Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditSo, with the heaving sound of an old tree suddenly splitting apart in a storm, the labor movement is finally breaking up.
On Sunday, leaders of four of the country's largest labor unions announced they would boycott this week's AFL-CIO convention, and officials from two of those unions, SEIU and the Teamsters, withdrew from the Federation on Monday.
The five unions now comprising the Change To Win Coalition (CTWC)--along with SEIU, the Teamsters, United Food and Commercial Workers, Laborers, and UNITE HERE--have formed what amounts to a rival federation--whether they all formally leave the AFL-CIO or not, which now seems likely. These unions' collective 5 million membership represents 40 percent of the AFL-CIO's 13 million total. If the mammoth 2.7 million member National Education Association aligns with the effort, CTWC will hold exactly half of all union members in the United States.
The break is the biggest rift in labor since the 1930s, when the CIO split off from the AFL.
The avowed basis of the break is a fundamental disagreement on strategy, often depicted as a choice by the insurgents of organizing over politics. This is misleading. Many of the unions remaining in the federation are every bit as committed as the CTWC group to organizing new union members. And some CTWC unions, particularly SEIU, are keenly aware of the importance of politics in increasing union membership. The fight is really about consolidation and political focus.
SEIU has argued that the current practice of having several unions competing in single industrial sectors--"15 separate organizations in transportation, 15 in construction, 13 in public employment, nine in manufacturing, and so on"--defeats the scaled effort needed to take on business in today's climate. It wants to compel fewer, bigger, more clearly sectorally-based unions, as in northern Europe. And it has argued that labor must find ways to mobilize support outside itself, chiefly through more engagement in state and local politics.
It is hard to argue with any of these claims, though whether CTWC can realize its promise is an open question. Even unions without competition in their declared industries are showing declines in density, as indeed are the new Coalition's own members. And outside SEIU itself, and UNITE HERE in a few cities, few of CTWC's members show much commitment to the community links and coalition work needed to gain greater influence over state and local politics. In all the shifting of positions over the past seven months, as this "coalition of the willing" has been constructed, the present result sometimes seems less the principled conclusion to a principled debate than the final triumph of testosterone over inertia. The latter is largely produced by the fragmented governing structure of the AFL-CIO, which makes it very difficult to undertake bold initiatives.
But so be it. Labor is now split more or less in half. We can look forward to a long and ugly period of dissension in America's most important single progressive movement, facing a ruthless anti-worker Administration intent on its complete destruction.
I don't think this split was necessary, and still think it would have been best for the state of progressive politics if both sides could have worked out a deal on federation reform and leadership transition. (Why didn't the insurgents run a candidate to contest John Sweeney? Why didn't they try to move an agenda from within?)
But I also recognize that in the areas of greatest need for labor--organizing, and political engagement and programs in the states and cities--more effective work needs to be done.
So, while I believe that solidarity in the face of an onslaught is preferable, I respect those who argue that standing together may not make sense if they aren't standing in the right place. And I appreciate the difficulty of changing a troubled organization from within. So I wish the insurgents luck. This country desperately needs a labor movement that is again "the collection of many that speaks for all," that can provide an organized and intelligent moral center to a majoritarian progressive politics--the folks who brought you the weekend, the eight-hour day, and so much else that makes this country (almost) civilized. I just wish we weren't starting this way in reclaiming that.
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
I for one am glad to see them bust up. The sooner we can rid ourselves of the union leadership and thier left-wing cabals and forced membership contributions to socialists the sooner this country will be more competitive in this world economy. Whos ship is sinking again??
Posted by aludra at 07/26/2005 @ 1:16pm
Just a political question....who seeks whose endorsements in 2008?
Does a Hillary or Evan Bayh go after the CTWC...or the AFL-CIO...or both? Does CTWC endorse a DLC'er and the AFL-CIO endorse a "old-style" Democrat? AND if the CTWC candidate wins the nomination, and the AFL-CIO candidate loses...does that kill the AFL-CIO as a "player" (and of course, vice versa)?
