Union Lite?
Over at the lefty publication Mother Jones, Kevin Drum wonders if having unions that collectively bargain only for wages and benefits might revive the labor movement.
Whatever you think of them, unions in their existing form are dying, and there’s little reason to think that’s going to change…. a new union movement that trades a bit of power in one area (work rules) for more power in another (much greater density in the private sector). It’s something to think about.
Drum admits the idea is “obviously pie in the sky” – an understatement once you read some of the hostile reader comments accompanying the piece, such as:
* “Kevin is totally chump meat by accepting anti-union meme.”
* “There’s a reason all those union contracts have tons of complicated clauses; it’s because the bossman can’t be trusted.”
* Where there are elaborate union work rules, they are the direct result of a history of egregious abuses and utter lack of trust in management justified by bitter experience.”
* “This is such an unutterably bad idea it’s really difficult adequately characterize it.”
* “Whenever Drum writes about unions he shows that he has little or no real world experience with them.”
* “This post is complete bullshit. Shame on Kevin, and Mother Jones, for publishing such drivel.”
* “Dude…you may have meant well by this column but damn you come off as a chump.”
I have no idea where the future of unions lies, but I haven’t seen any evidence that there is a viable Grand New Direction or Third Way that circumvents the current status quo. It looks like a fight to the finish to me.
November 30th, 2011 at 21:12
The future isn’t with 1950s-style unions, only they’re too (insert adjective here) to realize it.