5 ms·

If the trend continues as you posit, I would expect private-sector unions to become a non-partisan alignment, similar to how social security is sacrosanct in US

If the trend continues as you posit, I would expect private-sector unions to become a non-partisan alignment, similar to how social security is sacrosanct in US politics. Most unions form at places that are genuinely terrible workspaces where workers have legitimate reasons to hate the boss. As unions become mainstream at places like Starbucks I would expect folks agitating for worker power to less radical.

Spooky23 5y ago
It might, but they would have to be big enough to break the "conservative" alignment of resource extractors, religious fanatics and rich people. It's definitely possible in 10-20 years.
- nopenopenopeno 5y ago
- skrtskrt 5y ago
  Outside of Bernie and a few others, the days of Democrats having many nationally significant politicians that are truly pro-union are pretty much gone. I don't think most people, including those that vote Democratic, have much of an illusion of the Democratic party as a friend of labor anymore. Sure the Republicans actively try to dismantle all worker protections, but the Democrats mostly stand by and say well what can ya do? The role of Democrats right now is to pretend to fight for normal people just enough to get the votes, then completely fail to do anything so the rich party donors still get what they want.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    What do you expect Dems to do at the federal level if they do not have the votes in the Senate? The Democrats in democrat states have enacted paid parental leave, paid sick leave, higher minimum wages, banned non compete, and many other pro labor laws. At the federal level, the Dems got ACA pushed through also, even though they barely had the numbers and still had to compromise a lot due to just having 50 or 51 Senators, meaning the 1 or 2 Democrats in name only can hold legislation hostage to their will. It just happened again last year with the Build Back Better bill.
    - skrtskrt 5y ago
      I mean you're basically echoing my point - the Democratic party at the national level doesn't have the willpower to get pro-worker legislation through. And it's not just because they suck at winning elections, but also because they actively welcome anti-labor candidates into their ranks and crush the more progressive primary challengers even in safe blue districts. Not to mention that the executive branch has the power to go after labor law violators and for the most part just doesn't.
      - lotsofpulp 5y ago
        I do not think I echoed that. I said that Democrats have not had a majority by more than 1 for a long time. That is just numbers, it has nothing to do with willpower. You cannot realistically expect every single party member to toe the line, so effectively, as a party they have to compromise heavily just to get the things through that they have.
        skrtskrt 5y ago
        It is obviously a matter of willpower. The Republicans have no problem getting their moderate members to toe the line on their more extreme stuff. "Moderate" Republican party members would make their statements about "this isn't the way things are done' every time Trump did something crazy, but every single one folded and fell in line, every single time. If it was the priority of the Democratic national party leadership to get real, actual big legislation done that benefited workers over companies and investors, then they would. They do everything they can to block, blacklist, and crush campaigns of progressive primary challengers. They could do that to the "moderate" members who don't want to pass any legislation at all, if passing that legislation was really a priority. It's just obviously not something they care about, and it's obvious why. The party is run by obscenely wealthy members and donors, just like the Republicans are.
        lotsofpulp 5y ago