Posted by Mask at 07/26/2005 @ 1:52pm
Frnak and Zero:
The problems faced by labor union began before the Reagan administration. Like any organization based on trust that the masses places in the hands of those whom are called upon to administer and lead, corruption is an always present possibility and labor unions were no exception at betrying that trust. As time went on, unions were less effective in maintaining wages and working conditions than before. Workers had every reason to ask why they continued to pay dues and getting so little in return.
However, the collapse of unions has brought about its own set of ills. It has corresponded with a period in American history where wealth has become more maldistributed. Tocqueville would have recognized an equality of conditions in post-World War II America; he would now see a country where the rich benefit at the expense of the rest.
From the seventies on, the AFL-CIO's leadership has been unable to cope with this trend. That some unions have grown restless and think that they can do better for themselves and most American workers by striking out on their own should not come as a surprise.
The modern vision of unbridled global capitalism offers little to either American workers or to workers in developing nations except exported jobs, inadequate wages and poor working conditions. The canard that the decline in unions will make America more competitive in this new global economy is an indictment of that system, not of labor unions; it is an admission that the new system is a race to the bottom in which wage-earners the world over have no stake.
This trend needs to be countered. Only a strong, revitalized union movement can do that.
Posted by Jack Rabbit at 07/26/2005 @ 2:12pm
Competition among unions will help the power of labor. The same kind of competetive dynamics as we see among businesses will ensure no labor union can stagnate or become corrupt beyond a certain point before it will be overtaken by another. Different unions, in the same or different industries, also have reason to band together issue-by-issue. Someone will have a better idea. Someone else will find a more productive strategy. That kind of dynamism will be beneficial to labor's cause. The split in organized labor may not be helpful in the very short term, but it will be as time goes on.
Posted by mkolmar at 07/26/2005 @ 4:15pm
You people need to let go of your "New Deal" mentality. Unions are a dinosaur in the country, except for a few occupations like government workers (gee, what a surprise), and some old traditional carryovers like automotive, trucking, and garment, with hotel service workers a relative newcomer, people want to stay out of unions (and many of those listed above have large numbers who are members because they have no choice).
But the point remains and the most recent data affirms that union membership is dead in the private sector. Down now to 12.5% of the nations workforce.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm
I say good riddance to bad rubbish! I spent 5 years in the Teamsters and 3 years in the UAW and have first hand experience how the bring nothing good to the table. Plus they stifle productivity, promote mediocrity, and tie managements hands from firing lousy workers. I was a shop steward in the UAW and was threatened constantly if I didn't write a grievance at least once a day. I was forced to defend thiefs and malingerers who even the union admitted deserved to be terminated but insisted we fight the company to keep them in their job.
My wife who used to think I was being too critical of unions had to join one 3 years ago when she got a government job at a shelter for children. Now, after experiencing the same type of things I described, she can hardly wait to leave there later this year.
So, keep fighting for the closest thing we have to what are combined mafia/communist organizations in this country. Hopefully, one day when they no longer exist in this country, I can tell my grandchildren or great-grandchildren what unions were really about when they ask me.
Posted by love liberty at 07/26/2005 @ 5:04pm
Down now to 12.5% of the nations workforce
I've heard figures as low as 8%
Posted by aludra at 07/26/2005 @ 5:16pm
I'm sorry zero, what do you want to be called other than a person?
Posted by love liberty at 07/26/2005 @ 5:47pm
You want to do away with unions? Fine. But first do away with the origins of the unions. Eliminate the abuse, exploitation, unmitigated greed...of the private market and then go after the unions.
Posted by mtspence05 at 07/26/2005 @ 7:06pm
Frankgrits wrote: My friend, you are all wet on this one.
Sorry Frank, but I stand by my comments. I further believe that the data is unmistakeable that the American people have rejected unions as important to their lives in today's economy. If they thought that unions were as good as you propose, the figures would be much different.
Most people disagree as I do with this one for all requirement of unions. We want to make on our own merits and the rewards (and punishments)that accompany individualism. No one ever really achieves any notable success in a union environment except the union bosses. I will state the obvious exception to my remark with professional athletes. Then again, they are an argument against unions with their excessive pay and guarantees even if they don't perform.
Posted by love liberty at 07/26/2005 @ 7:16pm
MTSPENCE05 wrote: You want to do away with unions? Fine. But first do away with the origins of the unions. Eliminate the abuse, exploitation, unmitigated greed...of the private market and then go after the unions.
I did away with all of it by becoming my own boss which anyone with a modicum of desire, perseverance, and a plan can accomplish. There are a myriad ways that people can be self-supporting if they don't like working for others and dislike what employers offer. And NO, it doesn't always require money! I opened my insurance business with almost no money and a lot of need.
Posted by love liberty at 07/26/2005 @ 7:43pm
Who says President Bush isn't brilliant? His maneuver in appointing Judge John Roberts has completely throttled the Democrats in the highest-stakes game of his second term.
The key is that Bush has used the Democrats' opposition to his district and circuit-court judicial appointments against them and made it a ratification of the Roberts candidacy. Simply put, by choosing a judge whom the Democrats confirmed unanimously when he was nominated for the D.C. Circuit Court -- and whom they did not filibuster -- Bush has made the Democrats impotent.
The Democrats thought they were preparing for the Supreme Court battle when they hit on their strategy of filibustering Bush's judicial nominations. They saw these battles as spring training to get them in shape for the real fight that would come when Bush made his Supreme Court nomination.
Instead, their strategy has backfired massively. By lending such a high profile to their opposition to Bush's lower-court appointments, the Democrats have effectively denied themselves the ability to filibuster anyone of whom they have approved in the past.
When the Democrats singled out certain of Bush's appointees to the courts for filibusters and strident opposition, they, in effect, gave their seal of approval to those whom they did not filibuster. Their silence is like the classic case in Sherlock Holmes of the dog that didn't bark.
And when the Democratic Senators agreed to a voice vote on Roberts, in effect confirming him unanimously, their seal of approval was made even more explicit. Now, having voted for Roberts and having not filibustered his nomination, the Democrats cannot come back and suddenly discover reasons to oppose him.
Obviously, if Roberts says the wrong things at his confirmation hearings or abandons the wise strategy laid out by Ruth Bader Ginsburg in refusing to spell out her likely decisions on cases that will come before the court, then all bets are off. But if Roberts handles himself well and avoids explicitly committing himself on Roe v. Wade and other issues, Bush has succeeded in putting him over and dodging the bullet that seemed to be marked for him when Sandra Day O'Connor resigned.
Has Bush fooled the left or the right? Will Roberts be the reliable pro-life vote that the Christian right hopes, or will he be the judicial conservative, respectful of precedent -- including Roe -- that the left hopes? We won't know until after he takes his seat and casts his vote. But Bush has threaded his way through a minefield in selecting the most conservative judge who has already received recent Senate approval -- and garnered a unanimous Democratic vote.
It is very interesting to see how Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) will vote on the Roberts nomination. Should she back him, she will be defying her core constituency -- the abortion-rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America. For now, her vote for Roberts might win her points in moving to the center. But if Roberts votes against Roe, Hillary will have a very hard time explaining her support for him, especially if Sens. John Kerry (Mass.), Evan Bayh (Ind.) and Joe Biden (Del.) -- her potential Democratic rivals in 2008 -- vote against his confirmation.
On the other hand, if Hillary joins what is likely to be a small minority of Democrats in opposing Roberts, she is belying her supposed move to the center and showing that, when the chips are down, she will tack to the left. In posing such a dilemma for Mrs. Clinton, Bush has again shown his capacity for deft political maneuver.
Bush can just follow the Roberts playbook as future Supreme Court vacancies come up. Just appoint the most conservative available jurist whom the Democrats did not filibuster and he can escape political damage while appeasing his hard-right followers.
Bush is brilliant. There is no other way to read it.
Posted by aludra at 07/26/2005 @ 8:58pm
You can only be responsible for what you say...not anyone else so I suggest you buzz off puke
Posted by aludra at 07/26/2005 @ 9:06pm
FrankGrits, Yeah, your Joan Baez drivel brought a tear to my eye all right. I couldn't stop laughing at the fact that you lefties can't throw away your tie-dyes, cut off your ponytails and realize that the 1960s are gone forever. Your pathetic complaints about those evil corporate-types (who signs YOUR paycheck?) and your favorite bogeyman, Karl Rove, could have been blindly picked from the talking points sheet of any left-wing group in America. Yawn...why don't you guys come up with something more original?
Good job on deducing Aludra's postings are just cut and paste jobs, what with you not reading them and all...
Posted by Paul C. at 07/26/2005 @ 9:48pm
In related news, I notice a lot of worry among the mainstream Democrats about whether they will get their campaign money now. I have this funny feeling that this split might be good for the progressive wing of the Democratic party. When I say "a funny feeling," I should clarify - "a wild guess" - take as a given that I don't know what I'm talking about, at least for this post.
Now - is it possible that since this split doesn't actually reduce the sheer numbers of the labor movement, that we will get a more, well, "democratic" allotment of campaign moneys? The MoveOn style of small donors seems to favor more progressive positions and candidates. Maybe it could work this way here too. I'd be interested in seeing people a little more knowledgeable about this post.
Posted by Vic Perry at 07/26/2005 @ 9:50pm
If I hung out at The National Review posting all day the phrase "Get A Life Dipsht" would apply to me, too.
Posted by Vic Perry at 07/26/2005 @ 9:51pm
Dear Mr. Liberty,
Like you, I love liberty. One of the liberties I love is having the choice to be a union member, or not.
You, too, are a union member. You and your wife are a union. The United States of America is a union with 50 states working together for a common goal. Thats what a union is, a group of people working collectively for a common goal.
Good luck to you and yours.
Sincerely,
UnionWayne
Posted by UnionWayne at 07/26/2005 @ 10:39pm
"Labor is now split more or less in half."
That's a pretty funny way to describe a movement that represents 8% of the employed splitting into two groups with 4% each. I'd say the vast majority of labor lives and works beyond the reach of the old labor movement, by choice or circumstance, and that what happened today is about on par with the changes that TV Guide announced today-- in both cases large but shrunken institutions are making modest, ineffectual changes in response to a completely altered environment.
Posted by Mgmax at 07/27/2005 @ 12:49am
That evil Karl Rove! How did he make the unions do this?
Posted by pbsssmith at 07/27/2005 @ 01:25am
Love Liberty wrote..."Most people disagree as I do with this one for all requirement of unions. We want to make on our own merits and the rewards (and punishments)that accompany individualism."
I'm curious LL as to what kind of individualism you are refering to. Are you infering that employees who work for corporations, or any business for that matter, are allowed, or should be expeted to exercise individualism? That is, to exercise the free action of their individual self? In my experience this is not something corporations readily encourage, especially in the blue collar types or those that tend to unionize. And would uncerimoniously release anyone if they did not toe the company line; that is, exercise individulaism.
Posted by question! at 07/27/2005 @ 02:14am
Unions served their purposes but now some are just as thick with BS as our political leaders. Not sure if any of you have been to the Union Head Quarters in Downtown Chicago...go there and you will see what I am talking about. Over paid lawyers calling the shots, even if the union members don;t agree with them. they don;t care because they are getting paid big bucks to play hard ball with the union members lives.
If you want to look at a union at its worst, look at what the United Airline Union did after 9/11. The industry tanked and the company was basically bankrupt...didn't faze the union...strike!
Or, lets take a real close look at teachers unions...you have incompetent teachers in the classroom but they are protected and can't basically get fired if they follow the "rules". Well, sorry, if they suck, I DON'T WANT THEM TEACHING OUR YOUTH!
There are plenty of cases now that clearly show how unions are crippling small and large city budgets. Some of these places CAN't AFFORD it, bottom line. They are not a corporate organization that is set out to make mega profits to share with investors. They purposely push the cities to get the State or even the Federal government to bail them out. Who then ultimately pays for that? You and me.
As far as comparing a marriage union and the US Union to a work force union is totally insane. I am pretty sure that marriage never included a "brotherhood" that will march around a neighbors house because that household makes more then me. Keep drinking the Dem coolaide and get with the original concept of America. INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM. I also look at the concept of marriage as a partnership that is negotiated with both parties understanding the needs of the other.
Individuals have the chance to break out of the concept of unions the day they are born. It is called going to school and not dropping out because it is not cool or too geeky. Now I am not saying that all unions are filled by non educated people, but I am saying that once you enter a union, your INDIVIDUAL freedom is gone.
