Is "big labor" a menace to democracy?

[TheDemSocialist]

IN CASE you thought that billionaire-funded Super PACs were skewing U.S. elections toward pro-corporate conservatives, the Wall Street Journalwants you to know that the real problem with the American political system are those big, bad unions.In a July 10 feature, Journal reporters Tom McGinty and Brody Mullins claimed:

Organized labor spends about four times as much on politics and lobbying as generally thought...a finding that shines a light on an aspect of labor's political activity that has often been overlooked.
This kind of spending, which is on the rise, has enabled the largest unions to maintain and in some cases increase their clout in Washington and state capitals, even though unionized workers make up a declining share of the workforce. The result is that labor could be a stronger counterweight than commonly realized to "Super PACs" that today raise millions from wealthy donors, in many cases to support Republican candidates and causes.
​

This union political activity amounts to the creation of "shadow army" for President Barack Obama's reelection, McGinty and Mullins conclude.
There are plenty of reasons why the labor haters at the Wall Street Journal would spend the time and money to pore through the government statistics that show up--in however distorted a form--in the article.
On the one hand, it serves the Journal's ongoing defense of the corporate domination of elections--something that the Supreme Court made even more egregious with its 2010Citizens United decision that overturned already-ineffective constraints on business participation in politics. The Journal's answer to criticism of the Citizens United ruling is, in effect: "Don't worry, labor unions are just as powerful as corporations."
On the other hand, the insinuations about "shadow armies" and political spending that isn't reported to the Federal Election Commission feeds the Journal's ideological crusade against unions. For conservative ideologues who won't be satisfied until there are no unions left in the U.S., the Journal feature supports the picture of "big labor" as the bogeyman against whom noble "job creators" must do battle.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
WHAT SHOULD we make of the substance of the Wall Street Journal analysis?
First, as the Daily Kos labor editor Laura Clawson pointed out, the Journal built its case by classifying almost every aspect of union advocacy as "political"--and possibly by double- and triple-counting the money that labor organizations spend.
Second, the "false equivalence" between corporate and labor spending that the Journalwants to claim can't change the simple fact that business political donations outstrip labor's by a factor of 15-to-1, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
What of the contention that unions' support to (predominantly) Democratic candidates goes beyond the dollar amounts in contributions they report to the Federal Election Commission? This is hardly a revelation, let alone a "scoop." Anyone who has the slightest knowledge about unions and elections knows that labor donations are much less important to Democratic candidates than the person-hours union members contribute through phone-banking, door-knocking, driving voters to polls and other "get out the vote" activities.
If a similar database existed on the political activities of evangelical mega-churches, aJournal-like analysis would show an even bigger gap between the minimal money contributions to conservative Republicans and the hundreds of thousands of person-hours spent on organizing people to vote for the GOP.
But, of course, there is no such database on the activities of mega-churches, nor on the activities of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce--which illustrates how class-biased and anti-union the U.S. electoral system is.
The data for the Journal hit job on unions was gathered from reports that were mandated by a Republican-majority Congress, which the George W. Bush's Labor Department enforced, starting in 2005. Under this legislation, unions are required to document virtually every penny they spend. McGinty and Mullins were even able to pinpoint money unions spent on bratwursts made for protesters during the Wisconsin Capitol occupation in 2011!
Contrast that to the post-Citizens United world where anonymous billionaires can spend unlimited money on attack ads; where outfits like the Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS Super PAC can shield its donors under the fiction that it is a "social welfare" organization; or where Congress can't even pass simple legislation requiring corporations to put their names on the ads they pay for.
[FONT=Georgia, serif]And by the way, as Zachary Newkirk wrote at the OpenSecrets.org website, "[W]hen it comes to the government lobbying efforts of most religious institutions, their activities are notably shrouded in darkness." That's because of the 1995 Lobbying Disclosure Act, passed under an earlier Republican-led Congress, which exempts them from having to report most of their lobbying.[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, serif]

[/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia, serif]Read more @: [/FONT]Is "big labor" a menace to democracy? | SocialistWorker.org

[FONT=Georgia, serif]Great article. Labor unions are not a threat to democracy. They are a needed necessity in democracy for the advocacy of working peoples welfare and power. [/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, serif]So many lies and misconceptions surround labor unions and the war on them is ridiculous. [/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia, serif]Thoughts?[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, serif]Comments?[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, serif]Response?[/FONT]

 

[Daktoria]

Big labor is a tool for capitalism. It convinces people to believe that they're no more valuable than workers, and that they should take pride in struggle.

