Afl-cio - Weak And Out Of Touch

[TWU informer]

The AFL-CIO is weak and out of touch with the membership and the citizens of the United States. This is hurting the Labor Movement and should be addresses, or the organization should be eliminated.

There is NO POLITICAL voice, there is NO UNITY, there is NO LEADERSHIP, there is NO NEED to fund the backstabbing Democrats.

In Oklahoma, the State AFL-CIO opposed Right-to-Work, is passed.

In OKlahoma, the State AFL-CIO opposed changes in Workmans Comp, it passed.

In Tulsa, the AFL-CIO and the TWU take credit for raising taxes on the workers of the city during Vision 2025 Campaign, it passed.

The time has come to stop dependence on Politicians and Legislation, since the merger of the AFL and the CIO, the unskilled, or Government Workers have dominated the direction of the organization and since the 1955 merger, things have doen nothing but gone down hill for Labor.

We need to re-ignite the SKILL dominated UNITY organization and begin to rebuild that which the CIO dominated leadership has destroyed.

There are already several unions, albeit unskilled that seek change to evacuation from the AFL-CIO.

That particular path is not in the best interest of the skilled and proud.

We the skilled in the Labor Work Force should re-invent the AFL and being the fight to re-take diginity, respect, and higher pay and benefits.

 

[Bob Owens]

The AFL-CIO is weak and out of touch with the membership and the citizens of the United States. This is hurting the Labor Movement and should be addresses, or the organization should be eliminated.

There is NO POLITICAL voice, there is NO UNITY, there is NO LEADERSHIP, there is NO NEED to fund the backstabbing Democrats.

In Oklahoma, the State AFL-CIO opposed Right-to-Work, is passed.

In OKlahoma, the State AFL-CIO opposed changes in Workmans Comp, it passed.

In Tulsa, the AFL-CIO and the TWU take credit for raising taxes on the workers of the city during Vision 2025 Campaign, it passed.

The time has come to stop dependence on Politicians and Legislation, since the merger of the AFL and the CIO, the unskilled, or Government Workers have dominated the direction of the organization and since the 1955 merger, things have doen nothing but gone down hill for Labor.

We need to re-ignite the SKILL dominated UNITY organization and begin to rebuild that which the CIO dominated leadership has destroyed.

There are already several unions, albeit unskilled that seek change to evacuation from the AFL-CIO.

That particular path is not in the best interest of the skilled and proud.

We the skilled in the Labor Work Force should re-invent the AFL and being the fight to re-take diginity, respect, and higher pay and benefits.

[post="278940"][/post]​

While I agree with your summation of the AFL-CIO what I see is all workers have suffered as a result of their incompetance, or complicity. Who knows where the truth lies?

While I feel that people with the same skill sets should be able to get representation that can focus and specialize on maximizing their bargaining position I do not feel that equates into a "go it alone" mindset. We can and should assist other workers when able, that does not mean that we should allow them to determine what we go for. WE must have unions that are tailored to both the workers skills and the conditions of the industry. In the airlines, with intense competition, that means one union across the industry for each type of worker, not one union for each company for all types of workers. One union across the industry can mitigate the negative effect on wages that competition produces, preventing unions from engaging in a race to the bottom. Having workers organized into unions along corporate lines puts workers into a race to the bottom, especially when there is no democratic accountabilty.

Clearly in this industry close alliances with others in this industry whether considered skilled or not, would be a plus for all of us. For instance if we had a choice between an alliance with a Fleet service union that represented all the fleet service workers and a union that represented all the plumbers or electricians which would be better? How could the plumbers or electricians union help aircraft mechanics? Sure they are skilled workers but the fact is the FSC workers could help us a lot more, and vice versa.

All workers deserve dignity, respect and a fair wage. However a fair wage is not the same wage, variables apply.

All workers should support the efforts of Andy Stern and the other leaders who have spoken out. Clearly the system is not working for any of us as our wages decline and benifits are eliminated. We are all in the same boat. Our leaders are more like the bosses of the company. As we see our wages and benifits decline they go unscathed. Sure they talk about what a shame it is for the workers, but thats it. Occasionally they even hypocritically criticize corporate leaders for teir "lack of shared sacrifice" hoping that nobody looks at the LM-2s. As our wages decline their answer is to "do nothing". Dont strike, dont slow down, dont fight back just be glad you have a job (so you can keep paying dues that fund the perks for me that you will never have).

One thing that should be noted. As we hear about jobs being shipped overseas all is not as bad as it seems. Sure many jobs are going overseas but overall employment in this country continues to rise. People forget that a generation ago nearly 50% of the population did not work. Now they do. The problem is not so much that certain types of jobs are leaving but rather that the ones that are being created do not pay enough. Many of these jobs are POS, (and I dont mean Peice of ####) point of service, they have to be done where they are done.

The problem facing the labor movement is that they have not been able to organize in these new industries where employment growth has taken place. Most of these workers would like to have a "union" but what they see out there are organizations like the TWU. Organizations run by crooks who make themselves rich while doing nothing for the members, except possibly getting jobs back for people who should be fired. While employers and the media have been successful at pointing out the pitfalls and corruption of unions the response from the leadership of unions has been to pretend that its not true.

All that people ever hear from the labor movement is how the members dont participate and that our decline is our fault. In the meantime those at the top of these unions get rich. On the one hand they are claiming to provide leadsership while admitting that they do not lead, they just collect your money then say to you that you need to do what needs to be done in order to improve your lives. THey will never say exactly what needs to be done but just throw out the phrase "you need to participate". Participate in WHAT?

When these new workers see what the options are, no union and you are on your own or pay out money to be on your own, its not suprising that they choose to save the money. In the meantime workers living standards decline, but for the bosses, both corporate and Union its "Let the good times roll".

 

[Saturdaynite]

Here is an interesting web-site regarding the AFL-CIO

http://www.rankandfileaflcio.org/

ST

 

[AMFAMAN]

Here is an interesting web-site regarding the AFL-CIO

http://www.rankandfileaflcio.org/

ST

[post="278985"][/post]​

From that website....

What Is Corporate Unionism? To find out, read Harry Kelber's five-part series, starting Monday, September 6, 2004. The Labor Educator www.laboreducator.org

Part 2, due out on Sept 13 will spotlight Doug McCarron, "An Apostle of Corporate Unionism"

If union members want to maintain their rights for the dues they pay into their labor organization, they will have to be aware of the symptoms of corporate unionism and learn how to fight it.

If labor leaders act as though they own the union and can do as they please with it, that's corporate unionism.

If they can spend the union's money freely on whatever they choose without the approval of the membership or the obligation to issue a financial report, that's corporate unionism.

If they control negotiations with employers and make decisions about the terms of a contract, while denying any input from their members or allowing discussion and a fair vote on the final settlement, that's corporate unionism.

If they suppress all criticism of their policies and actions and allow no voice for members with dissenting opinions, that's corporate unionism

If they become remote and inaccessible to their union members and develop life-styles and attitudes that are closer to that of the employers, that's corporate unionism.

And if their prime objective is to get elected and re-elected until they are ready to retire, without developing new leaders that are capable of fighting for the needs of the members, that's corporate unionism

In the developing corporate culture, a union is only as strong as its leaders, not its members.

 

[Bagbelt]

We live in a society that historically has had little tolerance for organized labor of any kind. Don't fool yourself that somehow because you are skilled labor everything will work out. Most of the few rights we have were granted under the duress of the great depression, when the ruling elites of this country were trying to stem communism. We have been riding the coattails of this for decades, giving one thing back after another. The only activist organisations that have been able to make a dent are enviornmental and equal rights, as well as the nra. Perhaps we should learn from them.

 

[TWU informer]

That description of "Corporate Unionism" sounds like the TWU!

Bagbelt,

You go ahead and keep hoping for legislative activity victories.

I think if you would read Labor History, you would find that attempting to "stem Communism" was not how workers gains were made.

Gains were made when workers revolted and created anarchy in the industrial world.

Maybe we should learn from them, and stop the pussy-footing reliance on legislation and politicans all together.

 

[Bagbelt]

You missed my point, it was 50 years after homestead, the molly mcguires' and finally mother jones before the labor movement was even acknowledged. In this day and age you won't last a week without lawyers and politicians. I don't like it, but thats' just the way it is.

 

[TWU informer]

You missed my point, it was 50 years after homestead, the molly mcguires' and finally mother jones before the labor movement was even acknowledged. In this day and age you won't last a week without lawyers and politicians. I don't like it, but thats' just the way it is.

[post="279004"][/post]​

I disagree!

I think the Lawyers and Politicians wouldn't last a week without US!

 

[Bagbelt]

Good point, I think most people have no idea just how much suffering was endured and sacrifice made to get ahead, that includes union brass, or they would not give it up so easy.

