Unions’ Difficult Road
When Blanch Lincoln was successful Tuesday in retaining the Democratic nomination for US Senate against an opponent highly supported and funded by organized labor, the pundits claimed a victory for the White House and the opening of a rift between Democrats and Unions. This is simply too easy a conclusion to draw and its import is worrisome.
The road for Unions today is difficult. Generally people are employed in reasonable ways and the social safety nets that exist are night and day different from when Unions sprung to popularity. It is just difficult for a Union to make a case for why someone should join.
Unions are political organizations where people run for leadership positions and then try to hold onto that position as time goes on. It looks very much like those who run for Congress or other elected office. Union leadership is a profession and not an act of public service. From that arises the opportunity for Unions to form policies that do little to help the worker and do a lot to help enrich the leadership. I am not talking about corruption (although there has been plenty), I am talking about human nature where preservation of the organization demands preservation of the people in power. Somewhere in this mess, the purpose of Unions gets lost.
This is not a blue collar issue. Teachers Unions represent some of the most compromised unions that exist. In order to combat errors introduced by weak or ineffective supervision, teachers unions have consolidated immense power and they wield it freely over contract, performance, and seniority issues. Lost in their rhetoric is the quality of education their students are receiving. Principles and Administrators often self injure themselves with poor decisions and for a brief moment, unions can say, “see I told you so”.
At the national level, what should be the relationship between organized labor and any political party? Often the relationship is financial and promises of voter turn out. But what should the quid pro quo be?
The President has to be the President of all the people. As a result, he is not likely able to support the most sweeping changes sought by organized labor (or for that matter, the Chamber of Commerce too). The best a President can do is act in a way that is generally supportive. For teachers, White House support of health care reform along with strong support for better quality schools are directionally favorable. The Union, however, is disappointed that the public option was not included and that there could be such a thing as merit pay or teacher selection based upon performance.
I think organized labor has got to wake up and see the larger picture. Growth in the US is going to be moderate to slow for the future and every aspect of the economy has to work well together. Communities are finding it difficult to fund schools yet the Country desperately needs better quality education to remain competitive. Unions supporting manufacture have seen a vanishing of jobs through globalization. Yet the goods made overseas are quite acceptable for quality and cost much less that when they were made in the US. Labor needs to be a partner in how to change the US work environment in order to become more competitive, and as part of that process demand the proper pay and dignity that should go with success.
I wonder whether these discussions are taking place behind closed doors?
This entry was posted on June 10, 2010 at 1:53 pm and is filed under Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Politics, Republican Party. You can subscribe via RSS 2.0 feed to this post's comments.
Tags: jobs, teacher's union, unions, white house
You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.
