Again, right on the money; the cold hard truth. U.S. economic policy has largely reflected "trickle-down economics" for some years; with a few crumbs thrown to the 'proles' every so often by the Republican-Lite faction; just enough to keep their flocks in line. The overall economic policy in which it's now embedded is neoliberalism; and its embrace began in earnest with Bill Clinton and the "Third Way" Democrats, which is what the Party establishment is now decidedly reflecting.
One of my favorite guys, Jim Hightower, had a more apt name for it, though: "tinkle-down" economics, reflecting just who was doing what to whom.
As with probably all matters, its introduction leads to lots of opposing opinions about the pros, cons, causes and effects. Why should the question of unions and organized labor be any different?
Because it's an interesting and important topic, I'll add my 2 bits' worth.
First off, let's just acknowledge: a union is, like any other human-created institution, subject to the failings and weaknesses of both its creators and subsequent leaders / managers. All such entitites are, like their creators and leaders, therefore at any moment, full of imperfections.
Take the good ol' USofA itself. Aside from the fact that the Constitution locked in a form of government that right off the bat departed significantly (in the institution of the Senate) from the noble ideal of representative democracy and 'one man, one vote', and a few other failures to actually ensure that ideal would be protected, all in all it's a pretty darn good document.
Yet I think many of us would agree that the nation is far (and increasingly farther) away from any ideals such as we learned in, what, 5th grade? Imperfect people, some lacking any strong moral compass and quite easily corrupted by still others of the same traits, see to that. The institutions themselves become seen as corrupt and in any case, fail to discharge even basic duties. The political process being so entirely corrupted and compromised, how could it not fail to lose the faith of its people?
You could look at many different types of institutions; from academia to a zoo, and you'd see, over time, how often noble intentions and values are compromised by politics twisted by imperfect people often motivated primarily by personal gain. Power and wealth- seeking drags institutions down and away from otherwise benign purpose.
Having said that, do we throw all into the scrap heap to start over, assuming that "we" are all perfect, incorruptible and wise?
Why would we expect that Unions are no exception to this, of course. The ideals and purposes of labor organizing are still valid and probably needed more than ever, given that corporations- projections of highly concentrated private capital - have assumed so much power and control over governments and the economy?
As unions were the only real counterbalance to concentrated private capital in the labor market, they have served a critical purpose. It's probable if not certain that without them, we'd still have child labor, an even more impoverished citizenry and even-more outrageous wealth, income and power gaps, no such thing as sick leave, paid holidays, overtime pay, or many other things now taken for granted. (How easily we forget).
"But", people argue, "that was then. Unions are no longer necessary. They're dead weight, and we know that labor bosses are just thugs out for themselves".
I'm reminded by this of a conversation I had with my dad. He was a lithograph artist with Syracuse China; and as one with a rarer / higher skill set, was probably paid a bit more than the average workers in the production and shipping areas; though when I much later saw how little he actually earned while providing for a family with 10 kids (another story!), I was shocked and suddenly understood why he also had to be a complete DIY guy... roofer, electrician, plumber, car mechanic, carpenter, appliance repair man; you name it. He literally had no choice!
Anyway, after his company's failed vote on the formation of a union, I asked him how he had voted and why. His answer was for him easy. He said that the company's owners treated employees fair and well...everyone felt like it was almost 'family'; and the owners deserved the employees' loyalty. Why rock the boat?
I recalled this conversation about 15 years later. My father, now very close to retirement age, had received a pink slip, along with a number of others in his age peer group. The original owners to whom he had given his loyalty had sold out to a yet bigger corporation; and they had in turn sold out to an investment company, which like so many others, stripped it and scuttled it.
One of the results, of course, was that the new investors swiftly eliminated any liabilities... like the pensions that were earned and promised to loyal workers like my father. His dismissal came perhaps a year or less before he was qualified for a full pension. The same was true for very many others so discharged.
Now my father was a man of great honor. For him, a deal was a deal; a promise something that would be upheld. It wouldn't matter the cost to him, he'd uphold his end of the bargain. And if someone- even a stranger- needed a hand, he'd be there to give it. He always went out of his way to make sure that things were easier / more perfect for the next person. That sort of thing. That was the kind of man he was. And so this, possibly his first experience of betrayal by a company, was soul-crushing. To be completely honest, I don't think he ever fully recovered, emotionally, from it.
And while I don't know if he ever thought about it, himself, after this, his words about his trust in the company and his loyalty to it as reasons for voting against unionization have echoed in my own mind many times since. .
So while unions may not be without limitations and flaws and may occasionally suffer self-serving leaders, etc., it's my view that they are overall very important in maintaining at least some protections for labor.
As an alternative to re-writing The Constitution, and for the sake of exploring possibilities...:
Pretend for a moment that OPERATION SMEDLEY BUTLER is a complete and total success. Ie:
That a military coup spearheaded by the Walter E Kurtz Brigade overthrows the government of the United States, placing the entire Legislative branch and the entire senior leadership of the Executive and Judicial branches of that government under arrest for, among other things beyond mere dereliction of duty: incompetence, corruption, collusion, duplicity, and complicity, among other “high crimes and misdemeanors,” including above all, breach of trust. The coup occurs very late one Friday nite, and is completely bloodless.
Early Saturday morning, a spokeswoman for The Coup, speaking from The White House, announces that: a temporary change in the government of this nation has indeed occurred; that the seizure of power by “The Walter E Kurtz Brigade” is total but temporary; and that the Mission ~ and thus first order of business ~ of the new government is, quite simply, to fix the old one. Permanently.
She explains that the Coup has complete and total control of all critical strategic and tactical space, air, sea, and land global, national, state, and local defense, security, surveillance, intelligence, communications, transportation, and law enforcement assets and agencies.
She explains further that all economic, social, financial, fiscal, and monetary policy and action agencies and offices of the Federal government [including all branches of The Federal Reserve] are also under Coup control.
Next, she says that she will be followed by the individual who will explain exactly What the new government is going to do [and un-do], and How and Why it is going to do [and un-do] it; and, that this person will detail all of the Executive Orders that You just finished signing. She then introduces You
Thank You, Roger, for another very well thought out, thoughtFull, and thought-provoking comment. Lots to chew on there.
For starters, i note that ~ despite Your very valid criticism of The Constitution ~ i note that You still call it “all in all a pretty darn good document."
i’m curious: How would You change the Constitution to bring it more in line with that “noble ideal of representative government”? And some of those other principles, ideas, and ideals that we “learned in 5th grade” of at least Some ~ but unfortunately, not enough ~ of The Founders?
How would You change it to make it the bottom-line base and foundation for laying the groundwork for a Government run by The Rule of Law, and NOT A Rule of Men? Ie; NOT as in what now exists: The Rule of Individuals, Organizations, Institutions, and particularly, elements of the population that constitute America’s Vested Special Interests, and their Political [and thus Economic] Ruling Class.
You noted that “Power and wealth-seeking drags institutions down and away from otherwise benign purposes.”
But isn’t that exactly How America’s systems of government, governance, and selection of governors work? Primarily because that is how they are designed to work; and, as You noted, that they were designed to work that way virtually from the very beginning, at the First Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787? Along with some very significant Additions and Deletions along the way.
This becomes fairly obvious when POWER is understood and defined as “the ability to force others to do what You want them to do, regardless of what They want to do.” And that WEALTH is “the ability to buy and sell that POWER for a Profit, economic and/or political.”
You then ask: “…do we throw all that into the scrap heap to start over, assuming that "we" are all perfect, incorruptible and wise?”
At this stage of The Game, Roger, that may be the only way that the Experiment called “America” will have any chance whatsoever of being continued for any appreciable length of time.
"Dirty Hands are a Sign of Clean Money" Wish I'd said that, but still a great metaphor..! Something for the decadence of our Society to ponder Today... Many years of failure of our government--
I think unions became victims of their own success. Having achieved at least a reasonable living standard for its membership, union actions were over relatively trivial issues (7% raises vs 6%) with union management acting mostly for their own interests. At the same time union management grew increasingly resistant to change, either to their composition or their methods (see "Kleptocracy"). Their actions drove even the strongest unionized corporations (e.g. General Motors i.e. "Generous Motors") into bankruptcy. Corporations responded by moving their operations to right-of-work states or overseas. Industry union membership plummeted. The Democratic Party, traditionally the party of the "working man", shifted its emphasis to government workers, teachers, professors, and others whose monopoly jobs are un-threatened by market forces. And so here we are. Happy labor day.
I'm not sure about the "victims of their own success", but they sure as heck don't fight for the workers anymore.
I've been trying to tell anyone who will listen that UPS workers did NOT just negotiate a great contract, that they did NOT vote to approve it- this would be like saying Americans voted to send billions of dollars to Ukraine. In both cases, people "elected*" by workers made decisions based on what the elected officials want, not what the workers want.
I don't blame people for dissing unions these days. It makes it difficult to make a pro-union argument when the large unions are so obviously corrupt. I'm happy to see a local craft brewery unionize into a brand new group. I think it's better to unionize outside of the major unions. Sure there's less people contributing money, but I'd rather have that than be in a large union whose bosses are in bed with the companies' owners.
It's not obvious why unions couldn't hold a contract approval by direct democracy (i.e. each member having a vote) rather than voting by representatives. It's not like the issue comes up that frequently.
Alex, BOEING in Seattle has ALWAYS been unionized. In both the professional and labor ranks. And been the dominant airline maker for years. With an unsurpassed reputation. And good profit. Until AIRBUS, a company with socialized (union) workforces, in socialized countries, with consortiums of public-private owned companies, took over the mantle of being Number One! And arguably not by building better airplanes. Boeing's innovative technology is still the gold standard.
AIRBUS bashers say - yeah, but they do not have to make a profit! Nor foot the cost of paying for their workers benefits. True or not eh?
Boeing's partial response was to move some manufacture, the revolutionary 787 Dreamliners designed and developed in unionized Seattle, to non-unionized South Carolina. Labor Unions have unsuccessfully tried to organize Billie Bob and dah boys on the nite-shift in the North Charleston South Carolina plant.
The State of South Carolina offered incentives package in excess of $900 million including property and sales tax breaks and state bonds. State lawmakers insisting that the economic advantages of the package would justify a sizable investment by the state! A whole nother debate!
It has been a phuckin disaster, excuse my French!
Diminished production rates of problem ridden airplanes. And killing Boeings reputation.
Boeing has still not submitted a plan to inspect and repair already constructed planes, indicating a further delay of months before the resumption of deliveries. The South Carolina plant continues to build planes at a reduced pace of less than two planes a month. (The unionized Renton plant in Wa State was delivering nearly 40 planes per month!)
The Union model is not the problem. It's the greedy and corrupt US Union bosses who are the problem. And the US governments years of Union busting legislation.
And as you say "Right to Work" in 28 mostly southern States.
It may be that splitting production between a unionized site and a non-unionized site is not a viable business model. The unions involved will attempt to hamstring operations at the non-union site. Complain to government bodies about worker standards being violated. If the government bodies work with one of the political parties they may well succeed. I'm not familiar with the details at Boeing. I am familiar with how government bureaucrats worked with "environmental" organizations to shut down plans to build the Keystone XL pipeline. To my mind it's just corruption. Curiously, people who complain about the Citizens United decision completely disregard the corruption resulting from union contributions to political parties. Everyone in power, so it seems, doesn't mind corruption as long as they're the ones who benefit from it.
A look at Labor and Unions by two sociologists who study the history of the US labor movement… :
Waves Of Strikes Rippling Across The US Seem Big, But The Total Number Of Americans Walking Off The Job Remains Historically Low by Judith Stepan-Norris and Jasmine Kerrissey / The Conversation 082423
More than 323,000 workers – including nurses, actors, screenwriters, hotel cleaners and restaurant servers – walked off their jobs during the first eight months of 2023. Hundreds of thousands of the employees of delivery giant UPS would have gone on strike, too, had they not reached a last-minute agreement. And nearly 150,000 autoworkers may go on a strike of historic proportions in mid-September if the United Autoworkers Union and General Motors, Ford and Stellantis – the company that includes Chrysler – don’t agree on a new contract soon.
THIS CRESCENDO OF LABOR ACTIONS FOLLOWS A RELATIVE LULL IN U.S. STRIKES AND A DECLINE IN UNION MEMBERSHIP THAT BEGAN IN THE 1970S. Today’s strikes may seem unprecedented, especially if you’re under 50. While this wave constitutes a significant change following decades of unions’ losing ground, it’s far from unprecedented.
We’re sociologists who study the history of U.S. labor movements. In our new book, “Union Booms and Busts,” we explore the reasons for swings in the share of working Americans in unions between 1900 and 2015.
We see the rising number of strikes today as a sign that the balance of power between workers and employers, which has been tilted toward employers for nearly a half-century, is beginning to shift.
Jeff, on the West Coast of the US where we did 90% of our marine construction, we had 3-competitors. We all were unionized. And paid the labor force the big bucks!
In our situation then - in bidding against our competitors, we were not disadvantaged.
In 30-years we never had a strike.
I remember a big job we were on in Valdez. Working the job on 3-shifts. 24/7. Trying to beat the winter dark days setting in.
When the Manager handed out the pay checks every Saturday at the lunch table, the laborers used to bet their paychecks with each other! After working many hours at double and triple time! Huge checks.
I was there at the table. Salaried. Also working long hours. My check was measly as it always was! "Hey Dennis, get in man - bet your check!" I did not. I think my wife would have been plenty pissed when I got home after two weeks flat broke!
There were two types of Pile bucks. Those that saved their money and retired back to Seattle after 3-years and bought a home cash. And those that boozed, drugged and womanized their money away, and went home to failed marriages. Oh dear!
That's interesting, Dennis. Back before joining the Army and going to Vietnam, i spent some delightful time one summer as a brand new member of a Pile Buck Crew installing bulkheads and docks on New Jersey Shore property.
Didn't much care for the Creosoted bulkheads and pilings, but the rest of the job was Great.
Also, You probably told me this before, but: Where all did You work in Alaska, and When were You there?
Our Seattle Marine Construction firm, MANSON CONSTRUCTION, bid jobs in Alaska.
All the materials: timber, steel and prestressed concrete piling, precast concrete slabs, creosoted lumber, Fabricated steel, marina floats, etc were then barged from Seattle to the jobsite up through the Inland passage.
I took 2-tug boat rides thru the Inland passage tandem towing a 10,000ton materials barge and our floating 250ton derrick crane. Wonderful experience.
As Estimator, Bidder and Engineer I went to these jobs to get them going. Usually for two weeks or so. Then the Project Manager took over the jobs to completion. I would occasionally go to the jobs if things went to shit. Labor crews of Seattleites and Alaska Natives. Attended many planning meetings in Juneau with the Alaska DOT.
And of course, in Alaska you could only work March - September. And if you were missing one bolt (!) you had to have it airfreighted from Seattle!
Alaska Ferry Terminal Docks. City Docks. Marina's with floats. Breakwaters. Navy jobs. Emergency tug dock after the 1989 Valdez oil spill. Installing 8-huge anchors in the Gulf of Alaska for a floating early radar installation. Glacier viewing platform and Museum at Portage Bay. To name a few.
The 1992 job at Adak was to install 3-underground 1.0 million-gallon jet fuel storage tanks for the military. You can spot these tank outlines on Google Maps. Upland of the Adak Petroleum dock which we also built.
First thing you ask at Adak...."When can I leave?"
It can be forcefully argued that the beginning of the end of Organized Labor’s significance and even relevance to America’s economy and thus its politics was its virtually total, complete, and unwavering support of America’s War in Vietnam.
Which ~ given how many jobs in Eisenhower’s then-recently proclaimed “military industrial complex” were comparatively and relatively very well-paying Union jobs ~ is not at all surprising.
The culmination and climax of Organized Labor’s love affair with the War in Vietnam was, of course, the so-called “Hard Had Riots” that occurred days after four young Americans were killed and thirteen wounded by American military personnel in a place called Kent, Ohio after Nixon’s “Secret Plan to End The War in Vietnam” turned out to be to start a new War in Cambodia. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_Hat_Riot for details.
That was when “America: Love It or Leave It!!!” became the new mantra for all those Super Patriots in hard hats; and even got them an invitation to the White House to be feted, honored, and celebrated by Mr “I am not a Crook” Nixon, himself.
And of course, there hasn’t been a War that America has been involved in since Vietnam that Organized Labor has not completely, totally, and whole heartedly endorsed. And ~ again, given how many jobs in what has become the “MICC” are Union jobs ~ that is no more surprising today than it was 53 years ago.
America’s Politicians are not the only “kleptocrats” running loose today. Organized Labor has a fair share of their own contributing to the fiscal, financial, intellectual, and moral bankruptcy that America is confronting and descending into.
Well, it's obvious if you realize union leadership is out to screw people.
Listen, I'm very very very pro-worker. Power to the people. All that. A million percent. But I live in the south and I'm realistic.
This is a great time to bring in the Lola Test. My friend Lola is working class in rural Georgia. I should be able to convince her on pro-labor arguments. For this reason I cannot convince her to vote Democrat. All the evidence points to collusion between BOTH major parties to screw workers
At the same time, I can't convince Lola that unions are good. Right now, every big union has sold out their rank and file. The union leadership is so corrupt. They don't have the workers' best interest in mind anymore. Examples? UAW just held a completely fraudulent election last year. The Teamsters let Yellow Trucking lay off 30,000 unionized workers in July. Then the Teamsters hired an anti-union pr company to gaslight their members (and the American public) into thinking a terrible UPS contract was a "huge win".
So it's one of those gray topics.
One promising thing is that the biggest labor gains in the US came when workers WERE unionized but started to do wildcat strikes. The unions didn't win us New Deal legislation. It was the workers, who banded together and defied union leadership. This scared the powerful into agreeing to New Deal legislation.
Besides that, half of Americans don't vote and in a weird way I find that positive. These non-voters don't believe either party's bullshit.
I'm a former Democrat, so I can say the following: I would rather try to convince a MAGA Republican to espouse pro-labor issues than a Democrat.
I just worked on Labor Day. Thanks for this piece. Talk about gaslighting, having a holiday that most workers either don't have or are forced to make up on the following Saturday.
Again, right on the money; the cold hard truth. U.S. economic policy has largely reflected "trickle-down economics" for some years; with a few crumbs thrown to the 'proles' every so often by the Republican-Lite faction; just enough to keep their flocks in line. The overall economic policy in which it's now embedded is neoliberalism; and its embrace began in earnest with Bill Clinton and the "Third Way" Democrats, which is what the Party establishment is now decidedly reflecting.
One of my favorite guys, Jim Hightower, had a more apt name for it, though: "tinkle-down" economics, reflecting just who was doing what to whom.
As with probably all matters, its introduction leads to lots of opposing opinions about the pros, cons, causes and effects. Why should the question of unions and organized labor be any different?
Because it's an interesting and important topic, I'll add my 2 bits' worth.
First off, let's just acknowledge: a union is, like any other human-created institution, subject to the failings and weaknesses of both its creators and subsequent leaders / managers. All such entitites are, like their creators and leaders, therefore at any moment, full of imperfections.
Take the good ol' USofA itself. Aside from the fact that the Constitution locked in a form of government that right off the bat departed significantly (in the institution of the Senate) from the noble ideal of representative democracy and 'one man, one vote', and a few other failures to actually ensure that ideal would be protected, all in all it's a pretty darn good document.
Yet I think many of us would agree that the nation is far (and increasingly farther) away from any ideals such as we learned in, what, 5th grade? Imperfect people, some lacking any strong moral compass and quite easily corrupted by still others of the same traits, see to that. The institutions themselves become seen as corrupt and in any case, fail to discharge even basic duties. The political process being so entirely corrupted and compromised, how could it not fail to lose the faith of its people?
You could look at many different types of institutions; from academia to a zoo, and you'd see, over time, how often noble intentions and values are compromised by politics twisted by imperfect people often motivated primarily by personal gain. Power and wealth- seeking drags institutions down and away from otherwise benign purpose.
Having said that, do we throw all into the scrap heap to start over, assuming that "we" are all perfect, incorruptible and wise?
Why would we expect that Unions are no exception to this, of course. The ideals and purposes of labor organizing are still valid and probably needed more than ever, given that corporations- projections of highly concentrated private capital - have assumed so much power and control over governments and the economy?
As unions were the only real counterbalance to concentrated private capital in the labor market, they have served a critical purpose. It's probable if not certain that without them, we'd still have child labor, an even more impoverished citizenry and even-more outrageous wealth, income and power gaps, no such thing as sick leave, paid holidays, overtime pay, or many other things now taken for granted. (How easily we forget).
"But", people argue, "that was then. Unions are no longer necessary. They're dead weight, and we know that labor bosses are just thugs out for themselves".
I'm reminded by this of a conversation I had with my dad. He was a lithograph artist with Syracuse China; and as one with a rarer / higher skill set, was probably paid a bit more than the average workers in the production and shipping areas; though when I much later saw how little he actually earned while providing for a family with 10 kids (another story!), I was shocked and suddenly understood why he also had to be a complete DIY guy... roofer, electrician, plumber, car mechanic, carpenter, appliance repair man; you name it. He literally had no choice!
Anyway, after his company's failed vote on the formation of a union, I asked him how he had voted and why. His answer was for him easy. He said that the company's owners treated employees fair and well...everyone felt like it was almost 'family'; and the owners deserved the employees' loyalty. Why rock the boat?
I recalled this conversation about 15 years later. My father, now very close to retirement age, had received a pink slip, along with a number of others in his age peer group. The original owners to whom he had given his loyalty had sold out to a yet bigger corporation; and they had in turn sold out to an investment company, which like so many others, stripped it and scuttled it.
One of the results, of course, was that the new investors swiftly eliminated any liabilities... like the pensions that were earned and promised to loyal workers like my father. His dismissal came perhaps a year or less before he was qualified for a full pension. The same was true for very many others so discharged.
Now my father was a man of great honor. For him, a deal was a deal; a promise something that would be upheld. It wouldn't matter the cost to him, he'd uphold his end of the bargain. And if someone- even a stranger- needed a hand, he'd be there to give it. He always went out of his way to make sure that things were easier / more perfect for the next person. That sort of thing. That was the kind of man he was. And so this, possibly his first experience of betrayal by a company, was soul-crushing. To be completely honest, I don't think he ever fully recovered, emotionally, from it.
And while I don't know if he ever thought about it, himself, after this, his words about his trust in the company and his loyalty to it as reasons for voting against unionization have echoed in my own mind many times since. .
So while unions may not be without limitations and flaws and may occasionally suffer self-serving leaders, etc., it's my view that they are overall very important in maintaining at least some protections for labor.
Great story, Roger, though I'm sad for what happened to your dad. Betrayal is bitter fruit.
Unions can be corrupt too, but that doesn't mean they should be disbanded/eliminated.
As an alternative to re-writing The Constitution, and for the sake of exploring possibilities...:
Pretend for a moment that OPERATION SMEDLEY BUTLER is a complete and total success. Ie:
That a military coup spearheaded by the Walter E Kurtz Brigade overthrows the government of the United States, placing the entire Legislative branch and the entire senior leadership of the Executive and Judicial branches of that government under arrest for, among other things beyond mere dereliction of duty: incompetence, corruption, collusion, duplicity, and complicity, among other “high crimes and misdemeanors,” including above all, breach of trust. The coup occurs very late one Friday nite, and is completely bloodless.
Early Saturday morning, a spokeswoman for The Coup, speaking from The White House, announces that: a temporary change in the government of this nation has indeed occurred; that the seizure of power by “The Walter E Kurtz Brigade” is total but temporary; and that the Mission ~ and thus first order of business ~ of the new government is, quite simply, to fix the old one. Permanently.
She explains that the Coup has complete and total control of all critical strategic and tactical space, air, sea, and land global, national, state, and local defense, security, surveillance, intelligence, communications, transportation, and law enforcement assets and agencies.
She explains further that all economic, social, financial, fiscal, and monetary policy and action agencies and offices of the Federal government [including all branches of The Federal Reserve] are also under Coup control.
Next, she says that she will be followed by the individual who will explain exactly What the new government is going to do [and un-do], and How and Why it is going to do [and un-do] it; and, that this person will detail all of the Executive Orders that You just finished signing. She then introduces You
What do You say?
You’ve got 60 minutes.
Thank You, Roger, for another very well thought out, thoughtFull, and thought-provoking comment. Lots to chew on there.
For starters, i note that ~ despite Your very valid criticism of The Constitution ~ i note that You still call it “all in all a pretty darn good document."
i’m curious: How would You change the Constitution to bring it more in line with that “noble ideal of representative government”? And some of those other principles, ideas, and ideals that we “learned in 5th grade” of at least Some ~ but unfortunately, not enough ~ of The Founders?
How would You change it to make it the bottom-line base and foundation for laying the groundwork for a Government run by The Rule of Law, and NOT A Rule of Men? Ie; NOT as in what now exists: The Rule of Individuals, Organizations, Institutions, and particularly, elements of the population that constitute America’s Vested Special Interests, and their Political [and thus Economic] Ruling Class.
You noted that “Power and wealth-seeking drags institutions down and away from otherwise benign purposes.”
But isn’t that exactly How America’s systems of government, governance, and selection of governors work? Primarily because that is how they are designed to work; and, as You noted, that they were designed to work that way virtually from the very beginning, at the First Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787? Along with some very significant Additions and Deletions along the way.
This becomes fairly obvious when POWER is understood and defined as “the ability to force others to do what You want them to do, regardless of what They want to do.” And that WEALTH is “the ability to buy and sell that POWER for a Profit, economic and/or political.”
You then ask: “…do we throw all that into the scrap heap to start over, assuming that "we" are all perfect, incorruptible and wise?”
At this stage of The Game, Roger, that may be the only way that the Experiment called “America” will have any chance whatsoever of being continued for any appreciable length of time.
"Dirty Hands are a Sign of Clean Money" Wish I'd said that, but still a great metaphor..! Something for the decadence of our Society to ponder Today... Many years of failure of our government--
Now we must learn, unlearn, and relearn...
I think unions became victims of their own success. Having achieved at least a reasonable living standard for its membership, union actions were over relatively trivial issues (7% raises vs 6%) with union management acting mostly for their own interests. At the same time union management grew increasingly resistant to change, either to their composition or their methods (see "Kleptocracy"). Their actions drove even the strongest unionized corporations (e.g. General Motors i.e. "Generous Motors") into bankruptcy. Corporations responded by moving their operations to right-of-work states or overseas. Industry union membership plummeted. The Democratic Party, traditionally the party of the "working man", shifted its emphasis to government workers, teachers, professors, and others whose monopoly jobs are un-threatened by market forces. And so here we are. Happy labor day.
I'm not sure about the "victims of their own success", but they sure as heck don't fight for the workers anymore.
I've been trying to tell anyone who will listen that UPS workers did NOT just negotiate a great contract, that they did NOT vote to approve it- this would be like saying Americans voted to send billions of dollars to Ukraine. In both cases, people "elected*" by workers made decisions based on what the elected officials want, not what the workers want.
I don't blame people for dissing unions these days. It makes it difficult to make a pro-union argument when the large unions are so obviously corrupt. I'm happy to see a local craft brewery unionize into a brand new group. I think it's better to unionize outside of the major unions. Sure there's less people contributing money, but I'd rather have that than be in a large union whose bosses are in bed with the companies' owners.
*Eyeroll
It's not obvious why unions couldn't hold a contract approval by direct democracy (i.e. each member having a vote) rather than voting by representatives. It's not like the issue comes up that frequently.
Alex, BOEING in Seattle has ALWAYS been unionized. In both the professional and labor ranks. And been the dominant airline maker for years. With an unsurpassed reputation. And good profit. Until AIRBUS, a company with socialized (union) workforces, in socialized countries, with consortiums of public-private owned companies, took over the mantle of being Number One! And arguably not by building better airplanes. Boeing's innovative technology is still the gold standard.
AIRBUS bashers say - yeah, but they do not have to make a profit! Nor foot the cost of paying for their workers benefits. True or not eh?
Boeing's partial response was to move some manufacture, the revolutionary 787 Dreamliners designed and developed in unionized Seattle, to non-unionized South Carolina. Labor Unions have unsuccessfully tried to organize Billie Bob and dah boys on the nite-shift in the North Charleston South Carolina plant.
The State of South Carolina offered incentives package in excess of $900 million including property and sales tax breaks and state bonds. State lawmakers insisting that the economic advantages of the package would justify a sizable investment by the state! A whole nother debate!
It has been a phuckin disaster, excuse my French!
Diminished production rates of problem ridden airplanes. And killing Boeings reputation.
Boeing has still not submitted a plan to inspect and repair already constructed planes, indicating a further delay of months before the resumption of deliveries. The South Carolina plant continues to build planes at a reduced pace of less than two planes a month. (The unionized Renton plant in Wa State was delivering nearly 40 planes per month!)
The Union model is not the problem. It's the greedy and corrupt US Union bosses who are the problem. And the US governments years of Union busting legislation.
And as you say "Right to Work" in 28 mostly southern States.
It may be that splitting production between a unionized site and a non-unionized site is not a viable business model. The unions involved will attempt to hamstring operations at the non-union site. Complain to government bodies about worker standards being violated. If the government bodies work with one of the political parties they may well succeed. I'm not familiar with the details at Boeing. I am familiar with how government bureaucrats worked with "environmental" organizations to shut down plans to build the Keystone XL pipeline. To my mind it's just corruption. Curiously, people who complain about the Citizens United decision completely disregard the corruption resulting from union contributions to political parties. Everyone in power, so it seems, doesn't mind corruption as long as they're the ones who benefit from it.
A look at Labor and Unions by two sociologists who study the history of the US labor movement… :
Waves Of Strikes Rippling Across The US Seem Big, But The Total Number Of Americans Walking Off The Job Remains Historically Low by Judith Stepan-Norris and Jasmine Kerrissey / The Conversation 082423
More than 323,000 workers – including nurses, actors, screenwriters, hotel cleaners and restaurant servers – walked off their jobs during the first eight months of 2023. Hundreds of thousands of the employees of delivery giant UPS would have gone on strike, too, had they not reached a last-minute agreement. And nearly 150,000 autoworkers may go on a strike of historic proportions in mid-September if the United Autoworkers Union and General Motors, Ford and Stellantis – the company that includes Chrysler – don’t agree on a new contract soon.
THIS CRESCENDO OF LABOR ACTIONS FOLLOWS A RELATIVE LULL IN U.S. STRIKES AND A DECLINE IN UNION MEMBERSHIP THAT BEGAN IN THE 1970S. Today’s strikes may seem unprecedented, especially if you’re under 50. While this wave constitutes a significant change following decades of unions’ losing ground, it’s far from unprecedented.
We’re sociologists who study the history of U.S. labor movements. In our new book, “Union Booms and Busts,” we explore the reasons for swings in the share of working Americans in unions between 1900 and 2015.
We see the rising number of strikes today as a sign that the balance of power between workers and employers, which has been tilted toward employers for nearly a half-century, is beginning to shift.
Continued at https://theconversation.com/waves-of-strikes-rippling-across-the-us-seem-big-but-the-total-number-of-americans-walking-off-the-job-remains-historically-low-210673 ; EMPHASIS added.
Jeff, on the West Coast of the US where we did 90% of our marine construction, we had 3-competitors. We all were unionized. And paid the labor force the big bucks!
In our situation then - in bidding against our competitors, we were not disadvantaged.
In 30-years we never had a strike.
I remember a big job we were on in Valdez. Working the job on 3-shifts. 24/7. Trying to beat the winter dark days setting in.
When the Manager handed out the pay checks every Saturday at the lunch table, the laborers used to bet their paychecks with each other! After working many hours at double and triple time! Huge checks.
I was there at the table. Salaried. Also working long hours. My check was measly as it always was! "Hey Dennis, get in man - bet your check!" I did not. I think my wife would have been plenty pissed when I got home after two weeks flat broke!
There were two types of Pile bucks. Those that saved their money and retired back to Seattle after 3-years and bought a home cash. And those that boozed, drugged and womanized their money away, and went home to failed marriages. Oh dear!
That's interesting, Dennis. Back before joining the Army and going to Vietnam, i spent some delightful time one summer as a brand new member of a Pile Buck Crew installing bulkheads and docks on New Jersey Shore property.
Didn't much care for the Creosoted bulkheads and pilings, but the rest of the job was Great.
Also, You probably told me this before, but: Where all did You work in Alaska, and When were You there?
I have told you before Jeff, but....
From South to North approximately...
Ketchikan, Wrangell, Sitka, Juneau, Skagway, Valdez, Whittier, Seward, Anchorage, Portage, and Adak.
1980 - 2004.
Thanks, Dennis. Were You in Alaska all-year round for that entire 24-year period, or for just some of the months of all or some of those years?
And, particularly, when were You at Adak, and what sort of Project were You managing?
Our Seattle Marine Construction firm, MANSON CONSTRUCTION, bid jobs in Alaska.
All the materials: timber, steel and prestressed concrete piling, precast concrete slabs, creosoted lumber, Fabricated steel, marina floats, etc were then barged from Seattle to the jobsite up through the Inland passage.
I took 2-tug boat rides thru the Inland passage tandem towing a 10,000ton materials barge and our floating 250ton derrick crane. Wonderful experience.
As Estimator, Bidder and Engineer I went to these jobs to get them going. Usually for two weeks or so. Then the Project Manager took over the jobs to completion. I would occasionally go to the jobs if things went to shit. Labor crews of Seattleites and Alaska Natives. Attended many planning meetings in Juneau with the Alaska DOT.
And of course, in Alaska you could only work March - September. And if you were missing one bolt (!) you had to have it airfreighted from Seattle!
Alaska Ferry Terminal Docks. City Docks. Marina's with floats. Breakwaters. Navy jobs. Emergency tug dock after the 1989 Valdez oil spill. Installing 8-huge anchors in the Gulf of Alaska for a floating early radar installation. Glacier viewing platform and Museum at Portage Bay. To name a few.
The 1992 job at Adak was to install 3-underground 1.0 million-gallon jet fuel storage tanks for the military. You can spot these tank outlines on Google Maps. Upland of the Adak Petroleum dock which we also built.
First thing you ask at Adak...."When can I leave?"
It can be forcefully argued that the beginning of the end of Organized Labor’s significance and even relevance to America’s economy and thus its politics was its virtually total, complete, and unwavering support of America’s War in Vietnam.
Which ~ given how many jobs in Eisenhower’s then-recently proclaimed “military industrial complex” were comparatively and relatively very well-paying Union jobs ~ is not at all surprising.
The culmination and climax of Organized Labor’s love affair with the War in Vietnam was, of course, the so-called “Hard Had Riots” that occurred days after four young Americans were killed and thirteen wounded by American military personnel in a place called Kent, Ohio after Nixon’s “Secret Plan to End The War in Vietnam” turned out to be to start a new War in Cambodia. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_Hat_Riot for details.
That was when “America: Love It or Leave It!!!” became the new mantra for all those Super Patriots in hard hats; and even got them an invitation to the White House to be feted, honored, and celebrated by Mr “I am not a Crook” Nixon, himself.
And of course, there hasn’t been a War that America has been involved in since Vietnam that Organized Labor has not completely, totally, and whole heartedly endorsed. And ~ again, given how many jobs in what has become the “MICC” are Union jobs ~ that is no more surprising today than it was 53 years ago.
America’s Politicians are not the only “kleptocrats” running loose today. Organized Labor has a fair share of their own contributing to the fiscal, financial, intellectual, and moral bankruptcy that America is confronting and descending into.
Well, it's obvious if you realize union leadership is out to screw people.
Listen, I'm very very very pro-worker. Power to the people. All that. A million percent. But I live in the south and I'm realistic.
This is a great time to bring in the Lola Test. My friend Lola is working class in rural Georgia. I should be able to convince her on pro-labor arguments. For this reason I cannot convince her to vote Democrat. All the evidence points to collusion between BOTH major parties to screw workers
At the same time, I can't convince Lola that unions are good. Right now, every big union has sold out their rank and file. The union leadership is so corrupt. They don't have the workers' best interest in mind anymore. Examples? UAW just held a completely fraudulent election last year. The Teamsters let Yellow Trucking lay off 30,000 unionized workers in July. Then the Teamsters hired an anti-union pr company to gaslight their members (and the American public) into thinking a terrible UPS contract was a "huge win".
So it's one of those gray topics.
One promising thing is that the biggest labor gains in the US came when workers WERE unionized but started to do wildcat strikes. The unions didn't win us New Deal legislation. It was the workers, who banded together and defied union leadership. This scared the powerful into agreeing to New Deal legislation.
Besides that, half of Americans don't vote and in a weird way I find that positive. These non-voters don't believe either party's bullshit.
I'm a former Democrat, so I can say the following: I would rather try to convince a MAGA Republican to espouse pro-labor issues than a Democrat.
I just worked on Labor Day. Thanks for this piece. Talk about gaslighting, having a holiday that most workers either don't have or are forced to make up on the following Saturday.
Great opening paragraph. Bravo