Posts
When I was first married, my husband worked for the railroad. He made a decent wage, he had benefits, and he had a pension plan. I worked for the school district. I made so-so money, but I , too, had a pension plan, and health benefits. My birth control pills were covered, and when I did get pregnant, I got to stay in the hospital six days for a vaginal birth and ten days for a cesearean section. Later, after my third child was born, I didn't have to ask permission from anyone in order to obtain the a tubal ligation. That was the nineteen seventies. As the years have passed, I have watched as health care benefits have been decreased and those that are still available have been placed on 'employee contributed' status. Plus, aside from having less and less coverage, my insurance company has placed itself in the middle of my personal, private business . I am now forced to have my life impacted by the religious beliefs of others.
Other changes in the working environment have been made since then: A full crew on a train locomotive went from four men , to three, to two. I don't know how many they have on a crew now. , but a lot of people, at the time, felt that the reduction in crew size endangered the lives of the remaining crews. The railroad tracks in Pennsylvania between Youngstown and Buffalo were, with full union acquiesence, pulled up and the jobs of the men and women who worked those routes were lost. Defined pension funds have gone the way of the 1963 Corvair and have been replaced, when they were replaced at all, with 401k plans. The data which is turning up lately, is showing that 401k plans can be risky and the associated fees, paid by the employees, are high. The give backs in the area of public education have been well-documented.
While union leaders , publicly, decried these changes , as far as I can see, they have done very little to stop the gutting of union members' contracts. I believe that union leaders have become soft and afraid to make an active play to protect the rights of the people who pay their salaries. When one studies early labor history, incidents such as the Homestead Labor Strike of 1892 are a sharp contrast, indeed, to the 'You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours' mentality that has become popular today.
I used to read the papers and think, 'Well, that's the last straw. Someone is going to call for a strike vote for sure, now. Then, nothing. Why? Why no strike vote? Or for that matter, even a public , informational picket in which no work stoppage occurred? And, as long as I'm asking Why questions, here is another. Why has there been no descernible movement to organize un-represented areas: hotel workers, food service personnel? Could it be, possibly, that union leade are predominately White men, and new workers in these areas are overwhelmingly female and minority? Just a thought that runs through my mind every now and again.
When I hear some knothead get on the television and praise management on Labor Day I do not even get angry. History has demonstrated that management personnel will do whatever they are allowed to do: protect management, exploit the workers and send the jobs to countries where children are paid pennies an hour and work hours and hours each day. It's the union leaders who should be giving themselves a good long look in the mirror as this Labor Day 2012 draws to a close.
Unions have not outlived their purpose, far from it. The workers in this country need, badly, a revitalized union moving. What the working people in this country really need I think, is a few more leaders of the ilk of Cesar Chavez.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/04/was-the-decline-of-american-unions-inevitable-ask-canada/
As sometimes happens, as I was working on this post, I read this blog article which presents more insight into this issue of unions and their role. I found the Canadian approach to be fascinating.
No comments:
Post a Comment