And speaking of Unions, why is it that those who see them selves as Professionals - those with degrees of some sort  -  think they are some how below this ?

My opinion: because the prevailing view of upper-middle class, professional, or well-educated people in this country (it used to be 25% of adults had a BA degree or beyond--it might be 30 or so now, not sure) is that they can educate and network themselves to escape economic vulnerability.  It is very much an individual-level approach which rejects the potential utility of organizing and social mobilization.  It also, in my opinion, has as an accompanying part of the narrative that if you lose your job most likely it is your fault, rather than due to impersonal forces that could affect any of us.  

I know something about this mindset because it was the dominant one throughout my childhood.  I was raised in an upper-middle suburb in upstate New York.  My father was a dentist who did not come from money and who I never heard utter an anti-union word or say anything condescending or snobby about people based on their "station" in life.  I grew up in the '60 and '70s at a time when the world did not seem as zero-sum, where it still seemed a reasonable expectation on the part of parents that there would be good jobs, plenty of them, and that their kids had a good chance of "doing better than they did."  

My parents always emphasized formal education and, being pretty trusting that they had my best interests at heart, I went with that program.  I graduated from, yes, an "elite" law school and public policy school.  So I am your typical over-educated, formally at least, American.

This dominant mindset to protect or advance yourself through formal education has been embraced by politicians of both parties who have long emphasized education as the cure-all to an increasingly competitive global economy in which the old verities no longer hold and will not hold going forward.  This plays to deeply held American faith in the power of education which competes with other attitudes towards education, but is prevalent among upper middle class people who actually vote and follow politics.  

Well, who, seriously, could argue against making yourself a more educated person?  Not necessarily or only through lots of expensive formal education most people can't afford even if they wanted it, but through developing your skills and awareness in many of the ways that are open to many more people than are "elite" educational options.    

The downside to this narrative emphasizing education is that it is badly incomplete.  It ignores that larger and larger swaths of our workforce are vulnerable to losing their jobs for reasons that have nothing to do with an individual's skill or competence but are the result of larger, impersonal economic forces.  

You would think that as a society with any sense of solidarity, with a social fabric that is not in a completely pathetic condition, there would be public policies to mitigate against the harm that can come to people, and has come to many people, when they lose their jobs.  If you are a government-hater you might think that the "private" way of trying to address these issues--by rebooting the union movement or some institutional substitute(s) or complements to it that involve individuals organized and negotiating their work situation directly with their employer, without government getting involved, might have caught on by now.

But no.  (For an excellent recent analysis of how thought in many realms since around 1980 is characterized by increasingly fragmented outlooks or ways of perceiving the world, see Daniel Rodgers' The Age of Fracture.  It's not a real easy read but I thought it was really perceptive and provocative.)

When the upper middle classes get over themselves and realize that either a) they can't insulate themselves from the prospect of impersonally-dictated unemployment and gutted living standards to the degree they thought they could, or b) (requiring a more social, enlightened outlook) a society in which the middle-class over time has become devastated is not one they see as conducive to the kind of life they'd like to live, and re-learn, or learn for the first time, about collective action and what various forms of moral social solidarity can accomplish for then, too, the situation will change. 

Oh it will, you can count on that.  The current trends can continue only with the consent of a passive, depoliticized upper middle class in this country.  The politicians still have to get relatively ordinary people to vote for them and that is the dominant audience they are trying to reach.  As long as there is enough of a piece of the pie available for them, I doubt much will change.  But put that into question and all bets are off.  There will be a response.  We can only hope it will be a constructive one that addresses the real issues instead of the usual approach of scapegoating the vulnerable outgroups.

I just don't know if we can wait that long--if the damage will have become so severe or irreversible by the time that happens that the benefits will be limited.  

The subject of class snobbery in general is one I'd be interested to read peoples' thoughts and experiences on. 

I think the risks have frankly changed.  In New York City everyone who is arrested gets put through the system.  Guilty or innocent or charges dropped, they have your mug shot and fingerprints forever.  There's no accountability with the police.  Public behavior is more tightly controlled than it was 30 years ago and public surveillance more ubiquitous.  Oh, and anything you do, especially in the city, turns into some sort of terrorism related charge.  Pretty much anything you can light on fire is now considered a WMD.  The police state has literally taken the streets and the Democrats are as guilty as anyone.

