Labor Unions Now Reaching Out to Republicans

[patrick1]

Which doesn't contradict a thing I said. Of course the Republicans win a good chunk of union votes, but they don't "win" them the way Reagan did, on a consistent basis. Which is why I called it a temporary occurance, a statement which you objected to. The only way to object would be to argue otherwise, which is simply not the case. 

Your statement that it was a 'temporary occurance' implies that American politics follows the traditional model, which is not the case. Most of America's unions, and certainly the Teamsters and AFL-CIO, are right-wing, and they vote Republican all out of proportion to the way they 'ought' to according to the traditional understanding of the political axis. It's not 'temporary', except in the sense that it was a temporary spike in an already-strong trend.

Cite you sources for this__.  The AFL CIO umbrella covers the large majority of union membership in this country.  Union households have gone about 60-40 the past three presidential elections.

[patrick1]

Which doesn't contradict a thing I said. Of course the Republicans win a good chunk of union votes, but they don't "win" them the way Reagan did, on a consistent basis. Which is why I called it a temporary occurance, a statement which you objected to. The only way to object would be to argue otherwise, which is simply not the case. 

Your statement that it was a 'temporary occurance' implies that American politics follows the traditional model, which is not the case. Most of America's unions, and certainly the Teamsters and AFL-CIO, are right-wing, and they vote Republican all out of proportion to the way they 'ought' to according to the traditional understanding of the political axis. It's not 'temporary', except in the sense that it was a temporary spike in an already-strong trend.

Cite you sources for this__.  The AFL CIO umbrella covers the large majority of union membership in this country.  Union households have gone about 60-40 the past three presidential elections.

I wasn't referring to their choice of partisan affiliation, though as you point out, unionized voters are extremely right-wing for being what they are. My statement that "(m)ost of America's unions, and certainly the Teamsters and AFL-CIO, are right-wing" is in reference to their extracurricular activities, like their support for the American Institute for Free Labor Development and the Free Trade Union Committee, the latter of which was nothing more than a CIA front into the labor movement in post-war Europe.

Well, I am just not clear on what you are interjecting into this thread. Presumably that US Unions played ball with the US government during the Cold War?

Of course, people have a varying opinion on what constitutes right and left wing. You are a new poster so I can't really judge what your viewpoint is.  All that aside, unions members are a solid constituency for the Democratic party.  General domestic short hand places them to the left of the opposition. I suspect you think that distance isnt very far.  

[patrick1]

I don't really think this is the right thread for the discussion of Cold War era union maneuvers.  Although it is an interesting topic and I think it would be a welcome new thread somewhere.  We have many members who would be able to provide a much better discourse and insight into the topic than I ever could.  A moderator, Al, is particularly knowledgeable about the history and dynamics of unions. At any rate, I generally agree with labor unions moving away from some of the "Red" elements of the time.

Now about unions advocating for their class, I dont think I agree with that in theory or in practice.  The limited, primary goal should be to maximize the benefit for their dues paying members. Rational self interest dictates that it may be more beneficial to play the fence or change sides now and again.  This produces some leverage. 

Unions as a whole are really too crippled to effect any type of change across a class.

[patrick1]

I have been known to say a kind word toward Jim Larkin and Mike Quill.  I am not a Union member myself but both of my parents are and my late Grandmother led a few bitter strikes in her day. However, I have a reflexive distaste for the international(e) movements.  The Bolshies and Trots just did not fit in with my concept of what America should be about.

[patrick1]

I have been known to say a kind word toward Jim Larkin and Mike Quill.  I am not a Union member myself but both of my parents are and my late Grandmother led a few bitter strikes in her day. However, I have a reflexive distaste for the international(e) movements.  The Bolshies and Trots just did not fit in with my concept of what America should be about.

Funny, that. Few people opposed to international socialism on nationalist grounds have anything but the kindest words for international finance capital and globalization.

I'm personally opposed to socialism in general.  However, I think it necessary to have labor be a viable bulwark against the inherent abuses of national and international corporate power. The yawning gap between the super rich and middle class/working class has been allowed to extend too far.