Opinion of Labour Unions By Party

[H. Ross Peron]

Freedom Organizations (D)

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Freedom Organizations. But they should be limited like any organization, corporation, or government.

[TNF]

The Greatest Organizations (I/O)

[Sopranos Republican]

Obvious Freedom Organizations. (D)

[TNF]

Also, there's no 'u' in Labor, Mung Beans.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

The Greatest Organizations (I/O)

Did you just come?

[TNF]

The Greatest Organizations (I/O)

Did you just come?

That's strictly confidential, comrade.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

The most important element in any true democracy.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

The Greatest Organizations (I/O)

Did you just come?

That's strictly confidential, comrade.

Oh, you can tell me. *stands creepily behind you smiling with his mouth and not his eyes*

The most important element in any true democracy.

Except, y'know, free and fair elections.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

The Greatest Organizations (I/O)

Did you just come?

That's strictly confidential, comrade.

Oh, you can tell me. *stands creepily behind you smiling with his mouth and not his eyes*

The most important element in any true democracy.

Except, y'know, free and fair elections.

*the most important safeguard of democracy.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

The Greatest Organizations (I/O)

Did you just come?

That's strictly confidential, comrade.

Oh, you can tell me. *stands creepily behind you smiling with his mouth and not his eyes*

The most important element in any true democracy.

Except, y'know, free and fair elections.

*the most important safeguard of democracy.

So historically the Rust Belt is more democratic? Is there evidence of this? BTW, if Mecha were to swoop in and save the day by vomiting history at us in a good way, that'd be great for all parties - not even to potentially contradict Snowstalker but just to be educated. Do we have to say "The Federalists were an elitist party" three times to summon him?

[TNF]

Elections are worthless in the absence of organized opposition groups that can tilt the debate in one direction or another. Labor unions fill that roll when they are able to get people into the streets (and to the polls) and have contributed more to our democracy in a positive manner than any other organizations in American history, with the possible exception of the abolitionist groups of the pre-Civil War era.

[Sec. of State Superique]

Also, there's no 'u' in Labor, Mung Beans.

In English-UK, I believe there certainly is an u in Labour...

[TNF]

Also, there's no 'u' in Labor, Mung Beans.

In English-UK, I believe there certainly is an un in Labour...

That's fine if you're English, but Mung Beans is an American, so it's nonsensical for him to type Labor with a 'u' added in.

[Sec. of State Superique]

Also, there's no 'u' in Labor, Mung Beans.

In English-UK, I believe there certainly is an un in Labour...

That's fine if you're English, but Mung Beans is an American, so it's nonsensical for him to type Labor with a 'u' added in.

I'm not English but Labour looks much better!

[H. Ross Peron]

Also, there's no 'u' in Labor, Mung Beans.

In English-UK, I believe there certainly is an un in Labour...

That's fine if you're English, but Mung Beans is an American, so it's nonsensical for him to type Labor with a 'u' added in.

I agree with the great socialist writer HP Lovecraft in preferring British spelling to that of America's.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

Freedom Organizations. But they should be limited like any organization, corporation, or government.

I agree with you, but wow, I did not expect this from you of all posters

[bedstuy]

On balance, labor unions are a net plus for society because the policy that benefits the average worker benefits everyone.

However, I think Democrats should look at the negative aspects of unions in practice too.  Some unions contribute to these bureaucratic labor systems where nobody can get fired, pensions sink public and corporate finances and corruption springs up.  I just think of how it is here in New York.  We have unions run by the Italian Mafia, unions that enforce blatant nepotism in hiring and blatant political corruption where politicians hand out pension bonuses right before elections.  And, there's a cost to it.  For example, if you want to build affordable housing in NYC, you can't use union labor.

[IceSpear]

FO, for the most part.

[Ban my account ffs!]

The most important element in any true democracy.

I would think every citizen having an equal say in the outcome of the question at hand would be the most important element in any true democracy.

Labor unions are a symptom of our odd forced marriage of "democracy" in politics and exploitative dictatorships in the economy.

A true democracy would rid the economy of exploitative dictatorships in exchange for a system where every worker had an equal say in the decision making process in an enterprise.

[7,052,770]

Freedom Organizations.  I don't think it's a coincidence that states without unions are the worst off economically.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Also, there's no 'u' in Labor, Mung Beans.

In English-UK, I believe there certainly is an un in Labour...

