FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Labor’s Grim Dilemma

Union people regularly complain about how the Democratic Party isn’t doing enough to assist or support organized labor. While Democrats continue to receive tens of millions of dollars in labor contributions, when it comes time to show some genuine patronage and go out on a limb for the unions, they tend to disappoint. Put more bluntly: When the opportunity presents itself to stand tall as unabashedly “pro-labor,” they run for cover.

Apparently, Democrats believe they have organized labor exactly where they want it, as unconditionally loyal and “locked-up” as the African-American vote. It’s the Party’s view that these traditional clients have nowhere else to turn. After all, what are union members and black Americans going to do if dissatisfied or impatient with the Democrats? Swap allegiances and take their case to the Republicans? It’s a real dilemma for union folks, one that’s become increasingly frustrating.

For decades there has been talk of forming a third party, a Labor Party, a streamlined political entity that would have working people’s interests as its primary concern. As attractive as this idea sounds, one needs to ask, hypothetically, what would such a party look like and what could it expect to get done?

Considering how thoroughly entrenched “globalization” has become, not only as an economic reality but as a conventional mindset, naked protectionism-in the form of rigid trade restrictions and steep tariffs-is totally off the table. It’s no longer discussed by mainstream economists, even in theory.

Indeed, suggesting that the U.S. launch what would amount to a trade war in order to raise the wages of workers and nurture the re-emergence of the manufacturing sector would be as repulsive and incomprehensible to the American public as suggesting that people begin eating their pets.

With protectionism not an option, what specific policies would comprise the Labor Party agenda? Surely one would be the repeal of the Taft-Hartley Act (1947), the anti-union legislation that more or less crippled the labor movement. With Taft-Hartley removed, unions would be free to flourish, and membership, presumably, would increase; and a significant increase in union membership would, presumably, result in an increase in union influence.

Another plank in the platform would likely be the curtailing of “corporate welfare” and closing the loopholes that allow corporations to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. Another would be raising the federal minimum wage. Another would be securing universal health care; and another might be the implementation of “portability” of pensions (carrying one’s retirement package from job to job).

But any progress made by a proposed Labor Party assumes that it could get enough party members elected to congress to insure that their legislation is passed. And that assumption is wildly unrealistic.

Even assuming that the Labor Party could get the votes of a majority of the country’s union members (which, given Americans’ propensity for making independent decisions, is a longshot), the number of congressmen elected would be a tiny fraction of the 435 members of the House of Representatives.

Labor Party candidates would not only be running against Republicans vehemently opposed to the union movement (and indifferent to the plight of unaffiliated blue-collar workers), they’d also be running against well-funded Democrats fighting for their political survival.

In truth, because we don’t have a European-style parliamentary form of government where several competing political parties can join together strategically to form a coalition government, a Labor Party would, at best, be relegated to the extreme margins of the process. It would be non-factor, a footnote, a notch or two above the Libertarian Party.

Consequently, grim as the prospect may seem, organized labor’s only institutional hope for the foreseeable future is the Democratic Party. That being the case, what labor needs to do is launch a mission of its own, one designed to “radicalize” the Democrats by getting them do for working people what a theoretical Labor Party would do.

This begins by the rank-and-file electing radical union leaders from the bottom up, and having this radical element take over the Internationals. In turn, the Internationals would support only staunchly pro-labor candidates for office, and funnel their contributions accordingly.

Even with all the setbacks, false hopes and broken promises experienced over the past several decades, organized labor still has the economic leverage to make a difference. What it will take is a tougher posture. It’s time for unions to demonstrate to the Democratic Party that their alliance cuts both ways.

DAVID MACARAY, a Los Angeles playwright and writer, was president and chief contract negotiator of the Assn. of Western Pulp and Paper Workers, Local 672, from 1989 to 2000. He can be reached at: dmacaray@earthlink.net

 

 

 

More articles by:

David Macaray is a playwright and author. His newest book is How To Win Friends and Avoid Sacred Cows.  He can be reached at dmacaray@gmail.com

Weekend Edition
April 20, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Paul Street
Ruling Class Operatives Say the Darndest Things: On Devils Known and Not
Conn Hallinan
The Great Game Comes to Syria
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Mother of War
Andrew Levine
“How Come?” Questions
Doug Noble
A Tale of Two Atrocities: Douma and Gaza
Kenneth Surin
The Blight of Ukania
Howard Lisnoff
How James Comey Became the Strange New Hero of the Liberals
William Blum
Anti-Empire Report: Unseen Persons
Lawrence Davidson
Missiles Over Damascus
Patrick Cockburn
The Plight of the Yazidi of Afrin
Pete Dolack
Fooled Again? Trump Trade Policy Elevates Corporate Power
Stan Cox
For Climate Mobilization, Look to 1960s Vietnam Before Turning to 1940s America
William Hawes
Global Weirding
Dan Glazebrook
World War is Still in the Cards
Nick Pemberton
In Defense of Cardi B: Beyond Bourgeois PC Culture
Ishmael Reed
Hollywood’s Last Days?
Peter Certo
There Was Nothing Humanitarian About Our Strikes on Syria
Dean Baker
China’s “Currency Devaluation Game”
Ann Garrison
Why Don’t We All Vote to Commit International Crimes?
LEJ Rachell
The Baddest Black Power Artist You Never Heard Of
Lawrence Ware
All Hell Broke Out in Oklahoma
Franklin Lamb
Tehran’s Syria: Lebanon Colonization Project is Collapsing
Donny Swanson
Janus v. AFSCME: What’s It All About?
Will Podmore
Brexit and the Windrush Britons
Brian Saady
Boehner’s Marijuana Lobbying is Symptomatic of Special-Interest Problem
Julian Vigo
Google’s Delisting and Censorship of Information
Patrick Walker
Political Dynamite: Poor People’s Campaign and the Movement for a People’s Party
Fred Gardner
Medical Board to MDs: Emphasize Dangers of Marijuana
Rob Seimetz
We Must Stand In Solidarity With Eric Reid
Missy Comley Beattie
Remembering Barbara Bush
Wim Laven
Teaching Peace in a Time of Hate
Thomas Knapp
Freedom is Winning in the Encryption Arms Race
Mir Alikhan
There Won’t be Peace in Afghanistan Until There’s Peace in Kashmir
Robert Koehler
Playing War in Syria
Tamara Pearson
US Shootings: Gun Industry Killing More People Overseas
John Feffer
Trump’s Trade War is About Trump Not China
Morris Pearl
Why the Census Shouldn’t Ask About Citizenship
Ralph Nader
Bill Curry on the Move against Public Corruption
Josh Hoxie
Five Tax Myths Debunked
Leslie Mullin
Democratic Space in Adverse Times: Milestone at Haiti’s University of the Aristide Foundation
Louis Proyect
Syria and Neo-McCarthyism
Dean Baker
Finance 202 Meets Economics 101
Abel Cohen
Forget Gun Control, Try Bullet Control
Robert Fantina
“Damascus Time:” An Iranian Movie
David Yearsley
Bach and Taxes
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail