Mon
Oct 3 2016
10:03 am
GOP Didn't Kill The Unions, It Was Suicide
By: reform4

I'm a bit tired of hearing out Republicans killed the unions. While Republicans may have handed them the sword, it was the unions themselves that committed hari-kari.

(advance note: I am speaking of unions nationally and particularly in the Rust Belt, this article is not intended to apply to many local chapters whose members are still strong supporters of the Democratic party)

Unions used to be strong supporters of the Democratic party. Then came Reagan, and the "Reagan Democrats" were born, entranced by the promises of a stronger economy, a message that resonated after the economic turmoil of the 1970s.

Did Republicans welcome their new supporters in a way to forge a permanent alliance that could have handed them a permanent path to the White House? Nahhh. Karl Rove, Lee Atwater, and the new GOP brain trust figured out they could 'play' them with the 'God and Guns' argument, while eviscerating the political power of the unions.

The GOP Congress of the 90's passed numerous laws severely limiting the political power of the unions, and union members... barely noticed. They continued to vote for those that weakened them, like a battered wife coming back home for more.

So here we are today- looking at the electoral map, Ohio is falling off the list of swing states, its political importance waning. In another 10 years, it will be unimportant, and Georgia will be the new Ohio, thanks to a continued influx of immigrants (while Georgia is losing minorities and immigrants). With the fall in political importance comes removal of federal largesse in the form of infrastructure spending, which will lead to a further decline in jobs.

I'd like to feel sorry for the union members in Ohio. I really would. But having seen them repeatedly support the very politicians who opened the gateways to foreign competition in manufacturing, and seeing their blind devotion to Trump as the next 'savior' that will stab them in the back, it's hard to muster up sympathy.

I'd love to see manufacturing return to the Rust Belt, and in some pockets, it has- in the form of advanced manufacturing, renewable energy manufacturing (solar panels, wind turbine components, etc). I know of one facility that used to make automotive crankshafts that now makes shafts for wind turbines. But who made that possible? President Obama, over the screams and hollering of the GOP Congress. But going to that facility, I see cartoons mocking the president in their lockers, the very person they owe their jobs to. It's dumbfounding.

Topics:
fischbobber's picture

Sort of......

Submitted by fischbobber on Mon, 2016/10/03 - 12:12pm.

The split goes back to Kennedy and Hoffa. When the Teamsters bailed on the Democratic party in the 60's it was the beginning of the end. Then Reagan turned our pension over to his cronies under the guise of saving it and we are where we are.

It's more complex than you imply, but we've been our own worst enemy, of that there's little doubt.

reform4's picture

Sure, a vast simplification.

Submitted by reform4 on Mon, 2016/10/03 - 2:41pm.
(in reply to fischbobber)

Lots more happened, but the amazing thing is the utter surrender of political power and self-minimization. All for a couple of AR-15s in the closet.

fischbobber's picture

Guns

Submitted by fischbobber on Mon, 2016/10/03 - 8:38pm.
(in reply to reform4)

The guns issue didn't really come into play until fairly recently. Even now, I think racism and sexism are much larger core issues than guns. You had a bunch of dumb white rednecks watch their power slip away and they needed someone to blame.

I live this life and deal with these folks every day. I am one of these folks. For about half of us (the democrats), guns and the reasonable regulation thereof, are a secondary issue. For that group, pension reform, education, workplace issues, etc., are at the top of our concerns.

The other half falls back on the rapture at a rate anyone keeping track would find disturbing. It's not so much the guns issue as there are a bunch of people that think the end is coming in the near future.I guess they think they're going to still be around after the apocalypse, but whatever their thinking, I don't think you've tuned in to their channel. They know they're lemmings charging into the sea, and they don't care. They are ruled by their hate.

bizgrrl's picture

This goes along with so many

Submitted by bizgrrl on Mon, 2016/10/03 - 5:46pm.

This goes along with so many people voting against their best interests. With George W. Bush people liked him cause he was a good ole boy, or appeared to be. Now, people like Trump because he wants them to have guns and makes them believe they will be rich like him, although without health insurance and workplace rights.

StrangeDays's picture

Unions were weakened across

Submitted by StrangeDays (not verified) on Mon, 2016/10/03 - 11:18pm.

Unions were weakened across the world due to restructuring of the global economy and the emergence of neoliberalism, with Democrats often leading the anti-union policy charge. Thus, its not hard to imagine that many workers would be intrigued by someone denouncing NAFTA and the TPP. But it takes a special kind of delusion to call Clinton (and the party of Wall Street) "pro-union."

"Although the Democrats were always a fickle partner, their coldness evolved into aggression under Bill Clinton, who oversaw a slew of anti-worker legislation, most notably NAFTA and welfare “reform.”

Obama has continued this rightwards trajectory, while portraying himself brilliantly as the “lesser evil” compared with the more honest anti-union rhetoric of the Republicans. He fulfilled none of his promises to labor in 2008, and essentially ignored all labor issues in his 2012 campaign. Labor leaders misinterpreted Obama as playing “hard to get,” when in fact the Democratic Party had already moved on."
(link...)

fischbobber's picture

The right track

Submitted by fischbobber on Mon, 2016/10/03 - 11:51pm.
(in reply to StrangeDays)

Your source offers a much clearer picture of what's actually happening. There is no unity of purpose among union leaders and as a result no "labor movement" per se anymore. Teachers don't align with Teamsters who don't align with auto workers who don't align with postal workers who don't align, well, you get the picture.

As a result, we have been getting picked off piece by piece, union by union, little by little by business entities funding both major parties with help from stooges bought with their blood money for the last fifty years. I don't believe for a second Clinton will help unions because she believes in the vital cause they serve, but I do believe she is smart enough to recognize the economic contribution we make to this nation is one of the last vestiges of the middle class and one of the few things holding the economy together. She weakens us at the risk of losing her place in history and most of her power base. She doesn't have a strong enough base of support to deal with the economic fallout of further weakening the unions. I do think she's smart enough to see that.

I want to believe unions will hold serve under Clinton, though I don't see her as committed to us. She's just better than the alternative.

StrangeDays's picture

Clinton recognizes unions can

Submitted by StrangeDays (not verified) on Tue, 2016/10/04 - 1:14am.
(in reply to fischbobber)

Clinton recognizes unions can help her win the election, that's about it. Once elected, she'll weaken unions directly and indirectly, but will blame it on the republicans so they will keep coming back. She's not worried about losing the unions because there is no other place for them to go. Any union slide towards Trump will be heavily criticized in a way that reinforces the appeal of democrats (that's what the original post is about). And that's how this two party system works: both sides functionally reinforce the other through a bipolar alliance that effectively blocks any alternatives. That's why elections are basically 50/50 splits and only come down to just a handful of counties. That's why "both" sides are voting for the lesser of two evils instead of something more positive.

Of course, Trump is shaking up this dual party accord, which helps explain his appeal but which also explains why so many republicans are willing to vote for Clinton despite the differences in the party platforms. This, in turn, exposes these party platforms for what they are: hollow promises of the two party system whose ultimate aim is to sustain the monopoly of the two party system rather than to realize anything on the "official" party platforms. Trump is bucking the system and the system is reacting, and its very interesting.

But unions would be better served by using their resources to create a third party or to support a progressive outsider. They missed their chance this election but until they make a decisive change, the original post is correct: continuously endorsing the democrat establishment is a form of suicide - actually, the horror is probably worse than that, its more like perpetual cannibalism.

fischbobber's picture

Right and wrong

Submitted by fischbobber on Tue, 2016/10/04 - 1:43am.
(in reply to StrangeDays)

I hope you're wrong, but I fear you're right.

reform4's picture

I think it's quite the opposite.

Submitted by reform4 on Tue, 2016/10/04 - 11:02am.
(in reply to StrangeDays)

Union rank and file aren't voting Democratic, so why in the world should Clinton waste any political capital on them?

And Republicans sure as hell aren't going to reward their votes, they will continue the policies that have decimated the Rust Belt.

That's kind of the point of the OP. By abandoning the Democrats that tried to protect them in the 80s and early 90s, they are left with no champions in the political arena. Hence the 'suicide' analogy.

StrangeDays's picture

Your view is distorted

Submitted by StrangeDays (not verified) on Wed, 2016/10/05 - 11:30pm.
(in reply to reform4)

Unions declined across the globe no matter which political party was in power. Thus, its a fallacy to think the democrats in the 80s and 90s could have saved labor if only unions had not turned away from them. More realistically, it was the emergence of transnational economic practices that undermined the labor (or Fordist) compromise, which, again, weakened union bargaining power across the globe.

Though this trend occurred independently from the desires of the political parties or from the practices of the various labor organizations, once it was established both the republicans and democrats have done nothing but intensify it. But republicans are honest in their disgust for labor. Democrats, however, claim they are pro-union even as they stamp their approval on decimating labor legislation. And to the extent that unions continue to support the democratic party, they are willfully participating in a sort of cannibalism, rather than suicide, in that they continue to feed the system that is eating them alive, either in the name of progressivism or "lesser of two evilism." Its depressing either way you cut.

PS.
Union members are more likely to vote for Democrats. And Hillary definitely wants their vote and she'll make promises to them just like Bill did...right before he signed NAFTA.

fischbobber's picture

What Bill signed

Submitted by fischbobber on Wed, 2016/10/05 - 11:52pm.
(in reply to StrangeDays)

Bill Clinton signed the implementation act for NAFTA in 1993.

George H.W. Bush signed the treaty as a lame duck in December, 1992.

Beyond that, I agree with your overall view of the situation at hand.

bizgrrl's picture

Or.... Technological

Submitted by bizgrrl on Tue, 2016/10/04 - 7:05am.

Or....

Technological innovation gave life to the American union. Then technological innovation killed the American union.
...
Just as Ford's innovation had disproportionately empowered unskilled workers, who are more likely to unionize, the information age had had disproportionately empowered skilled workers, who are more likely to not unionize.
...
Despite the political and cultural barriers to unions today, the tumult of technological change might be having the greatest effect on diminished organized labor.

Or...
The Rise and Fall of Labor Unions In The U.S.

bizgrrl's picture

I worked in a union shop one

Submitted by bizgrrl on Tue, 2016/10/04 - 7:12am.

I worked in a union shop one time, in about 1972-3. For a very short time, I made seat belts at Jim Robbins, over off of Middlebrook Pike. The main thing I remember about the union there was the union reps didn't want anyone who was not a union member to do certain jobs. Not being a union member I got kicked off a decent job to do a horrible, dangerous job. I also remember they didn't seem to make the factory safe. Twice in the approx. two months I was there I saw people get stuck in the machinery, once someones arm, the other time someones hair. Way scary.

StrangeDays's picture

A special kind of delusion

Submitted by StrangeDays (not verified) on Tue, 2016/10/04 - 8:13am.
(in reply to bizgrrl)

Factories are safer without Unions? OK, then.

Off to China we go.

fischbobber's picture

Specific jobs

Submitted by fischbobber on Tue, 2016/10/04 - 10:47am.
(in reply to bizgrrl)

What you are describing generally sounds like seniority and bidding rights. One of a union stewards primary functions is to make sure the groups contractual rights are being followed by the company. Oft times, when a seniority job opens up, it will be temporarily filled by a junior employee until the job can be bid. A junior employee is not entitled to a senior employee's seniority. Particularly in a right to work state, this can quickly become a wedge issue in a union shop, particularly between union and non-union employees.

bizgrrl's picture

You are correct. Since I was

Submitted by bizgrrl on Tue, 2016/10/04 - 11:07am.
(in reply to fischbobber)

You are correct. Since I was very young and had no experience with unions it was surprising and unpleasant when they moved me to the other job.

fischbobber's picture

Once again though,

Submitted by fischbobber on Tue, 2016/10/04 - 11:34am.
(in reply to bizgrrl)

The union was its own worst enemy. Rather than working with you and welcoming you, they turned the situation adversarial. Unions took way too many pages from management's playbook in the 40's 50's 60's and 70's. As a result, many folks were turned against unions after a snapshot, rather than being educated as to the big picture.

As to the election at hand, after many years, locally, unions are solidly Democrat at the top. We fought hard to gain those local leadership positions and I find base party members willing to abandon us now as extremely short sighted and probably uninformed as to the workings of locals. Across America, locals recognize the importance of this election, and while Hillary may not be our ideal candidate, she certainly has the broad-based support and people within the union working harder at getting her votes than most people I see outside the union. Perhaps its because the votes we're chasing are harder to get, or perhaps its because we're just used to working harder.

Most of us actively involved in the union movement recognize the position we're in. We don't have many choices and the fact that so many Democrats are willing to cast us aside merely illustrates that point.

reform4's picture

I see what you mean..

Submitted by reform4 on Tue, 2016/10/04 - 2:02pm.
(in reply to fischbobber)

.. overplaying their hand, which might have worked had they had the political cover they enjoyed.

It's odd that the unions in TN are more Democratic than union members I meet in the Rust Belt. I guess once you live in a right to work state, you don't realize how good you had it.

As far as Democrats casting the unions aside, I guess it's a chicken-egg argument, but I seem to recall it being a pretty strong relationship until Reagan came along. Maybe there were some cracks in the political relationship before then, I didn't really get out in the field to meet them until the late 80s.

GSD's picture

I've never understood the

Submitted by GSD on Tue, 2016/10/04 - 6:06pm.

I've never understood the "Anti-Union-by-Gawd" mentality that is so prevalent down here.

fischbobber's picture

It's simple really.

Submitted by fischbobber on Wed, 2016/10/05 - 11:58pm.
(in reply to GSD)

Everyone wants to believe they're great. If you work in conjunction with your fellow worker, well, then, you're no better than he, or (God Forbid) she is. How can you be better than someone you're equal to?

BFI

Brute Force and Ignorance.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

TN Progressive

TN Politics

Knox TN Today

Local TV News

News Sentinel

    State News

    Wire Reports

    Lost Medicaid Funding

    To date, the failure to expand Medicaid/TennCare has cost the State of Tennessee ? in lost federal funding. (Source)

    Search and Archives