It also dissociates labor from management such that the reunification of community becomes impossible. Instead, big labor perpetuates the division between the labor and product markets by discouraging workers from being creative thinkers that come up with good ideas. It prefers workers to just keep doing their thing and simply pressure for higher wages.

B-O-R-I-N-G

 

[James Cessna]

Big labor is a tool for capitalism. It convinces people to believe that they're no more valuable than workers, and that they should take pride in struggle.

It also dissociates labor from management such that the reunification of community becomes impossible. Instead, big labor perpetuates the division between the labor and product markets by discouraging workers from being creative thinkers that come up with good ideas. It prefers workers to just keep doing their thing and simply pressure for higher wages.

How do labor unions (big labor) dissociate labor from management such that the reunification of community becomes impossible?

 

[Daktoria]

In the beginning, there was labor and management.

Then, labor and management didn't get along, so labor organized with itself rather than with management.

As long as labor remains self-organized, management can't reassociate with it. In turn, the operation of firms becomes more commercial, less communal.

Think of it like lesbians. As long as lesbians are doing each other, they aren't doing any men.

 

[TheNextEra]

In the beginning, there was labor and management.

Then, labor and management didn't get along, so labor organized with itself rather than with management.

As long as labor remains self-organized, management can't reassociate with it. In turn, the operation of firms becomes more commercial, less communal.

Think of it like lesbians. As long as lesbians are doing each other, they aren't doing any men.

You are assuming the laborer and management have the same bargaining power which they don't. That is why it was necessary for the laborers to band together.

You would rather someone with a knife (the laborer) go up against someone with an assault rifle (management) and then claim they both have the same bargains ability.

 

[Daktoria]

You are assuming the laborer and management have the same bargaining power which they don't. That is why it was necessary for the laborers to band together.

You would rather someone with a knife (the laborer) go up against someone with an assault rifle (management) and then claim they both have the same bargains ability.

No. I'm assuming that power doesn't matter. Labor negotiations shouldn't be a fight.

 

[AdamT]

The more I think about this the more I'm convinced that the problem is rooted in our labor laws, which virtually mandate an adversarial relationship between management and labor. In most instances it's actually a violation of law for unions and management to cooperate. I think this is a completely wrong-headed approach. We should adopt a system like Germany has where unions are mandated and where they work hand-in-hand with management to maximize the benefit to both labor and management.

 

[Bobcat]

Big labor, liberal thought, and democratic control = Detroit.

need I say more?

 

[Bobcat]

No. I'm assuming that power doesn't matter. Labor negotiations shouldn't be a fight.

supply and demand should set the price for labor, not a union contract.

want higher pay? get more skills or education. skilled educated people are more in demand than unskilled and uneducated people. Supply and demand actually works when the govt keeps its nose out of it.

 

[Daktoria]

supply and demand should set the price for labor, not a union contract.

want higher pay? get more skills or education. skilled educated people are more in demand than unskilled and uneducated people. Supply and demand actually works when the govt keeps its nose out of it.

Exactly.

Labor and management shouldn't be fighting over supply and demand. They should be working towards a holistic culture that brings the two together.

People are so results-oriented these day. All they want to do is produce without considering what they're producing for, and they consume in order to produce better.

Ugh......

 

[Matt Foley]

Less than 7% of the private workforce is unionized, find a scapegoat somewhere else.

 

[Velvet Elvis]

Less than 7% of the private workforce is unionized, find a scapegoat somewhere else.

Yes, but over a third of all government workers are unionized.

Unions were necessary at one time. That time has passed. There's no such thing as child labor. No such thing as mandatory 60 hour work-weeks. Everything they legitimately fought for is a thing of the past. Now all they do is blindly follow their union goon bosses, and extort more money than what a lot of those folks jobs are worth.

 

[RGacky3]

Big labor, liberal thought, and democratic control = Detroit.

need I say more?

Detroit was basically RUN by the private car companies, and started having the major problems after the Unions were seriously weakened and labor laws stopped being enforced.

But shall we look at the unionless southern states???

Unions were necessary at one time. That time has passed. There's no such thing as child labor. No such thing as mandatory 60 hour work-weeks. Everything they legitimately fought for is a thing of the past. Now all they do is blindly follow their union goon bosses, and extort more money than what a lot of those folks jobs are worth.

