dagblog - Comments for "Workers Unite!"

But all 5 to the Left of the

quinn esq — Sat, 20 Nov 2010 20:04:00 +0000

In reply to Also parliamentarian, and

But all 5 to the Left of the Dems.

Please see my new post. And

LisB — Sat, 20 Nov 2010 08:40:13 +0000

In reply to You continue to

Please see my new post. And please give me a new argument in the meantime.

It is not only I who misunderstands, Oleeb. It may be both of us. Ponder that, too.

You continue to

oleeb — Sat, 20 Nov 2010 08:15:29 +0000

In reply to Yeah, but as long as Obama is

You continue to misunderstand. I will support Obama in the sense that I will back him against our common enemies and particularly against their idiotic and untrue criticisms. The difference between us is that I don't gloss over his repeated betrayal of the workers you say you want to unite (including yourself). Obama is undoubtedly better than any Republican offering at this time. He is not, however, your friend or mine and his record of lies on all his major promises proves it. Refusing to admit the truth and blindly supporting a politician like Obama who has worked diligently to undermine the interests of the common people makes no sense. Obama is the opposite of what he said he would be when he was a candidate. Even now he weakens Democratic positions and his clear promise to let the tax cuts for the rich expire by capitulating in advance, he barely speaks up for his own START Treaty, he does nothing to assist the common people in the foreclosure crisis and instead continues to assist the bankers instead and refuses to crack down on them with the regulatory mechanisms in place and that's only the tip o the iceberg. There's a significant difference between supporting a politican when they deserve the support and blind, unquestioning loyalty in return for betrayal and lies.

Let's hope that's a joke.

LisB — Sat, 20 Nov 2010 05:03:47 +0000

In reply to So does globalization of the

Let's hope that's a joke. Sometimes I worry.

So does globalization of the

MrSmith1 — Sat, 20 Nov 2010 05:00:20 +0000

In reply to This thread appears to be

So does globalization of the Labor movement mean we're out-sourcing Unions? Genius! (joke)

Thank you for this, AD.

LisB — Fri, 19 Nov 2010 17:20:29 +0000

In reply to This thread appears to be

Thank you for this, AD. There's a lot for me to look into, thanks to your 'reading list'. I appreciate it! Hopefully I can work my way through it over the next few weeks and come back to blog about what I've learned. I look forward to having a more cogent piece to write by that point. Thanks again!

This thread appears to be

AmericanDreamer — Fri, 19 Nov 2010 15:48:03 +0000

In reply to Workers Unite!

This thread appears to be winding down so I'll do a longer comment than I otherwise would.

The current (Dec) issue of The American Prospect features five articles comprising a special report called "Labor's New Globalism" (scroll down at http://www.prospect.org/cs/current_issue ). Worth a look for those thinking about where labor is going or might go to build strength. The summary of the report's major points reads:

Global companies that resist union organizing in the US often recognize and work with unions in other countries. And union organizing drives in the US increasingly take the form of international pressure campaigns, focusing on human rights and global agreements. In this special report, we look at the new era of global labor...

For those who are new to learning about unions and labor, the human right of freedom of association, interpreted to include the right to organize unions free of suppression and harassment, is considered a human right in international documents to which many countries are signatories. For more on that, see Lance Compa, Unfair Advantage: Workers' Freedom of Association in the United States Under International Human Rights Standards, 2004. Compa wrote one of the TAP articles in the current issue.

In the US defeating union organizing drives is aided by a cottage industry of consultants who specialize in this field. Penalties for violating the laws are so weak that companies will sometimes knowingly violate them and consider this just a relatively low and entirely worthwhile cost of doing business, if they are even caught and penalized.

Contrary to a perception in some quarters that unions are hopelessly insular, narrow-minded and anti-intellectual, there has been much debate within the union movement about alternative strategies for enhancing its strength, and a number of strategies have been tried and argued about.

There is thinking from outside the union movement on alternative worker representation options for our day (see Emerging Labor Market Institutions for the 21st Century, Richard B. Freeman, Joni Hersch and Lawrence Mishel).

The idea of building an organization, not a union, of comparable size and strength as the AARP, but to represent broadly shared workers' interests, is one that some have been advocating and, I believe, pursuing. Some here at dag, obey I think among them, have made reference to this as an idea they are interested in.

Labor was usually anti-immigration at an earlier time but some of the successes in recent years have come from organizing recent immigrants (Nathan Newman used to write about this at the cafe sometimes) using more of a "social movement" model. Union membership has changed dramatically from the days when minorities were excluded from some craft and other unions. Women and minorities continue to grow as a percentage of union members (see Jo-Ann Mort, who used to write for the cafe, Not Your Father's Union Movement: Inside the AFL-CIO, now 12 years old but the trends it notes are not reversing).

There is significant feeling within union circles that unions need to be more aggressive and effective in reaching out to form coalitions with other issue and community-based organizations, regionally with a notion of building to the national/international levels as well. Amy Dean's book A New New Deal outlines that idea and some of the efforts that have been undertaken in that regard, including the one she leads in California.

Lots of fragmentation and fractiousness (sound familiar?), with some successes and a complete realization of what a difficult position unions are in now, calling for fresh thinking, new approaches and spunk in the face of the forces arrayed against them.

No Wasington is Blanch

tmccarthy0 — Fri, 19 Nov 2010 15:38:22 +0000

In reply to So Washington is Blanche

No Wasington is Blanch Devereaux of the Golden Girls!

I know I am sorry, I just couldn't help it MrSmith!

So Washington is Blanche

MrSmith1 — Fri, 19 Nov 2010 05:47:24 +0000

In reply to Obama is no better or no

So Washington is Blanche DuBois in "A Streetcar Named Desire" who, when Stanley Kowalski (The American People) tears down her paper lantern (Wall Street), and wants to see her in the harsh light of reality, cries out, "I don't want realism, I want magic!" and that makes President Obama ... Mitch? Okay bad analogy. Never mind.

I like the idea of new industries magically appearing. It's the economic version of me waiting to win the mega-millions lottery to solve all my financial problems. Scary to think I'm America in microcosm.

Obama is no better or no

cmaukonen — Fri, 19 Nov 2010 04:41:13 +0000

In reply to Bravo LisB! Bravo! And

Obama is no better or no worse than Clinton or even Bush the first. Truth is that there is an economic elephant in the living room and it's dead and stinks but still there is no one in Washington who is willing to point it out.

Our economy sucks because this country cannot or will not compete globally and still believes in a free market system that never really existed to begin with. So Washington genuflects to Wall Street in hopes some new industry will magically appear out of no where to save the day when we havent been able to keep the current ones afloat without heavy defense spending and trade manipulation.