I see it more as a structural issue that gets transformed into a morality play. The UAW didn’t magically decide they didn’t want more union workers, or magically became so corrupt that other workers decided they didn’t want to unionize. The government enacted relatively weak protections for unions and set up a structure to allow unionization that incentivizes companies to push hard against unionization. A weak regulatory structure and laws enacted by business interests made unions timid and small c conservative which turned themselves inward so rather than seeing themselves as some institutional player representing workers as a whole, they’re now seen and see themselves as an interest group for a relatively small amount of people concerned with preserving their interests.
That in turn makes them insular, corrupt, and seen as outsiders to workers as a whole.
Honestly, this right here might be part of the sales pitch to get conservative voters on board with progressive ideas. Just give us universal healthcare, a high minimum wage, worker protections we want, and in exchange we’ll get rid of all unions.
There’s no sales pitch to conservatives. Unionization is like 6% of the population and Republicans have gone with the unitary executive as an end run against any kind of employment regulations of workers.
It’s not a real bargain. Conservative voters are obsessed with union bashing, so give them a fake sale of getting rid of unions in a scenario where unions won’t be necessary.
I’m not saying it’s a great plan or anything, more of just a commentary on the stupidity of the conservative voter.
I’m sorry man but the absolute high point for Unions was the 50’s-70’s and they were INCREDIBLY corrupt. Like woah holy shit these people are literally gangsters corrupt.
Unions are a 19th century solution to the problem of big C capital having too much power over workers. The 21st century solution of just giving everyone a floor amount of income is way way better, and honestly I’d end all legal protections for Unions to get it.
It’s possible to take the good part of Unions (employees gaining leverage over their employer to demand better conditions) and universalizing it. Make the power exist inside each individual worker instead of dependent on some middle man who can take a cut.
I’ll put this in the general thread as more of a discussion point. My theory is we may see no one drop out prior to Super Tuesday(other than maybe Tulsi), because everyone has an argument to be in and/or no reason to drop out.
Bloomberg - so rich nothing matters
Steyer - Billionaire, if anyone drops before Super Tuesday it could be him but again money doesn’t really matter
Klobs - Old white people, klobmentum
Joe! - PAC money, reasons to believe he still could be centrist frontrunner
Pete - current centrist frontrunner
Warren - already has Super Tuesday infrastructure in place, trying to play unity candidate
Bernie - actual frontrunner, good chance he wins all 4 early states
So basically Super Tuesday is likely to be a mess which likely is a benefit to Bernie, possibly Bloomberg because of endless money.
Counterpoint: A lot of people here (including me) advocate for trying to appeal to voters based on their personal needs and preferences - Dems will improve your personal circumstances with regard to healthcare, the environment, access to abortion, etc. There’s nothing wrong with a union advocating for its members’ preferences.
I mean, it’s not like the winning electoral argument is, “Vote for supporters of universal health care even though it won’t benefit you personally.” It’s “Vote for supporters of universal health care because YOU will be better off.” If the union doesn’t actually believe that would be true for its members, then convince them they’re wrong. But don’t expect them to endorse someone that would arguably make their members’ lives worse off.
Edit: This is assuming that the union is actually speaking on behalf of its members’ wishes.
I would argue that all human organizational problems are human problems. I think there’s a better way to accomplish the theoretical goals of unions than unions. I think that there are a lot of things in our society that have their roots in the distant past that don’t really work all that well, and we should probably replace with something better. Just because we fixed it one way 100+ years ago doesn’t mean it’s sacrilege to look at its problems and do a major rework to fix it.
Unions as entities have a LOT of flaws. That’s not me saying that unions didn’t do a lot of good historically or that the theoretical goals of unions are incorrect. I just think there are better ways to get those things done that have fewer drawbacks.
I think Capitalism needs a massive rework as well. I don’t want to eliminate the good parts of Capitalism, but there are quite a few significant flaws with it that are now pretty goddamn obvious to anyone paying attention. We should fix those.
Were unions any more corrupt than anything else though? AFAIK the gangsterism in unions was sensationalized for the anti union movement. Why would unions in the US be intrinsically exploitative but unions elsewhere the benefits outweigh their corruption?
As far as using the state as a substitute for the union I don’t see it working out very well. By bringing the benefits explicitly into the state apparatus you’re removing the organizing needed to sustain the gains as well as opening them up to regulatory attack. Business interests get the Chamber of Commerce etc for lobbying the state apparatus but workers have to remain individuals least someone get between them and their boss.
When the union’s inspiration
Through the workers’ blood shall run
There can be no power greater
Anywhere beneath the sun
Yet what force on earth is weaker
Than the feeble strength of one?
But the union makes us strong
Hard to imagine a world where unions aren’t necessary. I think people complaining about union corruption are missing the point.
Sure, organizations are corruptible, democratic accountability is necessary blah blah meow chow…
Bit as long as ownership is distinct from labor, collective bargaining will be necessary. So for at the very least this purpose, no, we can’t do away with unions.
