“Observations”

by: Donald S. Conkey

Date: September 3, 2009 - # 9936b – Has the labor movement changed its mission? (842)

Next Monday will be Labor Day 2009 – a national holiday that, along with Memorial Day, anchors America’s summer months. However Labor-Day was first established as a tribute to the American worker and to the labor movement that was built around the worker whose labor helped create America’s affluent middle class.

 The evolution of the labor movement was filled with opposition, often deadly opposition. Giving laborers rights was unheard of when skilled workers first began to organize in the mid 1800s.  This was radical thinking and was strongly opposed by management. But America was building something no nation had ever built before, a nation of free people with ‘workers’ who wanted to share in the dreams and wealth made possible by America’s new constitutional government built on capitalism. Workers organized. Management resisted. Government, until the 1880s often favored management. But then things began to change and skilled labor began to organize and the American Federation of Labor (AFL) was born.

As the labor movement grew federal politicians took note and in 1935 passed the Wagner Act, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).  Under the protective umbrella of the NLRA the labor movement in America began to expand its influence. Non-skilled workers were organized by industries: the United Auto Workers; the United Steel Workers; and the United Mine Workers, under fiery John Lewis. These were the big three unions and strikes drove home their demands of change in the 1930s and 1940s. At their apex private sector unions represented 36 percent of all workers in 1945. Later, to increase their political clout these private sector unions joined forces under the AFL-CIO banner. But improved technology caused “change” within these industries and today the private sector segment of the labor movement represents only seven percent of these workers.

As the private sector declined labor leaders concentrated on the public sector workers and today public sector unions represent nearly 36 percent of their workers. The influx of the public sector worker helped retain labors political clout both at the state and federal levels. Today all unions represent about 12 percent of the work force, but their political clout reaches far beyond these numbers. The union movement embedded themselves primarily with one political party and has become a very vocal and financial advocate for that party, and the new administration. And their financial support has created disproportion influence in the new administration.

Last week my wife Joan and I watched an old movie, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, starring Jimmy Stewart. This movie, produced in the early 40s, was a spoof on the altruism of a politically naive young man who was appointed a U.S. Senator to fill out a term believing he would fall in line with state politics and be ‘a good little boy that created no waves.’ It didn’t work out that way. The movie’s purpose, I believe, was to discredit the power of the industrialists who had ‘bought and owned his senior senator.’ This movie brought to mind the comment Senator John McCain made at Senator Ted Kennedy’s funeral, speaking of a junior senator whom he, McCain, and Kennedy, had to sit down and ‘orientate’ on the “senatorial protocol” of the senate body. Control!

This movie also reminded me of  management’s ‘thuggery’ in trying to buy senate seats in the late 1800s that ‘changed’ the Founders intent and led to the passage of the 17ths amendment in 1913, electing senators by popular vote versus the Founder’s intent to have senators elected by state legislators. This amendment, in my opinion, totally destroyed the check and balances doctrine between the federal and state governments.       This movie also reminded me of the debates raging in Washington D.C. today. It caused me to ask if ‘thuggery’ is still in vogue today in Washington, and by whom? Is it possible that the political influence we see being exerted today for the passage of the massive changes that once again will ‘change’ the Founder’s intent could be considered “political thuggery,” but this time by the unions and environmental groups, not industrialists?

All students of American history realize that politics is a necessary evil in all forms of government. People change, times change, missions change, and today, as a former UAW member, I wonder if the idealistic mission of the original unions, to improve the living conditions of working families, has changed to one of self glory, power and thuggery. If this is the case all Americans will suffer and America will pay a price, a heavy price.

The one mission that all Americans need to unite behind is the Mission of the Untied States of America. It reads: “We the people of the United States of America, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish the Constitution for the United States of America.” And without thuggery from what ever source: management, labor, special interest groups, or within the government itself.