That's fine if you're English, but Mung Beans is an American, so it's nonsensical for him to type Labor with a 'u' added in.

I agree with the great socialist writer HP Lovecraft in preferring British spelling to that of America's.

Your personal preference is irrelevant. If you want to start spelling things like the British, you can file immigration papers and move over there in a few years. In the meantime, you can't just flush your own country down the toilet because we're not "progressive" enough for you.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Of course the correct British term is 'Trade Union'.

[Mechaman]

I've heard the call of Alfred here, so I'll contribute (and it will go exactly like all you people expect it to go).  Thankfully, somebody has already stated my opening salvo far better than I ever could've:

Elections are worthless in the absence of organized opposition groups that can tilt the debate in one direction or another. Labor unions fill that roll when they are able to get people into the streets (and to the polls) and have contributed more to our democracy in a positive manner than any other organizations in American history, with the possible exception of the abolitionist groups of the pre-Civil War era.

Jefferson, Madison and crew recognized that Hamilton and his cronies in effect had created an underclass of enemies.  Naturally, they saw expanded voter suffrage and freer immigration as ways to cement their support.  They were applying the Invisible Hand philosophy to politics: the freer and more open the market for votes the more it expands.  This is a strategy that has sustained Democratic Coalitions (with some slight exceptions in the mid-late 19th century) since time immemorial, the idea that common man politics instills a natural advantage for the Democratic establishment by providing a reliable base of zealous voters motivated by ideals and not removed pragmatism.

However, with that said it doesn't meant that the "liberal" party leadership is always intuned to populist necessity or actions that benefit the common man.  Far from it actually, as in America (and I suspect in other nations) powerful elite institutions in even parties that are seen as left winged ultimately turn towards policies that benefit the elites but do little for the common man.  This is able to happen mostly because of our two party system, in which a Democrat can be an open free marketer as long as the proles who vote for him perceive the Republican Party as an instrument of pure evil (not far from the truth actually).  It is the whole True Democrat/Neoliberal Appeaser (yes sage) mentality that the best we can do is a 35% tax rate on the upper class, we need more tax loopholes, or that we should be okay with 60 hour weeks and that if you don't tow the party line you are only helping the radical Tea Partiers/Know Nothings into power.

That mentality is why Labor Unions should be necessary.  And more to the point, why Labor Unions need to be more adamant and dare I even say dangerous?

Back to the 19th Century, where people thought Chattel Slavery and Wage Slavery were just things that happened and that the two major parties should stay tight lipped and not try to encourage conflict over the issues.  Well, everyone knows what happened with the former, as there were several third parties that were devoted to the anti-slavery movement and then a third one, the Republican Party, gathered a wide coalition of anti-slavery Democrats, Whigs, and Know Nothings that would support at first the stop of the spread of slavery and then ultimately in the Civil War it's abolition.  The existence of Radical Republicanism is something of an anomaly, not the rule for general Republicanism.  The Republican Part at the time seemed to be a coalition of extremes that rallied everybody from Ye Olde Federalist Dynasty to outright German Revolutionary Marxists into one party.  Arguably, many of the Radical Republicans would've been very left wing Democrats in the 1840s.  The guys who were calling for universal acceptance of all immigrants and Civil Rights for everyone were promptly discarded of by the end of Reconstruction when the Know Nothing robber baron moralistic elites took over the party once and for all.  Within a decade the GOP had moved far and away from it's humble roots and had become an instrument and tool for the Fat Cats to soak the underclass of all their power.

At the same time though we see the rise of a more open and vehement leftism from working class interests.  One of the most visible instance of labor activism in the 1870s could be seen with the actions of the Molly Maguires, a secret society of Irish/Irish American laborers who had strong links with the cause of Nationalism back in the home country who adopted the tactics of Land Movement back home to use against the coal mining trusts in rural Pennsylvania.  The coal mining companies of the time in Pennsylvania had been waging what can be best described as a campaign of terror against the miners, with rampant beatings and murders in the district.  The establishment, which was already paying them starvation wages, forcing them to work 80 hour weeks, and even having their seven year old sons work just to feed their families who survived in extremely deplorable conditions, wasn't okay with people complaining about conditions.  The fact that unions could be formed was viewed as a danger and a menace to these barons, who viewed violent repression and police force against them as necessary.  Many of the union members, of course, were immigrants who came from societies where they had for ages been viewed as subhuman scum by outside imperialists who had stolen their lands and waged wars against the very existence of their culture.

