3 ms·

Some unions were incidental beneficiaries, sure. But consider that the GM/Chrysler bailouts almost included a gutting of the UAW. (They had to fight to retain

by roc 15y ago

Some unions were incidental beneficiaries, sure. But consider that the GM/Chrysler bailouts almost included a gutting of the UAW. (They had to fight to retain their collective bargaining power in the deal) And you may have noticed the spate of anti-union legislation proposed, and in some cases passed, across the nation. The unions have (rightly) seen any benefit they did get as incidental and temporary at best. And perceiving a movement through possible positions of a minority is a pretty intellectually dishonest way to tar the group. It's as disappointing as dismissing the concerns of the Tea Party for their racists.

mseebach 15y ago
Go skim the calendar on OccupyWallStreet.org. The movement may well have started without the unions, but they've been pretty much co-opted by now. In that sense, unions are more like the Sarah Palin of OWS. > [UAW] had to fight to retain their collective bargaining power in the deal. A deal which, had it not been struck, had meant their total annihilation. > The unions have (rightly) seen any benefit they did get as incidental and temporary at best. Unions, like banks, don't have an inherent right to exist. They are clinging to political favors to keep boyant.
- roc 15y ago
  > "unions are more like the Sarah Palin of OWS." And? Sarah Palin didn't invalidate the Tea Party. > "A deal which, had it not been struck, had meant their total annihilation." It would have meant GM and Chrysler's annihilation, along with many UAW members losing their jobs. But every other car maker in North America has union plants. The UAW itself wasn't going anywhere if GM and Chrysler failed. > "Unions, like banks, don't have an inherent right to exist." A specific union or bank doesn't. But the right to form a union or bank does. And the very right to organize is what union struggles are increasingly about. Just look to Ohio and Wisconsin.
  - mseebach 15y ago
    > And? Sarah Palin didn't invalidate the Tea Party. No, but her co-opting the movement for her own political ambitions diluted the message and removed focus from the original grievances. > It would have meant GM and Chrysler's annihilation, along with many UAW members losing their jobs. But every other car maker in North America has union plants. The UAW itself wasn't going anywhere if GM and Chrysler failed. My impression was that GM and Chrysler was UAWs last stronghold and that all the foreign car makers had set up shop in right-to-work states exactly to avoid UAW influence. But the point was, you make it sound like they generously made a concession, when they in reality took government money to arrive at a better result than the starting point (bankruptcy). > But the right to form a union or bank does. You can form all the unions you want, but if you use government power to inject yourself between the employer and the employee, you're just as bad as a rent-seeking corporation using government regulation to give your company an advantage. > And the very right to organize is what union struggles are increasingly about. Just look to Ohio and Wisconsin. OWS has been firmly grounded in financial issues as the name suggests. Union rights don't seem to be at the front of the agenda, although I have no doubts the unions would like to change that.
- _delirium 15y ago
  I'm not sure they've been co-opted; unions still seem outnumbered by people who I'd place closer a to university-activist or counterculture-oriented scene. If anything it seems like a cautious alliance between those groups. Strategically that's probably a good idea; one of the main cultural problems of the left has been decades-long mutual distaste between union members and people they perceive as more middle-class hippie or student-activist types.
CWuestefeld 15y ago
perceiving a movement through possible positions of a minority is a pretty intellectually dishonest way to tar the group You'll note that I did say "at least some of these protesters". With those qualifiers, you'd be right. I'm not trying to tar the whole ... event (I hesitate to call it a "movement", since I haven't seen any cohesive set of ideals coming forth) ... but some portion, of indeterminate size, of the group. consider that the GM/Chrysler bailouts almost included a gutting of the UAW... The unions have (rightly) seen any benefit they did get as incidental and temporary at best. First, it's my understanding that the settlement that UAW got in the GM bankruptcy was pretty clearly outside of the way bankruptcy laws specify that the debts are to be discharged. They got a big-time sweetheart deal -- not a one-time "temporary" pile of money, but a good-sized ownership stake. In any case, I'm sure that the banks who were bailed out would say something similar: "it's just this once, and bailing us out really benefited the economy of the whole country". The thing is, this is (a) self-serving, and (b) pretty impossible for them to say objectively, given the complexity of the economy.
- roc 15y ago
  > "I'm not trying to tar the whole ... event" Then what's your point in bringing it up? You could say the same of any political group. > "They got a big-time sweetheart deal" I don't think that's a fair characterization, but it's neither here nor there to my point. My point is that they bargained for what they got using collective bargaining power that many were trying to outright strip from them. And "temporary" was to refer to the point that without continuing political action they almost certainly would/will lose their bargaining power, making any current union deal more of a silver parachute for current membership as the union itself faded into history.

