![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
fpbAllow me a little expression of hatred. Of all the categories of brute in the world, I hold a special loathing for union-busters. Given two bullets and the choice of an abortionist, Robert Mugabe, or a union-buster, I would shoot the union-buster, twice, to make sure. The monstrous intellectual perversion that pretends that employees should negotiate alone by themselves with employers who hold the power of whole cities, whole nations, and calls this defending freedom, is something that is very far beyond my ability to imagine, let alone to sympathize with.
The article I include is by a union-buster. And proud of it, the bastard. A former American senator with the ridiculous name of Malcolm Wallop (one might say that God sometimes gets his retribution in in advance - why is it that so many unpleasant people have ridiculous names, John Spong, Kevin Naff, Malcolm Wallop?). So I recommend that you read the following article as you would a note from your worst enemy, with the due interpretative attitude.
Lost in the summer news shuffle of judicial nominations and social
security reform spins a fascinating story with tremendous long-term
significance. It is the deepening rift between the Service Employees
International Union (SEIU) and the 800-pound American Federation of
Labor - Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO).
Union strife is nothing new; followers of union politics know that
membership is in decline. In fact, I admittedly watched with
satisfaction as their numbers first began slipping during my three
terms as a United States Senator from 1976-1994 representing the
nearly union-free state of Wyoming.
Now moving into the new century many of my free-market, free-trade
colleagues and I relish in the continued decline. There is, however,
one notable exception in the increasingly powerful SEIU. Now the
nation’s largest union, SEIU bucks the trend by engaging in slick,
heavy-handed intimidation campaigns and by targeting less-skilled,
low-wage workers.
SEIU’s tactics are reminiscent of other corporate pressure campaigns
waged by groups from Greenpeace to the Rainforest Action Network to
EarthFirst. Their warfare modus operandi primarily consists of
bullhorns and banners. A successful day at the office is judged by
how much traffic is stopped and how many news cameras filmed the
well-orchestrated circus.
Now comes word that the progressively bold SEIU has authorized its
national leadership to abandon the AFL-CIO and form what they dub an
“aggressively pro-growth coalition.” This divorce could result in a
seismic shift of union power unlike anything seen for decades.
To be certain, SEIU is already considered among the more brazen of
the active unions. But some worry that a contentious split from the
AFL-CIO will embolden the former to ramp up even further their
intimidation tactics against corporate America. Considering their
history, these concerns are certainly warranted.
Chief among their targets has always been Wal-Mart, one of history’s
most successful companies. To the painful chagrin of SEIU,
Wal-Mart’s own workforce has repeatedly voted down unionization.
That’s no matter to this union-on-the-rise; bullies never quit.
Proving that SEIU’s leadership isn’t afraid to eat their own, they
recently attacked the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) by accusing
them of cozying up to Wal-Mart. In a letter sent to each CBC member,
SEIU chastised their efforts to partner with the company such issues
as encouraging the White House to extend the Voting Rights Act of
1965.
Perhaps someone can persuade the union to turn down their rhetoric
just enough to hear the facts. The CBC and Wal-Mart have a very
natural alliance; the retail giant is one of the largest employers
of African Americans and has become a significant supporter of the
CBC Foundation.
True to their mission SEIU has grown into an equal opportunity
attack machine. Not to be forgotten in the shadows of their
anti-Wal-Mart campaign are equally impressive battles against such
recognizable heavyweights as financial stalwart Charles Schwab,
health care companies Advocate and Kaiser Permanente, and global
security firm Wackenhut.
But with SEIU, size doesn’t matter. Their public-relations machine
also runs smear-campaigns against smaller, less recognizable
companies. Most recently the native-Alaskan company Alutiiq Security
and Technology found itself in the crosshairs. Presumably the real
target is once again Wackenhut, but by trying to break legs at
Alutiiq, a Wackenhut contractor, SEIU hopes the latter will cave to
their long-held demands to unionize.
As is the case with their CBC dispute, SEIU appears willing to fire
on their own constituency in pursuit of their big-picture,
idealistic agenda. Shooting at Alutiiq over its status as a federal
contractor only hurts the working-class SEIU has sworn to defend. A
damaged reputation and subsequent loss of clients will mean lost
jobs and lost opportunities for Alaskan students. Like many regional
companies, Alutiiq offer scholarships and contribute sizeable funds
to an array of local initiatives.
Surely SEIU comprehends that Alutiiq has no more control over
Wackenhut’s labor policies than the Wall Street Journal has over the
caterer at the company’s summer barbeque. But if you’re SEIU, the
truth is just a casualty of war.
In America we laud and honor those with a healthy dose of ambition.
But possessing the brand of blind ambition of SEIU could prove
anything but healthy for America’s most innovative and successful
employers.
The brute, clearly, is running scared.
The article I include is by a union-buster. And proud of it, the bastard. A former American senator with the ridiculous name of Malcolm Wallop (one might say that God sometimes gets his retribution in in advance - why is it that so many unpleasant people have ridiculous names, John Spong, Kevin Naff, Malcolm Wallop?). So I recommend that you read the following article as you would a note from your worst enemy, with the due interpretative attitude.
Lost in the summer news shuffle of judicial nominations and social
security reform spins a fascinating story with tremendous long-term
significance. It is the deepening rift between the Service Employees
International Union (SEIU) and the 800-pound American Federation of
Labor - Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO).
Union strife is nothing new; followers of union politics know that
membership is in decline. In fact, I admittedly watched with
satisfaction as their numbers first began slipping during my three
terms as a United States Senator from 1976-1994 representing the
nearly union-free state of Wyoming.
