I don't know that I agree, Thistle - I agree that generally, unions are a good thing, and a necessary thing, but how good or bad a particular union is can affect the public perception of unions as a whole, and I think that is something worth discussing or being concerned about.
Clidna said:
I don't know that I agree, Thistle - I agree that generally, unions are a good thing, and a necessary thing, but how good or bad a particular union is can affect the public perception of unions as a whole, and I think that is something worth discussing or being concerned about.
That is true. But the Right isn't concerned with how good or bad particular unions are. They are trying to dismantle the ability of workers to organize at all in any way. If they could make unionizing illegal they would. Of course it's better if all unions are not corrupt or greedy, but that's a separate discussion. The issue I'm talking about and which much of this thread has been about is whether unions should exist at all. And for the health of our democracy, they absolutely must.
Thistle said:
It really doesn't matter in the larger discussion how good or bad a particular union is.
I definitely disagree with you there. When unions get beyond fair wages & treatment...and get into the obvious gluttony of the UAW that contributed to Detroit's downfall....there's a problem there.
This coming from a proud union man....and Vice President of his local.
Does that have anything to do with whether unions in general should exist?
Indirectly....yes. It's easier to sway those who may be on the fence about unions if you can show more benefits than liabilities. If someone is an on-the-fence conservative...they may be swayed from becoming a full-blown Union-Busting supporter.
Clidna said:
I don't know that I agree, Thistle - I agree that generally, unions are a good thing, and a necessary thing, but how good or bad a particular union is can affect the public perception of unions as a whole, and I think that is something worth discussing or being concerned about.
It's not clear how much this is a problem of public perception. The Republicans, fuelled by a fundamentalist and angry Tea Party movement, are doing things and taking some extreme positions that don't necessarily have wide public support. They have what seems to be narrow but fierce support, whereas many of the people who disagree with those positions disagree fairly mildly and hence don't provide an effective opposition.
I'm not sure that tipping a few people into the "Oh, hey, unions aren't that bad" camp is going to change much.
(I mean, ideally, yes, the discussion should go in two stages: (i) let's discuss why unions are worthwhile institutions to have in principle and (ii) let's discuss how to make unions work better for their members in practice. But when proposition (i) is rejected out of hand, proposition (ii) becomes moot.)
As a sidenote, the Republicans is unlikely to translate into big electoral gains for them. More likely, it's just making the US body politic particularly toxic, and spreading the harm and damage all around.
Thistle said:
It really doesn't matter in the larger discussion how good or bad a particular union is.
I definitely disagree with you there. When unions get beyond fair wages & treatment...and get into the obvious gluttony of the UAW that contributed to Detroit's downfall....there's a problem there.
This coming from a proud union man....and Vice President of his local.
Does that have anything to do with whether unions in general should exist?
I think it has a lot to do with whether or not some people who are not currently in unions my feel about unions existing. Many people tend to respond to anecdotes and emotional arguments more often than facts, as can be seen in the vaccine wars. When the anecdotal "evidence" involves unions not doing so great for their workers (or in general), it may sway people to believe that unions do not, in fact, serve a useful purpose.
To ignore many people's tendencies to be more easily swayed by the vividness of anecdotes over facts is to ignore our current political reality (unfortunate as it is). All Cash (and others) are saying when they mention these issues is that one real way to fight union-busting is to fight the bad PR by proving the bad PR-mongers wrong.
I am presently in a public employee union and just became a steward. I am not impressed with the unity or communications but I am willing to learn, wait and see. i do not think it is as simple as union or not. It is definately not fair to blame unions. Management has to agree to any contract. I do not believe that there is a concerted effort to "break" unions that is stronger now than it has always been. There is a natural friction between unions and management and right now management has done a better job of playing to the audience. Unions need to sell themselves better and to provide something that the workers need. So far they are not succeeding.
If union-busting bills introduced by nearly every Republican-controlled state legislature in the country doesn't constitute a concerted effort to break unions, I surely do not know what would.
To add onto my previous post, another way unions can fight union-busting is to make more people WANT to join their unions by avoiding the negative actions that have been described by many people in this thread.
Yesterday was a red letter day for labor journalism, as Politico inadvertently revealed a fundamental truth in one of the most embarrassing screw-ups in recent news. Covering President Obama’s visit to a unionized Masterlock plant in Milwaukee, Politico's Donovan Slack reported:
WH flies labor flag in Milwaukee
MILWAUKEE — It's very clear what side President Obama is on here in Wisconsin.
Behind the stage where he will speak today are two flags: an American one, as usual, and right alongside it — and [sic] a flag for the local union, Wisconsin 1848.
The problem was, there is no union called "Wisconsin." However, the state of Wisconsin was founded in 1848 and Wisconites proudly represent this fact on the state flag, which the reporter bizarrely mistook for a union flag of "Wisconsin Local 1848."
This is not a minor detail, especially given that Slack goes on to interpret the flag as demonstrating the president's support for embattled Wisconsin unions, some of whom have seen their collective bargaining rights gutted during the last year. The president didn't speak out in support of their struggle last year while thousands of people occupied the Wisconsin state capitol.
...there is a fundamental problem Politico's screw-up exposes: workers not being quoted in stories pertaining to issues that affect them. As a Pew Study recently showed, union members were only quoted in 2 percent of all stories about economic matters in 2009.
Clidna
Canada
January 2005
JUL 26, 2011 09:34 AM