Redstate

But how are labor leaders socialists?  Did they hired by the governent in some way?

They're not Socialists.  They're Progressives.  There's a difference.  "Socialists" has ten letters and begins with S and ends with S, and contains three Ss. "Progressives" has twelve letters, begins with P and ends with S, and contains three Ss.  See the difference?

government in an attempt to achieve their ends, which is why this post was written.

You can find even more differences between them if you visit this page and this page.

Are not unions simply a collective agreement agreement by workers to have their interests singularly advocated?

Is that any different than any other lobbying group?  

I am sincere in this question.  

Sorry but you've done much better in the past.  Are you feeling ok?  A little under the weather today?

Please.  Don't recapitulate the entire history of the labor union movement in this country to this guy.  Send him to The Pile™ before you do that.

If the Teamsters, SEIU, UNITE HERE, and the rest really do focus on increasing the number of jobs under their control, then this is bad news for Republicans.  For every paycheck they swipe from, that's another dollar they get to spend on helping Democrats get elected.

It's time to check up on our labor laws and remove any unfair advantages they get.  It'd also be a good idea to start investigating more carefully the thuggery that unions are accused of using to win certification elections.

These people thought nothing of attacking the whole country via UPS.  I'd not underestimate them.

with the history of labor unions in this countr and their association with Socialism, Marxism and Communism.  Has absolutely nothing to do with my question.

I'm not really sure how Mark would be recapitulating  history?  Who originally capitulated?

You are correct Mark. As an attorney for the railroad carme's union for years I argued that the union should spend more time and money in organizing workers to bargain colelctively in good faith rather than in dem party politics to pass scoialistic laws. And to use funds and dues to halp workers in slowdowns.

And had hoped this split could move the labor movement away from socialistic action thru the dem party, but your research indictates my 15 year hopes are in vain.

Good job

I was there, and you're right.  The motivation behind the strike was (at least in the dreams of some of the early organizers who were talking about it in meetings and lunchrooms) to paralyze the United States by cutting off the flow of goods at all of the UPS hubs in the country.  I worked for UPS about a year before the strike occurred.  The intention wasn't just to damage UPS -- it was to damage the entire economy of the United States and force a capitulation to Union demands.

start getting Teamster support.

From today's time/cnn:

"Among the new things the Teamsters will try, Hoffa said, will be becoming 'more bipartisan. ... We're not going to be afraid to back a Republican.'"

This has got to make dems worried.  The teamsters is a huge union.  Worse than just pulling their money out of politics altogether, they are threatening to give at least some of it to the other side.

This is why 2004 was not just another election.  It truly was a realigning election.  Realignment is evident when once-loyal constituencies begin looking at the other side out of necessity.  Hoffa figured out something that Sweeney should have figured out by 2002: the Republican Party is in charge.  Giving money to the democrats is counter-productive.  The best alternative is to contribute to republicans as long as republicans listen to their concerns and are responsive.

This is a terrible thing for democrats.

Is that eventually, the SEIU will attempt to do exactly the same thing as the United States becomes increasingly reliant on the service sector of the economy.  Right now they're hurting, and SEIU is probably the most "militant" union in the country, at least in terms of its leadership.  They want to have enough members in the union that it will be impossible to resist them.  They realize that in most places in the country, including airports and in many universities and corporate workplaces, there are increasingly large numbers of service employees.  And their motivation in this split with AFL-CIO is driven by their motivation to form a completely new union machine that will be irresistible.  The fact that they broke with AFL-CIO despite the Worker's World Party's pleading that they not do it in the name of Solidarity does very little to comfort me.  AFL-CIO is the "old union."  The New Union are the groups being led by the members of the SEIU.  Of course this is troublesome for the time being to the AFL-CIO.  They might try to get them back.  We'll see how hard they try.

political funnels, replacing the giant AFL-CIO $ funnel for the DNC, then not only will nothing much change for the dems but neither will anything much change for labor. But my impression is that the Teamsters will play a more sophisticated and useful game: they will actually put some money into Republican hands and deliver some votes to  people besides those with (d) behind their names.

They only wish they had been.

sincere is possible, but if so, terribly uninformed.

The evil labor unions emerged to challenge the righteous captains of industry in the late 1800s. They were motivated by sheer greed and a desire for anarchy (nothing to do with working conditions or company towns). They were led by such notorious socialists as Eugene Debs, may he forever burn in hell (cue Thomas). Fortunately for the profit margin of the wealthiest men in the country, the federal government bravely committed troops to break the worst strikes. Unfortunately, various commie presidents like Wilson and FDR (who both hated America) utterly crippled capitalism by imposing totally outrageous and unnecessary restraints upon business.

