a) I'm on to something, and
b) I haven't dug quite as deeply into it as can be done
So:
Next up after they end Social Security (or at least attempt to - that is what they're doing, make no mistake), the GOP is going to go after labor unions. Now, they've been going after labor unions for a while, but this next phase will be different. How?
They are going to challenge the ability of labor unions to even exist.
The way this will happen will be as follows: for the next several years, the economy is going to continue to sputter along (there's a growing chance that everything will just go to shit - this might help this particular effort, but it also would introduce certain elements of uncertainty that I can't quite account for yet), and there will be growing dissatisfaction with the economic situation. Then, sometime in 2005 or 2006 (maybe '06, after the midterms), the GOP will come up with the solution, the thing that is holding the economy back - unions.
Of course, this is ludicrous, as nearly all high-wage industries with heavy union saturation have been more or less eviscerated in this country (e.g., steel, heavy manufacturing). The remaining sectors of the workforce that are largely or partially unionized - teachers and other public-sector workers, hotel, hospital and service workers - are, for the most part, still underpaid relative to their value to society and/or their industry.
Breaking the back of America's remaining unions would do nothing but increase the debt level of middle class families who are already having trouble making it.
But no matter! The presence of unions - any unions, anywhere, in this country - keeps business from squeezing every last cent of short-term profit from the balance sheets (long-term, unions are essential for an advanced capitalist economy), which as far as the Bush administration is concerned is pretty much pure evil.
So, jabber away.
7 comments:
I wonder how exactly they might do this, practically speaking. It's pretty ludicrous (for them to try -- not the prediction that they might try).
I would tend to disagree with the prediction though, depending perhaps on how the midterms (and/or '08 elections (if they can wait that long)) go. Since swing states like Michigan, Ohio, etc. are strong union states, would they dare try such a tactic?
Which leads into my next point: assuming their attempts fail (which they will), could this be good? Could it re-align the Democrats as the party of and for the unions? Could it galvanize unions and remind them to vote Democrat?
"I wonder how exactly they might do this, practically speaking. It's pretty ludicrous (for them to try -- not the prediction that they might try)."
They would do it by
a) demonizing unions as standing in the way of economic development, and
b) passing legislation that would repeal the landmark legislation of the '30s and '40s that set up and continues to allow union existence and protection
"I would tend to disagree with the prediction though, depending perhaps on how the midterms (and/or '08 elections (if they can wait that long)) go. Since swing states like Michigan, Ohio, etc. are strong union states, would they dare try such a tactic?"
They already lose Michigan - they already win Ohio, and the godawful economic situation didn't change that. They already lose by just about as much as is possible, the union areas of Ohio, and if they did this in '06, something else would take the place as a major issue by '08.
"Which leads into my next point: assuming their attempts fail (which they will), could this be good? Could it re-align the Democrats as the party of and for the unions? Could it galvanize unions and remind them to vote Democrat?"
a) Dude - they will NOT fail. If they want it to pass, it almost certainly will.
b) the Democratic Party will NOT be re-aligned in the next half-generation as the party of and for unions, as the GOP has already been so successful in demonizing unions (see Rod Paige's comments RE:NEA, and the surprising lack of outrage).
Unions already vote Democratic in ways that are hugely disproportionate to what their other demographics would suggest. We are not going to squeeze much more out of the union vote.
I'm not certain what to think about all this. I've been puzzling over it for a day now, and I'm still trying to grasp it. Some thoughts, without much structure.
1. I don't imagine they'll seek to change this through federal legislation. It's more powerful to have this fought at the state level where each union has to devote its resources to fighting the measure...Right to work popping up in transitional states (not sure if Missouri has it, or maybe Arkansas, Colorado, etc).
2. The down side of right to work is that it'll probably lose in Michigan and Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc. But it'll suck money into those states and away from targeted races. Frankly I'm not sure what the polling says...it may be that right to work is really popular and therefore they'd put it on the ballot in WA, MN and PA to get rid of Dayton, Cantwell and help Santorum. I just don't know how well it plays.
3. I'd expect there to be some FBI/CIA/IRS investigations of corruption within the labor movement soon. This gives the "reformist" patina to draconian measures. I think the GOP would need that to launch this attack.
4. Wonder if the DLC would defend the labor movement or see it as a vestigial gland that it can lop off to "appeal to the middle."
5. The attack on labor won't be with the intent to remove it. I think it'll be an end around--dedicated to diverting 527 dollars away from the general ground game and towards single issue races. Destroying labor means they cannot have it around to demonize. Which again suggests a slow process of installing right to work legislation which will bleed the coffers and the influence (legislatively) of the unions.
"1. I don't imagine they'll seek to change this through federal legislation. It's more powerful to have this fought at the state level where each union has to devote its resources to fighting the measure..."
Yes, they will, and no, it's not more powerful. It's easier and more powerful to sweep them all away, essentially, at once.
"3. I'd expect there to be some FBI/CIA/IRS investigations of corruption within the labor movement soon."
Not just labour. Pretty much everyone. And the thing is, with how huge a system it is - especially this past election - they'll find SOMEthing, and the press will play along, and Democrats will be EVIL and LAWBREAKERS.
"4. Wonder if the DLC would defend the labor movement or see it as a vestigial gland that it can lop off to "appeal to the middle.""
I would expect the DLC to abandon labour pretty much as soon as it's remotely politically viable - among other things, it allows them to attempt to consolidate power within what will remain of the party.
"5. The attack on labor won't be with the intent to remove it. I think it'll be an end around--dedicated to diverting 527 dollars away from the general ground game and towards single issue races. Destroying labor means they cannot have it around to demonize. Which again suggests a slow process of installing right to work legislation which will bleed the coffers and the influence (legislatively) of the unions."
You don't get it yet. These guys are playing for keeps, and they can just SMELL total domination of American politics for at least a generation - this will help that come about, and they've already demonized labour enough that it doesn't have enough friends to save it - it'll have to save itself (more on how this might be possible later).
I'm thinking more and more that 9/11 may have been a Black Tuesday for the Republicans - that is, a historical nodal point where they happen to be in a position to capitalize and implement all the policies they wanted to implement anyways. I'm pretty sure I remember Dan agreeing with me on this last point, but I may have been drinking, so can't remember what else he had to add. Dan?
I can safely say, from my experience as a union attorney and a pro-labor activist, that JKD most certainly is on to something. The only real flaw in the prediction is that the assault on unions is already happening, and has been in process for some time (predating the Bush administration, with merely a brief respite under Clinton). The right-wing propoganda machine has for years been churning out nonsense blaming unions for the nation's economic woes. Right now, the hospital industry is running ads on TV here in California, attacking health care unions for trying to enforce legally mandated nurse-patient staffing ratios (which, among other things, protect the health and safety of patients, as well as workers), claiming that this is the cause for skyrocketing healthcare costs. The ideological assault has been remarkably effective in persuading even many liberals and progressives that unions, while perhaps once necessary, are "dinosaurs" unsuited for our brave new world. I hear this nonsense all the time from people who are otherwise my allies.
Meanwhile, Bush and the GOP aren't waiting to stick the knife in. They began early in his first term. The Department of Labor has imposed burdensome (and costly to comply with) financial reporting requirements on unions, and is posting detailed information about their income and expenditures on-line. Perhaps not a bad idea in principle, for those of us who believe in union democracy and accountability. But where is the government site where I can get equivalent information on corporations? Oh, right, there is none. To oversee the legal operations of the DoL, Bush appointed Eugene Scalia, an anti-union lawyer and (you guessed it) son of the Chief in-Justice in Waiting. Surprise, surprise. Under Gene's watch, enforcement of OSHA and other federal labor law violations dropped, which the DoL emphasized "compliance assistance" (i.e. basically leaving employers free to unerpay, maim and kill their workers with no threat of serious penalty). He actually suggested that the DoL should stop bringing actions against repeat violators, because the recidivism obviously reflected a problem at the agency (rather than merely a flagrant but economically rational disregard for the law).
Meanwhile, the NLRB, packed with Bush appointees, is steadily chipping away at the rights of workers under the LMRA. There's no need to repeal the Act (which might actually provoke some resistance). All that's necessary is to gut the rights and protections that the Act grants, through absurd interpretations and non-enforcement. Then we can be just like other dictatorships that "guarantee" the right to form unions on paper, but prevent workers from forming independent and effective unions in practice. See, e.g., Wal-Mart (getting away with flagrant violations at home; agreeing to recognize sham state-controlled "unions" in China).
So, more or less everything JKD talks about is already underway, and proceeding full steam ahead. The only question is whether the labor movement and its allies can get their act together in time to stave off the final death blow. JKD's post is a welcome contribution to raising awareness among liberals and progressives of this pressing issue. Thanks!
P.S. To my previous comment. A great resource for information and action is American Rights at Work (http://araw.org/).
thanks for sharing, i like it
please... visit my blog
buatcara.web.id
Post a Comment