Thread: Labor movement's detour to the left

Labor movement's detour to the left
wnd.com

Posted: September 02, 2011
1:48 pm Eastern

There is a skunk at the picnic.

Labor Day used to be the end-of-summer holiday celebrating the dignity and value of honest labor. But today's labor leaders have turned their backs on that all-American, patriotic holiday. They think it's all about politics.

America's labor movement has strayed a long way from its original mission. Take, for example, the attempt by local union officials in Wausau, Wis., to exclude Republican participation in a Labor Day parade. Such shenanigans illustrate how today's labor leaders are more interested in playing partisan politics than they are in the bread-and-butter issues of jobs and wages.

Nowhere is this sad development more obvious – and odious – than the unions' position on immigration. If there is one force in American politics that should be fighting for immigration control, it is organized labor. Decades of mass immigration have eroded wages and working conditions for millions of American working people. Especially in the construction trades, hospitality and tourism, millions of jobs now held by illegal aliens were once held by working-class Americans.

The gradual erosion of organized labor's historic position on immigration came to a climax in 2000, a presidential election year, when the AFL-CIO abandoned its traditional stance and signed on to the open-borders agenda. The union pledged its support for increased immigration and lax enforcement of existing immigration laws. It is probably no coincidence that this happened at the same time the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the union that recruits illegal workers in the hotel and restaurant industry, began flexing its political muscle.

All of this certainly would have come as quite a shock to AFL founder Samuel Gompers. Widely regarded as the father of the modern American labor movement, Gompers' career as a labor leader coincided with the so-called Second Great Wave of immigration from 1880-1920. Though himself an immigrant, Gompers well understood the dangers that mass immigration posed to American workers, and he lobbied tirelessly for restricted immigration.

In a letter to Congress in 1924, Gompers identified two "hostile forces of considerable strength" that opposed halting immigration. "One of these is composed of corporation employers who desire to employ physical strength (broad backs) at the lowest possible wage and who prefer a rapidly revolving labor supply at low wages to a regular supply of American wage earners at fair wages," he wrote. "The other," Gompers continued, "is composed of racial groups in the United States who oppose all restrictive legislation because they want the doors left open for an influx of their countrymen regardless of the menace to the people of their adopted country."

In reading these words, we are struck by how little has changed. Today, as in 1924, there exists an unholy alliance between Big Business hungry for cheap labor and ethnic lobbyists like the National Council of La Raza eager to expand their power and influence. What has changed is the conduct of the labor unions. The impact of the unholy alliance (and the unions' indifference) on American working people is evident in the town of Wausau, Wis., itself.

In a 1994, Roy Beck wrote in the Atlantic Monthly about how immigration had transformed Wausau. The town was a peaceful community, but all of that changed in the late-1970s when Southeast Asian refugees began settling in Wausau. The trickle of newcomers soon became a steady stream, and before long the town was beset with all of the problems mass immigration typically brings: overcrowded schools, high rates of welfare dependency, increased crime and gang activity, and the emergence of social and racial tensions.

In countless cities across America, over the past decade organized labor threw in the towel and welcomed illegal workers into membership. Some will say this was a rational accommodation to the undeniable fact that the federal government is not enforcing its laws against unlawful employment. As illegal workers displaced legal ones across dozens of blue-collar occupations, labor unions simply adjusted to the new reality and signed up the illegal workers.

To a local labor leader, say, of the carpenters' union in Denver or Buffalo, it's only sensible to agree with the maxim: if you can't beat them, join them. If they pay dues, who cares if they displace other workers? The fight was lost at the national level, so local union leaders see no downside to harvesting the fruit of that political sellout.

Yet, this Labor Day, it's worth remembering that Wausau story. It is the story of countless cities and towns throughout the country, from Waukegan to Waco, Tucson to Tacoma. It might well have been a very different story if American labor leaders had remained true to the principles of Samuel Gompers and put the economic interests of working people above ideology. But to today's labor leaders, it's more important to keep Republicans out of their parades.