The reason for this in most blue collar jobs is for saftey reasons and not some philosophical Bullshit that you are being controlled by the man. If someone steps outside the rules, a major lawsuite will appear that could cripple the company that supplies the jobs. Now accidents do happen and compensation is needed, but it should ALL go to the victim, not back into the lawyers hands.
Unions always complain against the man. Well how to you explain walking into a conference center and have your life threatened or your property damaged if you plug a simple desk light into a light socket. You know, the one they charge you at least $75 to do. I have seen conference booths destroyed after this happened.
Again, maybe this is what caused the split. Some of the unions are tired of being hijacked by the Dem party and will work more with the reps because they are the ones who know how to get the job done. It is a major fear of the Dem party and that same mentality is creeping into the minority sector, which is why the Dem drumbeat is WHITE PARTY, RACIST, RICH GUYS, MALES. The Dem party has been overtaken by a bunch of cry babies and the unions are calling them out on it!!!
Posted by dancall at 07/27/2005 @ 08:54am
Sorry to harp on THIS point, but again...
Whose endorsement is "more important" in 2008....CTWC or the AFL-CIO? and if "both", where would Bayh, Clinton, Richardson et al put their "emphasis"?
Surely one or the other group will schedule a meeting as Iowa and New Hampshire ramp up, and say "Candidate X is following OUR line on .......and not the other groups" and all hell breaks loose....No?
Posted by Mask at 07/27/2005 @ 09:52am
LOVE LIBERTY WRITES: "I opened my insurance business with almost no money and a lot of need."
Im confused... who the hell needs another insurance company? They are most of the problem with healthcare costs and the medicare/medicaid mess. "alot of need"??? I seriously doubt that. Just my opinion.
Posted by Jazzee at 07/27/2005 @ 10:04am
Paul C writes: "Your pathetic complaints about those evil corporate-types (who signs YOUR paycheck?)"
Paul C must be a very rich guy the Republican way (on the backs of those who labor for little) All that corporate stock and market dabbling has blinded him to the Enrons of the world. I sure do hope for his sake that he never loses it and ends up flipping hamburgers or greeting low income people at Wal-mart.
I can say this for the unions... they sure do have more group and individual clout in politics and on the hill then Mr Paul C does...yes?
Posted by Jazzee at 07/27/2005 @ 10:13am
"So, with the heaving sound of an old tree suddenly splitting apart in a storm, the labor movement is finally breaking up. On Sunday, leaders of four of the country's largest labor unions announced they would boycott this week's AFL-CIO convention, and officials from two of those unions, SEIU and the Teamsters, withdrew from the Federation on Monday. "
Thank God, it's about time the collective "union" the evil cancer that has had a strangle hold on capitalistic growth in America gets cut out from Americas organs. Union's were great when the majority of company's did not concern themselves with the inalienable human rights of their workers, it's a new day now though and Unions are just holding America back.
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/27/2005 @ 12:06pm
There are now seven (7) national/international unions in the Change to Win Coalition: SEIU, Teamsters, UNITE HERE, United Food & Commercial Workers (UFCW), Laborers, Carpenters, and the United Farm Workers.
Posted by unionlawyer at 07/27/2005 @ 1:02pm
Jazee wrote Im confused... who the hell needs another insurance company? They are most of the problem with healthcare costs and the medicare/medicaid mess. "alot of need"??? I seriously doubt that. Just my opinion.
Don't want to detract from this thread but you seem to need some clarification. Yes, a lot of need. I see it when I take a check to a grieving widow who was a stay at home mom and now has no means of support for her and her family. I see it when I get a thank you call or card from a client I helped get cash to see them through a medical crisis, and that cash helped them keep their home, buy groceries, keep the utilities going.
You stereotype insurance and those who provide it because you look through a very narrow lense. I am proud of what I do and the many people I help maintain their quality of life. I am equally proud of the way I find low cost health care and dental care solutions for those in the lower income brackets. These clients also express gratitude for what I and many like me do to help them have access to quality care that many on the left say is both unaffordable and unavailable. Not much money this kind of healthcare, but a lot of satisfaction in helping others.
Posted by love liberty at 07/27/2005 @ 1:32pm
Question wrote: I'm curious LL as to what kind of individualism you are refering to. Are you infering that employees who work for corporations, or any business for that matter, are allowed, or should be expeted to exercise individualism? That is, to exercise the free action of their individual self? In my experience this is not something corporations readily encourage, especially in the blue collar types or those that tend to unionize. And would uncerimoniously release anyone if they did not toe the company line; that is, exercise individulaism.
Absolutely! I spent 20 plus years in the corporate world and loved the risk and reward of working "at will". Companies should always retain the right to hire and fire at will. I have been hired and fired at all levels, from a dirty messy low wage position to that of a COO and Vice President. No regrets, no remorse, no hostility to former employers. That is life!
Posted by love liberty at 07/27/2005 @ 1:37pm
LoveLiberty...You didn't answer my question. One of your earlier posts mentioned something about people and individuality. Now your last post says that you believe companies can fire at will. Answer the question: what kind of individuality do you believe belongs in the workplace?
You might have enjoyed the risks of working at will, the constant fear of being fired. I can tell you, however, from experience that most working class people, and I'm not talking about COO's, CEO's, I'm talking about the blue collar types, the types that tend to organize, do not like to live in fear of their jobs dissapearing.
Posted by question! at 07/27/2005 @ 2:42pm
Lovelib, now I begin to understand "I have been hired and fired at all levels, from a dirty messy low wage position to that of a COO and Vice President. No regrets, no remorse, no hostility to former employers. That is life!
If you were a VP or COO at a company of any significance, you certainly had an employment contract. As you know, workers check their rights and liberties at the door. True some issues are legislated, but for the most part your at the boss' mercy. Is your world colored by your union experience as you claim, or by your management experience in handling employees?
The labor movement is far from dead or unnecessary. As long as there are bosses who concern themselves only with their liberties and well being, with disregard for their workers, unions will be the only counterbalance that workers can rely on.
Disclosure; I'm employed, white collar, with a degree in Business Administration and Industrial relations. I am a CWA member
Posted by cwamember at 07/27/2005 @ 4:16pm
From my experience in a union and in conversations with current union members, people who are pro union uniformly manifest certain personality traits:
1. afraid of risk
2. satisfied with mediocrity
3. lack leadership ambition
4. fear of the unknown
5. lack personal negotiating skills
6. find safety in numbers
I guess that is one way to live, but it's not what made America the greatest country in the history of the world.
And for Question: what kind of individuality do you believe belongs in the workplace?
That depends on the specific workplace. When I hire people, I look for certain things:
1. Someone who is a team player but still maintains their individuality and is willing to take calculated risks within the scope of their assignment(s).
2. Someone who is teachable
3. Someone who is not afraid of risk
4. Someone who is willing to "own" their responsibilities and delegated authority.
5. Their resume of specific accomplishments (or lacking work experience, similar traits in school)
6. Their community involvement (which obviously demonstrates they are totally self involved)
Posted by love liberty at 07/27/2005 @ 4:35pm
From my experience in a union and in conversations with current union members, people who are pro union uniformly manifest certain personality traits:
1. afraid of risk
2. satisfied with mediocrity
3. lack leadership ambition
4. fear of the unknown
5. lack personal negotiating skills
6. find safety in numbers
SOUNDS LIKE MARXISM TO ME
Posted by aludra at 07/27/2005 @ 5:37pm
FrankGrits and Jazzee, It's so tragic that you played the Howard Dean card and assumed I must be a rich person who never worked an honest day in my life. The class warfare perpetrated by the left is as endless as it is predictable.
What leads a person to your kind of ideology is basically the same mindset that motivated Karl Marx. It is the belief that with few exceptions, the wealthy and the powerful earned that status by direct or traditional oppression of the weak and the poor. And with few exceptions, the weak and the poor are only in that status because they are victims of direct or traditional oppression by the wealthy and the powerful. If you believe this concept, you inexorably will feel society is justified to impose morality that is relative to whether one is in the "oppressor class" (the "bourgeois", according to Marx) or the "oppressed class" (the "proletariat"). You therefore see society is justified in imposing a harsher morality on the wealthy and powerful (i.e. in the form of excessive taxation, double taxation with the death tax, stringent corporate and business regulations, affirmative action, cynicism of law enforcement and the military, etc.), and a more generous and benevolent morality on the weak and the poor (in the form of welfare benefits, quotas in workplace hiring and school admissions, pleas for clemency for convicted murderers, universal healthcare regardless of personal responsibility, lavish benefits to immigrants who choose to break the law and enter the country illegally, etc.). On a more macro scale, many of you often apply this moral relativism to the international level and blur the lines of distinction between murderous tyrannical dictators like Saddam Hussein and presidents like George W. Bush who have the courage to take them on directly. This overall ideology is the raison d'etre, the reason for existence, of the Left, which is really what your progressive populist politics is all about. You and your ilk are angry because you believe you are on a mission to right society's wrongs, and toward that end, a universal morality for all must take a back seat. It is just a milder, more toned-down form of Marxism.
