I have been a union member (public sector) for over 30 years including participating in the union's political work. In this time we have always based our advocacy on issues of direct interest to my fellow union members. The problem is the politicians themselves rather than the union leaders and members. Politicians on the right of center are largely opposed to unions and mostly vote against the needs of union members. Politicians to the left of the spectrum are much more likely to support our needs and that is why we end up supporting people who support more government programs and who the right wing's culture wars target. It is the politicians who need to change what they do, not unions and union members.
That's really where they get yall. So long as one does nothing then labor unions are forced to be in lockstep with that party. That's not what happens because everyone is ambitious, so you get corruption when they're just playing the exact game they're supposed to. I suppose liberals would theorize a need for multiple branches to reduce ambition.
I would first like to admit that I am not a union member but would love to be one, however since our wildly outdated labor laws prohibit me to do so, I cannot become one in my profession. With that being said, politicians have made this system a necessary evil. Their desire to cozy up to the highest paying special interests have taken their eye off the ball. They fail to represent their constitutes but lie and say they do. Union members voted for a different path and they will suffer for the next 3.5 years as the NLRB has been gutted as a result. Major reform needs to happen. Over 23 million Americans cannot unionize in a time that they are under direct assault due to the automation Craze. Unfortunately unions must lobby to try to get union workers rights, because no one seems to care anymore. If you don't have a lobby, you have no voice in today's politics.
You have uttered a part of the truth. An elected official of a union, whose salary is paid by the workers he has a fiduciary duty to serve, should not devote the resources of his office to promoting or opposing a political candidate or party. But those are not the only political matters, and to serve those they represent they much echo neither the views of themselves nor the workers in general.
But here's another part of the truth. Union officials do well to take stands on issues affecting labor, such as health and safety regulations, and classification of workers as employees or "independent contractors."
So no matter which candidate most union members favor, union leaders should say neither "Vote of Kamala" nor "Vote for Donald" in the union's monthly bulletins, and union funds should go to neither candidate and to neither party. But statements about policy proposals affecting labor are entirely appropriate.
Unions represent all sorts of races and cultures, including Latinos, blacks, folks with differing sexual identical and religions. So of course unions identify with the Democratic Party. Republicans seem to be waging a conflict with many people who aren’t white, straight, and of the Christian faith. Not republicans so much as the maga crowd.
I agree that the role of unions should be in close consultation with their rank and file members. The new surge of unions in the last 5 years or so has been largely the empowerment of grass roots members taking back their union leadership. In cases like the United Auto Workers, Amazon and UPS unions the leadership drew their power from the rank and file members and they have been successful. The support of regular members is critical if unions are to break through the myriad of union busting tactics employed against them. Tactics that are already illegal, but go unenforced. In the face of these challenges, worker led unions must build solidarity through transparency and honest leadership, and they are.
You're asking too much of labor unions. Their goal is to be integrated into national policy, and, because liberalism adopted socialist institutions, they will inherently engaged in liberal democratic ways rather than labor ways. What you may call corruption or politicization isn't actually that because that's fundamentally how they're supposed to operate (or nothing gets passed). Imagine if they weren't in bed with corporations and congress. Nothing beneficial would get passed, and the labor unions would be considered a failure. You can't have a two tier basis of rights. I think the Danish constitution grants labor rights by theirselves, but fundamentally, it's a liberal constitution. If they legitimately tried to grant labor rights then you'd have contradictions in economy and justice.
The topic is a truism. It applies to all leaders who are elected to represent a group of people in some way. There is a complication in democratic voting in the possibility of voting democracy out of the system. It's perhaps the one area of apparent hypocrisy in democracy itself. It should have at least one non-democracy oriented caveat: voters can't vote a democracy out of existence. That should be a constitutional rule. The reason it is not hypocrisy is that it is accounting for future voters. Those voters may wish to continue democracy. But once democracy is ended, voters have no democratic options. They are no longer voters in any meaningful way, as in Russia.
There are plausible scenarios where voters might make such a mistake. Those are usually centered around misinformation and propaganda that misleads voters and forms an incorrect understanding of reality. Demonizing an "other" for problems voters have when the demonized other is not the source of the problem is a common strategy of those aiming for authoritarian rule. Ginning up problems that aren't actually problems so the public incorrectly perceives the issue as a problem is a common strategy as well.
How this applies to the issue at hand? Some union membership has supported political candidates who are anti-union. In essence, voting against their own capacity to exist as a union. That is a result of the above. Too many union members suffering from misdirection and propaganda from "news" outlets that are effectively fronts for political agendas can lead them to vote against themselves.
I'm all for the premise that representatives should represent their members' views. But the effective success of that representation, like all correctly functioning democracies, depends on accurately informed voters. It's not a left or right issue. It's a basic structural issue for effective democracy.
I agree with Richard see below. Public unions often need to act differently than private sector unions. Police unions need to get involved if a candidate or party proposes defund the police.
I agree communication is important however, leaders are called upon to lead. Politics can be difficult in many ways, endorsements being the most problematic.
Leadership should provide evidence as to the reasoning behind endorsements but I am not so sure membership has the time or inclination review each candidate.
Oren should stick to economics. He's on thin enough ice there, why venture into politics where he has little expertise. Political pros have views on economics too, does anyone care?
