All three of these arguments are straw dogs---kick'em and they will fall apart.
Unions are in business to provide people with dignity, better economic conditions, better working conditions and better social conditions i.e. benefits. Why else organize 'em.? This is what real unions are all about.
Today's low wage worker is tomorrow's high wage worker. It's just a matter of time and perseverance. Dues really are no big deal---you only pay a very small percentage of what you make. The question is what you do as a member of your local to make things better for everyone in your local. Things like attend your monthly union business meeting. Or try to be helpful in organizing or political action. Your interest in the union is in your own interest. A rising tide lifts all boats.
Small companies become big companies, they grow! As the company grows the union should grow, if the union members are for growth. It all comes down to the rank and file. You can have great union leaders-but-what you really need is great union members.
The big problems today are NAFTA and these other so-called free trade deals with no conditions attached ,and, a lack of real labor laws with real teeth. These are the unions biggest enemies.
Your email pal,
Tom Lehman
sokol at jhu.edu wrote:
> At 09:38 AM 2/16/99 -0500, Max Sawicky wrote of Joel Kotkin:
> >Gawd what a loathesome creature . . .
>
> Perhaps, his sucking up to the market-schmarket crowd is nauseating. But
> that does not mean that all his arguments are rubbish. Au contraire, he
> makes a few valid points. Among them is his argument that the economy is
> woirking against the unions as we know them. He cites several reasons that
> need a serious discussion:
>
> 1. The movement toward small firms (often welcome by liberals and populists
> who are hostile toward big corporations) creates unhospitable environment
> for union organizing.
>
> 2. Low wage workers cannot generate sufficient resources for financing
> union 'realpolitik' campaigns. That in, turn, may push unions toward
> making spectacles instead of real changes.
>
> 3. Unionization will cause job flight from urban centers (union
> strongholds) to the hinterlands that are hostile to unions.
>
> These are valid arguments that must be addressed. I think we are shooting
> ourselves in the foot by shunning them as a mere right wing rant. A better
> approach is to develop a strategy that effectively counteracts the
> political-economic forces working against trade unionism. Specifically,
> how to make unions a vital force in the small-firm environment; how to
> generate sufficient resources without overburdenining low-wage workers with
> dues; and how to couter-act moving jobs to impoversished union-hostile
> environment.
>
> Any suggestions?
>
> Wojtek
>