Nathan Newman wrote:
>It's a funny thing. No one mentions the NEA, which is a powerhouse in
>politics, works closely with other unions and the Democrats in politics,
>yet
>isn't a member of the AFL-CIO.
-Nathan, sometimes I read your stuff and think, oh, wow, the Dems and -labor are really in much better shape than I thought. Then I look -around and see both of them flat on their backs. It's a funny old -world, isn't it?
Well, it depends on where you're looking, doesn't it. Dems are not doing great at the federal level, but they are doing quite well in a places like California, Illinois and a range of other state and local campaigns.
Minimum wage laws have been increased in a whole bunch of states this year, we've seen the first paid family leave act implemented in California, Illinois passed a slew of pro-labor legislation (see http://www.nathannewman.org/laborblog/archive/003048.shtml), and progressives continue to push forward on a range of good campaigns.
As for labor, the numbers aren't increasing but a lot of groundwork is being laid. The difference between when I first was a union organizer back in 1988 and today is so dramatic that I have lots of hope for the future. The history of labor upsurges is that it takes a lot of pain and frustration before big breakthroughs happen. The home health care organizing in California is a good example. They spent almost a decade organizing both the political and organizing framework with few members added, then organized tens of thousands of workers in a very short period.
So as long as unions continue to get smarter in their organizing, I do have confidence that we can make serious breakthroughs in coming years. Maybe I'm a Polyanna but I don't think so.
nathan Newman