What's Wrong With Unions

The Second Continental Congress was formed in 1775 as a united effort to present grievances to King George. The delegates were land-owning, white men from the thirteen colonies. They formed the first bargaining unit. After years of boycotts, riots and demonstrations, the colonists had reached their height of frustration when a series of laws, known as the Coercive Acts, were imposed by the British government.

They negotiated for months to reach an agreement. Some delegates wanted to continue their appeal to King George while others wanted to break from the crown. Some delegates refused to agree to form a new union if slavery was abolished and some would not agree unless it was. Obviously, they reached an agreement, although just barely. With the reading of the Declaration of Independence, the first union in this country was formed on July 4, 1776. As far as King George was concerned, it was a walk-out and he sent the militia to quell the unrest. So began the American Revolution.

Our new nation excluded many citizens. The Declaration states “All men are created equal that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights…” In reality these unalienable rights only extended to white, landowning men and not to slaves, women, natives or indentured servants. The founding fathers had built their wealth on the slave trade so America was born into labor unrest from the beginning.

In response to Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation the southern states formed a new Union, the Confederate States of America. Regarded as a “walk-out”, Abraham Lincoln ordered more troops to restore the Union. The Civil War lasted four years and 625,000 people died. They had renegotiated the conditions of the Constitution.

With the expansion of the West, industry thrived. Pioneers traveled in droves to settle the west and the Captains of Industry (or Robber Barons depending on your perspective) saw an opportunity to build wealth. Men like J.P. Morgan, Andrew Carnegie, J.D. Rockefeller and Cornelius Vanderbilt cornered the market on steel, railroads and shipping.

Although these men came from humble beginnings and eventually became famous philanthropists, their capital was less than virtuously acquired. There are libraries, universities, hospitals and music halls named after them yet they exploited their workforces, colluded with the government and each other, and monopolized markets.

Then as now, law enforcement and government often favor the wealthy. The wealthy can afford better lawyers, have powerful friends and fund campaigns. In the past, juries were comprised of white, land-owning men and they were the only ones who could vote or hold office. They inherently held more power.

By the mid-nineteen century, unions were formed to negotiate the rights of workers. They were formed as a response to long work weeks, low wages, and unsafe working conditions. When workers complained they were locked out. When they tried to strike companies called in strikebreakers to end it. Workers were killed, arrested and blacklisted.

Unions became strong because they created a mechanism to air grievances. They gained power in numbers and hired mobsters to counter the strikebreakers. Mobsters, formerly used by companies, now gained control of the unions. They too gained influence over law enforcement and government until both the corporation and the union became vehicles of power and manipulation

Today unions have evolved into non-profit corporations. In many ways they are like the corporations they negotiate with. They often represent many job classes and various bargaining units, often selling out one group for another. Some coerce workers to join just as the corporation coerces them not to. We have come to a stalemate in labor relations. Many corporations have shifted jobs oversees where the union has no authority. “The Corporation” has thus far prevailed. Unions represent only nine percent of the private workforce while forty-three percent of the workers are represented in the public sector, administrators included.
Even with the progress made with legislation, little has changed for the worker. The richest ten percent of Americans own seventy percent of the assets just as they did in the 19th century. The distribution of wealth has not shifted even with the organization of labor.

Even with the progress made with legislation, little has changed for the worker. The richest ten percent of Americans own seventy percent of the assets just as they did in the 19th century. The distribution of wealth has not shifted even with the organization of labor.

Love, Constance

There is no better of two evils.

Once again it is time for political ads to dominate the media. The politicians do such a great job of bashing each other that neither is worthy of a vote. Frankly, I had voted for Micky Mouse more times than I can remember in the last several elections. The vote I cast for a ridiculous, fictional character was my way of rebelling against the system. After all, I didn't want to be guilty of not voting, as if it matters. Now I leave my vote open if I don't like the choices handed to me. I was recently surprised to discover that they pay more attention to votes left blank, it is referred to as an "undervote'" It is estimated that in the last election up to 21% of ballots in some districts were undervoted. That tells me people are starting to agree that our choices are not acceptable.

In California we are faced with the choice of voting for Barbara Boxer, the incombent for Senator and Carly Fiorino the former CEO that ran Hewlett Packard into the ground. Oh how to choose? Barbara Boxer has been at the Capitol for twenty years all the while the great Military Industrial Complex has expanded, the rich have gotten richer and the poor have gotten poorer. And then there is Carly Fiorino who thought it a brilliant idea to merge HP with Compaq (one of the worst computer I have ever used) and lowered HP's quality until it became unusable, in my opinion.

For governor our choices are not much better, Jerry Brown or meg Whitman. I have met him three times and Jerry is a very nice man with a good heart and sincere intentions. However he has never been able to produce the results he has promised. I doubt he has the moxy or charisma to make any real change. Then there is Meg.....a billionaire who had spent 190 million of her own wealth to win the campaign. I've always wondered why someone would spend so much money for a position that pays little in comparison. She believes that welfare is bringing the State down all the while squirreling away a billions dollars on a CEO's salary. Maybe she just can't see the grossly unfair distribution of wealth through her piles of money.

The problem is with a two party system. If anyone has ever been to a Democratic committee meeting they know that the committees are mostly comprised of legislative aides, union leaders and a few old ladies. They make the decision regarding who your choice for democrat will be. On the other hand the GOP meets more discreetly. A lot of yuppy college kids get together and chant the benefits of a free market while the real decision regarding your choice for republican is made behind the desks of a few CEOs. The point is that real people, hard working, everyday people, have no choice about the two options thrown to them on the ballot. It reminds of a movie I watched recently about Ralph Nader An Unreasonable Man . I was under the impression that he was bit nuts. I'm not so sure anymore. He spoiled Al Gore's chances in 2000, didn't he. It turns out no. The hassles that the Democratic Party and the GOP gave him were beyond reasonable. Nader was trying to offer another option and they were not having it. I mean really, why aren't more parties allowed to participate in National debates? I know there are usually people on the ballot from various parties but their voices are so stifled that we don't know who they are and, therefore, they have no chance of winng. It is clear that the establishment is hell bent on keeping our choices to two candidates. So I will respond by keeping my ballot blank.

Love, Constance