This last statement is very critical for many people to understand about white ethnic laborers.  American society has always maintained this idea that citizens are to be well behaved and well mannered people who know their role and only give polite protest when appropriate.  To the immigrant laborer who made up a large portion of the movement, this mentality was unacceptable, as being "well behaved" never got them anything except second class treatment.  And now that they were in the New World, the elites were now telling them they should enjoy their freedom and liberty to work themselves to death for little earning.  The extreme hypocrisy of the enlightened WASP class becomes very apparent here, as the men who once raised a huge stink about Chattel Slavery commit themselves to upholding and defending the very institution of Wage Slavery.  Republicans cared about minorities, until they had the right to vote I guess.  I guess that once they had the ability to actually earn a decent living, organize for better pay, and get fair working hours they became a menace.  Of course, it bears pointing out that the natural fear of all things Hibernian (unions were strongly associated with the Land League, Clan Na Gael, Georgism, and the Ancient Order, all organizations with strong support of Irish Nationalism) that was held among the Boston Brahmin and other descendants of "God's True Children" might've had something to do with such opposition.  The average 19th Century Anglo Republican in Massachusetts feared the Irishman for much the same reasons that 21st century Texas Suburbia white Republicans fear Hispanics.  And that is THEY WILL TAKE OUR JOBS AND KILL PEOPLE!

But of course, I will not pretend by any measure that the Democratic establishment of the time was actually pro-worker.  Bourbon Democracy was based strongly on the idea that if Democrats reformed themselves as a decent and honest party where honest and non-corruptible men of good character (see rich protestant businessmen/lawyers) knew what was best for the nation!  Of course we have the entire Jim Crow regime in the South which supported laws that severely restricted the rights of blacks, Native Americans, Hispanics, and poor whites, but that's a very duh point.  They were okay with the ns of Europe coming over, as long as they voted Democratic, kept their mouth shut, didn't run for office, beat up free blacks, and doth not protest too much.  Progressivism was a natural attempt at compromise with the left wing of society, as politicians like Roosevelt, and Wilson realized the danger that unions could pose to society if left untreated.  There was also a motivation that if some reforms weren't done that it would give more legitimacy to organizations like Tammany Hall who were quickly becoming more and more pro-labor as the second and third generation ethnic classes were becoming more powerful in the urban political machines.  Basically, it was a campaign against the more left winged ideals held by many immigrant Americans of the time.  There was quite a clear split between Progressives and Socialists, as the latter generally gathered "undesirables" while the former was more of a Professional Class movement.

With the rise of urban pro-labor Democrats (namely Al Smith) to nationwide prominence who actively supported labor interests, we begin to see a more strongly defined liberal wing of politics.  His nomination in 1928 signified a blow against the ingrained political caste system of the times, that only good and proper protestant men of "noble upbringing" could run for President.  His landslide loss that year devastated him and instilled upon him a very significant degree of cynicism (mostly brought on by the success of Prohibition than anything) that led to his flag change in 1934 in opposition to the New Deal.  That FDR, who campaigned pretty conservatively in 1932 and was against some of Smith's more liberal platform ideas at the 1932 DNC, became the standard bearer of liberalism while Smith became a Republican is indeed a historical irony.  Though of course, when FDR became President it was perhaps his embrace of the undeniable realities the nation was facing, and that it was Socialists behind Big Labor and that behind those Socialists were Communists, that we were able to get such left wing progress in the New Deal era.

The militancy and violence of the labor unions was a necessity forced by the violence and power of the ultra powerful elite.  They weren't people who were fit to be slaves in the Old World only to become ones in the new.  And you all should thank your deities that they did instead of buy the revisionist mantra that being a nice quiet citizen and voting for one of the two parties and supporting the most winnable candidate is how you get ahead in society.  Politicians react to what they fear, and we should be thankful that they feared the consequences that organized labor could wreck on society.  General point is, if you want sh*t to happen actually do something.

The Left needs to learn that it needs to do more than sh*t in city squares to get their message across.  We need to harm business to such an extent that it once again takes labor needs as legitimate.  Yes this is bias, but I don't see how the historical record can be used to defend the other side of the debate.

[Maxwell]

Ask me 50 or so years ago, I'd tell you FO. Not today though.