How Should a Democratic Candidate Stand for Labor?
My good friend Harold Meyerson has a wise column in today's Washington Post about the three top Democratic presidential contenders and their performances before the recent DNC meeting. Harold talks about Obama's, Edward's and Clinton's appearances, focusing on their discussions of politics, economics and of course, the war with Iraq. But, his take on support for organized labor is especially important. All of them have above average labor records; any of them would be light years better than what we have now and what we could have, but Edwards has gotten himself out there early as the candidate of labor. He's been on the picket and organizing lines; his own history is of the son of a mill worker, and he genuinely seems to get the economic divide in our country, between the haves and have nots. But, still. But still.....
The problem for Edwards, and his union supporters-- folks for whom I have enormous respect (and many from my former union), is that with the private sector of the organized workforce today hovering around 9%, you need to bring the unorganized-and uninitiated--workers into your sphere if you're going to win the Democratic primary, let alone the general election. The rhetoric, the narrative and then, of course, the promoted policies have to speak to the unorganized part of the workforce, the white collar part, the young people--most of whom, sadly, barely know what a union is--if the candidate is going to be able to help the already organized and those seeking labor union representation. The more that the numbers have slipped, the more distant the notion of trade unionism has become for many Americans. That's why it's so important for the Dem candidates whom labor supports to build a broad narrative--and a broad vision--encompassing the many layers of today's workforce, and especially the young who have been born into a changing, global, flexible and volatile world order.
As Harold writes, William Jennings Bryan, the father of American populism, never got to the White House. Today's candidates are running in a world where most voters won't know--or care--who William Jennings Bryan was. They will care about their health care (which is why Andy Stern's SEIU Initiative is so intriguing), about their pensions (or 401K's), their education, their autonomy, and their ability to mix work and family. Labor--and its candidates need to capture this new conversation to build support for workers' causes--and to regain momentum entering this election year and beyond.
I would have also put Dennis Kucinich "above the fold" because his grasp, and honesty, about labor politics is uniquely interesting.
Certainly John Edwards is cute, and his picketing is a nice touch, but I think Dennis has a bit more depth.
February 7, 2007 9:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am a former union member and am continually inspired by the labor and democratic socialist movements. But, picking up on Meyerson's challenge to John Edwards, how do you get a white collar worker making $45,000 per year to join a union?
Most of the labor discussion here and elsewhere gets focused on what national and international labor unions can do (or did) for progressive politics. That contribution is undeniable. It is also largely invisible to the average worker. Most people working at the local cable company in a cubicle are light years from caring anything about Walter Reuther and Eugene Debs. If they know anything about unions, it's probably the misperception that unions represent the worst employees in the office during disciplinary actions.
Andy Stern and SEIU are an inspiration. Perhaps Andy has the answer to my question, but is it possible (due to our huge middle class) that progressives simply need another forum activism other than the workplace in order to buttress our many 20th century achievements and to achieve the next rank of progressive goals?--i.e., universal health care, demilitarization, fair trade, a response to global warming.
Unions bring lots of people, concentrated human energy, militancy, and money to bear on social problems? Blogs do all that stuff. I bet tons of cable company guys in cubicles participate in blogs.
February 7, 2007 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Rainwater asks:
This is indeed a problem, but perhaps fact that it is a problem should not divert us from the possibilities entirely. Two things need some recognition, I think.
The answer to this is a long-term reeducation campaign, framing what the central issue is: power v. powerlessness. As long as white collar workers buy into the argument that their superior intelligence or skill protects them from arbitrary decisions by wielders of power and fail to recognize their essential powerlessness individually, Mr. Rainwater is right... it is going to be difficult to get persons who feel themselves safely "middle class" to organize and to politically protect their rights to do so.
As a way to begin that educational process, I think some might enjoy reading the accompanying Blog to White Collar Warrior. The Journal itself is also worth a read.
aMike
February 8, 2007 7:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
If they know anything about unions, it's probably the misperception that unions represent the worst employees in the office during disciplinary actions.
On some levels, I would disagree, but I was part of a public school and I saw how unions helped employees by neutralizing situations where, normally, the administrator-- if he wasn't second guessed, would simply assert his power without thinking too much.
However, if you're worrying about $45,000+ workers joining unions, I saw the union work against that goal! In particular, because the local health care industry provided a ton of jobs, parents wanted nurses to teach medical classes at their high schools but the union wouldn't let nurses be compenstated at "nursing wages" for teaching so the nurses stayed in nursing.
So, in reality, the wages and positions of inferior labor were being protected.
When people like myself see this, we surely think that Walter Reuther and Eugene Debs would be more open minded because protecting jobs, for the sake of "protecting jobs," doesn't help anybody in the long run.
In the long run, just like women were freed from "traditional expectations," I believe that our children, one day, will become free too and given the opportunity to make their "own educational choices."
For example, and based on my observations, I feel that unions do the "wrong thing" when they block student choices, such as wanting to go into another district's "athletic program," simply to protect their own jobs.
Especially with sports, I think privatization would be a good thing. In that case, school might last half a day: 1 hour each for reading, writing and arithmetic and the second half of the day would be based totally on student choice. The local bowling allies, art teachers, music teachers, hospitals, auto body shops etc... could all be local destinations for vocational connections and learning.
February 8, 2007 7:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely right, Mike. It is almost impossible to explain to unionists the perception the public has of unions. Why unions will not fight back against the campaign to eliminate them from the nation is a mystery to me.
February 8, 2007 8:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's Wes Clark on unions:
I think that unions can become the backbone of labor in America, growing in importance, responsible for providing developmental education, responsible for organizing healthcare, providing emergency assistance, serving as the transition focal point, helping point union members to new job opportunities and new skills. I think to do this opens up new possibilities of teamwork, collaboration with management without giving up the essential responsibilities that unions must have to speak up for the needs of workers, to speak up for fair wages, for full benefits, for all the other elements of workplace safety and performance that are essential to the workers that sometimes management doesn't recognize or a strong union voice to help with. Without giving up any of that, I think unions can do even more and help the economy even more as we move ahead.
Isn't it possible that we could have a union movement in which individual unions work together, share membership, help union members transition from one union to another, one location to another, one job to another, one profession to another, in which unions take pride in the number of their members who have graduated from the union movement and become part of management, in which unions serve as the, as the source for employment information, direct members to training, provide training opportunities and licensing, not only in their own skill-sets, but in skill-sets for jobs yet to be, encourage people to move beyond the boundaries of the skills for that particular union and move elsewhere geographically or skill-wise to keep up with the changing needs of the economy?
February 8, 2007 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
As long as white collar workers buy into the argument that their superior intelligence or skill protects them from arbitrary decisions by wielders of power and fail to recognize their essential powerlessness individually.
aMike, I think you are right. One of the curious, and perhaps instructive, lessons in organizing the white collar workforce is the public sector unions. AFSCME, AFGE and, for that matter, the teachers have been very successful organizing white collar workers. The white collar middle class will join unions if they see a value in them. At the federal level at least I think the relative popularity of unions is due to them being perceived as an advocate for pay raises and pay parity with the military, guardians of benefits and prerogatives, and a bulwark against arbitrary management decisions. That's bread and butter stuff.
Also, I also get the sense in the federal system that management isn't that much a plum. For senior civil servants the bump they get (if existent at all) isn't much once they become managers. But they instantly become deluged by huge amounts of crap work. I say this, because I have long thought that one of the reasons that white collar private sector unions don't catch on is due to the fact that everyone wants to be the boss. Being just a career mid-level worker may not be cool. In fact, our whole system of education and social striving may be anathema "just" being this. In reality, though, that's what most of us are going to be.
It would be interesting for someone to come up with a cool bit on what a family of four could do with $60,000 per year; Medicare for everyone; paid FMLA leave; and 4 weeks of vacation.
February 8, 2007 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, John, and I think that the reasons why weren't always primarily financial. My Aunt used to tell me about her early days as a teacher, and having friends of hers fired for marrying by Principals or Superintendents who believed married a woman's place was in the home.
Nor do I think it pure coincidence that for all the lip service we give to education in this country teaching is perhaps the lowest "white collar" profession in terms of public esteem. Witness the old saw "those that can, do; those that can't teach (expanded to "those who can't teach teach teachers). <insert sigh here>
aMike
February 8, 2007 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink