Why is this lesson so hard for Democrats -- especially "progressive" types like those at TAPPED -- to understand?

John Q.:

One should not entirely discount the reality of the cultural divide that goes together with the devaluation, both real and imaginary, of non-symbolic labor.

Nathan Newman:

Is there not a chicken-and-egg thing here: to have a stonger progressive labor movement you need a more progressive government, but to have a more progressive government you need a stronger progressive labor movement. Yes, organize! But in the face of unenforced labor laws, corporate illegality and repressive courts this has been increasingly difficult. It is not an accident that organized labor has declined with the political rise of the corporate right. And given the current weakness of the labor movement, do not new strategies need to be developed involving outreach and alliances between labor and other sorts of civic and interest organizations? Yet this would be precisely the sort of "political" activity that is to be curtailed. Any suggestions?

John- Better labor laws would be nice, but unions can organize successfully even under the present terrible legal environment. They just need full support from the broader consumer and activist population, boycotting anti-union companies and actively talking to fellow citizens to support unions seeking recognition and decent contracts.

Yes- rightwingers may try to curtail strong labor-community alliances, but free speech goes a long way before that repression will be completely successful. It's a matter of liberals making discussing labor issues a priority and acting on those priorities.

Yes, unions have their publications that are sent to millions of people, but do millions of people actually read them? Probably not. The UAW's Solidarity is one of the more interesting, attractive union publications, but many still think that their sole purpose in life is to document every time their president goes to the bathroom, or boring pictures of members attending meetings.

Ralph Nader (or one of his minions) wrote an article around 25 years ago about the potential power of union publications. The conclusion was that no one reads them. Things have improved over the past decades, but how much.

Labor's real influence on their members at election time comes from more one on one contacts, which was the secret of Steve Rosenthal's success at the AFL-CIO. After the 1994 debacle, unions realized that just endorsing politicians didn't influence their members' votes any more. In the mid-'90's they also realized that their dollars could be better spent on member-to-member contacts and get-out-the-vote efforts than spending gobs of money on television advertising. For the most part, as you document,it was successful, assuming there is someone attractive to vote for (unlike 2002)

It isn't just reading the union literature, it's acting on the issues that affect unions and workers in general. Too many union workers still vote Republican, but they can't seem to identify this fact when their government actively works against them and their issues. These folks are also the ones who bitch loudest about how crappy unions are, without recognizing that a union is only as good as its members. One thing unions need to do is to hammer away at this attitude that it's no big deal to vote for a Republican if you are a union member.

When I was at AFSCME, which represents public employees, I was always amazed at how many of our members voted for the Republican whose campaign was based on reducing government.

As Jessie Jackson just said (in relation to the CA recall) "Sure, you may be frustrated, but frustrated chickens shouldn't vote for Colonel Sanders."

Nathan - I agree with the thrust of your post, but I'm a little bit bothered by your conclusion:
"supporting unionization campaigns should be a top priority of any progressive concerned about electoral results in this country."

I don't mean to be a jerk here, but think about what you're saying. You're saying that I, as somebody with left-of-center political views, should encourage my friends, neighbors, and acquantiances to join a union because:
(i) by joining a union, my friends will increase the membership base (and funding base) of labor unions
(ii) by increasing the membership base of labor unions, my friends will increase the electoral base of the Democratic Party
(iii) by increasing the electoral base of the Democratic Party, my friends will help to improve the success of progressive causes.

One need not be a Walmart executive to view this reasoning as (A) a weak justification for collective bargaining and, therefore, philosophically flawed (B)unlikely to increase the success of union organinizing, and therefore, flawed even from a consequentalist framework.

Once again, I don't mean to be a jerk here. I'm a fervent supporter of the right of workers to enjoy collective bargaining. Moreover, I'm somebody who, if, ever blessed with the opportunity to join a union at my workplace, would be an automatic "yes" vote. Even if the union was directed by a bunch of labor racketeers from the Gambino family, I'd still vote "yes". First, I know that even a corrupt, mafia-infested, right-wring union has an obligation to protect my rights in the workplace. Second, I know that my employer has an interest in seeing those rights weakened. If I have to choose between Jacker Presser and The Body Shop, I'd choose Jackie Presser in a nanosecond.

Unfortunately, there are few Americans who share my political viewpoints. For example, if I want to convince the janitors at John Smith University to join a union, I have to earn their trust and loyalty. At a very minimum, this requires me to demonstrate that my primary concern is in protecting the rights and welfare of each and every janitor of John Smith University (even the ones who vote Republican1). If, on other hand, the janitors suspect that my primary interest is not in them as individuals, but, rather, as some "chit" of some larger ideological struggle, I won't be successful at earning their trust.

I could go on, but I think you know what I'm getting at. Also, I want to say that I don't doubt *your* commitment to labor unions & progressive politics is rooted in a fundemntal concern for workers as human beings (I'm not just saying this to be nice, BTW). Unfortuantely, too many union organizers give the impressession that they're concerned with workers with means to a larger end, rather than as *ends in themselves.* That perception may be unfair, but it exists nonetheless, and it's a huge, huge achilles heel for the labor movement.

I really should be studying be right now instead of posting on a blog, but....I've got to second what Jordan says about labor union publications; namely, that they make for incredibly boring reading. I guaruntee you that 99% of UAW members throw out "Solidarity" within 10 minutes of receiving it. Nobody reads a publication they find boring, no matter how many important issues it highlights.
It's a shame, because the struggles of labor unions can make for great literature, or least good entertainment. Anybody who's seen a John Sayles or Ken Loach film can testyify to this. I propose that the AFL-CIO, as well as each individual labor union, devote a small percentage of their revenues to support labor-based arts, literature, drama and films. It'd pay enormous dividends.

R to try to read mathat even Rather directorswriters like David Mamet

Peter-- I argue for organizing unions for the basic dignity of work and democracy in the workplace. People in the workplace join unions because it will give them power to improve their lives and the lives of their families.

This post is aimed directly at the "politicos" in the blogosphere who do care passionately about partisan politics, but who I think should in that case spend more time promoting pro-union information generally. Different people respond to different messages. (See my post about unions and civil rights-- that was aimed at civil rights activists.)

I'm a lifelong Teamster and I get disheartened when I see union members voting for the Talibanicans that wish to destroy their union and their quality of life in the name of 'freedom of choice'. You have a choice when you join a union. If you want to crab about your union, vote in your union elections. Run for union office. Letting the Repub-lie-cans into your locals is bad bad bad. Democrats AIN'T perfect, but at least they want us to have a choice and the power to make those choices as a united group. If you want to vote Talibanican, get a non union job. Otherwise, do what the Repub-LIE-cans have learned to do, change from the inside.

As much as it may upset those who believe that unions should be instruments of "class struggle" and that union members should always vote selfishly in their own narrow economic interest, many union members choose to think of themselves first as citizens, and only secondarily as "working class". If, as a union member, you believe that Republicans are better for national security, and that the Democratic Party is in the thrall of special interest groups (such as women who want to abort on whim, gays who want to force society to celebrate their chosen lifestyle, etc.), then it is not surprising that you would vote Republican, even if your narrow interest as a union member would support voting Democratic.

Working people do not owe it to the left to vote the way Karl Marx thinks they should!