Skip to:

America’s Union Suppression Movement (And Its Apologists), Part One

Comments

The general nature of the decline points to something deeper than the antipathy of a small elite. The peak of the labor movement was exaggerated by the destruction visited upon other industrial nations during World War II. The decline seems to reflect a weakness in the model itself. The question for progressives is: what structures will adequately represent the needs of contemporary workers. The old model of dividing labor organizations based on trade seems unequal to the task. Much better, it seems to me, would be to have worker's organized as one group by company, with rights to advocate in the boardroom and to shareholders. Other arrangements could be made for smaller and non-publicly traded companies. But rallying around yesterday's program seems more nostalgia than realistic.

Regarding the comment of.... "Others have pointed to the long term economic damage done to the U.S. by this anti-union campaign." ....those "others" must have been pointing toward empty space, because it isn't any "anti-union campaign" that's brought "long term economic damage" to the U.S., but rather greedy, self-serving and short-sighted unions which have driven literally MILLIONS of jobs from this country's shore. If unionists want to reflect on who's responsible for the economic decline of this nation, they need only look in the mirror. Their "gimme, gimme" attitude - in which they constantly demand that "others" (REAL "others" this time!) subsidize their existence - has caused incalculable harm....and pointing fingers anywhere but back at themselves is simply a false effort at justification.

You neglect to point out the many ties of the union leadership to the 1% including the Democratic Party which is the "good cop" to the Republicans "bad cop" in representing the interests of the 1%. The workers in this country have never declared their political independence with a program of their own, as has happened in other countries, which represents the interests of the 99%. Until that happens the unions are in trouble.

You're counting Bill Gates as "actively financing part of the campaign against public sector unions"? Now I'm confused. Do you perceive Gates as generally anti-union, with small pockets of agreement with AFT? Or generally neutral on this issue, with enough areas of agreement with AFT that he wouldn't be labeled anti-union?

DISCLAIMER

This web site and the information contained herein are provided as a service to those who are interested in the work of the Albert Shanker Institute (ASI). ASI makes no warranties, either express or implied, concerning the information contained on or linked from shankerblog.org. The visitor uses the information provided herein at his/her own risk. ASI, its officers, board members, agents, and employees specifically disclaim any and all liability from damages which may result from the utilization of the information provided herein. The content in the Shanker Blog may not necessarily reflect the views or official policy positions of ASI or any related entity or organization.