Moving on in our history of the labor union movement, Jimmy Hoffa was definitely misunderstood and should probably be considered a capitalist entrepreneur; after all, the evil socialist AFL-CIO expelled the Teamsters, and Hoffa was friendly with the good Republicans (the also-misunderstood Nixon commuted his prison sentence). So organized labor isn't all bad really, although the Teamsters seem to have gone commie without Hoffa to steer them; hopefully his kid can reverse that trend and bring them back to the noble Republicans.  

Finally, the definitive proof that labor leaders are currently socialist is that union members routinely vote Democratic. Democrats are often liberals, and liberals are usually commies, and commies are definitely socialists, ergo labor leaders are socialist.

Always glad to help!

Will not succeed. Period.

And you can read his statements here.  I believe the man is serious.

Ok, here's hoping I don't get sent to the pile, but how is this objectively bad? These workers provide a service, they don't have to provide that service, and they go on strike to show how valuable they are in an attempt to get more money and bring their wages up to the level they apparently deserve, since they can by their absence shut down the economy.

I realize that this motive makes a lot of people angry, and messes up the efficient flow of goods within the US, but does this constitute an "attack" on the US? Appeals to "the economy" don't work when people feel they aren't getting their share of that economy. Anyway, I'd just like to know why their action could be called an "attack" on the US and not a reasonable display and use of the capital that is the value of their labor.

Exactly how willing the leadership of the AFL-CIO is to support Republicans in the future.  I'm willing to keep an open mind.  In my view, the SEIU broke with them in part because they want no part of that.  They want to be completely "pure."  We'll see.

See #12

What a piece of work. watch them screw with this like they did UPS.

The intent was to paralyze the US economy to pressure UPS into meeting their demands. They weren't doing it to destroy America. They were doing it, apparently, to get money that -- again, apparently considering their importance to the US economy -- they deserved. Kowalski apparently was there in the meeting rooms and so I'll go with his take on the motive stated above, but the question still has to be asked, why is it an attack? Why is gumming up the works -- though there's still USPS and Fed Ex of course -- in this manner an attack? They had influence and power via their labor, why couldn't they exercise it without it being an attack?

It seems like this is just a part of capitalism: if your distribution labor feels it's undervalued and decides to stop working then you've either got to pay them more or find other labor or other avenues of shipping products. It's not an attack, it's the supply and demand of labor in a sector whose employees aren't stupid and realize they have leverage gained by being highly integrated into the overall economy.

how often I am told that I know nothing of American history on this site.  

Here, in the Washington Post.  Don't worry 'bout a thing.  He has his assurances, and he's a uniter, not a divider.  Maybe he can put all the pieces back together, after all:

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), one of labor's strongest supporters in Congress, sought in an interview to play down the negative consequences. "It's important, clearly, but I also believe underlying the division, what united all the unions is stronger than what divides them," he said, citing their common interest in pension changes and in defeating partial privatization of Social Security.

One, they intended it to harm the US economy as a way of getting attention to the "labor movement."  That's how it's an attack on America.

Two, you don't help the cause of UPS employees by taking action that permanently loses UPS some customers, which the strike did.  That's not good business sense, but then again see One for the real motivation of the strike.

Three, I never said anything about the Teamsters "destroying America."  It looks to me like you're setting up a straw man by exaggerating what I said and then showing that the exaggeration is silly.

Four, the situation was far from a free market in action.  If that were the case, UPS could have fired the disinterested Teamsters and replaced them with new employees.

Five, at the very end, you admit my point.  The Teamsters took action that they knew would adversely affect the entire US economy AND the company they were allegedly trying to create jobs in.  It just doesn't make sense for an organization that's supposed to be for "the worker."  That's why I won't be surprised at any radical leftist action they take, and am concerned that they are bolting the AFL-CIO in order to work with other aggressive unions.

I disagree. Labor leaders are very entrepreneurial in their actions. They look for a way to extend their power and influence. Sure, in doing that they have to mouth slogans about protecting the working folks, just like I had to mouth slogans about how good Ford was when I worked for them (while driving a Honda that nobody knew about).

Anybody who rises to the top of an organization learns what actions and phrases sells to the workers. Labor organizations are no different. Rising to the top of the Union means that you learn who to kiss, who to make war against, etc. just like rising to the top of a business. So they talk about leveling incomes -- I'd talk sing that song too if it'd get me a house on the beach.

In the early days of the labor movement, many of the union members were immigrants who left repressive governments behind.  They had an inherent distrust of government, which is why they decided to pool bargaining power.  It wasn't until the post-WWI era that the unions really became political.  They certainly weren't going to get help from government in the era of Lochner.  

The problems with the unions really began after they got what they wanted; reasonable work weeks, overtime pay, safer working conditions, etc.  The few labor organizations that are thriving today are the ones that represent industries where wages and benefits are still low and where there is a sizable first-generation immigrant base, like SEIU and the hospitality industry.  Incidentally, these are the groups that are splitting, along with the Teamsters, the least reliably Democratic union.

Today, unions don't serve as much of a purpose as they did a hundred years ago, which is the reason they're having problems attracting members. The problem is, in order to justify their continued existence, unions have to keep making demands. And since no one loses all of the time, eventually they get a win that requires them to move further to the left to have something to demand again.  The situation is more one of organizational inertia than it is a reflection of most union members' basic political beliefs, but the true believers will always be found somewhere near the top.

The GOP won in 2004 in no small part due to the parties use of demogrphic data-mining to find and turn out their vote.  The Dems' effort was leass efficient because, ironically, it was less centralized and independent groups cannot legally share such data.  Many GOTV efforts were run by the AFL-CIO.  The split further fractures the Dems' ability to find and turn out their vote.  Howard Dean probably should be focused on emulating the Rove-Mehlman model, but he also has to work on building up weaker state parties.  Thus, it's possible that the Dems will continue to lag in this key area.

I think that the Union split will definately hurt the Democrats, and the Labor movement in general.  It's a simple matter of organization, and I've had a long time to closely observe the AFL-CIO specifically, and unions in general.  The AFL-CIO is a non-profit organization, and only exists because of dues paid by member unions.  With those dues comes the support of the entire AFL-CIO organization, which is enormous considering the percentge of the workforce they represent.

With this loss of dues, both the unions splitting off and the remaining AFL-CIO members will lose large numbers from their respective organizations.  With those losses will come ability to influence public policy.  In the short term, more money will be spent on operating costs in comparison to lobbying money, and in the long term, layoffs will innevitably occur.

At the very least, the split will be a difficult organizational change for both sides.  THat will cause a fair amount of disruption, easily enough to expand into the '06 election season.

it probably would be OK for a oil company along with other oil companies to withhold gasoline from the US market to show how valuable their product is and bring their revenues up to the level they believe they deserve, since they can by the absence of their product shut down the economy.

Sounds like collusion, price fixing, conspiracy etc, doesn't it?  Why isn't the same when labor does it, particularly in a non-right-to-work state?  Labor unions should be subject to anti-trust like regulations, particularly in non-right-to-work states, as they seek to monopolize the labor pool at union shops.

I always celebrate May Day for the very opposite reason that the communists do. I order a second pizza on May 4.

For those of you for whom the allusion is lost, Google "Haymarket Square."

I think we'd be much farther along now if we hadn't wasted so much time and energy dealing with unions and their attendant silliness the last hundred and thirty years.

The definitive proof of labor's socialism is not merely in cute syllogisms, but in their political goals with respect to their own primary concerns, and in their historic association with other labor groups.

I think we'd be much farther along now if we hadn't wasted so much time and energy dealing with unions and their attendant silliness the last hundred and thirty years.

Assuming that is, you're not a worker.  Do you have any idea how much the average steel worker or railworker got screwed in the late 1800s early 1900s?  Ok maybe lately the unions haven't done much because we've legislated away their jobs partially with worker's rights legislation.  But you definitely just made a stupid remark.

Just let them keep hating on unions.

Free votes for democrats!  We don't have to do anything to nurture these guys.  I showed up at the state convention as an unpaid volunteer in college and the Carpenters' Union was buying me drinks even though I was the least important person there.

I wish with you until the word 'socialism'.  You're using it like a synonym for 'Pro-Democrat Activism'.  They're not the same thing, unless you can find me a majority of democratic candidates who will self-identify under socialism.  Just calling them it doens't count, I could call AG, Cheney and Rumsfeld fascists because of their torture views but nobody would agree with me.

However your point about unions spending more time working for themselves and less time working for democrats is well made.  Hopefully give this new faction 10-15 years and they'll have made some progres on that front.  Let's unionize wal-mart, I'm sick of my tax dollars paying for their healthcare through medicaid when they should provide it to full time workers.

Your comment displays an inability to separate micro from macro, and presumes that what is good for a few automatically translates, in some magical way, into a good for all. That is demonstrably silly.

Life sucked to be a steel worker back when. It sucked less when unions got involved. Steel then cost more, making the whole system less efficient, and bleeding cost and inefficiency the whole way up the chain.

Come back to me after your first econ class.

As long as dems can point to Republican stances on things that affect labor, labor won't switch sides.  And if republicans change their minds about some of those things (graduated income tax, labor laws, minimum wage, etc), then GOOD!  We're all better off.

Weren't you calling these people socialists up-thread?

My point is that 130 years ago is WAAAAY different from now.  

130 years ago = Massive trusts, price fixing, cartels, robber barons, no labor laws, no medical insurance, no 40 hour work week, no disability leave, no paid sick time, no paid vacation, etc etc should i go on?

now = the unions are against CAFTA, ok this is kinda dumb but predictable.  don't be an ideologue though.  See above, and be thankful.  Or don't, and just hand those votes to dems.

You've added nothing that rebuts my substantive point.

Union voters aren't monoliths, as every Republican since Reagan has shown. Those who insist on voting Democrat -- and most who do are government union workers -- long for things that are the very opposite of the GOP platform, so: Y'all can have them.

But then I've got to get to work so I'll be out of here, you can have the last word :).  

Economic success isn't just dependent on maximizing output in the short term.  A middle class, reasonable income distribution, opportunity and mobility are important.  I pounced on you because you made a blanket statement that put valiant people in a time of EXTREME income disparity in the same bucket as, yes, govt unions of today.  I'm a selectman in my hometown and believe me, if you're looking for someone to complain about power-hungry govt unions look no farther.  I also think unions today are a little dishonest with themselves about the global economy.  But the turn of the century was a vastly different situation.

It is an article of the faith of the Left that Wal-Mart is the source of all evil and that the world would be a better place if Wal-Mart would just do what they want them to do, regardless of the costs associated with it.

Does Wal-Mart offer health insurance to full-time employees?  The answer is yes.

Does Wal-Mart offer health insurance to part-time employees?  The answer is yes (after a two-year waiting period).

Do some Wal-Mart employees choose not to get insurance or rely on Medicaid for insurance?  The answer is yes, just like in many other industries.  With over 40 million people without health insurance, Wal-Mart is not the only employer that has a substantial number of employees without health insurance.  It's just the easiest target because the Left hates Wal-Mart.  They don't have unions, they don't contribute much to Democrats, and they refuse to buckle to the pressure the Left has brought to bear on them.

Wal-Mart's biggest sin is that it is successful, which apparently the Left doesn't like.  In their command-control economic vision for the future, only companies that don't try to maximize profit for their shareholders will be allowed to continue to operate.

While there is need for a better solution to the health care problems facing the country, a nationally mandated system is highly problematic.  There are abundant free-market solutions that are being promoted, but since they run afoul of the Left's dream of socialized medicine, it is difficult to get out of Congress.  The solution to the health care problem is not to cast apersions on Wal-Mart, but to allow Congress to enact sensible reforms that encourage competition and innovation.

But that seems to be anathema to the Left.

is not a known fact? :)

Not only do they provide health insurance for full-time workers, they define a full-time worker as anyone who averages over 30 hours a week. Not a bad system, all in all.

Like most companies, Wal-Mart absorbs half the cost of the health insurance premiums. My wife works in the medical profession, at an extremely successful clinic in an affluent area of town that has about 130 employees. She pays half her health insurance premiums, too.

The problem is not that Wal-Mart doesn't offer health insurance. The problem is that most of their employees are either part time (in which case they still are offered health insurance after a waiting period), or they are college students, or they are not the primary wage-earners for their family, and so they decline health insurance.

Do a little research before parroting knee-jerk leftist talking points over here, please.

Although I didn't think you'd actually applaud the injustices of that era.

I respect you too much to be excessively polite or deferential here; I'm just going to say what I think.

Of course there were anarchists, commies, whatevers among the labor movement who advocated and practiced violence, and who clearly deserve condemnation. But the cause of the labor movement in this era was unequivocally just.

I can see why the Haymarket Square tragedy would be appealing to you (at least absent any context whatsoever); the U.S. agreed with your view that "incitement" -- however ill-defined, however vague -- was equivalent to action, and hung four men for a murder committed by someone they never caught. If only Arthur Miller had dared to write his anti-capitalist screeds in those glorious days! What is the general view of those legal proceedings among lawyers nowadays, anyway?

To skip the google step (although Wikipedia doubters are welcome to search), here's an example of why workers were occasionally so ingrateful as to complain about working conditions; here's an example of an anarchist mob being dispersed, and here's an example of a not-at-all activist SC struggling to protect the rights of the oppressed.

The funny thing is, I'm really not reflexively pro-union. Some of their stuff has been "silliness" and some of it has been vitally important. As with most things in life, it's more complicated than good or bad. I think Kowalski's post antagonized me a bit.

As for the last... silly games trying to score easy cheers from the cheap seats. Suffice it to say that quite a lot has changed in the last century. I suppose if you want to call labor socialist in that it promotes workers' rights, then hey, go for it. I prefer to think of it as trickle-up capitalism =)  

is measured in many ways. How's Wal-Mart doing with those lawsuits? How about turnover, and associated training costs? How has Wal-Mart stock performed over the last 18 months? How does all of that compare to, say, Target? Target also gives a significant amount of money to improve the communities it serves; does that figure into your calculus at all? It should: I guarantee my wife and I aren't the only ones who boycott Wal-Mart and patronize Target based on their respective approaches to running a business.

Seems to me you brought your own talking points, but not a lot of data...

Despite the major lopsidedness of labor leaders and their funding of the DNC, 38% of union members voted for the President.  And 40% of members of union households did the same.  Union members are only slightly more likely than Hispanics to vote Dem.

I'm not sure Wal-Mart and Target are really in the same retail market. Wal-Mart's hallmark is value pricing ("everyday low prices") where Target doesn't make that claim.

and quite correct as well.

I step into an area that I don't know much about--so just one point here.

The problem is not that Wal-Mart doesn't offer health insurance. The problem is that most of their employees are either part time (in which case they still are offered health insurance after a waiting period), or they are college students, or they are not the primary wage-earners for their family, and so they decline health insurance.

Isn't the thing really "affordable" health insurance?  Assuming roughly equivalent plans that carry roughly the same total cost, a person's income is going to be the major determining factor in whether or not they can afford what's left over, after the company pays half.  So excluding part-timers or those covered by someone else in their family, the full-time employees are still going to have a heck of a time affording their insurance because their wages are so low.

This info is from '04.

The annual premium a full-time Wal-Mart employee must pay for coverage for her and her spouse is $2,672 (with a $350 deductible), which amounts to about 19 percent of her pre-tax earnings, according to the report. Part-time employees (under 34 hours per week) are only eligible to enroll after two years on the job and even then, coverage is available only for themselves, not their families. Full-time workers are eligible for family coverage after six months.

For at least 40 years the labor movement has been about union leaders, from locals to national, making a sweet bureaucratic life for themselves. Strikes are painful and usually nonproductive from a true individual standpoint in that raises won seldom equal wages lost in any reasonable timeframe. Consequently, labor issues that can be granted politically are cheaper than labor issues earned by stiking. This is why government unions, particularly those that can't strike, at the local level "invest" in local elections and why we see outlandish compensation packages for local government workers. When the Dems were in power nationally, it made sense to invest in perpetuating that power nationally. That is no longer the case and national unions would be better served to invest in Republicans.

Right, and if UPS workers had conspired with USPS, Fed Ex, and other package delivery workers, or UPS had constituted a monopoly, you'd have a great point. But this was one company's workers going on strike. If only Shell wants to withhold its product from the market, the price would go up but other gas stations would take up the slack.

Additionally, when companies that are integral to the economy pull their product like that they run the risk that the populace and government will wise up and see that diversification is necessary to ensure smooth running of the economy. Oil companies don't want to run that risk -- which would be very high considering the grumbling about reliance on petroleum-based energy -- nor do most corporations, because their profits are at stake as are the massive salaries of the management.

For people who were making $8-11/hr, the stakes of the company going under or losing market share was far far less. They care more about the short term than the CEOs do. Until you give employees something to lose that's worth keeping I don't see how you can argue against strikes as a valuable tool. Asking workers to care about the long term health of a company when you're outsourcing or paying part time workers peanuts, I don't know how some people get the gall.

So, anyway, we're talking about one company, not a lateral grouping of ALL companies involved in the package delivery business, so your analogy isn't applicable and I'm not sure why you used it.

I won't get into specifics, but those premiums are LESS than my wife's share (for our family) by a significant margin, and the Wal-Mart deductible is a LOT less. As a percentage of gross income, I believe we're paying in the neighborhood of 16 percent for health insurance. I would again re-iterate that my wife has a college degree and what would be considered a GOOD job by most recent college graduates.

Given that the 19 percent you cite above is for the lowest scale full-time Wal-Mart earners, I would wager to say that the average for them is closer to 15 or 16 per cent as well.

My point stands that they've got a pretty darn good benefit option available for folks who are primarily second-wage earners, college age adults, or people without marketable skills in any other area.

If that were not so, they'd work elsewhere.

unfounded, I refer to the legislative agenda of the labor movement not their collective bargaining efforts that this split seekd in increase.

The paranoia of the left over labels. God help us. Look, SOCIAL security, welfare, food stamps, minimum wage and otehr labor lobbied for laws are SOCIALISTIC. I'm even for some of it, as are most republicans.

The question is how much and whether we have enough and need to change the programs and eliminate some. I say yes.

There is nothing facistic about coercive interrogation of enemy combatents in war.

There is much that is facistic about the institutions that the left controls in this country: universities and their pc codes and the refusal to hire or tenure conservatives except for old tokens.

But thanks to David Horowitz, that is changing.

I have no problem with wal-mart workers freely combining their bargaining power and if they can reach an agreement with their employer, more power to them. In fact its high time the big boxes faced some competition this way, and I may part company with some of my conservative GOP friends on this. But its all in the details for me. But the FREEDOM to organize is a freedom we fought for in 1776.

We also fought for the freedom of wal-mart to close plants and not agree as well.

i just don't favor coercive (socialistic) laws to assist labor any more than I would favor monopolistic laws to favor capital.

But I have short shrift for communists, anarchists, and terrorists.

But the cause of the labor movement in this era was unequivocally just.

Really? It was all upside? No gain made there hurt society as a whole? Interesting.

What is the general view of those legal proceedings among lawyers nowadays, anyway?

Dunno. To my mind, they had process. That's enough.

