In honor of Labor Day I thought this might be an interesting subject to begin. It was inspired by Danoot's reference to the Lawrence textile strike of 1912.  That strike started as a spontaneous protest over wage cuts, and was later organized by the Wobblies (Industrial Workers of the World).  Bill Haywood gave a great speech saying "We advocate violence of the worst sort, violence consisting of keeping our hands in our pockets and our feet on the picket line.  Let them weave cloth with bayonets".  The song "Bread and Roses", posted by Cat, came from that strike, although I prefer the Utah Phillips version to the one she posted.

The first Monday in Sept. was designated a U.S. federal holiday in 1894 at the instigation of G. Cleavland following the Pullman strike of that same year.  In part it was intended to placate the labor movement following Cleavland's support for George Pullman (he used federal troops to brake the strike - some workers were killed).  It was also designed as a counterweight to May Day a workers' holiday, which had both socialist and internationalist overtones (god forbid).

Unfortunately, today Labor Day means picnics & end of summer bashes. I am afraid that the corporate world is winning. Many have forgotten about the struggle for 8 hour days/40 hours a week, minimum wage, incidences like the Triangle Shirtwaist fire, etc. etc. I blame it on the schools. They focus more on the history of wars rather than the history of labor. It seems like that last century of propaganda has paid off because labor unions are STILL considered "socialist" (which we all know is such a BAD thing  ::) ). It really sucks that many people work either a full-time job or even more than one job and can't make ends meet. And it really pisses me off when the fat cats call these people lazy or that it is their own fault for being poor. They people are by no means lazy. I really wish that we had a thing in this country called a "Livable Wage." Of course the health care debate plays into that.


I'm afraid that people think that the labor fight is over but it really isn't.



Cat 

Unfortunately today union members are just, if not more, ignorant of labor history than anyone else.  I would venture to say that none of the people in the hall tomorrow, if questioned, wouldn't know anything about Bread and Roses, Triangle Shirt Waist Fire, Homestead Pennsylvania, Shays Rebellion, I could go on and on.  They think the conditions written into our contracts pertain to everyone else but them, and don't care about the implications of breaking conditions if it suits them.  It is disheartening and a huge factor in Sigs decision to retire.  Labor education is what is needed, but the majority don't want to hear it.

Unfortunately today union members are just, if not more, ignorant of labor history than anyone else.  I would venture to say that none of the people in the hall tomorrow, if questioned, wouldn't know anything about Bread and Roses, Triangle Shirt Waist Fire, Homestead Pennsylvania, Shays Rebellion, I could go on and on.  They think the conditions written into our contracts pertain to everyone else but them, and don't care about the implications of breaking conditions if it suits them.  It is disheartening and a huge factor in Sigs decision to retire.  Labor education is what is needed, but the majority don't want to hear it.


  I think so too.  I've gone so far as to ask some of our warehousemen if they knew about bloody thursday, with mixed results...

  In any case, for quite some time, I've been calling attention of our union's need to maintain discipline within our own ranks.  We cannot expect the company to respect the contract when our own members violate it on a daily basis.  People have yet to grasp the concept of "good faith".  What form this discipline takes is another matter as the language our by-laws are just as vague as the language in the contract, and therefore inconclusive...

  In essence - you will show-up for work on time and prepared.  You will work and not sleep.  You will take your breaks according to the contract and not one minute longer.  You will not fraternize with management (this one is very important because the old patronage system of bygone days is still alive-and-well in oh-niner.  "Special consideration" only serves to undermine the effectiveness of the bargaining unit and affects morale...)

  I'm contemplating running for a minor office next cycle and am meticulously studying our paper tiger of a contract...

  Sorry Cancer-Free, this is totally off-topic...

In honor of Labor Day I thought this might be an interesting subject to begin.



Unfortunately, today Labor Day means picnics & end of summer bashes.


Dammit, and I can't give either of you karma for another 24 hours.

Labor Day, Labor Day, a strange holiday.
You hire some jerk and send him away,
To celebrate work by playing all day.

I'm personally not real big on what unions have become over the past 50-odd years, but I'm even less big on the wilful ignorance of history we've had.  There are reasons - some of 'em good (a litany of real losses, preventable tragedies, etc), and some of 'em not-so-good (guys in suits saying "we can't have 'em celebrating it in May, fer Chrissakes!") - behind the name of a day off in September.  They need to be remembered.

  I think so too.  I've gone so far as to ask some of our warehousemen if they knew about bloody thursday, with mixed results...

  In any case, for quite some time, I've been calling attention of our union's need to maintain discipline within our own ranks.  We cannot expect the company to respect the contract when our own members violate it on a daily basis.  People have yet to grasp the concept of "good faith".  What form this discipline takes is another matter as the language our by-laws are just as vague as the language in the contract, and therefore inconclusive...

  In essence - you will show-up for work on time and prepared.  You will work and not sleep.  You will take your breaks according to the contract and not one minute longer.  You will not fraternize with management (this one is very important because the old patronage system of bygone days is still alive-and-well in oh-niner.  "Special consideration" only serves to undermine the effectiveness of the bargaining unit and affects morale...)

  I'm contemplating running for a minor office next cycle and am meticulously studying our paper tiger of a contract...

   Sorry Cancer-Free, this is totally off-topic...


Two Snaps Up  :)

   Sorry Cancer-Free, this is totally off-topic...


Not at all.  What you wrote is very much on topic.  I never meant this to be a pedantic thread.  In fact, as Chapter Chair of my local at Castleton State I faced some of those same issues.

Here's a question.

When FDR signed the Nation Labor Relations Act (the Wagner Act) into law in 1935 it was hailed as labor's declaration of independence by the established craft unions and their parent body, the American Federation of Labor.  Others warned that if the gov't could interfere on the part of labor today, tomorrow it could interfere on the part of capital (a few years later, over Truman's veto, it did, with Taft Hartley and Landrum Griffin).  So, would labor be more or less powerful without gov't interference?

Not at all.  What you wrote is very much on topic.  I never meant this to be a pedantic thread.  In fact, as Chapter Chair of my local at Castleton State I faced some of those same issues.

Here's a question.

When FDR signed the Nation Labor Relations Act (the Wagner Act) into law in 1935 it was hailed as labor's declaration of independence by the established craft unions and their parent body, the American Federation of Labor.  Others warned that if the gov't could interfere on the part of labor today, tomorrow it could interfere on the part of capital (a few years later, over Truman's veto, it did, with Taft Hartley and Landrum Griffin).  So, would labor be more or less powerful without gov't interference?


  I think we have far too much government interference in business today and would not want to see this interference expanded.  I prefer to see unions and businesses work in partnership to the benefit of all parties...

  Repeal Taft Hartley and Wagner, allow employees to form unions based on majority vote.  Allow them all the weapons of negotiation, including wildcat and secondary strikes, while eliminating government mandated "cooling off" periods and other tools that unfairly support the company...

  Opposing corporatism is as worthy cause as fighting against legislation that allows employees to damage business prospects, but tying the two together in a scheme that rationalizes the increased use of force to dole out arbitrary controls stipulated by social engineering (I also refer to EFCA), is plainly an immoral use of force...

   I think we have far too much government interference in business today and would not want to see this interference expanded.  I prefer to see unions and businesses work in partnership to the benefit of all parties...

  Repeal Taft Hartley and Wagner, allow employees to form unions based on majority vote.  Allow them all the weapons of negotiation, including wildcat and secondary strikes, while eliminating government mandated "cooling off" periods and other tools that unfairly support the company...

   Opposing corporatism is as worthy cause as fighting against legislation that allows employees to damage business prospects, but tying the two together in a scheme that rationalizes the increased use of force to dole out arbitrary controls stipulated by social engineering (I also refer to EFCA), is plainly an immoral use of force...


Sorry, you can't repeat a karma action without waiting 24 hours.  :(

   I think we have far too much government interference in business today and would not want to see this interference expanded.  I prefer to see unions and businesses work in partnership to the benefit of all parties...

Problem here is that what FDR had in mind was getting labor and capital to work in partnership.  Before Wagner that wasn't happening.  Pitched battles were fought between workers and company thugs, with government at all levels siding with the thugs if workers were winning.


  Repeal Taft Hartley and Wagner, allow employees to form unions based on majority vote.  Allow them all the weapons of negotiation, including wildcat and secondary strikes, while eliminating government mandated "cooling off" periods and other tools that unfairly support the company...


But that is precisely what Wagner did.  It set up the National Labor Relations Board in part to set up the mechanism for workers to hold elections to decide on unionizing prevents (theoretically) employers from interfering, and forces both sides to abide by the results.  Prior to Wagner employers were under no obligation to recognize unions among their workers, and they usually didn't, as with the auto workers union.  In some cases, as with Carnegie Steel, recognition could be withdrawn at the company's will.  In that case the result was the Homestead strike. 


   Opposing corporatism is as worthy cause as fighting against legislation that allows employees to damage business prospects, but tying the two together in a scheme that rationalizes the increased use of force to dole out arbitrary controls stipulated by social engineering (I also refer to EFCA), is plainly an immoral use of force...


Sorry, but I don't follow this.  You need to explain it a bit further.

Sorry, you can't repeat a karma action without waiting 24 hours.  :(


  I do thank you Danoota&Me... :)


But that is precisely what Wagner did.  It set up the National Labor Relations Board in part to set up the mechanism for workers to hold elections to decide on unionizing prevents (theoretically) employers from interfering, and forces both sides to abide by the results.  Prior to Wagner employers were under no obligation to recognize unions among their workers, and they usually didn't, as with the auto workers union.  In some cases, as with Carnegie Steel, recognition could be withdrawn at the company's will.  In that case the result was the Homestead strike.  

Sorry, but I don't follow this.  You need to explain it a bit further.




  Taft-Hartley was the result of Cold War Red Scare politics that are no longer relevant...

 
  http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Taft-Hartley_Labor_Act.aspx#1E1-TaftHart

  "The government was empowered to obtain an 80-day injunction against any strike that it deemed a peril to national health or safety. The act also prohibited jurisdictional strikes (dispute between two unions over which should act as the bargaining agent for the employees) and secondary boycotts (boycott against an already organized company doing business with another company that a union is trying to organize), declared that it did not extend protection to workers on wildcat strikes, outlawed the closed shop, and permitted the union shop only on a vote of a majority of the employees. Most of the collective-bargaining provisions were retained, with the extra provision that a union before using the facilities of the National Labor Relations Board must file with the U.S. Dept. of Labor financial reports and affidavits that union officers are not Communists. The act also forbade unions to contribute to political campaigns. Although President Truman vetoed the act, it was passed over his veto..."

  Along that line I think it is immoral to use political and economic leverage to impose controls on others (otherwise known as social engineering legislation.)  Therefore, ideas that pit one segment of society against another based on what "benefits" they receive as the result of various forms of government force are all tools of the enemies of liberty.  Using the tools of the "enemy" only benefits the "enemy"... :)

   I do thank you Danoota&Me... :)

  Taft-Hartley was the result of Cold War Red Scare politics that are no longer relevant...

 
  http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Taft-Hartley_Labor_Act.aspx#1E1-TaftHart

  "The government was empowered to obtain an 80-day injunction against any strike that it deemed a peril to national health or safety. The act also prohibited jurisdictional strikes (dispute between two unions over which should act as the bargaining agent for the employees) and secondary boycotts (boycott against an already organized company doing business with another company that a union is trying to organize), declared that it did not extend protection to workers on wildcat strikes, outlawed the closed shop, and permitted the union shop only on a vote of a majority of the employees. Most of the collective-bargaining provisions were retained, with the extra provision that a union before using the facilities of the National Labor Relations Board must file with the U.S. Dept. of Labor financial reports and affidavits that union officers are not Communists. The act also forbade unions to contribute to political campaigns. Although President Truman vetoed the act, it was passed over his veto..."

  Along that line I think it is immoral to use political and economic leverage to impose controls on others (otherwise known as social engineering legislation.)  Therefore, ideas that pit one segment of society against another based on what "benefits" they receive as the result of various forms of government force are all tools of the enemies of liberty.  Using the tools of the "enemy" only benefits the "enemy"... :)


Yes, I know all that about Taft Hartley, and agree that it was part of the red scare, and certainly is a very pro business piece of legislation, and therein lies the danger implicit in the Wagner Act.  In other words, accepting Gov't intervention of behalf of labor implicitly forces one to also accept the right of government to intervene on behalf of business.  As a union man, a support all the concepts embodied in Wagner just as I support the concepts embodied in the early 1800's court decisions that overthrew the conspiracy doctrines that were applied to the early labor movement.  But those same principles, it could be argued, should allow businesses to organize voluntary associations to pursue their interests.  The issue is, if you accept that the role of the state is to act as the honest broker (as Teddy R argued) then you have to be willing to abide by the rules that broker establishes even if they are detrimental to your own interests and favor your adversary.  Wagner was very much pro labor legislation.  Some would argue that Taft Hartley reestablished balance.

  I've been busy busy busy of late...

  Agreed, to call Wagner a step in the right direction would be a gross understatement.  Life as a wage-slave is certainly better with it than without...
 
  We don't have the luxury of bargaining a contract from the company's standpoint, but I concede that if we had a better understanding of the dynamics involved between in the present business climate, labor issues, the government and capitalism in general we all might be better union members.  To that end my endeavor is to acquire a better understanding short of enrolling in a MBA program.  It's a little late in the game for that... ;)

  I also submit that less government interference in business would assist companies in improving consumer goods and increasing profits.  Interference in the form of - sales taxes, capitol gains taxes, lobbying, corruption, govt. fiscal irresponsibility (inflation, recession) - all major expenses for US companies...

 

.
   I also submit that less government interference in business would assist companies in improving consumer goods and increasing profits.  Interference in the form of - sales taxes, capitol gains taxes, lobbying, corruption, govt. fiscal irresponsibility (inflation, recession) - all major expenses for US companies...

   


Clearly, but again, it's a matter of balance.  Gov't intervention brought us safer food (read The Jungle if you haven't), safer rail road crossings, safer work places etc.  Sales taxes are paid by consumers, not businesses, and capital gains taxes are mostly paid on stock transfers which have nothing to do with the companies that issue stock.  Lobbying mostly benefits "special interests", like oil, insurance, banking etc companies. 

As to bargaining, you should read a book called Poor People's Movements by Piven & Cloward.  It has some interesting ideas that I found useful when I served on my union's bargaining team.

The Age of Betrayal-The Triumph of Money in America 1865-1900

The rise of corporate United States.  An eye opener.

Here's an observation and a question.

The labor movement started on a local level with small groups, usually within a craft, organizing to protect themselves against their bosses, the master craftsmen.  As they organized into groups of masters, journeymen from various crafts formed "unions" of journeymen across craft lines.  As business because less local and more regional, Unions followed suit, and as business because national, so did labor.  Now, business is international, or transnational if you will.  How can labor respond?  How can labor develop a unified world wide presence?

Thoughts?

People have to start recognizing that rights don't have borders, and that every one is entitled to them.  Until people are willing to admit that, as long as they fall for the idea of racism, nationalism, ism ism, until a strike in Mexico City, Paris, Moscow, Boston, or East Buzzlef*** means a strike everywhere, there isn't any hope.

People have to start recognizing that rights don't have borders, and that every one is entitled to them.  Until people are willing to admit that, as long as they fall for the idea of racism, nationalism, ism ism, until a strike in Mexico City, Paris, Moscow, Boston, or East Buzzlef*** means a strike everywhere, there isn't any hope.


I absolutely agree.  Solidarity Forever.

Corporations have gone global and are, and consider themselves "multinational".  It is time labor starts to think the same way.  Unless people start looking into the reasons for people crossing borders, and admit they would do the same, they could, one day, be in the situation that makes crossing a border necessary.

Personally, I prefer to call them "transnational" since they transcend national boundaries and are more powerful than many nations.  Seems to me labor needs to study the Wobblies' approach.  As they were organizing copper miners in the US  before and during WWI they were also organizing copper miners in Mexico who were employed by the same corporations.  In that case it was the Guggenheim interests.

The idea that a strike anywhere should equal a strike everywhere is great, but it ain't gonna happen.  There are smaller steps that people can take, like boycotting firms that resist unionization - like Wal Mart.

The idea that a strike anywhere should equal a strike everywhere is great, but it ain't gonna happen.  There are smaller steps that people can take, like boycotting firms that resist unionization - like Wal Mart.


Boycott Hyatt.

It would be difficult to boycott every company, but these are my personal boycotts

Wal Mart
Nike
Nestle
Hyatt
Marriott
California grapes/Wine