Still Not Buying It

Whoa. When i said I was waiting for a decent pitch for the glories of unionism, I didn't actually expect anyone to take me up on it. But lo, The Quiet Man is always willing to champion the causes of those who have no voice and I have to give kudos who call me on some of my bullshit.

But despite the best efforts of The Quiet Man, I remain unconvinced. His argument, like most argument proposed by the Left in this country is firmly rooted in sustaining the perceived gains of the past- gains that, as I pointed out in my original post I can more than appreciate, but gains that are today completely and utterly unsustainable in the world we live in today- and no, I'm not talking just about pensions.

First and foremost: I'm talking about the United States. We face a unique situation, that's somewhat shared by our brothers and sisters in Western Europe, but essentially we are at a crossroads for the modern Liberal, Western welfare state. It cannot continue in its present form and so far, no one on the Left seems interested in reformulating liberalism for the 21st Century. What does a welfare state look like with the demographic crunch we face? Where do the responsibilities of government end? What are it's duties and how far can they extend- and more to the point, how much money are we as taxpayers willing to put into them? When I gripe about unions, some of it yes, is off the mark. But a lot of it isn't- there's an ideological weakness to the left that is hurting the causes that The Quiet Man wants to promote. Things like community solidarity and strength in numbers for workers across this country are hurt because the Left insists on trying to preserve an unsustainable past.

Consider the collapse of Detroit: before GM was bailed out by the government and water was pouring in over the sides of the company- also victim to it's own short-sightedness and an unsustainable past, it was the head of UAW Ron Gettelfinger who was standing in front of the cameras promising to fight for every single thing in that contract of his- company be damned! And I couldn't help but wonder at the time: if GM goes under, what happens to all those jobs he's claiming to fight for? What happens to the workers then? Hardly what I would call a sterling defense of the workers. That's not to say that sacrifice should be placed solely on the workers- but the workers and company exist in a symbiotic relationship- if one falls, the other does as well.

Sanitary working conditions? The 40 hour work week? Are these things that need to be preserved in this day and age? Are they really under threat? You could argue that illegal immigrants need union protections because undoubtedly those workers at the margins of society are probably subject to the most abuses of these basic rights- but for the vast majority of Americans, these basic things are expected- nay demanded as part and parcel of the society we live in. Like Social Security, which was bitterly denounced at the time of its passage as a road to the death of America and socialist servitude (some things never change with Republicans apparently), the basic rights of the workers have come to be expected and have been given- they are societally accepted at this point and any allegation that given a chance, corporations would put us all back into the 19th Century labor market is one that I would have to snicker at. Corporations, for all their many sins, aren't stupid. Some, like Wal-Mart could and should treat their workers better. (The Fast Food industry it should be noted has a much worse record than that of Wal-Mart yet is curiously untouched from liberal sermonizing, because, I assume, that progressives in America like a good hamburger as much as Conservatives do.) Like I said: the welfare of the workers, the basics, a clean bathroom, decent wage and 40 hour work week have become accepted by this country. Any attempts to roll back these rights would go nowhere fast- even as some uber-Libertarians dream of ending Social Security someday, most, if not all would quietly admit that the genie is out of the bottle and not going back in any time soon.

As for community solidarity? Well, it doesn't exist anymore, I'm afraid. And that's the sad part about contemporary America. Political Scientist Robert Putnam wrote extensively on this subject in his book 'Bowling Alone' (on The Cigar's reading list) and again, I really am convinced that the reactionary tendencies of the Left and yes, the Labor movement as well contribute to this. Unions protect jobs by seniority, which means that younger workers such as myself are on the short end of the stick any way you break it down- they protect a system of pensions and entitlement designed to benefit those older workers, but benefits and pensions that, as I have said are completely unsustainable in the long term. Until younger workers are offered tangible proof about what possible benefit they could get out of slaving and sweating in a unionized work place where the sweat of their work is going to fund the retirement of their elders- with no one being left to fund their retirement, the community solidarity and strength in numbers The Quiet Man envisions will never materialize. Again, this is the biggest ideological failure of the Left: it is more deeply rooted in preserving the unsustainable past that even some Conservative ideology is.

As for Terry Branstad, well, yes, he could snap his fingers and extinguish my job, which is why I get irritated when the Union picks battles it cannot possibly win. Mitch Daniels, Republican Governor of Indiana and probable presidential candidate in 2012 was faced with the same demographic challenges that Our Glorious New Governor is now (note my sarcasm please, I'm no fan of his) and when the union would not even begin to meet him halfway, he decertified them. Within something like six months, the majority of people in the union had stopped paying their dues. Sure, decertification is a nuclear option and perhaps needlessly controversial, but let's not be fooled: if Terry wants my job, he can take it- and no amount of posturing or striking by the union will change that.

Is the public sector worthy of the same benefits that private sector unions deliver? Traditionally the argument goes that public sector employees get better pensions and benefits than their private sector counterparts because we'll earn less over the course of our employment. Whether that holds true still, I don't know- but it's worth noting that public sector jobs exists in a realm where the state holds a monopoly on the market, therefore there is no meaningful competition to provide incentive to hold down costs of operations. Public sector unions can demand more and more because the state has no way of pointing to an alternative. It's a problem unique to the public sector and one I'll have to do more research on.

Are we, as The Quiet Man has suggested in our many conversations together headed towards a corporate sponsored, everything's private type of a world? I don't believe that- I think the problem (and this is a problem for the right, not the left) is that we have misplaced our anger at government. It's not the police officer or the firefighter that's the problem- it's the satraps of centralized bureaucracy that raise costs, it's the anti-democratic nature of that bureaucracy that makes government inefficient and makes it cost so much money. We can and should demand that government do better, but make no mistake about it: any Republican who tells you that government should be gotten rid of entirely needs to be asked some hard questions: does he mean police? Fire? What about the border patrol agents that keep all the illegals that Republicans are so concerned about out of America? Get rid of them, too?

Start asking questions about the exorbitant staffs Congressmen keep- and their salaries and the UnderSecretary of Do Nothing Affairs that gets paid six figures to pretty much pick his nose all day and then, well then I think you'll find that's when the members of the political class- of both parties starting squirming. I want fiscal sanity- but I want it to start at the top where waste is most evident before dribbling down to me. Unions make themselves useful scapegoats to prevent this debate- and it's also why I won't believe Terry Branstad's sermons on fiscal responsibility until he takes a pay cut. Say half his salary.

So in the end, I'm still not convinced. Yes my rant may be egoistic, but far too many people preach about this topic without taking the time to seriously consider how it might affect them. Being covered by a union contract, I wanted to inject some personal thought into the discussion- and I'm betting my frustrations with the Left shone through as a result. But unions have provided me the basic job benefits that I now have and I thank them for it. But they still exist to protect unsustainable retirement benefits and contracts that benefit the older workers and the older generation. You could argue that they have a moral right to demand what they, after all, have earned.

But if they have that right to demand what they have earned I have a right to demand what, if anything will be left for me? What about the fruits of the labors of my generation? Why are we trapped by unions (and corporations) into virtual penury designed to pay for canasta and shuffleboard for the Baby Boomers?

I remain, therefore, unconvinced.

(As a post-script: I'm with The Quiet Man 100% on the necessity of a strong labor movement to fight for worker's rights in the developing world especially. My main focus was on public sector unions in the United States and I didn't make that clear enough- but there are battles that we take for granted in this country that are still being fought out there in the world to protect workers from the worst depravities of global capitalism. What UNOCAL did at Bhopal for instance is an injustice that should have been correctly loudly by workers across the globe- that it wasn't and that people still suffer to this day because of what one corporation did is outrageous. Hence my belief that even as over regulation is bad for the economy, unrestrained capitalism must be opposed- loudly and proudly. We are a nation of checks and balances and that principle too should be judiciously applied to the economy, if not for the protection of the workers then just because it makes the most sense.)