As the unions slowly die
So the AFL-CIO suffered a schism today.
Democrats howl, oh, woe is us! What will we do without the amazing organizing force of labor? Whatever shall we do?
Probably the same thing we did before. Get half-assed, super expensive last minute help. Unions provide some useful things, like phone lines for phone banking, (or in the case of SEIU, Barney the big purple automated phonebanking motor home). But their organizing prowess and the heft of their endorsement is overrated and has been for some time. The reality is, while many union members are Democrats, many also are not. And it's just as hard to get them to come out and knock on a stranger's door as it is anyone else. I didn't see one race last year in which labor had any effect in the eventual outcome.
Gephardt, the union hero? Beaten to a pulp in the primaries. Dean, who secured the AFSCME and SEIU endorsements? Beaten 'til he screamed. Kerry had the firefighters, but they didn't carry anything besides their admittedly cool signs.
Listen, labor still wants to be a player, but they've lost their heft. According to this article, 8% of workers are in a union now. And those folks aren't a bloc of hardcore Democrats, they're a mixed bag just like the rest of America, and even if they did unite behind Democrats, they're not all getting out to vote. It's just an out-of-date idea that the unions carry some amazing power to organize for the vote.
So enough, unions, with demanding that candidates suckle at your teat. Enough with telling people where they can meet and under what conditions and with whom. Get your own shit together, get your own house in order, and then you can get back the clout you're missing. This break in the AFL-CIO was a long time coming, and it's as embarrassing as it should be. The labor movement needs to become a movement again, not an assumption. There are still Democrats who want to and will work with unions for the working families, but there has to be return - in my opinion, there has to be return for the families.
The union's job isn't just to make sure their members are making lots of money. The unions were created to ensure a fair, livable wage, but now you have unions demanding that no one pay for their health insurance, no copays, and ask for ungodly wages in some cases. The NEA seemingly opposes any regulation on its members, and let's face it, there actually are some bad teachers out there who don't deserve any more of a chance than I do. [UPDATE: I have family in the NEA, and it should be noted that I support the NEA, and all unions, whole-heartedly. All unions have a tendency to protect their members no matter what, and that's what I think is a mistake; unions need to have their own performance standards, so if you're not doing the job, the union leaves you on your own] The unions need to get smarter and start really representing the best interests of their members. They don't exist to get as much as possible for their members, they exist to ensure a fair wage and fair working conditions for their members. They've got to get their shit together, get some internal reforms, and for Hank's sake get back to real organizing.
Now to be clear: I support unions. I'm an associate member of the steelworkers. I have an NEA member directly related to me, and I'm glad he's got their representation in case he's treated unfairly. But I've been concerned for years now about overreaching on the part of unions, and in politics have simply seen little to no evidence that unions provide anything besides an endorsement and threats if you don't meet their demands. I want the unions to be stronger, and I want them to represent their members in a smart, organized, and powerful way. I don't think they're doing that today, and it scares the hell out of me, because I don't want to return to the days when folks lived at the whim of business owners.
Democrats howl, oh, woe is us! What will we do without the amazing organizing force of labor? Whatever shall we do?
Probably the same thing we did before. Get half-assed, super expensive last minute help. Unions provide some useful things, like phone lines for phone banking, (or in the case of SEIU, Barney the big purple automated phonebanking motor home). But their organizing prowess and the heft of their endorsement is overrated and has been for some time. The reality is, while many union members are Democrats, many also are not. And it's just as hard to get them to come out and knock on a stranger's door as it is anyone else. I didn't see one race last year in which labor had any effect in the eventual outcome.
Gephardt, the union hero? Beaten to a pulp in the primaries. Dean, who secured the AFSCME and SEIU endorsements? Beaten 'til he screamed. Kerry had the firefighters, but they didn't carry anything besides their admittedly cool signs.
Listen, labor still wants to be a player, but they've lost their heft. According to this article, 8% of workers are in a union now. And those folks aren't a bloc of hardcore Democrats, they're a mixed bag just like the rest of America, and even if they did unite behind Democrats, they're not all getting out to vote. It's just an out-of-date idea that the unions carry some amazing power to organize for the vote.
