how much is enough?
I have to agree with Nathan regarding organizing and the Change to Win Coalition versus the IAM or the AFL-CIO. How much is enough-the question that the Machinist president asks--is a valid question, but in some sense, it's beside the point. SEIU and Unite-HERE, to name two unions, have strategies, it seems to me, on how to build critical mass in key industries and therefore increase bargaining power. These unions have even been willing to trade members in a particular industry so that their membership is more homogenous, and they can build strength within a certain industry or company.
Sectors--both domestic and global matter more today than overall numbers, in a certain sense, but numbers also do matter. The fact is that with organized labor's numbers having sunk below 10%, it makes it difficult not only to organize new workers, but also to advocate for new laws regarding union organizing, labor law, workers' rights, etc.--let alone elect a union-friendly politician. Today, it's a too rare occurance when someone even engages with a member of a union. There are whole regions of the country where labor members are nearly completely scarce. This makes it impossible for labor to build any kind of public support.
It is a crisis that needs to be addressed through organizing and through media. The AFl CIO could be a leader on this front, they could run a campaign to educate the public about what unions have done to help this country. If these two factions could get together and agree on the problems they could get together to help fix them.
Labor needs to be rebranded, and the AFL CIO should be the folks in charge of doing this.
July 13, 2005 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does anyone here remember the old campaign for the eight-hour day?
In old labor stories I read, it seems that old unions always were out demonstrating for the eight-hour day. Even at Haymarket, which, if memory serves, was a demonstration inspired by a pay-cut, even there, I believe folks were demonstrating for the eigh-hour day, that is, at least until the guns went off.
Why doesn't the current labor "movement," if it can be so called, not have an identifiable public cause like the eight-hour day that gives it common-cause with all employees?
As for which issue to take up, in my view one stands out above all the others: Why doesn't Labor go after the at-will employment rule?
This issue addresses "worker insecurity," which everyone here at TPM seems to think is on people's minds. What's more, reforming at-will employment would be the single fastest way to get workers protection from illegal discharges without reforming federal law and also without running into preemption.
Now granted, employers would go ape-shit. But that just shows that you would need to adopt the right strategy and the right proposal. For a proposal, I have in mind someting like the Model Employment Termination Act, with a few adjustments (I won't bore you with the details).
As I read the literature on this, including the Dunlop Commission's work, at-will looks vulnerable to a public campaign.
But even if you disagree, how about taking a page from history and finding a new eight-hour day campaign?
July 13, 2005 8:59 PM | Reply | Permalink