Sunday, July 24, 2005

A Mega Union: Really?

The AFL/CIO is meeting this week to discuss basically the future of the mega-union. However, there are huge fissures in the union movement today. Labor rank and file seems to understand the current political and economic landscape much better than Labor leadership does. They understand their economic realities and the oft confusing distinctions between the two parties, while leadership is in a perpetual catch up mode. The rank and file knows not every Democrat coming down the pike is necessarily pro-union, and not all Republicans are anti-worker. They understand that for unions to be successful (12% of the workforce now compared to 37% in 1960); they must reach out and support pro-labor candidates where ever they can find them. They know that Labor needs friends on both sides of aisle just like corporations, who have friends on both sides. You can’t fight with only one arm. Why should unions be expected to?

Case in point, I am the state chair of small union affiliated with UAW and AFL/CIO. I belong to the Central Labor Council. My wife is a retired Teamster. We both belong to the Retiree Local 89. I am also Republican. I ran against a conservative non-union Democrat with a poor Labor voting record, I received no support from Labor leadership, and yet just under half of my volunteers (approximately 15 people) were active or retired union members. Look at the Governor’s race. Here in Kentucky, all of the unions endorsed Democrat Ben Chandler, while the majority of union membership voted vote for Republican Ernie Fletcher. The same story is repeated every where throughout the country, especially in the Northeast.

Until unions have a political party of their own (as every other Western nation does), it must look pass the letter behind a person’s name. They must look at whether or not the candidate supports the basic tenets of the union movement. If the candidate is or has been in office, then examine that person’s voting record regardless of their party affiliation. Don’t assume anything. If it’s predominately pro-labor, then support that individual. If not, then find someone else who is. Unions aren’t an arm of the Democratic Party and shouldn’t be treated that way by either party. And never should the union vote should never be taken for granted. As for me, I believe in and trust the rank and file in making the right decisions over union "leadership" any day.

1 comment:

moderate man said...

The real reason in the loss of union membership is labor's failure to deliver on their promises. A good contract with good benefits. Look at any unions health care and find higher deductibles, higher co-pays, less Dr. choices, stricter elgibity for reimbursement. How about a multi year contract with decent wages? How about job security? Companies have been relocating jobs overseas to save money. One only needs to look at General Electric in Louisville to see how the company has been bleeding and union membership is laid off, usually after a contract settlement. In the 60' GE had about 40,000 workers. Now about 5,000. Unions are smart business for management and employees. They both make REAL money. But they have to work together.