What's at stake for American Labor?

Discussion in 'Elections' started by Mel Brennan, Nov 1, 2004.

  1. Mel Brennan

    Mel Brennan PLANITARCHIS' BANE

    Paris Saint Germain
    United States
    Apr 8, 2002
    Baltimore
    Club:
    Paris Saint Germain FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    by Jason Pramas

    Labor unions have been the main expression of working class aspirations in the United States since the 1800s when the American Federation of Labor (AFL) made the fateful decision to construct unions almost purely as organizations of economic power for its members—consciously ceding political power to the capitalist-dominated major political parties, and refusing to form a working-class party or to pursue alternative libertarian political forms. In fact, American unions have often avoided acting in the interests of all working people in favor of literally focusing on gains for its members alone. And for much of American unions’ history, its members have been predominantly white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant males.

    As such, the mainstream of the American labor movement’s political strategy has been extremely limited compared to its counterparts around the world, and at some points has also been as racist, sexist and xenophobic as any right-wing nationalist party.

    American labor, however, is also a many-headed beast and at times left-populist, socialist, anarcho-syndicalist, and communist tendencies have organized significant movements that have shaken the U.S. political and economic establishments to their core, forced significant progressive change in government, extracted significant concessions from American corporations, and nearly taken control of labor’s highest institutions in the bargain.

    Yet these threats from the left have always been beaten back by the AFL and its successor organization the AFL-CIO (following a 1955 merger with the more militant Congress of Industrial Organizations). For the past 30 years since the unauthorized “wildcat” strikes and grassroots democratic labor upheavals of the late 1960s and early 1970s (plus concerted efforts by a briefly resurgent Marxist-Leninist movement culminating in the mid-1970s), and despite episodic movements for internal union democracy and a more left-wing political policies, the AFL-CIO has been run by a coterie of what would probably be called right-wing social democrats in Europe.

    In terms of the current American Presidential election this translates to “business as usual” for American labor. That is to say that current AFL-CIO leadership—an unelected corporatist leadership in the words of Harry Kelber, a noted New York City based advocate of union democracy—has to hold together a loose coalition of nearly 70 major unions all while ensuring a seat at the American political table after over 40 years of steady decrease in the percentage of unionized workers in the U.S. The easiest way for the AFL-CIO to maintain any kind of political power at all is to continue to tie their fortunes to the Democratic Party...


    Thoughts?
     
  2. MLSNHTOWN

    MLSNHTOWN Member+

    Oct 27, 1999
    Houston, TX
    As of now, I don't know of any implications in the upcoming elections regarding labor. As a result, I don't think American Labor has much of a bone to pick in this election. The AFL-CIO is suffering declining membership because they can't sell their product to consumers (union membership). Period. The moral of the story at the end of the day is that if the American worker felt underpaid, working in unsafe conditions, and was angry at management as a result, membership in the AFL-CIO and unionizing of operations would be rampant. However, the everday employee is just not that up in arms about their mistreatment. Throw in the constant outsourcing of legitimate manufacturing jobs and the heavy reliance on technology and you have a substantial decline in typicaly "labor" fields. Oh yeah, and the "leadership" that is spoken about in the article is substantially overpaid, no better than any "corporation".
     
  3. BenReilly

    BenReilly New Member

    Apr 8, 2002
    WTF??????????????
     
  4. Blitzz Boy

    Blitzz Boy Member

    Apr 4, 2002
    The West Side
    Kerry seems to have repudiated Clinton's free trade policies & is promising to bring back Smoot - Hawley.

    How does it help American workers to insulate incompetent, greedy corporate executives from competition?

    Even if Kerry does manage to increase manufacturing jobs, what's going to happen to these jobs once the factories close down due to increased environmental standards?

    How does Kerry's open borders policy benefit legal immigrants & the US citizens who have to compete with jobs with undocumented workers who have received amnesty?
     

Share This Page