You mistake the labor movement with the free flow of human capital. The latter is a positive good; the former is not. If the former accomplished the latter, I'd be all in favor of it, and to the extent it did, bravo; but what organized labor sought and gained was no less pernicious than what those robber barons sought and gained -- near monopolies over the flow of a vital input, in order to achieve better things for themselves, to society's detriment. Applaud them for their determination; don't applaud them for their self-interest, unless you're gonna lay flowers on Rockefeller's grave soon.

You also mistake what happened for the best possible outcome. I rather disagree.

But the cause of the labor movement in this era was unequivocally just.

Really? It was all upside? No gain made there hurt society as a whole? Interesting.

A just cause is hardly a guarantee of a perfect outcome, as liberals have been rather consistently reminded around here. It would be a remarkable feat of human calculus to conclude that "society" (which certainly includes the few Rockefellers, as well as the many workers) suffered a net loss by ending the brutal exploitation of a persistent underclass.

What is the general view of those legal proceedings among lawyers nowadays, anyway?

Dunno. To my mind, they had process. That's enough.

I expected rather more from such an impassioned defender of Terri. Put another way: do you think justice was served?

You mistake the labor movement with the free flow of human capital. The latter is a positive good; the former is not. If the former accomplished the latter, I'd be all in favor of it, and to the extent it did, bravo; but what organized labor sought and gained was no less pernicious than what those robber barons sought and gained -- near monopolies over the flow of a vital input, in order to achieve better things for themselves, to society's detriment. Applaud them for their determination; don't applaud them for their self-interest, unless you're gonna lay flowers on Rockefeller's grave soon.

In a vacuum, your argument has significant merit. Given the actual conditions in the 1800s, I find it unconvincing. I don't blame either the businessmen or the union leaders for pursuing policies beneficial to their ends. Society certainly flourishes when business thrives, and when workers prosper, and those two conditions are more intertwined than they are opposites. The problem, as I see it, is when government swings the pendulum by heavily favoring one over the other; the inevitable backlash unsettles the system and it takes a while to reach equilibrium again. It is in the best interests of society that government protect the balance, for example by preventing excessive monopolization and curbing irresponsible strikes.  

You also mistake what happened for the best possible outcome. I rather disagree.

I do? Where? But let's not make the perfect the enemy of the good, right?

As I said above, I think I'm being pushed a bit left of my true beliefs, and I can certainly acknowledge the successes and mistakes of all sides. I don't see a lot of concern for such subtleties in the thread that provoked me to post.  

If only Shell wants to withhold its product from the market, the price would go up but other gas stations would take up the slack.

It's interesting that you should bring up Shell as the various Democratic politicians from California complained vociferously about Shell wanting to close a CA refinery, claiming that it was a tactic to drive up prices by creating shortages.  

As for whether UPS constitutes a monopoly, it clearly doesn't now, but at the time of the strike fracas it was the overwhelmingly dominant delivery service for larger packages and parcels.  FedEx and USPS dealt more with small and light packages like documents.  The UPS strikers were clearly aware of this, and thought that it would work to their benefit.  But in the end it probably hasn't as now FedEx has FedEx Ground which has taken share away from UPS.  The UPS strike certainly played a role in fostering the growth of FedEx Ground, so we can thank the Teamsters for that.

The example of the most abusive use of union power is the UAW and their stranglehold over the Big Three automakers.  The UAW is notorious for collusion in labor contract talks with the Big Three.  They'll negotiate with one of carmakers first, and get a deal, and then threaten the other car makers with a strike if they don't get similar or better deals.  I don't know why this is tolerated, as it is clearly abusive.  

A just cause is hardly a guarantee of a perfect outcome, as liberals have been rather consistently reminded around here. It would be a remarkable feat of human calculus to conclude that "society" (which certainly includes the few Rockefellers, as well as the many workers) suffered a net loss by ending the brutal exploitation of a persistent underclass.

A comforting story, but not really altogether true. Certainly, there is something to the "persistent underclass" thing, but not so much as you imply. The story of the peopling of the West is rife with folks leaving the plants and factories of the East and heading West, for good and for ill.

You also mistake this discussion to be about the "persistent underclass" and the "Rockefellers," and thus forget that there was, yes, even before FDR, a middle class in this country, as well as a lower class that didn't slave in factories, and an upper class that didn't own massive trusts and monopolies (horizontal and vertical). The effect of union organization and monopoly was no less pernicious on the economy than the monopolies of production were: Inefficiencies that retarded growth and scientific/economic progress the likes of which we wouldn't undo until starting in the Eighties (a bow to Ronald Reagan's grave here). Indeed, I think the real story of the economic boom of the last twenty years begins with Reagan breaking the ATC union, and the disintegration of union bargaining and affiliation: Near-perfect competition on the production side is finally matched with near-perfect competition on the input side.

How much farther would our scientific and economic progress be if that had happened in the late 19th Century? The early 20th?

I expected rather more from such an impassioned defender of Terri. Put another way: do you think justice was served?

When the mechanism of the State is being used to execute laborers solely for being inconvenient to society as a whole, rather than as a result of a mistake during a criminal investigation, I'm with you. When the question is the application of criminal law, I think we're going to part ways.

In a vacuum, your argument has significant merit. Given the actual conditions in the 1800s, I find it unconvincing. I don't blame either the businessmen or the union leaders for pursuing policies beneficial to their ends. Society certainly flourishes when business thrives, and when workers prosper, and those two conditions are more intertwined than they are opposites. The problem, as I see it, is when government swings the pendulum by heavily favoring one over the other; the inevitable backlash unsettles the system and it takes a while to reach equilibrium again. It is in the best interests of society that government protect the balance, for example by preventing excessive monopolization and curbing irresponsible strikes.

Actually, I think we need to be clear on something: I think it's best served when government butts the heck out. No closed shops, no trustbusting, no penalties for companies that lay off all of their striking employees, no incentives from the government to do so.

My problem, at the start of all this, is the ridiculous lionization of men who worked for their own self-interest, and all too often lay down with pigs and got not insignificantly muddy in the process.

I do? Where? But let's not make the perfect the enemy of the good, right?

You never explained why the very things you applaud necessarily lead to the best or, more accurately, better than my alternative, outcome, except to speak in generalities. (A sin of which I'm also guilty.)

We can agree to disagree as to the degree to which government should regulate business and labor. From your side comments, I think you're actually fine with government regulating labor, just not business, but in the abstract I think it's an entirely reasonable position to prefer government "butt the heck out" of the labor/business relationship. Once again, however, this argument is more relevant in a vacuum than in the context of the late 1800s, when government actively championed the interests of business at the expense of labor. The pendulum had swung too far one way and needed to come back. Perhaps it over-compensated, as pendulums have a tendency to do, but getting stuck at either extreme isn't healthy for society.

As I thought I made clear at the conclusion of my prior two comments, I'm not lionizing anybody. My sarcastic historical recap was in response to the monolithic view of the labor movement from Kowalski and Mark. You seem to be consistently mistaking that for a love affair with unions, labor, socialism, and I shudder to think what else. Of course I'm sympathetic to the Progressive Era in general -- I am a liberal -- but no need to drain the conversation of all shades of gray to try to press your point. I'm quite open to subtleties on this issue.

You never explained why the very things you applaud necessarily lead to the best or, more accurately, better than my [any?] alternative, outcome, except to speak in generalities.

That's fair, although again I would direct your comment to knee-jerk defenders of the Iraq invasion. I think that when evaluating the impact of a change upon society writ large, it's important to emphasize the consequences for those most directly affected. For example, and this is not a direct comparison so save the flames, ending slavery was a net good for society despite any negative consequences for the economy of the south. The circumstances of workers were much less dire, but then so too were the economic consquences of safer working conditions, shorter hours, and better wages. The U.S. did alright economically and technologically after the turn of the century up until the Depression; probably we should have done "better" but I never really found the speculative musings of alternative historians all that gripping, myself.

Probably the most productive place I see this discussion going from here is into an examination of the wider economic impact of changes such as minimum wage laws. Perhaps someone will do a short diary on this topic at some point.

A $350 deductable under that plan is worse than you can do than the federal catastrophic insurance buy-ins at that price. It's a useless provision, and done purely for Public Relations and maybe to take a few extra bucks from their employees if they self-insure.

My deductible under BCBS was $500 per person. Both in Arkansas and Tennessee.

I've also checked into the catastrophic insurance for the purposes of getting an HSA and they are more in the neighborhood of $2000 for deductibles.

Now, from what I understand, insurance can vary drastically from state-to-state, but I'd seriously doubt you've actually found a catastrophic buy-in with a deductible of $350 (a medical bill of $350 is not catastrophic under virtually any definition).

My suspicion is that you are pulling numbers out of your nether regions, but I'm willing to accept a link as proof.

Almost every insurance plan we have ever had that included a deductible it was usually $500 per person with a family cap (usually around $2000 so once that $2000 was met, all deductibles would be considered met).

I honestly think that is a pretty decent insurance coverage, and while there are certainly company's that offer better, that is better than several insurance plans we have had.  We currently pay almost 5k a year for insurance premiums (our plan has not deductible other than for ER visits $100 per visit and surgeries which is $500 per procedure).  That is right around 18% of our anual income.  

I am going with Leon on this one.

 

We can agree to disagree as to the degree to which government should regulate business and labor. From your side comments, I think you're actually fine with government regulating labor, just not business, but in the abstract I think it's an entirely reasonable position to prefer government "butt the heck out" of the labor/business relationship.

I'm not explaining myself well. If I have to pick, I'd prefer that labor, not business, be regulated; but I'd really rather that neither be, at least in the context in which we're speaking.

