Posted on 08/28/2003 5:20:13 PM PDT by .cnI redruM
Some holidays inspire us to celebrate our collective heritage. We watch fireworks on July Fourth. On Memorial Day we remember the sacrifices made by our troops.
Labor Day, like the movement it symbolizes, is much younger than those venerable holidays, and tends to be seen mostly as a final summer fling. But it's more than that. It highlights the value of work, a theme stressed frequently over the years by our labor unions.
Given the large role unions have played in our history, and the glaring disconnect today between labor leaders and the rank-and-file, this is also a good time to reflect on what the labor movement ought to be in the 21st century.
Last year, just 13 percent of wage and salary workers belonged to a union, according to the U.S. Department of Labor. That's well down from the 20 percent who were union members back in 1983. The sharp decline may be because today's unions are far less likely to reflect the views of their members than unions were 100, 50 or even 20 years ago.
For example, according to election night polling by Peter D. Hart Research Associates, one-third of union members voted for President Bush in the 2000 presidential election. That isn't reflected in union donations to political campaigns.
According to the Washington Post, in that same election, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees gave the Democratic National Committee $1.27 million in the weeks before Election Day. That's about $1 for each union member. It's safe to assume that at least a third of that — more than $400,000 — was spent opposing the Republican candidate that one-third of AFSCME union members went out to vote for.
That's just a single union in a single election. For years now, almost all union funding has gone to Democratic candidates. In the 2002 election cycle, 93 percent of labor donations — more than $89 million — went to Democrats. Only 7 percent — about $6.4 million — was given to Republicans.
In theory, union members are able to "opt out" of having their dues spent on politics. But in reality, doing so is difficult. The member has to leave the union, and send an objection letter stating that it should refund the amount of his dues it spends on political campaigns.
Plus leaving a union can be difficult, even dangerous. Union leaders have a vested interest in keeping membership high. They're not above using all sorts of "pressure" to encourage members to remain part of the "brotherhood." Intimidation is clearly keeping many Republican-leaning union members silent, even as their dues are spent on campaigns they disagree with.
It wasn't always this way. A century ago, when Labor Day was young and unions were just gaining strength, they really did speak for their members. Unions were less political and more activist. They helped close down sweatshops, end child labor, and guarantee workers a fair wage for a day's pay.
But today, with many people working at safe jobs, in comfortable offices, for reasonable pay, there's just not as much for unions to do. That's why they focus so much money and energy on supporting the Democratic party — because it's the only way for them to remain relevant.
Americans enjoy the right of free association. Anyone who wants to belong to a union, contribute to a union, or work for a union should always have the right to do so.
But we should also celebrate the right of Americans not to associate with groups they disagree with. And American workers shouldn't be compelled to contribute money toward causes they don't support. Extending to everyone the right to work, with or without membership in a union, would make this a happier Labor Day for all of us.
However, when unions are so heavily politicized that they pursue aims and agendas that have nothing to do with the welfare of workers and then charge the worker heavily for their 'representation', they become just another bunch of monopolists.
They monopolize labor, rather than a product, but the Jim Sweeney's of the US are nothing more than OPEC with a better pr firm. Why The UAW is getting into gay rights and nuclear arms debates when their workers and the companies they work for are being carpet whacked and hung out to dry by Japanese, Korean and German companies that offer a superior product at a better price, is beyond me.
Unions are dying because they sold out to the Dems, drank the Jonestown Coolaid and are going the way of most dysfunctional, leftist fads. Unions should do their job rather than gripe about right to work laws.
The truth is that nationwide, organized labor representation of the manufacturing workforce has drasticly declined to about 15%.
In comparison, over 40% of government workers are unionized.
(Union affiliation of employed wage and salary workers by occupation and industry)
For all intents and purposes, the marxist Democrat Party has abandoned representation of blue collar workers and focused on infiltration of our government and education institutions. From these bastions, they demonize our industrial private sector and castrate it with maliciously excessive environmental and health-care regulation and litigation.
Sadly, the neocon dominated Bush Administration has done nothing to fend off this assualt on our wealth-creating private sector. Instead, they have taken the laissez-faire approach: "don't make waves, don't rock the boat, don't use the presidential veto." Furthermore, they join in the demonization of our domestic industrial infrastructure as it suits their agenda to secure the profitability of transnational corporations shifting investment and employment opportunities overseas. And to compound the fraud that they perpetrate on the American People, they expand the social welfare entitlement tentacles of the federal Medicare system with prescription drugs for our senile citizens.
May the Lord curse the country club RINOs and cast their souls into the fires of eternity. They made a pact with the devil and have sold out our prosperity and national security.
However, when unions are so heavily politicized that they pursue aims and agendas that have nothing to do with the welfare of workers and then charge the worker heavily for their 'representation', they become just another bunch of monopolists.
I actually agree with this statement. For sure.
Come on, insert a some in front of your union/no-union adjectives will ya? You want to walk 12 miles with me tomorrow and carry my 20 feet of mail to the 650 addresses I will visit? I agree it is easier for deadbeats to take cover in a union alot longer than in a non union setting. That is because they take advantage of competent people that have taken an oath to defend all members. But the truth of "you reap what you sow" eventually gets them because once certain limits are reached slugs can no longer be defended as an impartial mediator will rule against stupidity if a case even gets that far. That being said I and all of my fellow co-workers are very proud of the team we make and the mission we accomplish daily.
And demand more money. If I am good at what I do shouldn't I demand more money?
I am not trying to start a debate with you on the merits of organized labor I would just like you to realize that blanket, stereo-type comments should remain a leftist tactic and not be adopted by good FReepers. TCN. ;-)
Not exactly correct. Twenty years ago (1984), well over half of all union members voted for Ronald Reagan. Yet Big Labor, as usual, overwhelmingly, kicked in bucks for Demos.
Health plans first came about during the building of the Grand Coulee Dam and were later expanded during the Wage Controls enacted by FDR during WWII.
L
Yup, I was one of 'em. Go "W"!
My union dollars at work, and I don't even live in CA. Makes me puke.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.