Unions ARE necessary, wages are falling, people are working more and more for less and less and conditions are worsening, people have less and less say over their workplace, American's economy is becoming more and more like a plutocracy.

But Unions need to change, the Unions of the 1950s are not good enough, they need to change focus, more on service workers, more indsutrial unions, more direct action, less cooperation with management and for focus on systemic change.

As far as the Union goon bosses, I suggest you look up labor history, the thugs in both America and other countries were usually hired by the bosses to stop unions from forming.

supply and demand should set the price for labor, not a union contract.

want higher pay? get more skills or education. skilled educated people are more in demand than unskilled and uneducated people. Supply and demand actually works when the govt keeps its nose out of it.

Unions ARE part of the supply and demand ...

Also labor is unique as a commodity so the rules of supply and demand are not good enough.

Want higher pay? Yeah, educate yourself, get better AND join a union and fight ... the latter has proven results.

 

[Utility Man]

....No such thing as mandatory 60 hour work-weeks. Everything they legitimately fought for is a thing of the past....

Are you suggesting that an employer can't force employees to work 60 hours a week ?

From what I recall there is probably a 1 day rest in 7 act/law in place to protect employees from having to work with absolutely no days off and there is sometimes an overtime law for hourly paid employees but usually there are no hour restrictions.

Which means it is perfectly legal for most employers to force employees to work 12 hour days, 12 days in a row.

 

[samsmart]

Big labor is a tool for capitalism. It convinces people to believe that they're no more valuable than workers, and that they should take pride in struggle.

It also dissociates labor from management such that the reunification of community becomes impossible. Instead, big labor perpetuates the division between the labor and product markets by discouraging workers from being creative thinkers that come up with good ideas. It prefers workers to just keep doing their thing and simply pressure for higher wages.

B-O-R-I-N-G

Actually, all those things aren't done by unions but rather by executives.

 

[samsmart]

In the beginning, there was labor and management.

Then, labor and management didn't get along, so labor organized with itself rather than with management.

As long as labor remains self-organized, management can't reassociate with it. In turn, the operation of firms becomes more commercial, less communal.

Think of it like lesbians. As long as lesbians are doing each other, they aren't doing any men.

You neglect to state why labor was no longer organized with management.

It's because management wasn't looking out for the best interests of their laborers.

When management does look out for the best interests of their laborers, laborers no longer need to rely on unions to do so for collective bargaining for them.

 

[samsmart]

supply and demand should set the price for labor, not a union contract.

want higher pay? get more skills or education. skilled educated people are more in demand than unskilled and uneducated people. Supply and demand actually works when the govt keeps its nose out of it.

The problem is shareholders tend to overpay their executives and expect unrealistic results.

A new CEO comes in, cuts jobs which gives them a temporary boost in stocks, they **** it up somehow, and then get a multimillion severance package when shareholders get tired of it.

In the meantime the blue collar employees who are actually competent at doing their jobs get fired.

Doesn't make sense at all for companies to be run that way.

 

[RGacky3]

The problem is shareholders tend to overpay their executives and expect unrealistic results.

Actually most shareholders don't care about the executive pay, since they are super liquid, or really have any say about it, giving the executives and the board almost total control.

Other than that I agree with all of your post.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

the ccpoa is a good research project for anyone who thinks that a union, merely since it's a union, should be exempt from the criticism generally directed at special interest groups

 

[Matt Foley]

Yes, but over a third of all government workers are unionized.

That's irrelevant. Government employees aren't exactly chosen by the "free market" to begin with.

 

[Velvet Elvis]

Are you suggesting that an employer can't force employees to work 60 hours a week ?

Seriously? You actually believe that an employer would force someone to work 60 hours in a week, and actually expect to keep that employee for long? Did you type that with a straight face?

From what I recall there is probably a 1 day rest in 7 act/law in place to protect employees from having to work with absolutely no days off and there is sometimes an overtime law for hourly paid employees but usually there are no hour restrictions.

Again, if you really think employers would do that, expecting their work force to stay with them....

Which means it is perfectly legal for most employers to force employees to work 12 hour days, 12 days in a row.

Don't start a business.

 

[Schutzengel]

Are you suggesting that an employer can't force employees to work 60 hours a week ?

From what I recall there is probably a 1 day rest in 7 act/law in place to protect employees from having to work with absolutely no days off and there is sometimes an overtime law for hourly paid employees but usually there are no hour restrictions.

Which means it is perfectly legal for most employers to force employees to work 12 hour days, 12 days in a row.

You do understand that the employment contract is a voluntary exchange right? The employer cannot hold a gun to the employees head and force him to work... If working conditions are not bearable, or compensation is inadequate the employee will seek other employment... that is the way the free market works, the employee sells his time and knowledge to the employer for compensation in money and in kind... no one is a captive in this process outside of his own choice.

 

[lpast]

In the beginning, there was labor and management.

Then, labor and management didn't get along, so labor organized with itself rather than with management.

As long as labor remains self-organized, management can't reassociate with it. In turn, the operation of firms becomes more commercial, less communal.



Think of it like lesbians. As long as lesbians are doing each other, they aren't doing any men.

Daktoria you have absolutely no clue as to how and why labor unions came to be...you need to go read up on them

 

[Utility Man]

Seriously? You actually believe that an employer would force someone to work 60 hours in a week, and actually expect to keep that employee for long? Did you type that with a straight face?

Again, if you really think employers would do that, expecting their work force to stay with them....

Don't start a business.

How could anyone possibly think that a 60 hour workweek doesn't exist and that employees wouldn't put up with those types of conditions. One of the best ways to retain employees is to hire ones that have a family and a mortgage(obligations), and employers know this. When push comes to shove employees will very often stay with a bad employer and work in deplorable condition so that they can feed their family and pay bills, also might be sort of difficult to interview for new jobs while working those longer hours. Mandatory overtime usually means mandatory and failure to comply would probably result in disciplinary action.

Below is a news story about an attempted prison break, seems as though there is talk about a mandatory 60 hour work week........

Monday July 23, 2012
Human error blamed for prison escape attempt
by Lawrence Messina
The Associated Press

CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- A botched head count during a recent unsuccessful escape attempt by three convicted murderers left their absence undetected for over an hour as they tried to break out of West Virginia's maximum security prison, state Corrections Commissioner Jim Rubenstein said Monday.....But the escape attempt hits Mount Olive as it struggles to keep enough guards on staff amid a statewide inmate crowding crisis. With dozens of vacancies plaguing Mount Olive on any given day, remaining staff face mandatory 60-hour work weeks.....West Virginia's starting salary for a full-time correctional officer is just $22,584....

Human error blamed for prison escape attempt* - State News - Charleston Daily Mail - West Virginia News and Sports -

Saturday July 7, 2012
49th-lowest salaries drive W.Va. prisons' turnover
by Vicki Smith
The Associated Press

PRUNTYTOWN, W.Va. (AP) - In southern West Virginia, they often go to the coal mines. In the northern counties, they go to the oil and gas industry. But everywhere, corrections officers are fleeing the state's regional jails and prisons for better-paying jobs.

With the 49th-lowest starting salary in the nation, it's no surprise.

"I have officers on food stamps," says Warden David Ballard, who on any given day has dozens of vacancies at the state's maximum-security prison, the Mount Olive Correctional Center.

West Virginia's starting salary for a full-time correctional officer is just $22,584 - ahead of only Mississippi, where they start about $500 lower - and less than $800 below the federal poverty level for a family of four.

The American Correctional Association says West Virginia also has the nation's worst inmate-to-guard ratio in prisons and ranks in the top 10 states for turnover. The Division of Corrections says nearly 17 percent of its employees quit last year.

At the same time, the state is dealing with a decades-long problem of inmate overcrowding, often leaving inexperienced and exhausted guards to manage an ever-growing and increasingly violent population.

At Mount Olive, the shortage is so severe that Ballard has imposed a mandatory 60-hour week. It's not ideal, he acknowledges, but officers generally prefer it to other schedules he's experimented with because they can get two consecutive days off....

49th-lowest salaries drive W.Va. prisons' turnover * - News - Charleston Daily Mail - West Virginia News and Sports -

Maybe the mandatory overtime will help the guards get off of the food stamp program!


Sara Robinson: Bring back the 40-hour workweek | Opinion, Commentary, Editorials, Op-Ed and Letters to the Editor - News for Dallas, Texas - The Dallas Morning News

 

[haymarket]

Big labor, liberal thought, and democratic control = Detroit.

need I say more?

Actually - if you want to be considered as seriously involved in anything approaching debate - you need to say a whole lot more.

Your statement says nothing of substance and falls woefully short of having any actual factual or intellectual content.