"Such an alliance has the potential to create a powerful political force. Unions have the experience, organization, money and political know how. Young people have the numbers and the passion."
Linda Killian explores the potential for a serious, ongoing youngsters-and-unions coalition.
She quotes AFL-CIO Political Director, Mike Podhorzer, who says: "The primary goal of unions is to create good paying jobs and that's something that young people can't find these days."
The primary goal of unions is to create good paying jobs? How is that?
I thought the primary goal of unions was to hold onto and to improve existing jobs, even if it means fewer jobs and shutting out people — like today's young people — who don't currently have jobs. I think a lot of young people like the idea of unions and will come out to rallies and elections in support of unions, and they're not analyzing their own personal interests very well. That's youthful idealism. But how far can you go with that when the interests diverge?
In Wisconsin, I've talked to many young people who are passionate about supporting union members whose jobs are far better than the jobs they have or expect to get any time soon. They seem to believe in the solidarity and to hope — without examining the causality — that the benefits will trickle down to them. Meade and I have challenged various young protesters about the cogency of their thinking, and they don't have a good answer. They want to believe they know who the bad guys are. As the chant goes: "Union busting/It's disgusting."
Having no job at all? That's disgusting too. But you have to figure out who to be disgusted with.
November 10, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
232 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 232 of 232"I've already noted that my generation is idiotic."
You're a millennial?
They aren't so bad. Of course, young people are always idiotic.
In my opinion the most annoying generation has to be the boomers.
Complainers, draft-dodging, divorce-loving, responsibility-avoiding, economically spoiled group of kids who were spoiled by a flush education system and a great economy.
And they ate their children's future.
Of course, I don't mean everyone. Only as a group.
AL: One other Detroit factor to consider. At the time that Detroit began building its crappiest cars the Japanese were introducing cars with incredible reliability that were sold at compelling price points. Americans who had become used to having to trade in cars every three or four years found that Japanese cars would purr on for a decade with little trouble.
The unions were certainly not wholly to blame since they only built the crappy cars, they didn't design and market them. They, the workers, were producing sloppier work and that can't go unremarked.
Conservatives leap to blame unions for decline of US automakers. But the fact is that many of those companies put out some pretty crappy cars and they pioneered "planned obsolescence."
If the cars are flat-out manufactured poorly...you can't really fault the engineers for that.
True, their designs ALSO sucked --- but it's not like the worksmanship was any better.
As long as this habit of demanding our neighbors be paid less continues, everyone suffers. From auto workers to public workers to truck drivers the most common refrain on wages is "they make too much." Well, what goes around comes around.
...how can one care about the poor while advocating making goods more expensive than needed? American cars lost tons of market share because they cost more than Japanese cars and were way less reliable. Paying the union guys more certainly didn't help either problem.
A $500 million program to use union pension funds
...So they are either robbing retirees or they have been overcharginf for pensions.
Anybody want to place bets on it being the latter rather than the former?
And since a corporation ISN'T a charity, why pay some guy $20/hr for a job that isn't terribly challenging to train somebody for when you can find folks happy to do it for less than half of that?
No it didn't, it retained the right of employees to have a union if they want one
The bill never outlawed the right to unionize. Every state has that.
It barred the state from being the collector of dues...which every state should also do.
Your question to students is simplistic. Perfect alignment of interests never happens in politics. You and Meade identify a single divergence. But unions are obviously not wholly opposed to new jobs. Construction workers are in favor of more construction; autoworkers are in favor of more autos; etc. More generally, both young people and unions could sensibly coalesce around a broad set of issues where they can make common cause: additional stimulus, revamping underwater mortgages to free up consumer spending; higher taxes on the upper middle class and the wealthy to fund these intiatives; better regulation of financial markets, etc. Not a very thoughtful post...
From auto workers to public workers to truck drivers the most common refrain on wages is "they make too much." Well, what goes around comes around.
Why would you lump truck drivers in with auto workers and public workers? What do they possibly have in common outside of your incorrect sentence? How often to people bitch about truck drivers making too much?
I challenge any pro-unionista to explain me how wealth is created in a free market economy.
More generally, both young people and unions could sensibly coalesce around a broad set of issues where they can make common cause: additional stimulus, revamping underwater mortgages to free up consumer spending; higher taxes on the upper middle class and the wealthy to fund these intiatives; better regulation of financial markets, etc.
...so, they can come together as long as nothing that directly deals with unions is focused upon.
Solid plan.
What does the union get out of this?
And should we note that everything that could bring them together will just cost me more money?
AL, so unions price jobs beyond their value and unemployment follows.
I don't agree.
I don't agree.
Of course reality bites.
I don't agree.
That the work is being done more and more at non-union shops at the same or better level of quality, I think I have more to back up my claim than you do.
That the work is being done more and more at non-union shops at the same or better level of quality, I think I have more to back up my claim than you do.
That's obviously a GOP/Rethuglican LIE!!!! We all know union workers work way harder and better quality then any other worker!
Why would you lump truck drivers in with auto workers and public workers?
Because I have heard people complain they get paid too much.
Are you saying there has not been a common refrain that
" gets paid too much."?
Then we have different experiences, I guess.
but the fact remains, that conservatives think lower wages are a solution and liberals think lower wages are a problem.