        > If it was the priority of the Democratic national party leadership to get real, actual big legislation done that benefited workers over companies and investors, then they would. Without 51 Senate votes, how? I would rather not have politicians that “fall in line” for the party’s sake, and rather “fall in line” for the country’s sake. >It's just obviously not something they care about, and it's obvious why. >The party is run by obscenely wealthy members and donors, just like the Republicans are. I think the fact that Democrat states exclusively have better worker protections and laws says a lot more about which party is run by who. Not to mention that federal Democrats actually propose things like universal pre K, expanding access to healthcare (note Republican states exclusively opted out of Medicaid expansion), and so on and so forth.
  - mateo411 5y ago
    The Democrats have been the party of the free trade and globalization, while also supporting the working class. There is a problem with this approach. Free trade and globalization means that goods are cheaper, the economy is more efficient, and the nation on the whole is wealthier. Unfortunately, a lot of these efficiencies come at the expense of many US based working class jobs. This is why the Democrats have been less union over the years, unless they are supporting teachers, police officers, or other government unions. The war in Ukraine could slow down and reverse a lot of globalization. Supply chain issues that we've seen during the pandemic have also been particularly. Maybe we'll start making more things in America again and perhaps the Democrats will do a better job supporting working class Americans. We are living in interesting times. I'll guess we'll see what happens.
  - Spooky23 5y ago
    The parties are symbiotic. The big tent of the Democratic Party wouldn’t exist without the regimented command & control model of the Republicans. Personally, I think that you’ll see party platforms shift as the current cohort of old people die off and their replacements are poorer and angrier. The parties of 1920, 1960, 2000 and 2040 are and will be different things.
  - nebula8804 5y ago
    The "few others" are a cadre of younger politicians. As millennials continue to win elections, the hope is that the tide will shift. Gen Z is even better because they have never had any illusion that this was a workable system. Unfortunately the Boomers will cling on to power until their last dying breath. (ex. Nancy Pelosi running for re-election yet again).
throwaway6734 5y ago
I don't think that will be the case for social security for much longer. The trust is on the path to running dry over the next 10-15 years and benefits will need to be cut. Romney recently breached the idea of raising retirement age for current workers. Frankly I'm shocked by how few young workers realize how bad of a deal they're getting with the current system
- cwmoreiras 5y ago
  The only way social security will "run dry" is if Congress lets it die.
- mrfusion 5y ago
  It’s easy enough to simply raise the income cap though to shore it up.
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    Politically, no, that is not simple.
    - MisterBastahrd 5y ago
      Politically, it's the simplest solution of all. The average American pays FICA on 100% of their income. The people who don't are upper middle class to rich, and nobody is going to weep for the 1 less vacation those people take every year.
      - briHass 5y ago
        Careful there; this is typically when the sob stories start about how one is NOT "upper middle class" when making $150K (more than double the median household income), because they live in expensive areas, etc. One saw a similar outcry when the TCJA removed the ability to deduct SALT taxes for effective income levels around that amount. The reality is, and has always been, that this group (call it whatever you want) of incomes in the $150K to $400K range is absolutely necessary to include in increased taxation policies to pay for all the spending.

Spooky23 5y ago

It might, but they would have to be big enough to break the "conservative" alignment of resource extractors, religious fanatics and rich people. It's definitely possible in 10-20 years.

nopenopenopeno 5y ago
skrtskrt 5y ago
Outside of Bernie and a few others, the days of Democrats having many nationally significant politicians that are truly pro-union are pretty much gone. I don't think most people, including those that vote Democratic, have much of an illusion of the Democratic party as a friend of labor anymore. Sure the Republicans actively try to dismantle all worker protections, but the Democrats mostly stand by and say well what can ya do? The role of Democrats right now is to pretend to fight for normal people just enough to get the votes, then completely fail to do anything so the rich party donors still get what they want.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  What do you expect Dems to do at the federal level if they do not have the votes in the Senate? The Democrats in democrat states have enacted paid parental leave, paid sick leave, higher minimum wages, banned non compete, and many other pro labor laws. At the federal level, the Dems got ACA pushed through also, even though they barely had the numbers and still had to compromise a lot due to just having 50 or 51 Senators, meaning the 1 or 2 Democrats in name only can hold legislation hostage to their will. It just happened again last year with the Build Back Better bill.
  - skrtskrt 5y ago
    I mean you're basically echoing my point - the Democratic party at the national level doesn't have the willpower to get pro-worker legislation through. And it's not just because they suck at winning elections, but also because they actively welcome anti-labor candidates into their ranks and crush the more progressive primary challengers even in safe blue districts. Not to mention that the executive branch has the power to go after labor law violators and for the most part just doesn't.
    - lotsofpulp 5y ago
      I do not think I echoed that. I said that Democrats have not had a majority by more than 1 for a long time. That is just numbers, it has nothing to do with willpower. You cannot realistically expect every single party member to toe the line, so effectively, as a party they have to compromise heavily just to get the things through that they have.
      - skrtskrt 5y ago
        It is obviously a matter of willpower. The Republicans have no problem getting their moderate members to toe the line on their more extreme stuff. "Moderate" Republican party members would make their statements about "this isn't the way things are done' every time Trump did something crazy, but every single one folded and fell in line, every single time. If it was the priority of the Democratic national party leadership to get real, actual big legislation done that benefited workers over companies and investors, then they would. They do everything they can to block, blacklist, and crush campaigns of progressive primary challengers. They could do that to the "moderate" members who don't want to pass any legislation at all, if passing that legislation was really a priority. It's just obviously not something they care about, and it's obvious why. The party is run by obscenely wealthy members and donors, just like the Republicans are.
        lotsofpulp 5y ago
        > If it was the priority of the Democratic national party leadership to get real, actual big legislation done that benefited workers over companies and investors, then they would. Without 51 Senate votes, how? I would rather not have politicians that “fall in line” for the party’s sake, and rather “fall in line” for the country’s sake. >It's just obviously not something they care about, and it's obvious why. >The party is run by obscenely wealthy members and donors, just like the Republicans are. I think the fact that Democrat states exclusively have better worker protections and laws says a lot more about which party is run by who. Not to mention that federal Democrats actually propose things like universal pre K, expanding access to healthcare (note Republican states exclusively opted out of Medicaid expansion), and so on and so forth.
- mateo411 5y ago
  The Democrats have been the party of the free trade and globalization, while also supporting the working class. There is a problem with this approach. Free trade and globalization means that goods are cheaper, the economy is more efficient, and the nation on the whole is wealthier. Unfortunately, a lot of these efficiencies come at the expense of many US based working class jobs. This is why the Democrats have been less union over the years, unless they are supporting teachers, police officers, or other government unions. The war in Ukraine could slow down and reverse a lot of globalization. Supply chain issues that we've seen during the pandemic have also been particularly. Maybe we'll start making more things in America again and perhaps the Democrats will do a better job supporting working class Americans. We are living in interesting times. I'll guess we'll see what happens.
- Spooky23 5y ago
  The parties are symbiotic. The big tent of the Democratic Party wouldn’t exist without the regimented command & control model of the Republicans. Personally, I think that you’ll see party platforms shift as the current cohort of old people die off and their replacements are poorer and angrier. The parties of 1920, 1960, 2000 and 2040 are and will be different things.
- nebula8804 5y ago
  The "few others" are a cadre of younger politicians. As millennials continue to win elections, the hope is that the tide will shift. Gen Z is even better because they have never had any illusion that this was a workable system. Unfortunately the Boomers will cling on to power until their last dying breath. (ex. Nancy Pelosi running for re-election yet again).

throwaway6734 5y ago

I don't think that will be the case for social security for much longer. The trust is on the path to running dry over the next 10-15 years and benefits will need to be cut. Romney recently breached the idea of raising retirement age for current workers. Frankly I'm shocked by how few young workers realize how bad of a deal they're getting with the current system

cwmoreiras 5y ago
The only way social security will "run dry" is if Congress lets it die.
mrfusion 5y ago
It’s easy enough to simply raise the income cap though to shore it up.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  Politically, no, that is not simple.
  - MisterBastahrd 5y ago
    Politically, it's the simplest solution of all. The average American pays FICA on 100% of their income. The people who don't are upper middle class to rich, and nobody is going to weep for the 1 less vacation those people take every year.
    - briHass 5y ago
      Careful there; this is typically when the sob stories start about how one is NOT "upper middle class" when making $150K (more than double the median household income), because they live in expensive areas, etc. One saw a similar outcry when the TCJA removed the ability to deduct SALT taxes for effective income levels around that amount. The reality is, and has always been, that this group (call it whatever you want) of incomes in the $150K to $400K range is absolutely necessary to include in increased taxation policies to pay for all the spending.