I have a suggestion:  How about people stop thinking of unions as safe havens for burly, tattooed stevedores and factory rats--lazy stevedores and factory rats--and begin to think of them as what they are.  They're organizations to protect workers, for sure, but they're also social and networking groups, much as any professional organization designed to fulfill the needs of, well, professionals.

Doctors and lawyers and interior designers and those involved in businesses, both big and small, have their organizations.  Labor just happens to call theirs "unions".  That they've been able to bring wages and benefits up for millions of workers who might otherwise never have had an opportunity to rise up to what we call the "middle class" says something about their effectiveness.

I don't know much about professional organizations but I imagine that any dues-paying member expects to gain something from belonging.  What if half the country decided that all professional organizations should be banned because they might have an influence on the working conditions and wages of the members?

There is a class prejudice involved with the attacks on unions, and it's at the point now where even people who once supported the right of unions to collectively bargain are jumping on the "too costly and they don't deserve it" bandwagon.

We can't all be college-educated professionals.  There are people who simply want to put in a day's work and want to get paid what they think they're worth.  It's a universal quest.  Very few people think they're paid enough.  But American workers are so beaten down now, there actually are some who think it's their patriotic duty to take less pay in order to keep their companies going--when, in fact, a simple look around would tell them all they're doing is making their bosses gloriously richer.

I hope what's happening in Wisconsin and Ohio becomes the catalyst for a sweeping change of heart.  What has happened to unions in this country is sad and disgusting.  There will never again be the kind of manufacturing base that once kept unions strong, but every person should be able to feel their worth, and that's what unions historically have done best.

The most salient detail that emerges from the wiki article on "free speech zones" (free? zone?) is how well they work for their stated purpose (isolating demonstrators from media).

All of the retrospective tsk-tsk from courts before whom the various arguments were made is so "two thousand and late" (as the peas would have it...)

The key transactions are already deep in the memory hole when the court reproach is received by the (smug) civil authorities who have perpetrated the evisceration of the First Amendment.

Subsequent fines/damage awards?  Just the cost of doing business...

I grew up anti-union. We were farmers, so screw these collectivists, with their enormous wages and astonishing benefits.

Then I went out in the world. Complete reversal. Yes yes, unions can suck. But not having unions will lead to the crushing of us all.

Wisconsin is a big deal. The guy has misstepped. But he has to be stopped, now, or they'll break the unions and run absolutely roughshod, nation-wide.  

So yes, it does strike me as a "Which side are you on?" moment. 

In my youth, I was in two unions and two guilds, although they were all show business related. To me, as a struggling young actor, getting into AFTRA and Equity meant the promise of better pay and better working conditions and had a certain amount of status.  My six months in the Directors Guild some 35 years ago means I actually have a miniscule pension, for which I still get notices every year. (Five more years to eligibility! LOL)   The Dramatists Guild gave me something to tell people when I submitted a play. I wasn't just some shlub, I was a member of (harp sound) the Dramatists Guild. 

I know unions can have their bad sides, over-reaching, thuggery, etc., and it's fashionable now to blame them for everything that's wrong with our economy, but when you get right down to it, when you look at what they are meant to be, rather than what they sometimes get distorted into, isn't it better to have them than to not have them? 

In a world where the powers that run the industry in which you want to work, do everything to make as much money for themselves as possible, often with little regard for their employee's health and safety, isn't having a union a good thing?  I believe it is.

Besides, I like all those great old Labor songs.  Woody Guthrie, The Weavers, Odetta, Joan Baez ... Now tell me, how many great songs came out of management?  (crickets)

The fuse has been lit in Madison.  Who knows how big it's gonna blow?  One side wants all unions gone.  Dead.  Eliminated. Dominance over every aspect of the business of business is the goal, including the human working parts. The other side knows their only power in not becoming neoslaves lies in their number.  One match stick can be easily broken.  But skinny sticks tied together in a bundle makes for strength.  Wages and benefits are side issues, really, to what ultimately can be lost if this first serious volley at union busting succeeds.

Madison might be the beginning of something very, very big in a class warish sort of way.  Something so big one might not have the option of being Switzerland.  Of course, there's always conscription.

BTW, I'm on the union side. GM-UAW  If anyone would like a personal union story, let me know.  I'll tell you the one about the men hired to hurl bricks at my grandma (and other women like her) during the Flint Sit-down Strike of 1936-37 when she brought food and water to the strikers.