Reinvigorating the Economy: What TAPPED Misses

In a roundup of advice for the Dem candidates heading into the Baltimore debate, TAPPED admonishes candidates that talking about unions “won’t cut it” because it’s hopeless to talk about preserving manufacturing jobs, and:

[B]esides, 91 percent of us out in the private sector are non-union and doubt we'll ever benefit from anything to do with organized labor, other than its electoral interventions and the workplace changes won by unions more than half a century ago.

What is the new sector that will arise and reinvigorate the American economy again? What are the candidates going to do for those of us who are non-union workers? Anybody have any ideas?

It’s a little jarring to see TAPPED so badly misunderstand what unions are fighting for.

If TAPPED doesn’t believe non-union workers “ever benefit from anything to do with organized labor” and dismisses "electoral interventions" as trivial, it needs to take a look at what’s happening in the Senate as we write.

Right now, union members are leading a massive fight to stop Bush from watering down overtime rights for workers.

(Bush/K Street want to make it much easier for employers to reclassify about 8 million people as “managers” or “supervisors” who aren’t eligible for overtime.)

Who would immediately benefit the most if Senate Democrats succeed in blocking the Bush attack on overtime?

Not union members. Most of them already have overtime rights in their contracts, and those contracts can’t be changed by the law.

So why are unions spending so much time and energy on this issue?

Obviously, if Bush succeeds, union members will face new demands for overtime cutbacks because their employers will point to competitors that are no longer required to pay overtime and insist on parity.

But there’s no doubt that all of us—union and non-union—will be worse off if this standard is pushed down by a White House and Congress beholden to corporate special interests. And non-union workers would lose more, and faster.

There are many, many examples of changes that union members have fought for (and not all of them fifty years old) that all working people benefit from.

For decades, unions have fought to expand access to affordable health care, even though union members are more likely than non-union workers to have good health benefits. Back in 1965 unions led the fight to win universal coverage for Americans over 65, even though union retirees were more likely to have health care.

Even Mickey Kaus—whose disdain for unions is as obnoxious as it is reliable—gets this:

For decades, unions have supported government programs -- e.g. OSHA -- that reduce workers' need for unions. It's one of the great mysteries for those of us with a cynical view of politics.

It shouldn’t be that much a mystery to understand that a rising tide lifts all boats, and better policies benefit all of us. It’s called solidarity, which has become too distant a concept in our country these days.

The current fight to defend overtime standards provides a good example of why progressives like TAPPED should support a stronger union movement, not pout about its supposed irrelevance.

Non-union private sector workers have the most to lose if Bush undoes the overtime standards as well as many other changes that working people fought for those fifty long years ago. Yet they aren’t fighting back, largely because they are disconnected from what’s happening in Congress.

Literally, they’re not organized, and as a result they don’t have any coherent voice to oppose an agenda that has been dictated to the White House and Congress by narrow corporate special interests.

Unions connect regular people to Congress, the president, and state and local officials in a way that matters. They get people information that spurs them to send e-mails, make calls, and most importantly, vote.

(Ruy Teixiera has pointed out in many forums that white guys in unions are just about the only working-class white men who can be counted on to vote for progressive candidates. I can only hope that TAPPED can see the importance of getting more support from white men for left-liberal candidates.)

TAPPED is very much right that we need to have a new discussion about reinvigorating the American economy, especially if TAPPED is right about manufacturing jobs not coming back. The white guys who used to have many of those jobs are still here.

But the only way working people are going to have a meaningful voice in that discussion is through their own independent organizations, which is exactly what unions are.

The problem is that it’s difficult for working people who want to have a voice in provoking that discussion to have a say, because it’s far too difficult for them to form unions.

Some of the Democratic candidates are speaking out about making it easier for non-union workers to join the discussion. TAPPED should take a second to recognize that we’ll all be better off when that happens.

Comments

[Jordan Barab]

Excellent points. It's deeply troubling to hear one of the leading media voices of the left reveal so little understanding of the role of unions in American society, economy and politics. I wonder if the Tapped authors ever talk to people at the Prospect like Harold Meyerson. Might to interesting to hear what he has to say about all of this.

[Scott Hanson]

you wrote: "The current fight to defend overtime standards provides a good example of why progressives like TAPPED should support a stronger union movement, not pout about its supposed irrelevance."

Please. Lets not refer to those who don't get unions as "progressive". Liberals fine, but lets reserve the word "progressive" at a minimum for those who recognize class and understand that even ordinary people can have power when they're organized together and take action.