Follow up article to Carolyn D's reply to Nona's "In Labor" article on the situation of American employees vs. the employer. Read those first.

By

Nona

When Unions Fail

I imagine that by now you guys have all read the column in which an esteemed guest, Carolyn D, laid a pretty eloquent smackdown on my piece about labor unions (which, if I do say so myself, gave us quite a bit of fodder for bickering and bitch-slappin’ on the message board as well as fuel for Ralphie’s rebuttal-rebuttal piece). I also imagine that you’re wondering what I have to say for myself at this point in the discussion.

Let me start by admitting that, quite frankly, I’m not entirely accustomed to debating somebody as smart as Carolyn. That’s not just glad-handing (although, as glad-handing goes, you have to admit that it’s pretty good); it’s a somewhat sad commentary on the limited intellect of my usual Internet haunts outside of DRS.  There is a vast wasteland of stupid people out there…but I digress.  That’s a whole other column.

As for this one…well, careful dissection is in order.  Let’s start here, after she quoted my assertion that the heyday of unions is past:

“That was quite a statement to make as New York City was being held hostage by the very unions that she is calling you all to join and bear arms (oops, “down with NRA”…arm yourselves with, uh, celery stalks?)”

Okay, I’m gonna start with the NRA thing first here, just as an aside. What makes you think I’m against the NRA? Did I say anything about the NRA in this column or any other? As a matter of fact, I’m dead against gun control. It’s a direct violation of an explicit Constitutional right and it doesn’t keep guns out of the hands of the dregs. I also have had occasions in my life when I enjoyed stalking and killing graceful woodland creatures. Just thought it quickly bore establishing that I do NOT support any party’s line just because I think low-skill laborers need union protection from greedy bosses.

As for the rest, well…It WOULD appear I’ve got nothing here, were it not for the fact that large-scale strikes on the part of public service unions only serve to delineate their fading efficacy.  A strong public service union wouldn’t have to resort to a strike as they would have successfully negotiated a workable contract. A strike is a last-ditch tactic for all concerned, especially the striking workers themselves. After all, they’re the ones who aren’t allowed to draw an income of any kind in the midst of a strike. A strike is a very stark indication of how cavalier the executive sector has become with regards to the needs of its labor force.

The New York transit workers struck over the issue of a pension – something a supply-sider should be firmly in favor of, given that a good pension takes a lot of stress off the overburdened public Social Security system.

Now this:

“Define irony: During the last transit strike, in 1980, white-collar workers were hurt in the back pocket as much as everyone else. These days, all of their work and shopping can be done on home computers. You know who the unions are hurting? The democrats. Huh, democrats hurting democrats, but that is another story all together.”

Again, what gave the impression that I was trying to assert that strikes are only effective when they’re hurting people whose political philosophies differ from my own? I’m not interested in seeing strikes or any other form of union activity hurt or otherwise fuck up anybody. And as I stated in the initial article, unions serve the interests of the multitudes at the bottom.  “Better them than the government” is my basic philosophy.  I’d rather suffer through a teacher’s strike than see an unemployed teacher burden public funds by collecting welfare or other “entitlement” monies that come out of my taxes.

Next talking point: A little bit of a digression, as Carolyn addresses my criticism of Reagan’s use of top-heavy economics.  I pointed out that trickle-down had already failed under Hoover during the Depression:

“I do not understand. How can you compare the post World War I era to Reagan coming into office in 1981? The circumstances were completely different. Fifty years prior, consumers stopped buying but the young industries did not stop producing. Reagan inherited high inflation and unemployment rates which were due in great part to the oil shock of the 1970's, not the Great War or the infant country coming to terms with industrialization.”

I can’t argue the point that the circumstances that led to the economic downturn of the seventies were very different from the pre-Depression economic climate. However, it bears pointing out that the end results were similar: the country was running in the red, we were perilously short of badly-needed commodities, and jobs and wages were for shit. In both cases, you had two different politicians trying to sell everyone on the idea that lowering taxes could stimulate growth and, as if by magic, increase revenues. Both were trying to do so at a time when lowering taxes would seem like the last thing a cash-strapped government would want to do. Only Reagan added his own twisted little fillip to this too-good-to-be-true line of reasoning: deregulation of the banks and the easement of restrictions on extending credit.  This only lent ‘80s America a false sense of buoyancy as it went on a charging frenzy, telling itself that the money was as good as in the bank.  But because this was still trickle-down economics, and trickle-down economics suck, eventually the whole thing, of course, deflated and a very nasty two-year economic downturn began by 1987, the highlight of which was a stock market crash in October of that year.

Now, like Ralphie, I have to admit that Carolyn is a lot more educated about economics than I am. But I lived through the fallout of voodoo economics, which is why I can definitively say that it didn’t work.

Carolyn also disagreed with me about what caused the loss of the auto unions’ lobbying clout:

“Politicians started to shy away from the unions because they had (under Jimmy Carter especially) created a monster, and they knew it.”

True enough, but that isn’t enough to explain unions’ sudden loss of lobbying power; monster or not, if they had enough capital, they’d still be purchasing influence to their hearts’ content. Politicians don’t just abandon any private concern out of conscience or fear of unchecked power. They abandon them when they cease to be adequately lucrative to balance out how much of a headache they are. The unions just don’t line the coffers as well as Big Business does.

Now, I have to say the next portion of Carolyn’s piece is the only portion where she really lost me.

“One man alone is greedy. Put a bunch of people together… you’ve got yourself a union.

Yaawwwnnn… you know what? I’m feeling rather unappreciated at work today. I am a slave to The Man, you see, who owns me right when I step foot in the door. Never mind that I have a nicer car than I need, never mind that I just had to have those new Paper jeans that cost $175 (they look fabulous with my new dolce halter… to die for). Never mind that I am in debt up to my eyeballs. Hmmm… it almost seems as if I could possibly be held accountable for my actions in this life.”

Okay, I do sort of get what was being said here…I think. And as an exclusive point I can’t disagree that there are a number of people out there who live beyond their means. But the vast majority of people who take unskilled labor jobs are simply attempting to support their families and maybe move up a little bit. They do a good job for the company they work for and work longer hours for less money than the generation that directly preceded them. Labor Department statistics bear this out. And even in the case of those who do live beyond their means, I still don’t really see what this has to do with protecting the interests of workers. Was the attempted implication that if people live beyond their means, that automatically means they don’t deserve health care coverage, a fair wage, and a livable work schedule?

“Unions had their place in time. You draw many important correlations to Teddy’s America (oh to be in that place). But we are not, and we cannot be held hostage by the seemingly omnipotent unions, their shyster lawyers, and the politicians that pander to them both. In the day… unions were created to protect the worker. Teacher unions. Perhaps I should start an Air Force union… forget this public service bullshit. Where is my fucking health care?”

The armed forces provide health care to all full-time personnel.  But you knew that. As far as greedy unions go, where are the checks and balances for the greedy bosses? 

Let’s ask Ken Lay…

Want to comment? Go to the Guest Book. Or better yet... Write a follow up article for this section yourself.

Send to: drs@deadrebelsociety.com