"There Is Complacency In A Union"

The NewPats ponder the AFL-CIO split.

I've been a union member. I'm all for unions. Collective bargaining is a perfectly fine thing. I support it - as an element in a competitive process, mind you.

Oh, I doubt I'd want to work in a union again; the union I was in and the unions I worked among when I worked in open shops seemed to be run by the type of people who want their work doled out in bite-sized, repetitive, predictable pieces. I'm not like that. But I'm saying this mainly to establish that I'm not "anti-union" in the least. Merely against them having a disproportionate voice in government.

Note that I said "government", not "a political party" - although in Saint Paul, they seem like the same thing sometimes.

NewPats:

I'm still not sure what to make of today's seen-it-coming-for-weeks AFL-CIO schism, though I'm sure happy the deed is done at last. A unified labor movement is important, but it's also nearly useless once the inevitable stagnation and inertia creep in, bringing the olde beer-gut-and-silk-tie "Big Labor" stereotype back into fashion. Let's face it, organizing is far more important than throwing money at the Democratic party, the latter which seems to have been John Sweeney's genius strategy for the past decade.

Big labor - and let's face it, most labor is "big" these days - does seem pretty well mired in the 1950's. My impression - and someone stop me if I'm wrong - is that the split seems to be among people who want to argue about who's more permanently stuck there...

Lots of news reports have been focusing on how this schism could redirect needless energy to internal battles, causing the labor movement to slip even further into the abyss. Not true: instead we'll see a new organizing strength and focus in key parts of the labor movement, and the resulting victories will start rocking the inertia out of the Sweeney types, eventually rebuilding unity from a stronger footing.

Maybe. Maybe not. More Americans own their own businesses these days. More Americans are not looking for the smothering hand of big institutions to level out their peaks and fill in their valleys. Quite the opposite; Americans feel less loyalty to institutions now than any time in recent memory. Unions are different exactly how?

So while I think the prediction is wrong, I'm hoping he's part right:

As for the effect this schism has on the Democratic Party: if anything, we left-wing Democrats should watch and learn. Our stodgy moderate party might be long overdue for an invigorating schism too.

Oh, please, please do.

Seriously, though; what unions need is not to become more radical. They need, rather to break out of the niche they've found; white, middle-class, single-skilled workers. Unions need to start organizing the mass of immigrants, people working in low-wage jobs (and I'm not talking high-profile grandstanding like trying to organize WalMart).

Of course, that's exactly what neither their rank and file or leadership want...

Posted by Mitch at July 27, 2005 08:08 AM | TrackBack