NAME: Ira Grupper
EMAIL: irag@iglou.com
DATE: 04/09/2009
TITLE: 'New Beginnings'
LABOR PAEANS—April 2009
by Ira Grupper
(published by FORsooth, newspaper of Louisville, Kentucky chapter of F.O.R. [Fellowship of Reconciliation] )
New beginnings’ arrive for labor, and fairer tax policy
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (US Dept . of Labor), in 2008 union members accounted for 12.4 percent of employed wage and salary workers: 16.1 million. Twenty five years earlier, in 1983, the first year for which comparable union data were available, the union membership rate was 20.1 percent, and there were 17.7 million union workers.
Government workers in 2008 were nearly five times more likely to belong to a union than were private sector employees. Black workers were more likely to be union members than any other group. The union membership rate for public sector workers (36.8 percent) was substantially higher than the rate for private industry workers (7.6 percent).
Compared with the struggle to organize the unorganized, starting during the Great Depression and continuing into the 1950’s, organized labor was/is in retreat. We were battered by the strength of capital, and by our own divisions: racism, sexism, fear of being labeled “red”.
There were, of course, significant victories. A 1999 AFSCME (Amer. Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees) press release headlined “C.I.O. (Congress of Industrial Organizations) Founding Tops List of Labor's Triumphs in 20th Century,” continues: “There was no other century like it. Previously silent, subservient and totally dependent on employer whims, American workers, in the 20th century, made strides never before dreamed possible.” It listed them: “CIO founded (1938); Social Security Act (1935); National Labor Relations Act (1935) ; GM Sit Down Strikes (1936-37); Civil Rights Act/Title VII (1964); Public Sector Organizing (1962-1980); Fair Labor Standards Act (1938) ;"Bread and Roses" Strike (1912); World War II Support ; Occupational Safety & Health Act (1970).
We are now in a new century. Splits in the labor movement show signs of our weakness. Yet , from some splits come new beginnings, as when many trade unionists broke away from the narrow craft-union mentality of the A.F.L. (American Federation of Labor) to form the industry-wide CIO, in the Depression.
One of the most bitter recent disputes in the house of labor concerns the two million member SEIU (Service Employees (Intl. Union) and the 85,000 member CNA (California Nurses Assoc.) and the latter’s affiliated NNOC (Natl. Nurses Organizing Comm.). The CNA is merging with the United American Nurses (150,000 members) and the Massachusetts Nurses Union (23,000 members).
Sources inform your columnist that pressure to settle this rift came from the highest quarters of the Obama administration, perhaps President Obama himself. Under this agreement CNA’s turf will be nurses and SEIU’s will be everyone else, except in Florida, where both unions will continue nurse representation). Additionally, SEIU will continue to represent their current RN members in collective bargaining.
This cooperation, if it lasts, will enable a joint effort to support the Employee Free Choice Act, which will make it easier for workers to form unions. This became necessary when it was determined the old way of voting for/against union representation, a victory by labor in the 1930’s (the Wagner Act), has become so subverted by the owners of capital and the acquiescence of US Department of Labor hacks as to make it just about useless. Additionally, both camps will, hopefully, work for “single-payer” healthcare and, failing the former, expanded Medicare.
Both Andy Stern (SEIU) and Rose Ann DeMoro (CNA/NNOC) have spoken glowingly of the agreement, agreeing to begin their joint venture by first targeting the largest hospital conglomerates across the US. To your correspondent, if both sides keep their joint pledge not to “raid” each other—that will signal an intention to abide by the pact.
This is far more complex than has been described, with another group, National Union of Hospital Workers part of the fray, and an issue of organizing Puerto Rican teachers, the split within the UNITE-HERE union, and more, in the background.. Let’s hope for the best.
President Obama’s move to put more of a burden on the wealthy has gotten him attacked as a “socialist. “ The organization MoveOn, on March 13, responded: “The media has been obsessing about President Obama's plan to roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans—from 35% to 39.6%—even asking if that makes him a socialist.
“But do you know what tax rate the wealthiest Americans paid on the top portion of their earnings at the end of Ronald Reagan's first term? 50%. Under Richard Nixon? 70%. Under Dwight Eisenhower? 91%!
“ Shocking, right? And for all the whining about rolling back Bush's irresponsible tax cuts, the truth is that Obama's plan cuts taxes for 95% of working Americans. Further, it closes huge tax loopholes for oil companies, hedge funds and corporations that ship jobs overseas (which will enable us) to invest in the priorities that will get our economy back on track” MoveOn included a chart from the Washington Monthly that shows just how absurd Republican complaints about Obama's budget are:
“They have each borrowed money to expand their businesses. With the tax hike on families earning $250,000 or more, the money they are paying back the loans with is taxed so heavily that they are not going to break even. The only way they can make money is to cut back and lay people off. Since most Americans work for small businesses, how can this aspect of the tax plan be beneficial for our economy?
“Further, why would people take the risk of expanding a business, i.e. hiring more employees, knowing that the tax burden would leave them worse off than they would have been had they not expanded?”
Contact Ira Grupper: irag@iglou.com