by roc 15y ago

mseebach 15y ago

Go skim the calendar on OccupyWallStreet.org. The movement may well have started without the unions, but they've been pretty much co-opted by now. In that sense, unions are more like the Sarah Palin of OWS. > [UAW] had to fight to retain their collective bargaining power in the deal. A deal which, had it not been struck, had meant their total annihilation. > The unions have (rightly) seen any benefit they did get as incidental and temporary at best. Unions, like banks, don't have an inherent right to exist. They are clinging to political favors to keep boyant.

roc 15y ago
> "unions are more like the Sarah Palin of OWS." And? Sarah Palin didn't invalidate the Tea Party. > "A deal which, had it not been struck, had meant their total annihilation." It would have meant GM and Chrysler's annihilation, along with many UAW members losing their jobs. But every other car maker in North America has union plants. The UAW itself wasn't going anywhere if GM and Chrysler failed. > "Unions, like banks, don't have an inherent right to exist." A specific union or bank doesn't. But the right to form a union or bank does. And the very right to organize is what union struggles are increasingly about. Just look to Ohio and Wisconsin.
- mseebach 15y ago
  > And? Sarah Palin didn't invalidate the Tea Party. No, but her co-opting the movement for her own political ambitions diluted the message and removed focus from the original grievances. > It would have meant GM and Chrysler's annihilation, along with many UAW members losing their jobs. But every other car maker in North America has union plants. The UAW itself wasn't going anywhere if GM and Chrysler failed. My impression was that GM and Chrysler was UAWs last stronghold and that all the foreign car makers had set up shop in right-to-work states exactly to avoid UAW influence. But the point was, you make it sound like they generously made a concession, when they in reality took government money to arrive at a better result than the starting point (bankruptcy). > But the right to form a union or bank does. You can form all the unions you want, but if you use government power to inject yourself between the employer and the employee, you're just as bad as a rent-seeking corporation using government regulation to give your company an advantage. > And the very right to organize is what union struggles are increasingly about. Just look to Ohio and Wisconsin. OWS has been firmly grounded in financial issues as the name suggests. Union rights don't seem to be at the front of the agenda, although I have no doubts the unions would like to change that.
_delirium 15y ago
I'm not sure they've been co-opted; unions still seem outnumbered by people who I'd place closer a to university-activist or counterculture-oriented scene. If anything it seems like a cautious alliance between those groups. Strategically that's probably a good idea; one of the main cultural problems of the left has been decades-long mutual distaste between union members and people they perceive as more middle-class hippie or student-activist types.

CWuestefeld 15y ago

perceiving a movement through possible positions of a minority is a pretty intellectually dishonest way to tar the group You'll note that I did say "at least some of these protesters". With those qualifiers, you'd be right. I'm not trying to tar the whole ... event (I hesitate to call it a "movement", since I haven't seen any cohesive set of ideals coming forth) ... but some portion, of indeterminate size, of the group. consider that the GM/Chrysler bailouts almost included a gutting of the UAW... The unions have (rightly) seen any benefit they did get as incidental and temporary at best. First, it's my understanding that the settlement that UAW got in the GM bankruptcy was pretty clearly outside of the way bankruptcy laws specify that the debts are to be discharged. They got a big-time sweetheart deal -- not a one-time "temporary" pile of money, but a good-sized ownership stake. In any case, I'm sure that the banks who were bailed out would say something similar: "it's just this once, and bailing us out really benefited the economy of the whole country". The thing is, this is (a) self-serving, and (b) pretty impossible for them to say objectively, given the complexity of the economy.

roc 15y ago
> "I'm not trying to tar the whole ... event" Then what's your point in bringing it up? You could say the same of any political group. > "They got a big-time sweetheart deal" I don't think that's a fair characterization, but it's neither here nor there to my point. My point is that they bargained for what they got using collective bargaining power that many were trying to outright strip from them. And "temporary" was to refer to the point that without continuing political action they almost certainly would/will lose their bargaining power, making any current union deal more of a silver parachute for current membership as the union itself faded into history.