"George Cleveland" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 May 2005 13:19:10 -0500, "Wolfgang"
wrote:


"George Cleveland" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 11 May 2005 08:17:37 -0500, "Wolfgang"
wrote:


"George Cleveland" wrote in message
m...



While I'm sure its not seen by them as a "pathetically transparent
admission of impotence" it does mean that they have come to the
conclusion that globalization is not going to be stopped by Buy
American ad campaigns. One of the examples they used was of the "Look
for the Union Label" campaign of the ladies garment workers from a
couple of decades ago. It turned out, as should be no surprise, that
most people looked for the price label instead. It might be nice if
Buy American campaigns worked but the objective reality is that they
don't. So what does Labor (capital L) do? The stratedgy of reaching
out to other Labor organizations in other countries seems to be a
reasonable effort. After all, after China, the U.S. is probably the
least Labor (there's that capital L again) friendly country in the
industrialized world. If you buy a KPOS fly reel it most probably was
made in a Unionized shop and the Unions in Korea have real respect and
power (they were deeply involved in overthrowing the late
dictatorship). I think it is a hopeful trend, this recognition that
workers of all countries have much in common. During one of the breaks
I asked (with a smile on my face) whether this means that I should
renew my IWW (Industrial Workers of the World, ie. Wobblies)
membership. The speaker thought I was joking. I wasn't.

Labor's notion that unionization in the rest of the world, with it's
concomittent increase in the cost of goods, might prove a boon to the
American work force isn't necessarily a bad idea. However, the AFL-CIO is
a
rapidly diminshing force even in American politics; the only thing that
saves their implicit suggestion that they are serving their membership by
promulgating this idea from being sheer hubris is that it helps to
maintain
the illusion that their primary interests are the same as those of their
constituents. Moreover, unionization (wherever and whenever it has
occurred....even as far back as medieval trade guilds) has typically
accomplished as much for the employers who tried to stamp it out (stopping
at nothing, including mass murder.....and often with cheerful assistance
of
local and state law enforcement....not to mention the United States Army)
as
it has for workers, by being a positive force in the development of
increased efficiency and quality through various means. Unionize China
and
it becomes an even more threatening competitor in the long run. On the
other hand, if Chinese labor doesn't become organized China becomes a more
threatening economic competitor in the long run anyway.

Wolfgang
the 20th was "The American Century".....this one most certainly won't be.


I think that the Unions here in the U.S. were dealt a double (perhaps
fatal) blow in the late 40s.

Well, there was also the 80s.....but, go on.

The removal of the Reds (who were usually
very effective organizers) was a big blow. But the Taft-Hartley Act,
which basically banned Unions from organizing workers as a class, was
the bigger of the two. Once sympathy strikes and boycotts were banned
it meant that Unions were forced to deal with a unified corporate
structure by means of a legally fragmented Labor. The workers
organizations in other Western democracies didn't suffer under those
handicaps and I think the arguably higher level of "civilization"
that Europe currently enjoys (better health care for the average
person, better retirement and vacations, lower levels of "alienation"
from their jobs and society as a whole) is because the means to
establish class consciousness weren't undercut by their respective
governments. Of course the Unions here could have responded by massive
acts of civil disobedience when the Taft-Hartley Act was passed but
they had just purged themselves of those very factions who believed in
that type of class based activities.

Now Hoffa may be spinning in his grave but the fact is that
Taft-Hartley gave rise, as an unintended consequence, to Unions who
could only maintain power by intimidation. And while the Teamsters
built their reputation as an effective Union under the myth that they
could intimidate employers, they, in reality and in line with other
dictatorial organizations, used their apparatus for intimidation on
their own members even more than they did on their "class" opponents
(if a Union organized on the "business model" can even be said to
represent a different class from the employers).

All true (although, given other aspects of European history in the 20th
century, I might prefer the use of "internal socialization" to
"civilization"......but that's another rant) and a nice summation.

Nevertheless, unions DID accomplish much here in the U.S. in the latter half
of the 19th and the first half of the 20th centuries, before they decided,
collectively (if you'll forgive the expropriation of the term), on the "if
you can't beat them, BE them" philosophy. We're both old enough to remember
a time when the 40 hour week was perceived (however ephemerally.....and
perhpas erroneously) as canonical.

g.c.

Who, due to a merger, is now, unhappily, a Teamster himself.

Now all you need is a star to hitch your wagon to.

Wolfgang