Sunday, September 02, 2007

Which side are you on?

Tomorrow is Labor Day, and precious few of us will celebrate it by watching--much less marching in--a parade or attending a rally to honor American workers.

A few years ago, some union or unions (I confess that I don't recall the sponsor or sponsors) put out a bumper sticker that read, "From the folks who brought you the weekend." Exactly. It was labor unions that gave us the 40-hour week, and overtime pay for overtime work. Labor unions led the fight to relieve ordinary Americans from lives that were an Sisyphean struggle ended only by injury, disease or death.

As the forces of the right have ascended, with an anti-Union message that could have been delivered in 1907 as easily as 2007, it has become all too easy to forget what the labor movement did for America, and for Americans. Not only did it make the lives of workers more bearable and prosperous, but it played a very large part in making the Twentieth the American century.

Is is a coincidence that the decline in American power and influence in the world has taken place primarily under the leadership of a party that favors a reactionary view of labor-management relations? I think not.

Labor unions are hardly perfect. All too often, they are ineffective. They can be bureaucratic and, especially in the case of the larger unions, have many of the characteristics of management. Some have been corrupt. Some have sold out their members. But looking at the nation as unions declined in importance, I am reminded of the bumper-sticker that the teachers' unions put out a few years ago: "Think education is expensive? Try ignorance." Imagine a land without unions. (Think China, for a start.)

Must labor and management always be at war? No. There are some companies in which the two sides work comfortably and in an alliance against the competition. Which is as it should be in all businesses. But too often there is a divide, and if they are not unified, ordinary working people always get the short end of the stick in such situations. So, it's still a case of "Which side are you on?"

Don't scab for the bosses
Don't listen to their lies
Us poor folks haven't got a chance
Unless we organize

Florence Reese, "Which Side Are You On?"

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

This reminds me of what your mother (A VERY smart women) used to say. "The Labor Union is the greatest single contribution to the rise of the standard of living in The United States."
LM

Leanderthal, Lighthouse Keeper said...

I've had two views of this. My dad was the management negotiator of union contracts with the UMW. I didn't hear much positive about unions from him.

But unions have had a strong positive impact on getting protection for seniors. Though I don't know of any direct connection between unions and Social Security and Medicare, I'd be in tough shape personally without those benefits.

My concern about your title is it's polarizing implications, of which I believe we've had a superfluous abundance lately. How does your question differ from Bush's your either for us or for the terrorists?

The Old New Englander said...

I fear that I let the title of the song, "Which Side Are You On?" get to me--as think the body of the post makes more or less clear.

On the other hand, the pattern of labor-management relations shows that all too many people with positions of power in American business take a view every bit as partisan as you took mine to be. As Voltaire said when told, "It is strange that you speak so well of M. ______, when he speaks so ill of you," "Perhaps we are both wrong."