Nathan: That's very interesting. I'd be interested if you could point to any other good sources of information on the difficulties of union organization. (Or you could write a long article about the topic; either one!) Thanks.

Sort of on topic, does anyone remember an article written by Barbara Ehrenreich (of "Nickled and Dimed" fame) that proposed new roles for unions that would allow them to be more responsive to their members? I think it may have appeared in the American Prospect or some such mag.

It was in The Nation, and co-written with Tom Geoghegan (whose Which Side Are You On? everyone who cares about unions ought to read.)

I don't know if it's available on their website.

I'm working on a campaign right now at a Minnesota nursing home. In the two weeks since
the union won the election by a large margin, four pro-union workers have been fired.

We're reaching out
to the religious community for support, to put pressure on management. The home is loosely
associated with a liberal denomination that
has taken good stands on labor rights. However,
management is using every dirty trick in the book.

Andy - I assume you guys have filed some ULPs in response to the firings? I like the strategy of going to the Church. We are doing that with a hospital in IL.

The problem with the solidarity strike idea is that it is essentially anti-trust. You could make an argument that forced unionizing is also anti-trust but half of the politicians in any state are financially dependant upon unions for their campaign funds and campaign staff to kill the golden goose.

If three of the auto makers decided to lock out the unions in order to even the improve their bargaining position by making the union cut one deal for all three, the FTC would jump in with an anti-trust action. But there are plenty of people who would advocate strikes across the country to allow one union to get a better deal from an employer.

If you really care about unionized workers, how about putting more money in their pockets by allowing them to not have to pay for unions political activities on behalf of abortion, dope legalization, nationalized healthcare, gay marriage or a host of other ideologically driven special interest which are never voted on, approved or even discussed with membership? If you are a company shareholder, you are most sure that the money the company spends on lobbying or campaigns is in the interest of making the company richer or more successful. But you can't make the case that having marijuana legalized in Nevada is benefiting AFL-CIO members.

Unions are now giant political powers and less and less advocates for their membership. It inevitably happens but it does not appear to be addressed in any substantive way. People making $20K a year are very likely not aware what is happening to the money they pay their union bosses. Unless you are do something about that, you aren't much better than Ken Lay. Just not working with as much money.

Bruce--Your comparison on corporations is silly. Unlike union members-- who have the right to deduct political lobbying from any union dues they have to pay, shareholders have no such right.

I'm not even sure what you are babbling about on legalization in Nevada. Unions spend their political money overwhelmingly on issues like overtime pay, health care, and basic bread and butter economic issues.

Bruce, Texas was recently (2002 election) treated to a takeover of the House of Representatives by the Republicans because of several million dollars of soft money from corporations directed by Tom Delay against 42 Democratic House members, most of whom lost. The current effort to redistrict to increase the number of Republican House members is a direct result.

Remember the Democrats who fled to Oklahoma? Guess what. They were responding to the excess of ~corporate~ political money. Many of us really don't LIKE to have our State bought out by wealthy and irresponsible corporations. We NEED union money in the process!

The unions can't match that kind of money, and you want to remove their right to try? Yeah, sure. Why don't we just give the top 100 Corporations (by number of employees) each their own Senator and provide them 100 electors in the Electoral College and be done with it? Forget this democracy garbage. It is costing the Corporations ~way~ too much to buy the politicians under current circumstances, and permitting a slight bit of competition from the unions simply raises the price. It is soooo inefficient.

Ken Lay for President! He can't be worse then Bush, or the Italian PM Bertoluci. Can he?

Bruce, Texas was recently (2002 election) treated to a takeover of the House of Representatives by the Republicans because of several million dollars of soft money from corporations directed by Tom Delay against 42 Democratic House members, most of whom lost. The current effort to redistrict to increase the number of Republican House members is a direct result.

Remember the Democrats who fled to Oklahoma? Guess what. They were responding to the excess of ~corporate~ political money. Many of us really don't LIKE to have our State bought out by wealthy and irresponsible corporations. We NEED union money in the process!

The unions can't match that kind of money, and you want to remove their right to try? Yeah, sure. Why don't we just give the top 100 Corporations (by number of employees) each their own Senator and provide them 100 electors in the Electoral College and be done with it? Forget this democracy garbage. It is costing the Corporations ~way~ too much to buy the politicians under current circumstances, and permitting a slight bit of competition from the unions simply raises the price. It is soooo inefficient.

Ken Lay for President! He can't be worse then Bush, or the Italian PM Bertoluci. Can he?

There has been a move in this direction, but more is needed - Organize rather than Service

Solidarity, Mark

check out the new LaborUnionWiki

Union failure is due to a variety of factors, not the least of which is that the working people of America have rejected their class warfare, us-against-them approach to employer-employee relations. Most unions continue to behave as if we were still in the 1930's.

You quote Business Week's mention of the Hart survey without noting that it was paid for by the AFL-CIO and that other surveys find greatly different results. A 1999 Gallup poll found that only 21 percent of those who were not union members would like to be represented by a union.

It was a mistake for government to get into the business of regulating labor relations in the first place. The best thing we could do would be to deregulate and return to the rule of law.

Spartacus-- Don't know which poll you are talking about but this Gallup poll shows a 66% approval of unions.

Although I actually agree with you that it would be better to get the government out of the business and repeal both the Wagner Act and Taft-Hartley.

But for someone who argues for "deregulation", why does your website against the right of workers to contract for neutrality agreements, which avoid NLRB intervention altogether? Or do you just want government intervention AGAINST unions?

"Fully half of all nonunion U.S. workers say they would vote yes if a union election were held...Yet unions lose about half of the elections they call."

Well, that makes perfect sense. If on average, 50% of workers would vote yes, then you'd expect half of the elections to suceed and half to fail.

What doesn't make sense is so many workers failing to see the benefits of having a union...

Spartacus: Are you a corp. boardmember, a entrep. getting wealthy off cheap labor, or are you a working man whos been dumbed down by the "liberal press" ie: talk radio?

7 more years and I (45 presently) and my stay at home wife retire and watch our kids graduate from college... Maybe they will specialize in attacking corrupt corporations or some other nobel endeavor to repay the opportunity they received from my collective bargaining agreement.

Anybody care to join me for some offshore fishing off Cabo...My Treat?

Middle Class/American dream...no?

Afraid of getting fired for joining a union? Sounds like they need a Right to Work law similar to Idaho's.

It is hereby declared to be the public policy of the state of Idaho, in order to maximize individual freedom of choice in the pursuit of employment and to encourage an employment climate conducive to economic growth, that the right to work shall not be subject to undue restraint or coercion. The right to work shall not be infringed or restricted in any way based on membership in, affiliation with, or financial support of a labor organization or on refusal to join, affiliate with, or financially or otherwise support a labor organization. (Enacted January 31, 1985; Approved by Referendum November 4, 1986.)

May I suggest that the major reason that unions do not suceed in gaining new menbers is that most Americans view unions as part of the problem and not an answer.
The teamsters have had every Executive President for the last 40 years either convicted, jailed or murdered. The strike against Overnite Transportation convinced workers that the teamsters could not organize even what they called "America's worst labor violator" all because the workers trusted Overnite more than they could trust the teamsters.
Even todat with Locals like Local 25 in Ma stealing pensions and officers pleading guilty to charges makes non union workers shy away from the union boss's and their henchmen.
Until the unions stop the greed and criminal behavior that has been accepted as normal by members will people on the outside ever consider a union.
With teamster boss's earning millions plus $40,000 a year in housing besides private jets and chefs all the while the membership is declining, the unions wonder why no one trusts them.

Their underestimation of the American worker defies the imagination. They are doomed and they do not know it. All because of their greed and criminal behavior.

May I suggest that the major reason that unions do not suceed in gaining new menbers is that most Americans view unions as part of the problem and not an answer.
The teamsters have had every Executive President for the last 40 years either convicted, jailed or murdered. The strike against Overnite Transportation convinced workers that the teamsters could not organize even what they called "America's worst labor violator" all because the workers trusted Overnite more than they could trust the teamsters.
Even todat with Locals like Local 25 in Ma stealing pensions and officers pleading guilty to charges makes non union workers shy away from the union boss's and their henchmen.
Until the unions stop the greed and criminal behavior that has been accepted as normal by members will people on the outside ever consider a union.
With teamster boss's earning millions plus $40,000 a year in housing besides private jets and chefs all the while the membership is declining, the unions wonder why no one trusts them.

Their underestimation of the American worker defies the imagination. They are doomed and they do not know it. All because of their greed and criminal behavior.

Teamster boss's don't earn millions a year. I think you have them confused with Enron boss's.

Union boss's do make millions a year. Visit tdu.org and read how 2 theives in the teamsters are set to grab millions when they retire, collecting 4 pensions!!! At the same time the very same union pensions they are in charge of are reducing benefits to teamsters that contributed to...

Union boss's in chicago earn over $1,000,000 in salary. before the loot the union funds.
If union in America ever want to get the respect of future members they had better clean out their own house. Workers trust companies, at least they employ people and offer paychecks. Today union steal from members and reduce benefits at the same time.