:
You think a business funded by willing private investors is the same as a public union whose entire operations are funded by taxpayers NOT associated with the union at all???

Do you think that union members should have a say in where their dollars are being spent??? Do you think taypayers ought to??
Click to expand...
The social security administration didn’t ask my permission before several of its high-ranking staffers began appearing alongside Bush on his campaign stops to pitch social security. Yet my tax dollars help pay their salary.

Come to think of it, the president of the United States doesn’t have to get my personal permission to do most of his actions, whether or not I agree with them, despite the fact that I pay his salary.

Further, if you’re going to claim that the public employee unions have “entire operations are funded by taxpayers,” you’ll have to provide some details to back this up. It was my understanding that unions are supported by union dues, paid by the employees, thus only indirectly “taxpayer supported,” a significant distinction. But hey, if you know different, show me.

Also, union members do have a say in how their money is spent. If they don’t like their leadership, they can vote them out. Same as you or I can do when we don’t like how our elected reps in government are spending our money.
 
Philip a lot of what you suggest is easier said than done. The corruption in unions is legendary and the rank and file often suffer at the hands of the bosses(union not employer). You suggest voting out incompetent leaders. Unfortunately again, easier to suggest than implement. The entrenched leadership is quite hard to dislodge.

Puzzleannie is correct in her comments about how unions committed suicide. Rather like the Dems who have allied so closely with the proabort groups, they have sold their souls to protect only a few constituants and the bosses themselves. While rank and file might not be pro abortion or accept other left wing ideologies, they invariably promote these causes through the actions of the leadership that endorses very liberal candidates.

Oddly the union members I generally encounter are teachers not Teamsters. These unions have worked to protect the guilty and sacrifice the innocent. It is nearly impossible to fire a teacher, regardless of their actions or incompetence. That teachers are also invariably linked with leftist causes and Democrat party platforms, to the point that at the Democrat convention the question wasn’t ‘what do you do’ but ‘where do you teach?’

I think as jlw posited in the beginning post, much of the country considers union matters a real yawner. I remember as a kid the potential of a Ford or GM strike was front page news. Now it’s buried in the back. Frankly I am sorry to hear about the huge loss of jobs at GM. I understand that each car produced carries a $1000 pension liability. And we wonder why we can’t compete? The unions have had a wake up call. The question is whether they will pick up the phone or ignore it.

Lisa N
 
Lisa N:
Oddly the union members I generally encounter are teachers not Teamsters. These unions have worked to protect the guilty and sacrifice the innocent. It is nearly impossible to fire a teacher, regardless of their actions or incompetence.
Click to expand...
Speak for your city or state, okay, but that’s not universal. In New York City, for example, notwithstanding a large and powerful union, teachers can be fired relatively easily. I am personally acquainted with incidents where a principal was fired on the accusation, never substantiated, that he patted the backside of one of the front office secretaries. A black male teacher was fired on the accusation of a child that he had hit him. Even after the child retracted his accusation, the man was not reinstated. And I know of some others.
 
40.png
Richardols:
Speak for your city or state, okay, but that’s not universal. In New York City, for example, notwithstanding a large and powerful union, teachers can be fired relatively easily. I am personally acquainted with incidents where a principal was fired on the accusation, never substantiated, that he patted the backside of one of the front office secretaries. A black male teacher was fired on the accusation of a child that he had hit him. Even after the child retracted his accusation, the man was not reinstated. And I know of some others.
Click to expand...
Let’s just say that if we were to trade anecdotes, the “teacher unions run the show” ones would win by a landslide.
 
40.png
jlw:
Let’s just say that if we were to trade anecdotes, the “teacher unions run the show” ones would win by a landslide.
Click to expand...
Again, that depends on where one lives.
 
40.png
Richardols:
Again, that depends on where one lives.
Click to expand...
AGAIN, take all stories, of ALL states, and it wouldn’t be even close.

Actually, I bet the highest concetration of “teacher unions run the show” anecdotes would be attributed to the bluest counties in the country, if that’s what you mean…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top