Labor unions are a vital part of the American economic environment, which makes them a prime target for conservatives. They exist because the Constitution says we have the right of assembly. In addition, the assemblies of workers are more vital to our way of life, in a fundamental way, than many believe. They are a necessary balancing force in society between labor and management, either of which in dominance is bad; it destroys democracy. We labor under the premise of one-person one-vote and that each vote has equal weight. This is not in conflict with the premise that if you own a business you have the right to decide who works in that business and how much they are paid. Such things as increasing wages where unions exist and the absence of child labor or hazardous working conditions are examples of this. In addition, it is not in conflict, which the abhorred Citizens United Decision that gives corporations “collective” power where none exists; this ruling falsifies the democratic concept of “collective” power. In a corporation, it is a dictatorship but with unions, individual workers vote on who their leaders will be and how they decide issues. Union leaders use dues money to give collective power or voice to individual worker. Theoretically, the leaders represent a majority; however, in many cases, right to work laws destroyed the concept of democracy in unions. These laws, which business owners enacted to destroy unions, distort the concept of democracy in unions by allowing a minority of workers to prevent collective decisions.
I have often complained of excessive of unions and their misguided activities such as defending incompetent workers just as I have complained about excess of management. This is where I can point out that without the balance terrible things can and does happen. I find the most egregious and clearest examples of imbalances in foreign countries. It surprises no one to learn that this is the case because corporations and enterprise have shaped our foreign policy; there are no unions in these countries because that is the way corporations want it. As I pointed out in a previous blog post on this web site, Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) and President Obama, our government sanctioned this corporate activity. I pointed out labor unions leaders are adamantly against the president on this issue but enterprises are overwhelmingly supportive. They support it because they see increased profits. Labor unions oppose TPP because of feared job loss. Perhaps in the short term and to a limited extent, their fear is justified for manufacturing jobs. There is a legitimate argument to make that the number of jobs may actually increase. There will be some shift in the type of jobs to the more skilled technical jobs as well as service, retail sales and repair. However, many, many jobs such as those in transportation, teaching, police, health care, and a long list of etceteras will remain the same. Undoubtedly, shifts of this kind are unsettling to works and their leaders.
I would like to point out something that seems overlooked by most. The President of the Untied States is a liberal. He and his executive branch are negotiating the treaties with 11 different countries. MBA profit driven business executives are not negotiating them—that is the big break with the past; in fact, it is huge. The shift represents an earthshaking change in American foreign policy. Finally, American policy is one of reasoned business logic and not one of military might. The office of the Untied States Trade Representative published on the inter net a summary of U. S. Objectives, from which I copied the pertinent paragraph:
We are working hard to ensure that TPP will be a comprehensive deal, providing new and meaningful market access for goods and services; strong and enforceable labor standards and environmental commitments; groundbreaking new rules designed to ensure fair competition between state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and private companies; commitments that will improve the transparency and consistency of the regulatory environment to make it easier for small- and medium-sized businesses to operate across the region; a robust intellectual property (IP) rights framework to promote innovation, while supporting access to innovative and generic medicines and an open Internet; and obligations that will promote a thriving digital economy, including new rules to ensure the free flow of data.
The sentence is that of the Government but bold print is mine. My point is simple. This agreement is unlike any foreign trade agreement ever written; IT IS A “PARTNERSHIP”. United States government is pledged to control corporations and is pledged to work with the governments of countries and their workers. It no longer corporations operating at a diplomatic level but our government, as elected by the people. The hope is that his will end the gross contamination of host country environments for a few dollars in profits. Our labor union leaders in the United States should see this for what it is. It is an opportunity for labor unions across these 11 countries to fashion economic labor laws and humane working conditions in concert with those of labor unions in the Untied States; skilled workers, truck drives, hotel service employees, environmental regulators, and a list of etceteras a arms length long. I would be extremely naive to suppose that corporations will not try to corrupt these governments and bribe politicians just as they do ours at home, but at least there is and avenue of hope.
We can set back and watch because as sure as I am writing this, the right-wing, who overwhelmingly support TPP now, will vehemently turn on it as an attempt by labor unions to unite workers in these 11 countries to prevent corporate domination and corruption of workers in those countries as in the past. I can hear it now, “TPP is a communist attempt to unite the workers of the world” OMG, didn’t Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels want to do that?
URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated
No comments:
Post a Comment