I have been a union member (public sector) for over 30 years including participating in the union's political work. In this time we have always based our advocacy on issues of direct interest to my fellow union members. The problem is the politicians themselves rather than the union leaders and members. Politicians on the right of center are largely opposed to unions and mostly vote against the needs of union members. Politicians to the left of the spectrum are much more likely to support our needs and that is why we end up supporting people who support more government programs and who the right wing's culture wars target. It is the politicians who need to change what they do, not unions and union members.
> Much more likely
That's really where they get yall. So long as one does nothing then labor unions are forced to be in lockstep with that party. That's not what happens because everyone is ambitious, so you get corruption when they're just playing the exact game they're supposed to. I suppose liberals would theorize a need for multiple branches to reduce ambition.
I would first like to admit that I am not a union member but would love to be one, however since our wildly outdated labor laws prohibit me to do so, I cannot become one in my profession. With that being said, politicians have made this system a necessary evil. Their desire to cozy up to the highest paying special interests have taken their eye off the ball. They fail to represent their constitutes but lie and say they do. Union members voted for a different path and they will suffer for the next 3.5 years as the NLRB has been gutted as a result. Major reform needs to happen. Over 23 million Americans cannot unionize in a time that they are under direct assault due to the automation Craze. Unfortunately unions must lobby to try to get union workers rights, because no one seems to care anymore. If you don't have a lobby, you have no voice in today's politics.
Dear Daniel,
You have uttered a part of the truth. An elected official of a union, whose salary is paid by the workers he has a fiduciary duty to serve, should not devote the resources of his office to promoting or opposing a political candidate or party. But those are not the only political matters, and to serve those they represent they much echo neither the views of themselves nor the workers in general.
But here's another part of the truth. Union officials do well to take stands on issues affecting labor, such as health and safety regulations, and classification of workers as employees or "independent contractors."
So no matter which candidate most union members favor, union leaders should say neither "Vote of Kamala" nor "Vote for Donald" in the union's monthly bulletins, and union funds should go to neither candidate and to neither party. But statements about policy proposals affecting labor are entirely appropriate.
Unions represent all sorts of races and cultures, including Latinos, blacks, folks with differing sexual identical and religions. So of course unions identify with the Democratic Party. Republicans seem to be waging a conflict with many people who aren’t white, straight, and of the Christian faith. Not republicans so much as the maga crowd.
I agree that the role of unions should be in close consultation with their rank and file members. The new surge of unions in the last 5 years or so has been largely the empowerment of grass roots members taking back their union leadership. In cases like the United Auto Workers, Amazon and UPS unions the leadership drew their power from the rank and file members and they have been successful. The support of regular members is critical if unions are to break through the myriad of union busting tactics employed against them. Tactics that are already illegal, but go unenforced. In the face of these challenges, worker led unions must build solidarity through transparency and honest leadership, and they are.
Need to disguise between public sector unions and private sector
You're asking too much of labor unions. Their goal is to be integrated into national policy, and, because liberalism adopted socialist institutions, they will inherently engaged in liberal democratic ways rather than labor ways. What you may call corruption or politicization isn't actually that because that's fundamentally how they're supposed to operate (or nothing gets passed). Imagine if they weren't in bed with corporations and congress. Nothing beneficial would get passed, and the labor unions would be considered a failure. You can't have a two tier basis of rights. I think the Danish constitution grants labor rights by theirselves, but fundamentally, it's a liberal constitution. If they legitimately tried to grant labor rights then you'd have contradictions in economy and justice.
There are a handful of Unions who represent their workers politically.
However, most of them are College-Boy Liberals who still can't figure out why their members voted for Ronald Reagan.
This was not written by Oren.
The topic is a truism. It applies to all leaders who are elected to represent a group of people in some way. There is a complication in democratic voting in the possibility of voting democracy out of the system. It's perhaps the one area of apparent hypocrisy in democracy itself. It should have at least one non-democracy oriented caveat: voters can't vote a democracy out of existence. That should be a constitutional rule. The reason it is not hypocrisy is that it is accounting for future voters. Those voters may wish to continue democracy. But once democracy is ended, voters have no democratic options. They are no longer voters in any meaningful way, as in Russia.
There are plausible scenarios where voters might make such a mistake. Those are usually centered around misinformation and propaganda that misleads voters and forms an incorrect understanding of reality. Demonizing an "other" for problems voters have when the demonized other is not the source of the problem is a common strategy of those aiming for authoritarian rule. Ginning up problems that aren't actually problems so the public incorrectly perceives the issue as a problem is a common strategy as well.
How this applies to the issue at hand? Some union membership has supported political candidates who are anti-union. In essence, voting against their own capacity to exist as a union. That is a result of the above. Too many union members suffering from misdirection and propaganda from "news" outlets that are effectively fronts for political agendas can lead them to vote against themselves.
I'm all for the premise that representatives should represent their members' views. But the effective success of that representation, like all correctly functioning democracies, depends on accurately informed voters. It's not a left or right issue. It's a basic structural issue for effective democracy.
I agree with Richard see below. Public unions often need to act differently than private sector unions. Police unions need to get involved if a candidate or party proposes defund the police.
I agree communication is important however, leaders are called upon to lead. Politics can be difficult in many ways, endorsements being the most problematic.
Leadership should provide evidence as to the reasoning behind endorsements but I am not so sure membership has the time or inclination review each candidate.
Oren should stick to economics. He's on thin enough ice there, why venture into politics where he has little expertise. Political pros have views on economics too, does anyone care?
This was not written by Oren.
You're correct, I should have clarified it was one of his peeps. Though the point still holds.