Support for Unions Plunges to All Time Low

[Darkwind]

I only saw a few minutes of the speech, which is all I can take of that huckster these days.

He was in full campaign mode, no jacket or tie, 'man of the people' pushing his health care come hell or high water, and giving the Union crowd what they want, a leader to take them out of the wilderness.

The man is more tone deaf to the mood of the nation then Bush ever was, he belives all he has to do is go back on the campaign trail and all will be rosey again.

I agree.

The problem is, very few are calling him on it.

His support among independants has dropped considerably, and they are who won him the election, so enough people are noticing.

The speech today was pablum for the base, there was a whole lot of leg shaking going on in that crowd.

LOL

Some serious leg tingling too no doubt.

 

[Polk]

Polling indicates the public strongly opposed to that pro-union attempt.

If the Dems attempt to forward that at this time, they will pay a very heavy political price for it...

I'm sure that has nothing to do with how it's been mischaracterized in the media.

 

[Sinatra]

i have no tears for unionists, buch of lazy good for nothing assholes who make more than the job is worth and do nothing but run comapnies out of business. weep for the $75 an hour GM worker, lolz..fuck them i hope they all lose their fucking jobs

Ouch!

How about those legacy costs - allowing people to collect a paycheck and NOT work?

The unions are crippling the very companies that provide the jobs that in turn provide the union dues that make the unions big business...

 

[Polk]

The man is more tone deaf to the mood of the nation then Bush ever was, he belives all he has to do is go back on the campaign trail and all will be rosey again.

When survey data shows that public approval of your plan jumps by 30 points when they're told what is in it, yeah, I'd say it's mostly a sales issue.

 

[Polk]

i have no tears for unionists, buch of lazy good for nothing assholes who make more than the job is worth and do nothing but run comapnies out of business. weep for the $75 an hour GM worker, lolz..fuck them i hope they all lose their fucking jobs

The only $75 an hour workers at GM are sitting in management.

 

[Sinatra]

The man is more tone deaf to the mood of the nation then Bush ever was, he belives all he has to do is go back on the campaign trail and all will be rosey again.

When survey data shows that public approval of your plan jumps by 30 points when they're told what is in it, yeah, I'd say it's mostly a sales issue.

Survey Data?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJO0zDdrAUQ]YouTube - Funny Family Feud Clip[/ame]

 

[Xenophon]

The man is more tone deaf to the mood of the nation then Bush ever was, he belives all he has to do is go back on the campaign trail and all will be rosey again.

When survey data shows that public approval of your plan jumps by 30 points when they're told what is in it, yeah, I'd say it's mostly a sales issue.

People oppose the 'plan' mostly based on cost.

That has been the overiding factor from day one, and Obama is tone deaf to it.

Rosey speeches won't pay for anything.

 

[Diuretic]

Some valid points - but it is equally valid to point out that unions have themselves become very big business. There is no real distinction between Big Business and Unions - they are essentially one and the same.

And like some in big business, unions have become corrupted and negligent in protecting the American worker. Legacy costs of the car Big Three have near crippled the car companies - and make no mistake, the bailout of the car companies was just as much about bailing out the unions as anything. If those companies had restructured on their own, the unions might very well have disolved - and that trend would have spread throughout the country. They are an absolete model whose viability diminished with each labor law passage during the last century. Now they are a lobbying ponzi scheme based upon the backs and union dues of the workers they pretend to protect.

More Americans grow weary of the radicalism within the unions, and this most recent polling shows that....

In part I agree with your points. Unions in the US are without ideology, very largely. That goes back to Gompers. Unions in the US have been and still are involved in a symbiotic relationship with business and with capitalism. They support business and they support capitalism. It's against their own interests to ruin a company, that's down to other factors. Incompetent management, poor economic conditions are perhaps two of those factors, greedy unions aren't. The concept of “clawback” isn't unknown in other countries that hav collective bargaining on a company basis but in the US it has become an art form. Unions, cooperating to ensure the health of a company and therefore the jobs of its members and of course its own income stream from dues, will bargain away previous gains.

