On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 7:35 AM, Louis Proyect <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What good does this do if jobs are evaporating at the current rate? Wasn't 1936--when unemployment was certainly higher--one of the high marks of the union movement? Isn't it why FDR was eventually forced to make concessions? At that point, businesses were ready to work directly w/ unions because they were causing such a ruckus. Cf. Lynd's piece in this edition of Radical America: http://dl.lib.brown.edu/repository2/repoman.php?verb=render&id=1124977683411944 I guess we could argue that we are in a dramatically different job situation than then--globalization, as the Mike Davis piece in Tom Dispatch a few weeks ago pointed out, "no shuttered factories to bring back online, etc.--but I think this would also be to bend to the Chamber of Commerce, et. al. pace: http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2008/11/03/daily90.html <OPEN QUOTE> The U.S. Chamber of Commerce urged President-elect Barack Obama and Congress to refrain from pushing legislation to make organizing unions easier until the economy recovers.[....] The Employee Free Choice Act, however, would have "serious implications" for job creation and economic stability, Donohue said. Therefore, Congress should put off consideration of this bill until the economy improves, he said. [....] The bill not only would hurt businesses, it would spoil the the post-election spirit of cooperation that now exists between the president-elect and business groups, he said. [. . . .] Donohue thinks Obama also will realize that capping greenhouse gas emissions would not be smart when the economy is in a recession. These caps would impose a big new tax on the economy and "may sink it further," he said. <CLOSE QUOTE> There have been similar claims that have been reiterated--the business community is already on the offensive. I have my google alert set for the EFCA and yeasterday there were three other articles on business leaders claiming this would be "bad for the economy." Home Depot opposes union organizing bill - CEO http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN0632246720081106 Employee free-choice bill worries businesses http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/06/BULL13VKR7.DTL Chamber Vows to Fight Free Choice Act http://www.rollcall.com/news/29942-1.html There were some blogs stating support, but no major media: there is arguably never a good time for union activity from the perspective of capital, but it seems notable that we are currently in an economic climate similar to the one at that moment. The exception, of course, is that we now have a firmer understanding of the effects of economics on the climate. There is no need for a Smoot Hartley (which, incidentally, was in place during that period of heightened Union activity) because obviously trade can be quite good. But there are a lot of irrational trades that are done merely for labor arbitrage which are only economically rational because the true cost of international shipping isn't calculated. Thus it is telling that the Chamber of Commerce sees the EFCA and carbon caps in the same light: these are the two biggest threats to continuing business as usual. i.e. http://www.oceana.org/climate/solutions/oceana/no-more-free-ride/ <OQ> * Only five countries in the world release more carbon dioxide than the global fleet of marine vessels. * This fleet releases 1.12 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide each year, an amount equivalent to emissions from over 205 million cars, or more cars than were registered in the U.S. in 2006 (135 million). * A single container ship emits more global warming pollution than 2,000 diesel trucks. * By 2020, these emissions could double 2002 levels, and they could be triple those levels by 2030. * Ships are also major emitters of nitrogen oxides – contributing nearly 30% of the world's releases. This amount too is expected to triple by 2030. * Another pollutant released by ships, black carbon, or soot, can warm the air as well as cause snow and ice to melt. Black carbon may be responsible for as much as 25% of observed global warming. <CQ> If both of these issues were tackled at the same time, on an international scale, the benefits for local workers in the US would be quite real; as would the benefits to other local workers around the world. Tax the hell out of shipping (though not sure who gets those funds or how they should be managed) and give employees more say in the production process. Focus export oriented investment in fields that really are advantageous; otherwise, try to make some shit locally if it is senseless (and expensive) to ship components from thousands of miles to simply assemble it at lower cost somewhere else and ship it back. Invest in alternative energy tech and production processes; make these technologies open source and assist in helping other countries creating inputs, etc. I don't know how we can save the US economy without reinforcing the international division of labor as it stands, but maybe it is worth a shot to try to re-imagine both. It would seem like dangers to climate and the possible collapse of US consumption would be enough to make every country in the supply chain anxious enough to try some new strategies. Finally, most of the jobs being added in the US are in the service sector, and if I understand it correctly, most of the union growth is in service unions. I don't see these as being indicators that there couldn't be a way to have these trends continue. Likewise, since healthcare and education would seem to be the key industries we need to improve, these sectors seem set for a rapid expansion, if only to improve the provision of these services. I guess, in general, these are less profitable than manufacturing (though maybe I'm just believing too much of the Daniel Bell I just read) but unions are only partially about profit sharing: also about control over job conditions. I'm sure a lot of what I've just said is totally speculative, some of it wrong, but I think enough of it is right to make fighting for something like EFCA--along with greater democratic control over the unions themselves--worthwhile and even economically wise. As for... > Furthermore, some of the greatest advances in trade union organizing in the > 20th century took place before the Wagner Act. This is true. Maybe I don't understand the changes that have taken place since then, but aren't we (especially we in the Southwest and sunbelt states) in a similar situation to that before collective bargaining was recognized--and with virtually none of the militancy you refer to. In "right to work" states Wagner is effectively moot; EFCA seems a necessary but insufficient step in trying to renew the militancy itself. It does none of the things that Wagner did, so far as I can tell, except for making the union itself more able to represent more of the workers. > If the trade unions are to > have any future at all, it will only be realized by breaking with a > political party that is run by corporate lawyers and funded by Goldman-Sachs > et al. This has always been the case--or at least there have always been people arguing it--and one of the claims made by that Radical American article above is that the real downfall of the "united front" of militant labor organizing was when it aligned with the Dems as opposed to following through with starting its own parties. But in this case I don't see the dichotomy as relevant: the president elect has said he'd sign the legislation if it cam on his desk; there might be enough support in the legislature to pass it; I don't see why working with a particular party is necessarily bad for the legislation. Unless you're anticipating that, in their hands, it will likely get so watered down with amendments that any symbolic victory will be undermined by the actual loopholes it includes. But you appear to be saying that, the legislation, even if it is sound, even if it gets passed as is, shouldn't be left to Dems because they are swine. Or, implicitly, the Republicans, because they are bigger swine. So who should pass it? In principle I see what you're saying and it has a long tradition of being true: in general, Dems do little for labor but take their campaign funds. But since we're talking about labor legislation that Dems have a chance of passing, what difference does it make that they are Dems? s
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
