A recent discussion I became involved with on Facebook on the state of the US economy, included a lively exchange on the current position unions occupy in the business world. It started when I objected to a friend's assertion that the the difficulties we are now experiencing with our economy were, if not completely, mostly caused by President Obama's ineffectiveness as a leader. I countered that this was an over simplification. Certainly, the President has made some mistakes. However, I believe that the root of the problem lies much more with the intractability of the Republican Party in general, and, so-called Tea Party Republicans in particular. From what I have read and heard from virtually every economist, regardless of their political party affiliation, is that some spending (some even said a LOT) by the government was absolutely necessary to create jobs and jump start the economy. I believe this is what we call a stimulus package, something the Obama administration is desperately trying to sell to the American people. And the major reason it is such an uphill fight is that the Tea Party has stonewalled every move by the President to effectively raise the debt limit by raising taxes, particularly on the wealthy and corporations, or spend money to create government jobs that would do meaningful work like improving the country's infrastructure (which so desperately needs it). Now you know why they have been dubbed as The Party of No. To me, at times, they seem as spoiled children who only want what they want and say"NO" to every effort to try to appease them.
Be that as it may, the discussion eventually came to how, if unions were abolished, the business environment would experience a breath of fresh air that, along with virtually no regulation on them in terms of environmental protection or other safe guards, would issue in a new era of economic growth that would save the country. WTF?! To me, that's a recipe for disaster!
Unions, often the only line of protection for workers against greedy and powerful business concerns, have been around for hundreds of years. They started as guilds or organizations of skilled workers who would ban together to find strength in numbers to protect themselves against, you guessed it, GREEDY AND POWERFUL BUSINESS CONCERNS. They were created because they were needed and they still are!!
Guilds morphed into unions over the years but still serve the same purpose; to give the worker a voice in how he is treated and compensated in the workplace. Many who argued against unions claimed that, perhaps, at one time, unions were necessary but they are no longer needed. This is another WTF?! Certainly, the most dramatic examples of the need for unions came after the Industrial Revolution of the late 19th Century and early 20th Century. Before them, BIG BUSINESS had little concern for the health and well being of its workers. In fact, they were down right abusive. At great cost, unions fought BIG BUSINESS for even the most basic human rights at the work place. Without the unions we might still have child labor, unlimited work hours, unsafe work environs, and piss poor pay!!!!
And this is still true today. How many miners have to die because BIG BUSINESS cut corners on safety to increase profits for you to realize that, without the UMW, a relatively rare occurrence could happen on nearly a daily basis? How many people would be terminated after years of struggle only to be replaced by a younger, less skilled, and cheaper one, without the union? How many industrial workers would be exposed to danger caused by callous bosses whose sole mission is to increase productivity and cut costs without the union? No, my friends, without the unions, BIG BUSINESS will declare open season on American workers.
That's the emotional side of being a union supporter. But there is a practical side, as well. And it plays directly in THE PARTY OF NO's plans to stimulate the economy. Of course, as THE PARTY OF NO, they will miss the point - they're too busy saying, well, NO! I am a union member: IBEW Local 1212 in NYC. Now, I don't work in a coal mine but I need my union just as much. As a TV journalist, I work in an extremely competitive, stressful, demanding, and, sometimes, dangerous profession. And, quite frankly, I am well compensated for it. However, I honestly believe that, without the union, I would be exposed to the same challenges I mentioned WITHOUT the proper compensation. As it is, I am required to work long hours under difficult conditions (hurricanes, fires, floods, warfare, etc.). Now, because of the union, at least I am fairly compensated for it. Without it, I KNOW that this would not be the case. It's already happening within our profession. TV News stations have made a strong move to hire younger, less experienced, NON union workers for far less money then they have to pay us.
Here is where THE PARTY OF NO gets it all wrong when it comes to the REAL economic impact of unions: because I am well compensated, I feel that I am in a position to live a relatively comfortable life. What does this mean? It means me and family buy things - things like homes, cars, appliances, vacations, etc! We pump money into the economy!! Now, I'm a photojournalist not an economist but isn't that Economics 101? Unions ARE the stimulus!!
Some in THE PARTY OF NO would say that, in a free society with a free market economy, businesses should be allowed to hire whom they want and compensate them at any rate they want. Really? Well, let me put that in perspective for you. During recent contract negotiations between CBS News and the IBEW that represents its technicians, CBS was taking a hard line looking for major concessions from the union. And they did this while raking in record setting profits - enough profit to compensate CEO Les Moonves to the tune of $87 million a year!!
Well, this time I'm saying NO! No, you will not take our UNIONS!!
No comments:
Post a Comment