Unions in the US were probably the first to have to combat the human resources movement which was aimed at removing unions from companies (but without thugs and guns). It appears that the human resources movement has been successful, no doubt aided by reactionary propaganda machines in the mainstream media – corporate owned of course – which demonised unions. There has been corruption in the US labour movement, sadly, but there's corruption in all aspects of public life so it's not unique to unions. Unions in the US can reinvent themselves but it would take a huge effort by vested interests who are not likely to kick themselves out of good jobs to repair unionism.

The problem with US unions is radicalism yes, but more a lack of it rather than its existence.

Not sure what radicalism you are referencing - the destruction of capitalism?

If so, I disagree with you entirely - you are simply being silly.

Unions are radicalized today - spending money to push social agendas as much as actual worker issues. The mainstream union body funds more radical branches, and the entire entity is one big nasty mess these days.

There is a forceful anti-liberal backlash brewing right now - and unions are going to suffer from that backlash - the poll indicates they already are...

Not the destruction of anything, its replacement. Unions are only one force among many that can make the change happen. At the moment they're not inclined, generally anyway. There are some left unions in the world but even in my country which has a history of radicalism in the labour movement going back to the late 19th Century, pragmatism is driving unions at the moment. And that's fair enough.

It's good to see unions taking on a social agenda as well as looking after their members' interests. Unfortunately in US politics it appears that there is no "labour" party which is a bit sad. Instead there are two parties of the right Tweedleright and Tweederighter, representing corporate interests and being given riding instructions by corporate lobbyists. But that's only an observation, I'm loathe to get prescriptive with another country's domestic politics.

 

[Polk]

The man is more tone deaf to the mood of the nation then Bush ever was, he belives all he has to do is go back on the campaign trail and all will be rosey again.

When survey data shows that public approval of your plan jumps by 30 points when they're told what is in it, yeah, I'd say it's mostly a sales issue.

People oppose the 'plan' mostly based on cost.

That has been the overiding factor from day one, and Obama is tone deaf to it.

Rosey speeches won't pay for anything.

Cost is a Beltway issue. The man on the street doesn't care about the cost. He cares about if it works or not.

 

[editec]

Yes, as the number of union members decline support for them declines as well.

This is surprising why?

 

[Polk]

Yes, as the number of union members decline support for them declines as well.

This is surprising why?

And it's not really a shock that the number of people in unions has declined as business interests have been successful at pushing laws to de facto ban unions in most state.

 

[noose4]

Yes, as the number of union members decline support for them declines as well.

This is surprising why?

And it's not really a shock that the number of people in unions has declined as business interests have been successful at pushing laws to de facto ban unions in most state.

and its no surprise that as unions decline the working class drifts closer to being poor rather than middle class.

 

[Polk]

Yes, as the number of union members decline support for them declines as well.

This is surprising why?

And it's not really a shock that the number of people in unions has declined as business interests have been successful at pushing laws to de facto ban unions in most state.

and its no surprise that as unions decline the working class drifts closer to being poor rather than middle class.

Actually, that should increase unionization. The other major driver is the shift from blue-collar to white-collar.

 

[Sinatra]

In part I agree with your points. Unions in the US are without ideology, very largely. That goes back to Gompers. Unions in the US have been and still are involved in a symbiotic relationship with business and with capitalism. They support business and they support capitalism. It's against their own interests to ruin a company, that's down to other factors. Incompetent management, poor economic conditions are perhaps two of those factors, greedy unions aren't. The concept of “clawback” isn't unknown in other countries that hav collective bargaining on a company basis but in the US it has become an art form. Unions, cooperating to ensure the health of a company and therefore the jobs of its members and of course its own income stream from dues, will bargain away previous gains.

Unions in the US were probably the first to have to combat the human resources movement which was aimed at removing unions from companies (but without thugs and guns). It appears that the human resources movement has been successful, no doubt aided by reactionary propaganda machines in the mainstream media – corporate owned of course – which demonised unions. There has been corruption in the US labour movement, sadly, but there's corruption in all aspects of public life so it's not unique to unions. Unions in the US can reinvent themselves but it would take a huge effort by vested interests who are not likely to kick themselves out of good jobs to repair unionism.

The problem with US unions is radicalism yes, but more a lack of it rather than its existence.

Not sure what radicalism you are referencing - the destruction of capitalism?

If so, I disagree with you entirely - you are simply being silly.

Unions are radicalized today - spending money to push social agendas as much as actual worker issues. The mainstream union body funds more radical branches, and the entire entity is one big nasty mess these days.

There is a forceful anti-liberal backlash brewing right now - and unions are going to suffer from that backlash - the poll indicates they already are...

Not the destruction of anything, its replacement. Unions are only one force among many that can make the change happen. At the moment they're not inclined, generally anyway. There are some left unions in the world but even in my country which has a history of radicalism in the labour movement going back to the late 19th Century, pragmatism is driving unions at the moment. And that's fair enough.

It's good to see unions taking on a social agenda as well as looking after their members' interests. Unfortunately in US politics it appears that there is no "labour" party which is a bit sad. Instead there are two parties of the right Tweedleright and Tweederighter, representing corporate interests and being given riding instructions by corporate lobbyists. But that's only an observation, I'm loathe to get prescriptive with another country's domestic politics.

____

That is one of the primary faults of unions - they are now forwarding a radicalized agenda at the expense of their members. Thus we see support for unions in free fall - which ultimately, will prove a good thing for the American economy...

 

[garyd]

I can't speak for other countries but in the US Labor unions ceased to have anything to do with helping the working man nearly fifty years ago. Unions began as a means to level the playing field between the individual laborer and management, now they hold the power and that has proven to be as bad for the country as the other way around. This is especially so now that 80 odd percent of current union members are government workers. And a good 20% of those are in what in the private sector would be white collar jobs.

Unions in the US now are simply shills for ever larger government because most of their members benefit from ever larger government unlike the majority of Americans who have to pay for said government not only in terms of cash but in terms of increasing government intervention in how they lead their lives day to day.

 

[Sinatra]

I can't speak for other countries but in the US Labor unions ceased to have anything to do with helping the working man nearly fifty years ago. Unions began as a means to level the playing field between the individual laborer and management, now they hold the power and that has proven to be as bad for the country as the other way around. This is especially so now that 80 odd percent of current union members are government workers. And a good 20% of those are in what in the private sector would be white collar jobs.

Unions in the US now are simply shills for ever larger government because most of their members benefit from ever larger government unlike the majority of Americans who have to pay for said government not only in terms of cash but in terms of increasing government intervention in how they lead their lives day to day.

___

Very well said - you are exactly right.

 

[Polk]

I can't speak for other countries but in the US Labor unions ceased to have anything to do with helping the working man nearly fifty years ago. Unions began as a means to level the playing field between the individual laborer and management, now they hold the power and that has proven to be as bad for the country as the other way around. This is especially so now that 80 odd percent of current union members are government workers. And a good 20% of those are in what in the private sector would be white collar jobs.

Unions in the US now are simply shills for ever larger government because most of their members benefit from ever larger government unlike the majority of Americans who have to pay for said government not only in terms of cash but in terms of increasing government intervention in how they lead their lives day to day.

The idea that unions hold the power is beyond laughable.

 

[garyd]

If you think they don't hold the whip hand in negotiations right now you're either blind or stupid. granted these days they are mostly negotiating with gutless politicians instead of company management teams but still...

 

[Polk]

If you think they don't hold the whip hand in negotiations right now you're either blind or stupid. granted these days they are mostly negotiating with gutless politicians instead of company management teams but still...

They don't hold the "whip hand" in negotiations. Companies openly and regularly violate laws governing union organization. And why not do so? The punishments for violating the law are so low than you'd have to be caught every time for it to not be worthwhile.

 

[Sinatra]

If you think they don't hold the whip hand in negotiations right now you're either blind or stupid. granted these days they are mostly negotiating with gutless politicians instead of company management teams but still...

Don't mind him - you are completely correct.

In the late 1990s I was a ranking member of one the largest unions in the country. The corruption within the union power structure is appalling. They are, as you stated, an extension of Big Government...