Now moving into the new century many of my free-market, free-trade
colleagues and I relish in the continued decline. There is, however,
one notable exception in the increasingly powerful SEIU. Now the
nation’s largest union, SEIU bucks the trend by engaging in slick,
heavy-handed intimidation campaigns and by targeting less-skilled,
low-wage workers.
SEIU’s tactics are reminiscent of other corporate pressure campaigns
waged by groups from Greenpeace to the Rainforest Action Network to
EarthFirst. Their warfare modus operandi primarily consists of
bullhorns and banners. A successful day at the office is judged by
how much traffic is stopped and how many news cameras filmed the
well-orchestrated circus.
Now comes word that the progressively bold SEIU has authorized its
national leadership to abandon the AFL-CIO and form what they dub an
“aggressively pro-growth coalition.” This divorce could result in a
seismic shift of union power unlike anything seen for decades.
To be certain, SEIU is already considered among the more brazen of
the active unions. But some worry that a contentious split from the
AFL-CIO will embolden the former to ramp up even further their
intimidation tactics against corporate America. Considering their
history, these concerns are certainly warranted.
Chief among their targets has always been Wal-Mart, one of history’s
most successful companies. To the painful chagrin of SEIU,
Wal-Mart’s own workforce has repeatedly voted down unionization.
That’s no matter to this union-on-the-rise; bullies never quit.
Proving that SEIU’s leadership isn’t afraid to eat their own, they
recently attacked the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) by accusing
them of cozying up to Wal-Mart. In a letter sent to each CBC member,
SEIU chastised their efforts to partner with the company such issues
as encouraging the White House to extend the Voting Rights Act of
1965.
Perhaps someone can persuade the union to turn down their rhetoric
just enough to hear the facts. The CBC and Wal-Mart have a very
natural alliance; the retail giant is one of the largest employers
of African Americans and has become a significant supporter of the
CBC Foundation.
True to their mission SEIU has grown into an equal opportunity
attack machine. Not to be forgotten in the shadows of their
anti-Wal-Mart campaign are equally impressive battles against such
recognizable heavyweights as financial stalwart Charles Schwab,
health care companies Advocate and Kaiser Permanente, and global
security firm Wackenhut.
But with SEIU, size doesn’t matter. Their public-relations machine
also runs smear-campaigns against smaller, less recognizable
companies. Most recently the native-Alaskan company Alutiiq Security
and Technology found itself in the crosshairs. Presumably the real
target is once again Wackenhut, but by trying to break legs at
Alutiiq, a Wackenhut contractor, SEIU hopes the latter will cave to
their long-held demands to unionize.
As is the case with their CBC dispute, SEIU appears willing to fire
on their own constituency in pursuit of their big-picture,
idealistic agenda. Shooting at Alutiiq over its status as a federal
contractor only hurts the working-class SEIU has sworn to defend. A
damaged reputation and subsequent loss of clients will mean lost
jobs and lost opportunities for Alaskan students. Like many regional
companies, Alutiiq offer scholarships and contribute sizeable funds
to an array of local initiatives.
Surely SEIU comprehends that Alutiiq has no more control over
Wackenhut’s labor policies than the Wall Street Journal has over the
caterer at the company’s summer barbeque. But if you’re SEIU, the
truth is just a casualty of war.
In America we laud and honor those with a healthy dose of ambition.
But possessing the brand of blind ambition of SEIU could prove
anything but healthy for America’s most innovative and successful
employers.
The brute, clearly, is running scared.
Re: Hmm
Date: 2005-07-02 09:43 pm (UTC)Is your dad an employer or an employee?
And does he think that exploitative employers are also 'a thing of the past'?
I've worked in unionised and non-unionised workplaces. The contractural arrangements were considerably superior in the more unionised workplaces, and the worst example of a non-unionised workplace was downright abusive (and illegal). Unions are not only useful in pay bargaining, they also provide legal back-up if employers break the law - and forcing employers to heed employment and health and safety law often makes for better management. (I certainly believe that unionisation would be beneficial to the organisation that currently has me on its payroll.) I'm in no position to comment on the US schoolteachers unions, but over here membership is crucial now that teachers are at increased risk of being sued.
Individual negotiation of contracts also penalises employees who don't have great negotiation skills, but whose other skills make valuable contributions to the organisation.
Where unions become problematic, from what I've seen, is when they forget that employees' interests are well served by the success of the company, for example, when health and safety reps wield their powers with more thought to damaging management than to improving health and safety.
Re: Hmm
Date: 2005-07-03 03:06 am (UTC)By the way, my father was both an employer and employee in his lifetime. I'm not sure of his reasons (he's uses a lot of economics terminology that I cannot grasp yet!). Perhaps my statement about unions as a thing of the past was too much, and a little unclear. He told me something about the strength of consumerism has decreased the need for unionized labor (as opposed to pre-New Deal times). I have no idea why, but he believes that this will be (or is) the trend Nevertheless, he certainly believes in their importance, though he also believes strongly in a system of checks and balances. As you mentioned in your last paragraph, sometimes the abuse of the union (oftentimes the power-trips of those leading them) can be just as bad as the abuse of management.
Re: Hmm
Date: 2005-07-03 05:28 pm (UTC)I'd be interested to know more about his reasoning for that. While there might have been an element of truth in it in the days when manufacturing companies wanted to make sure their employees could afford buy their products in order to build a customer base and fuel company growth, consumers and employees do not generally have the same interests. Consumerism can only benefit employees when the consumers are the employees (or where consumers make purchasing decisions on ethical grounds, but that applies only to a minority) - where goods are produced for an entirely different group the interests of consumers will take precedence over those of employees, except where there are legal or union-enforced safeguards.
Or maybe I'm missing your Dad's point?
Re: Hmm
Date: 2005-07-03 10:20 pm (UTC)