Relatedly, I also reject this dichotomy on general principles, but I'm engaging in it as a convenient way to discuss this with you. Consider the shape of the conference table stipulated.

Once again, however, this argument is more relevant in a vacuum than in the context of the late 1800s, when government actively championed the interests of business at the expense of labor. The pendulum had swung too far one way and needed to come back. Perhaps it over-compensated, as pendulums have a tendency to do, but getting stuck at either extreme isn't healthy for society.

I take issue only with the characterization of necessity in the late 1800s. No one was being held in slavery any more, though, as I conceded upthread, there were times when it was close. But from that, I utterly fail to see the necessity to champion the labor movement of the time.

That's fair, although again I would direct your comment to knee-jerk defenders of the Iraq invasion.

Dude. Minus ten points for wandering off topic.

The circumstances of workers were much less dire, but then so too were the economic consquences of safer working conditions, shorter hours, and better wages. The U.S. did alright economically and technologically after the turn of the century up until the Depression; probably we should have done "better" but I never really found the speculative musings of alternative historians all that gripping, myself.

In defending the societal good of an act already done, allowing for your note about those most affected, you kinda have to engage in alternative analysis.

Look, so we're as clear as I can make this: I have little sympathy for the capital barons of the time. Adventurous men who took great risks for their own reward, who gave society benefits and robbed it of some others. In other words, interesting and probably net-useful sociopaths. The labor movement was similarly composed of highly self-interested individuals bound and determined to do right by themselves. They succeeded. I do not deny that many enjoy the results of their work; I simply say they cost us a great deal in the process.

They were, each and every last one, men. Good, bad, in between, who cares? My essential point is that hagiographies of the labor movement and its effects belong to left wing hacks, not folks like you.

That is all.

coverage, complete with the exact same price tag.

Completely flippin' nuts.

Good thing they don't use that sort in real life industries, assuming they use them in government.

expensive insurance was while we were still in the Navy.

But I don't think my husband has ever worked for a company that has covered our insurance to the point that it has been less than 16% of our income.  

The sad thing is that other than the fact that our son has to have a lot of doc's visits and therapy for his disability, I bet we pay more in insurance premiums than we would spend if we paid out of pocket for doc's visits, and other illnessess, and just carried a catastrophic plan for hospitalization/surgeries/serious medical conditions.

Other than my physical I haven't needed a doc for anything in over two years, and my kids have been pretty much the same (other than the one child mentioned).

was "at that price."  BCBS is a fee for service, its not a HMO.  Apples and Oranges.

see the numbers listed somewhere in this thread.

That is our current insurance plan, and it currently works out to about 18% of our annual income (the BCBS plan does include eye exams as part of its plan, although it does not cover any kind of corrective lenses-that has to come out of pocket).

had with other employers.  The costs were about the same as percentage of income, but an HMO is a lot of hassle.  I would pay more for the PPO plan, than what I have now.

That makes my point twice as strong, since I pay twice as much in premiums for my BCBS coverage as the Wal-Mart premiums.

Off-topic, I guess, but I can't help it if I was inspired to apply the wisdom in your words in a broader context.

As far as business/labor dichotomy, as I mentioned upthread I do tend to think that their interests are much more intertwined than opposing, but it is a convenient shorthand to discuss the late 1800s in particular.

With respect to alternative outcomes, I am interested in broader consequences in general, hence my comment about minimum wage laws, but perhaps my views of this particular era are too entrenched to admit much introspection. Whether the labor movement was the best tool to accomplish what I am quite convinced was a necessary task is probably worthy of deeper scrutiny on my part, but I just don't see a lot of alternative actors on the stage at that time willing to confront, rather than promote, the excesses of big business.

Agreed re men are men. Yet again, I wasn't glorifying anyone, just pointing out that the idea that labor=evil socialists is a little trite. Insincere condemnation isn't the same thing as unqualified praise. Nice ten dollar word, by the way.

They are essentially a labor cartel. Kinda like OPEC is for oil, unions are for labor.

Consider: the origional purpose of the picket line was to keep competing workers out. The fundamental flaw of unions is that, well, if you walk out and the work pays well and is otherwise decent, someone will be willing to fill your spot. In the old days, unions used to handle "scabs" via violence. Now, they have quite a bit of labor law on their side, so the violence isn't as necessary. And it helps if the employeer plays along, which explains why government labor unions are some of the more relevent ones operating today.

And those government unions in California contrubute to the state's financial mess as well as to Democratic candidates.

As I already pointed out, unions are nothing more than labor cartels. Just an attempt to increase the value of labor over the natural free market value by controlling the supply of labor. In any case, it wounds American industry when competing with non-union forign companies, and the auto industry is a good case in point.

Maybe we can adopt a Euro-style work week, too. Working wage, all that stuff that makes Europe such the hot economic ticket.

Oh, sorry, Europe isn't a hot economic ticket? Opps!