So enough, unions, with demanding that candidates suckle at your teat. Enough with telling people where they can meet and under what conditions and with whom. Get your own shit together, get your own house in order, and then you can get back the clout you're missing. This break in the AFL-CIO was a long time coming, and it's as embarrassing as it should be. The labor movement needs to become a movement again, not an assumption. There are still Democrats who want to and will work with unions for the working families, but there has to be return - in my opinion, there has to be return for the families.
The union's job isn't just to make sure their members are making lots of money. The unions were created to ensure a fair, livable wage, but now you have unions demanding that no one pay for their health insurance, no copays, and ask for ungodly wages in some cases. The NEA seemingly opposes any regulation on its members, and let's face it, there actually are some bad teachers out there who don't deserve any more of a chance than I do. [UPDATE: I have family in the NEA, and it should be noted that I support the NEA, and all unions, whole-heartedly. All unions have a tendency to protect their members no matter what, and that's what I think is a mistake; unions need to have their own performance standards, so if you're not doing the job, the union leaves you on your own] The unions need to get smarter and start really representing the best interests of their members. They don't exist to get as much as possible for their members, they exist to ensure a fair wage and fair working conditions for their members. They've got to get their shit together, get some internal reforms, and for Hank's sake get back to real organizing.
Now to be clear: I support unions. I'm an associate member of the steelworkers. I have an NEA member directly related to me, and I'm glad he's got their representation in case he's treated unfairly. But I've been concerned for years now about overreaching on the part of unions, and in politics have simply seen little to no evidence that unions provide anything besides an endorsement and threats if you don't meet their demands. I want the unions to be stronger, and I want them to represent their members in a smart, organized, and powerful way. I don't think they're doing that today, and it scares the hell out of me, because I don't want to return to the days when folks lived at the whim of business owners.
posted by switzerblog at
12:06 PM
4 Comments:
Mebbe so, but did they actually have an effect on any outcome? I don't diss SEIU lightly - they're doing more than just about any union out there politically, but I don't see that weight causing any shift in votes. (see Sommers/Woldt)
Very appropriate that this week I flew to Chicago (and boy are my arms.... never mind) and my in-flight reading was 1632, whose protagonist is a union rep. Made me all misty-eyed about unions, which was kinda dissolved by the onslaught of current events.
Not sure that the unions can offer a heck of a lot outside of some fund-raising disbursed by the locals. On a national level, a union endorsement seems to matter not at all. Locally it can make a difference if the right union endorses, and if you are in that union's town.
OT--- like the look of the blog.
You're hardly an unbiased observer, willis. Like I said, I don't claim that SEIU's done nothing, but I don't see that they're changing votes. They are clearly the strongest union when it comes to reaching out to people, but I believe they're reaching out to people we've already got. This isn't just the unions, it's endemic in all our progressive organizations and the Democratic Party.
I'm sure I'll hear from someone in IUPAT furious that I would discount their amazing effort, too. People feel strongly about it. But the unions aren't what they used to be, and I'm tired of being beholden to ANY group - unions or otherwise. You know firsthand the crazy hoops we have to jump through to avoid displeasing unions. I'm tired of it. The benefit just doesn't match the effort required to earn it.
I'm on the side of the disassociated unions in this split - I hope they make some changes and labor becomes a powerful force again. Between Stern, Hoffa and Dean, I think there's really a chance to improve things, and I hope they do.
"Locally it can make a difference if the right union endorses, and if you are in that union's town."
Willis, SEIU is doing a good job with the candidates they help, but not for all and not in every district. And your examples just illustrate what I was saying--- locally, and in the right place, yes, unions can make a difference.
I ran Debi Srail's campaign in the 28th alongside Tami Green, and while Tami got help from SEIU, we got very little union help from anyone, and nearly all of that was financial, appreciated but only a part of the picture.
My participation in the the campaign process goes back over 30 years, and I can tell you, the unions were a lot more effective then than now, certainly on the national level.
The thing to remember is that the union's goals and the party's goals are often the same, which is why they have made such compatable bedfellows. Their utility to each other, though, has diminished, as the Dems are less able to provide cover, and the unions are fighting simply to survive.
So to recap: SEIU pulls the weight that it can, where it can, but unions are simply less powerful than they have been, and so must pick their fights. And they fight most effectively on a local level.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home