Far from caring about the best interests of the wealthy and corporate elite, the only thing that I, as a proud conservative Republican, care about is maintaining a universal morality and a culture of equality of opportunity for every human being, regardless of race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, gender, sexual orientation or socioeconomic status. This must be balanced with demanding that each individual's personal benefits be equal to their level of acceptance of personal responsibility. This is the true American ideal, and it is what political conservatism really is all about.
Posted by Paul C. at 07/27/2005 @ 6:12pm
Amen to Paul C; refreshing and succinctly phrased commentary
Posted by love liberty at 07/27/2005 @ 6:23pm
Why, thank you, Love Liberty. I'm enjoying your postings as well!
Posted by Paul C. at 07/27/2005 @ 6:25pm
cwamember wrote: As long as there are bosses who concern themselves only with their liberties and well being, with disregard for their workers, unions will be the only counterbalance that workers can rely on.
I feel like I'm watching an old 30's movie instead of the real world. Only concerned with their own well-being. Of course, silly of me not to remember those days. Like some of these executive examples I had that are not atypical.
1. Going 5 months with no pay so the hourly workers could still be paid when a crunch hit the company.
2. All the years that I worked 70-90 hours a week trying to ensure that there was enough business to not only pay the employees but to hopefully hire more.
3. Looking the other way when an otherwise good employee steals office supplies, spends work time on the computer for their own benefit, takes an extra long lunch because "the boss is away and won't know the difference"
Lastly, despite the usual socialist underpinnings of pro-union commentary, the reality is that an employer agrees to pay an employee in acordance with the terms of their hiring agreement (and everyone unless they are paid under the table has some form of hiring agreement). The employer has the right of expectation that the employee will perform their duties for the compensation agreed to.
I see no reason to disregard my experiences as either an "at will" employee, union member, or employer. There isn't enough money in this world to lead me to any union ever again. I rise and fall on my own thank you.
Posted by love liberty at 07/27/2005 @ 6:50pm
The view expressed by Paul C., Love Liberty, and Aludra is framed in opposition to Marxism, which misses the point. Maybe some unreformed Marxists are still hanging around in the shadows.
One crucial point is the type of collectivism in a union is private. It is a form of private enterprise. Unions can succeed or fail on their merits just as businesses do. You can see that in what the editor has written about.
The other crucial point has to do with balance. The "pro-business" angle is by definition anti-worker. Labor needs pricing power just the same as big business does. When the balance favors labor too strongly, it permits inefficiencies that weaken labor in the end. You can see that most dramatically in the old Soviet bloc, or to a lesser degree in U.S. auto-makers in the 70s and 80s.
If the balance favors business as much as the "pro-business" crowd seem to want, and big business gets cheap labor, who will have enough money to buy the goods? Where does that lead?
The economic mobility many conservatives talk about is only possible when labor and business have a competetive balance. What has actually happened with "pro-business" policies is economic stratification.
It seems to me the vision of self-reliance and personal responsibility requires an economic framework in which a person who strives for better economic success sees enough likely, potential reward to make the effort or to take the risk. If the economic environment does not provide enough reward for risk and effort, you will get less innovation, less dynamism, lower growth in productivity, and overall stagnation.
In that light, collective bargaining is one way labor will have enough pricing power to keep labor and business in a balance that brings an improved standard of living.
Mark Kolmar - Schaumburg, IL - http://concrete-tiger.livejournal.com/
Posted by mkolmar at 07/28/2005 @ 1:18pm