Read more: Labor movement's detour to the left http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.vi ... z1Wvkygf00

A continual decline in wages is a self destructive course of action for the long term justified by short term gains. Anyone who has studied economics has read Adam Smith and John Maynard Keynes. Smith is still relevant today. Keynes relies on a statist approach and Smith is pure capitalism. Keynes argued that in order to boost employment, real wages would have to go down and nominal wages would have to decrease more than prices. That in effect is what is happening now , yet employment is not increasing. Common sense dictates that if wages fall, demand for goods and services will also decline. If those on the lowest rung of the economic ladder have no disposable income to spare , goods and services provided by those on the upper rungs will not be bought or paid for. Economic success demands total participation by all across the total spectrum. Smith recognized the basic fact that while government is necessary and provides a function of checks and balances within a society, Government itself produces no tangible product or service that contributes directly to the economic growth or stability of a nation. Government has a direct cost factored into its operation and maintenance and does not generate revenue or capital. capital is only generated in the private sector through the production and sale of goods and services. There is no net gain through the cost associated with government. The fact is government produces a net loss in capital. The point at which government becomes burdensome and costs exceed value is the point at which government cost exceed gain in capital. When government borrows $.40 of every $ expended towards operational costs, I would say the government became a burden and ineffective $.40 per $ ago. Rush Limbaugh compared governmental efforts to stimulate the economy to trying to fill a pool by putting water into a bucket from one end of the pool and carrying it to the other end and putting it back in. This analogy is painfully correct in that government is stealing capital from the private sector and industry and simply passing it from one hand to another without generating one penny of additional capital from it's use. The basic premise by Smith was that use of capital generates income, thus profit, which in turn increases capital. The cycle must continue uninterrupted, lest capital be depleted and investment curtailed. This is the most basic purpose and use of capital ,the creation of wealth and further capital. While most working people are not particularly concerned with anymore than paying their bills , these basic principles of capitalism and economics lends itself to be applicable all the way up and down the ladder to the most basic level. The same economic laws that apply to corporate American apply to Joe Citizen. There are not separate rules or laws they are the same. Those who would hire cheaper labor simply for the sake of cheaper labor are paying for it , even if they are not cognizant of it. They are contributing to the long term destruction and diminishment of capital in general. Their shortsighted and selfish greed will come back to bite them in the Ass later. What happens when no one makes enough to purchase their goods or pay for their services? Will the people that make less than they do be the ones to do it? Personally I have never been hired by a " Poor person" to do any job, and doubt I ever will be.

Originally Posted by Ratbstard

To a local labor leader, say, of the carpenters' union in Denver or Buffalo, it's only sensible to agree with the maxim: if you can't beat them, join them.

I have actually said this very thing with regard to unions' about-face on immigration.

Great article by Mr. Tancredo. People need to understand that unions used to be a very great ally on immigration issues. Samuel Gompers was a champion of American workers. He called out the right interest groups including ethnic lobbies. Which I find interesting, because many of those ethnic interest groups in favor of overturning ethnic quotas were Jewish, which Gompers himself was.

Today's unions and the Democratic Party have stabbed their traditional base in the back. They are actually supporting corporate America's quest for a never ending supply of cheap Third World labor.

Unions need to be recaptured by the American working people. They need to get back to their immigration restrictionist roots.

This Labor Day, toast to Samuel Gompers -- a true American working class hero.

"Those who favor unrestricted immigration care nothing for the people."

-- Samuel Gompers, founding president, AFL, 1921

I don't know if it is so cut and dry as that. Labor unions were declining partly due to our attempted transition from an industrial economy to a services based economy. A lot of this is ill advised----but a fact of life. Young people who do better in school are led to think there is a white collar career they SHOULD go in to. And we have been selling our services to other countries, too.

But with less numerical strength the unions figured that they were also losing political clout in the statehouses and with the federal government, too. So they attempted to gain membership however they could---including aggressively recruiting illegals---and trying to accomodate a backlash from the regular rank and file. In the less skilled unions this has been haphazardly succeeding but is rejected in the white collar and skilled trades unions.

As the disparity between the wealthiest Americans and everyone else has grown in the last few decades the union message has struck some new nerves. With Obama's election they have come close to creating an unstoppable political machine.

But, political realities though are a bit more complicated than they figured on. I know that the political debate has no chance of dying down to the level it had even a few deacdes ago. It will likely be very heated from now on.