Wages have been stagnant for decades, though they moved up a bit while Clinton was in office.
Damn I can't do this. Bye!
From auto workers to public workers to truck drivers the most common refrain on wages is "they make too much.
In private industry, I have no problems with unions and no problems with someone making as much as they can, including the higher ups. Auto workers helped drive GM and Chrysler into bankruptcy by demandiog unrealistically high wages and benefits. We didn't bail out the auto companies as much as we bailed out the auto workers. If you can't run a business, or a union, in such a manner as to be able to stay in business, I don't support public moneys being used to bail you out.
Public workers are notoriously inefficient and unresponsive to customer (taxpayer) needs. DMVs are easy examples. I can barely get my postman to close my mailbox properly so my mail doesn't get wet and everybody that drives be can see it. I've complained at least a half dozen times in the past 2 years.
Plus, taxpayers bear the cost of public employees, yet have little recourse many times. The bargaining over pay and benefits is not between the union and those who much pay, but a small group of intermediaries, who personally have little to lose.
Most of us can't afford to move easily and quickly. And, many government agences take the position of "I'm here to rule over you, not serve you." Many of the people in government need a huge attitude adjustment.
"Yeah but you're poorer then the unionized members due to worse social services and you lack union safety protections."
Everyone at the unionized locations has better social services, and this is because they're in a union? Detroit must be a paradise.
Of course, we could just as easily say he's happier because the climate is nicer and the food is better, and that he can afford a larger home and more land because property values are lower. Those are equally irrelevant.
Because I have heard people complain they get paid too much.
When my dad, the college professor, was still alive and I was around liberal acadmeic types frequently, I'd commonly hear such compliants. It bothered them tht an uneducated neanderthal could make as much money as themselves, the educated, sophisticated elite.
"roesch/voltaire said...
A $500 million program to use union pension funds to create construction jobs was announced today as members of the A.F.L.-C.I.O. Executive Council gathered here for a midwinter meeting. Thought I would toss in one example to counter the narrative."
Dude, this is a straight copy and paste off a google search from a 1982 NYT story!
Now quick, what was the actual result of this awesome plan? How many jobs were created? Did they ever do anything? What actually were they proposing to do?
What a tool...
One thing no one has noted is that this Labor-Occupier partnership will be the suicide of the Labor movement in this country.
Last night in NY, the UAW and Teamsters were involved with the Occupiers in a riot outside Sotheby's in New York.
People didn't like that kind of hooliganism when it was just the spoiled university students. Does anybody really believe this will endear Labor to the hearts of America joining in this kind of behavior?
Dude, this is a straight copy and paste off a google search from a 1982 NYT story!
LMAO!
Damn I can't do this. Bye!
Stay away next time, and you won't get so frustrated.
Alpha,
Leave aside the recent WI controversy, (as Union decline has been going on for years). What do you think has caused the decline. If it were that great, why aren't unions having more success recruiting?
It's possible that wage decline correlates with declines in union membership. But it would be oversimplification in the extreme to suggest, as I think you do, that there is a direct cause and effect.
As for the exploited workers in third world countries, do you make any room for the possibility that they are better off for having those jobs? No question those aren't great situations, but it's still an improvement, isn't it?
I have a relative who retired from a Federal career shortly after he turned 50. With a nice pension.
Another is a public school teacher who, upon retirement, received almost a year's salary for unused sick days.
Another was given the option of early retirement at 48, which he took, and makes a nice pension.
I don't know of anyone in the private sector who gets benefits like this. Who retires at 50?? At 48?? Who gets paid at retirement for days they didn't call in sick??
Getting your unused vacation time when you leave your job isn't that unusual.
In the military it's called terminal leave.
Any job you leave you take all your vacation days before you're officially gone.
Right?
Most places don't let you accumulate a whole year's worth, though. But if you never took vacation, it's owed.
Most places don't let you accumulate a whole year's worth, though. But if you never took vacation, it's owed.
I lose my vacation days every year if I don't take them by my anniversary.
Mural at a high school in California.
It is a location for a photo shoot I'm directing.
This is the indoctrination that goes on daily at schools all across this country. Notice the twin towers and gasoline pump reflected in the gas mask eyes. The wall next to Obama (in lower corner) reads in bright colors "Change we can believe in."
Your tax dollars, hard at work.
Even some of the more liberal-minded people I'm working with noted the pointed politicization of the artwork.
Here's a great union story. You'll pay dues to the union whether you belong to the union or not. Shameful.
We need a word that rhymes with "busting" that means "awesome".
"I thought the primary goal of unions was to hold onto and to improve existing jobs, even if it means fewer jobs and shutting out people — like today's young people — who don't currently have jobs."
Yes, this. And what AllenS said. My own personal experience with stage work ended up being exactly that.
AllenS's story also reminds me of that experience: To work a major venue's concert as a non-union member, you earned less, but you still paid the full union dues. That struck me as ridiculous; you don't get any union benefits, but you still pay them the dues? I hope things have changed since the early 90's (the last time I did such work), but the point is that as a nonmember, you were still a second class citizen as far as the union went. Which would've been fine except for the fact that they charged you dues just like any other member.
"Union busting, for that I'm lusting!"
"In union busting,
we're a-trusting!"
@Meade:
We are an official internet meme!
Post a Comment