The New York Times: State of the Unions
By Paul Krugman
Once upon a time, back when America had a strong middle
class, it also had a strong union movement.
These two facts were connected. Unions negotiated good
wages and benefits for their workers, gains that often
ended up being matched even by nonunion employers. They
also provided an important counterbalance to the
political influence of corporations and the economic
elite.
Today, however, the American union movement is a shadow
of its former self, except among government workers. In
1973, almost a quarter of private-sector employees were
union members, but last year the figure was down to a
mere 7.4 percent.
Yet unions still matter politically. And right now
they’re at the heart of a nasty political scuffle among
Democrats. Before I get to that, however, let’s talk
about what happened to American labor over the last 35
years.
It’s often assumed that the U.S. labor movement died a
natural death, that it was made obsolete by
globalization and technological change. But what really
happened is that beginning in the 1970s, corporate
America, which had previously had a largely cooperative
relationship with unions, in effect declared war on
organized labor.
Don’t take my word for it; read Business Week, which
published an article in 2002 titled “How Wal-Mart Keeps
Unions at Bay.” The article explained that “over the
past two decades, Corporate America has perfected its
ability to fend off labor groups.” It then described
the tactics – some legal, some illegal, all involving a
healthy dose of intimidation – that Wal-Mart and other
giant firms use to block organizing drives.
These hardball tactics have been enabled by a political
environment that has been deeply hostile to organized
labor, both because politicians favored employers’
interests and because conservatives sought to weaken
the Democratic Party. “We’re going to crush labor as a
political entity,” Grover Norquist, the anti-tax
activist, once declared.
But the times may be changing. A newly energized
progressive movement seems to be on the ascendant, and
unions are a key part of that movement. Most notably,
the Service Employees International Union has played a
key role in pushing for health care reform. And unions
will be an important force in the Democrats’ favor in
next year’s election.
Or maybe not – which brings us to the latest from Iowa.
Whoever receives the Democratic presidential nomination
will receive labor’s support in the general election.
Meanwhile, however, unions are supporting favored
candidates. Hillary Clinton – who for a time seemed the
clear front-runner – has received the most union
support. John Edwards, whose populist message resonates
with labor, has also received considerable labor
support.
But Barack Obama, though he has a solid pro-labor
voting record, has not – in part, perhaps, because his
message of “a new kind of politics” that will transcend
bitter partisanship doesn’t make much sense to union
leaders who know, from the experience of confronting
corporations and their political allies head on, that
partisanship isn’t going away anytime soon.
O.K., that’s politics. But now Mr. Obama has lashed out
at Mr. Edwards because two 527s – independent groups
that are allowed to support candidates, but are legally
forbidden from coordinating directly with their
campaigns – are running ads on his rival’s behalf. They
are, Mr. Obama says, representative of the kind of
“special interests” that “have too much influence in
Washington.”
The thing, though, is that both of these 527s represent
union groups – in the case of the larger group, local
branches of the S.E.I.U. who consider Mr. Edwards the
strongest candidate on health reform. So Mr. Obama’s
attack raises a couple of questions.
First, does it make sense, in the current political and
economic environment, for Democrats to lump unions in
with corporate groups as examples of the special
interests we need to stand up to?
Second, is Mr. Obama saying that if nominated, he’d be
willing to run without support from labor 527s, which
might be crucial to the Democrats? If not, how does he
avoid having his own current words used against him by
the Republican nominee?
Part of what happened here, I think, is that Mr. Obama,
looking for a stick with which to beat an opponent who
has lately acquired some momentum, either carelessly or
cynically failed to think about how his rhetoric would
affect the eventual ability of the Democratic nominee,
whoever he or she is, to campaign effectively. In this
sense, his latest gambit resembles his previous echoing
of G.O.P. talking points on Social Security.
Beyond that, the episode illustrates what’s wrong with
campaigning on generalities about political
transformation and trying to avoid sounding partisan.
It may be partisan to say that a 527 run by labor
unions supporting health care reform isn’t the same
thing as a 527 run by insurance companies opposing it.
But it’s also the simple truth.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company
Follow
Florida: The sad truth on universities
St. Petersburg Times: The sad truth on universities
A Times Editorial
It is not surprising that Senate President Ken Pruitt wants to marginalize the appointed board in charge of Florida’s public universities. He has been agitating for months against tuition increases, and the Board of Governors has been less than obedient. The more jarring punch in the gut to a beleaguered higher education system is from a polite governor who promised to be an ally but has now told university presidents to quit whining or take a hike.
Comments Off on Florida: The sad truth on universities
Posted in Commentary