 

[Bob Owens]

That description of "Corporate Unionism" sounds like the TWU!

Bagbelt,

You go ahead and keep hoping for legislative activity victories.

I think if you would read Labor History, you would find that attempting to "stem Communism" was not how workers gains were made.

Gains were made when workers revolted and created anarchy in the industrial world.

Maybe we should learn from them, and stop the pussy-footing reliance on legislation and politicans all together.

[post="279001"][/post]​

No disrespect intended but I think you need to read a little more on Labor History, and expand it to include the labour movement in Europe.

Globalization is not a new phenomina, in fact America was "discovered" as a result of trying to squeeze out the middle man in the middle east so Europe could trade directly with China. So what happened in Europe is relevant to what happened here despite our tendency to believe that we exist in our own world. (Ironically, May Day, the big Socialist holiday, is about an event that happened in the US Labor movement.)

I recall a quote from Forbes magazine from a banker in 1930 who said (I dont have or remember the exact quote) that if the Capitalist system can not provide the masses what they need that it will be voted out of existance.

Disruptions, anarchy etc may help but those tactics were employed in the late 1800s to no avail. The Knights of Labor, Molly Maguires and other early attempts at creating a real movement were crushed. It was only the additional threat of a new political ideology that convinced those in control that the refusal to be fair could result in the end of their system. So its not one or the other but both that helped workers get a better living standard. The problem faced by todays labor movement is that they pose no threat whatsoever to the ruling elite, not politically or through disruptions to the economy. (Which is why I saw Sweeneys complaints that Bush is the first President to refuse to even meet with the head of the AFL-CIO comical. Bush knew that he could not count on them for political support, which he did not need, and, that the organization would not create economic disruption. Therefore he treated them as irrelivant, which they are.*)


The 1930s saw the Communist Party as the fastest growing political party in the country, no doubt this caused serious concerns for the ruling elite. A crackdown at that time could have resulted in Revolution. The government had already alienated itself from a large part of the population after they attacked WWI veterans who were demanding promised payments ahead of time due to hardships imposed by the Great Depression. Because a huge number of desperate people existed and the government refused to do anything to help them the potential for serious and violent political turmoil was real. It was two decades later when most Americans had made it to a certian level of material comfort that the crackdown came.

While todays right wingers deride FDR as a Socialist he was in fact the savior of Capitalism. Yes, much of the New Deal program was Socialist, Unemployment Insurance, Social Security, Pensions Health Care etc were all Socialist issues. But what the Democrat FDR did was simply follow the same tactic that his cousin, Republican Teddy Roosevelt employed to defeat his progressive opponent. Teddy basically adopted his opponents position on reforms against monopolies and trusts and made them his own. By doing so the reforms were more moderate than what would have happened if his opponent had won just as FDRs New Deal was certainly more moderate than the entire platform of the Communists.

So the fact is you are both right, workers lives improved because of the willingness to engage in disruptive behavior and legislative action, they can not be seperated. The Gompers ideology of staying out of politics is just as flawed as todays AFL-CIO policy of total reliance on it. What you need is both.

Politics is not immune to the realities of society. Disruptions to the economy cause political fallout. There is no doubt in my mind that if all the labor unions in the airline industry had stood together and shut down all the major carriers when the first contract was voided-thus breaking a promise made to workers that their agreements would be given maximum protection,the government would have had to respond. What the response would have been would be determined by how steadfast the unions were and how well the unions sold their poisition to the general public. In the rail industry it resulted in all railroads, including upstarts that were undercutting "legacy carriers", contributing to a common portable pension that railroad workers still have to this day. The RailRoad industry went through the same things this industry is going through but they never saw the paycuts and loss of benifits we did-if they had the workers would have shut down the Railroads and thus-the economy. The fact is both the airlines and the government knew that the unions were weak and would not put forth any real resistance, thats why we fared so badly.


* By not engaging in economic disruptions the AFL-CIO is by default giving Bush all the political support the AFL-CIO could offer.

 

[TonyB]

The truth of the matter is that we were sold out from the beggining. Gompers and the AFL were put in place to keep the so called radicals in check.
The above book should be required reading for anyone who still believes that the AFL and then the AFL-CIO are there to represent the working class. The truth is that the American union leaders are a bunch of pimps. They sell us out to their corporate masters in order to live large. They get over on us like Fat Rats and we sit back and do nothing. :down: :down: