from Business Week
The AFL-CIO is planning an effort modeled on its powerful get-out-the-vote political machine. Headed by a veteran labor and Democratic politico, Ellen Moran, it aims to engage hundreds or even thousands of union members to do mailings, phone banks, and work-site visits to convince labor households and, later, the public, that Wal-Mart undercuts living standards. The campaign won't call for a boycott, but labor leaders say focus group studies they've done show that some people may shop elsewhere if told of Wal-Mart's actions.
5 comments:
I just found out that my blog friend Tom is a union steward. I had told him he should read your blog!!!
What union?
He didn't say, but my guess would be the National Association of Letter Carriers. Do the posties have any other unions?
Now that I think of it, that would be your competition working for UPS, wouldn't it? Hahaha. OK, maybe he shouldn't read your blog after all. ;) Just kidding.
I imagine the union thing transcends company loyalty; well, unless you're a confederate. X)
The AFL-CIO's powerful get-out-the-vote machine? I sure hope that isn't funded with union dues, especially from those employees who wish their union dues only to fund the union's collective bargaining representation.
Yes, it's funded by union dues, dude. By law, anyone who objects to having their union dues used for political activity can have that portion retained.
It's worth remembering that unions are "democratic" in the same sense that our government is (i.e., in theory): decision-makers are elected by their constituencies to represent their interests. One can certainly argue the extent to which this happens in reality, but it does not preclude the possibility that it can. On major campaigns that have lots of public exposure, etc., I think it would be difficult for union leadership to be too drastically out of step with membership without making themselves easy targets for political opposition within their organizations. In the case of Wal-Mart, I don't think you're going to find many union members objecting to the nation's most anti-union employer coming under fire with the help of their dues. Most people probably understand that there is a relationship between strong contracts and national affairs; which is why the scenario you suggest is relatively uncommon.
If, however, it were the case that union members really preferred their dues to go towards advancing business interests, it would be easy enough for them to change the culture of their unions by simply participating in them; easy, that is, if there were large enough numbers of them to make it happen, or begin to build a movement. To my knowledge, this has never happened through membership campaigns from the bottom-up; indeed, it has only ever been imposed, through corruption and collusion with employers by union leadership, from the top-down.
Post a Comment