[North-NV-Greens] Fwd: [GP-US Labor] $8-12 BILLION - Unions to Corporate Pols! For What!?

[Paul Etxeberri]

>
>
>http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/commentary/la-op-labor20feb20,0,6
>22364.story?coll=la-sunday-commentary
>
>
>Labor's Lost Love
>Unions should stop wasting workers' hard-earned
>money on candidates
>
>By Jonathan Tasini
>Jonathan Tasini, president emeritus of the National Writers Union,
>is president of the Economic Future Group.
>
>February 20, 2005
>
>Over the last 20 years, the labor movement has poured billions of
>our members' hard-earned dollars into electoral politics — and
>we've gotten very little to show for it except a weaker labor
>movement, too many election day whuppings and too many politicians
>who, when they do win, promptly turn their backs on working men
>and women. It's time we turned off the spigot and put the money to
>better use.
>
>The Center for Responsive Politics reports that between 1979 and
>2004, unions gave about $500 million in direct contributions to
>candidates for federal office. From 1998 to 2004, unions lavished
>about $600 million on political parties. And unions paid $100
>million to 527s (independent political action committees) in 2004.
>That's $1.2 billion in cash — not counting money spent on the
>parties from 1980 to 1998 and labor's own effort to get its
>members out to vote. A few union political experts tell me unions
>spend seven to 10 times what they give candidates and parties on
>internal political mobilization. So we're talking $8 billion to as
>much as $12 billion on federal elections alone.
>
>What have we gotten for that? For the last 25 years, employers
>have broken labor laws with impunity and fired tens of thousands
>of workers trying to organize. By every measure, life for most
>workers has become more difficult. Few politicians challenge the
>right of corporations to run the workplace like a dictatorship.
>We've lived almost entirely under Republican presidents — the
>exception being Bill Clinton's eight years. Even those years hurt
>us, as Clinton aggressively lobbied for the North American Free
>Trade Agreement and enthusiastically embraced its dubious
>premise — an unmitigated disaster for American and foreign
>workers. His secretary of Labor was pro-NAFTA, did virtually
>nothing to push for the real right to organize a union and,
>instead, advocated a now-discredited liberal, elitist view that we
>should not worry about the global economy as long as dumb workers
>retrained themselves.
>
>During the Clinton years, labor could not get a bill passed that
>would have prevented strikers from being permanently replaced. The
>reason? The two Democratic senators from Arkansas, Dale Bumpers
>and David Pryor, refused to provide the two votes that would have
>ended a Republican filibuster. We got exactly what we should have
>expected — a few crumbs.
>
>Don't get me wrong. I admire the fire and dedication of the labor
>people who pour their souls into campaigns. But we've been acting
>on the belief that the political arena could make up for our
>declining numbers and weakness in the workplace. Our money and
>troops have squeezed out a few victories for Democrats. But we've
>remained passengers, not drivers of the political vehicle.
>Politicians ignore us because we can't turn out enough voters to
>
>end their careers. We couldn't even muster a meaningful spanking
>for those NAFTA-backing Democrats.
>
>So my proposal is simple: During the coming two-year election
>cycle, labor should not write a single check to a federal
>candidate or a political party. Let's take the money — and, more
>important, our focus and energy — and pour it into organizing new
>workers, kicking the stuffing out of the Wal-Mart family, pushing
>a national campaign for healthcare for all and advancing the
>labor-environment-sponsored Apollo Alliance, a brilliant idea to
>pour billions of dollars into good-paying jobs through new
>sustainable-energy projects. Faced with the specter of a rapacious
>global economy, people are ready for someone who'll champion
>broader, enforceable rights at work.
>
>I can hear the chorus now: We have to support our political
>"friends" and defeat the Republicans. Get real. Given that
>virtually every incumbent is reelected in Congress, there is no
>chance the Democrats will be in a position to retake either the
>House or Senate in the next cycle — nor will Democratic incumbents
>lose. And, if by some miracle the Democrats recapture Congress,
>the chances are less than zero that they would attain a
>filibuster-proof margin in the Senate. Serious labor law reform is
>a pipe dream for a long time to come — even if we could get full
>Democratic Party support, which is doubtful.
>
>So, for two years, let's do something radical: find out which
>politicians fight for working people without needing to be slipped
>a check. If we have to start trying to buy votes again, there will
>be plenty of takers. On the other hand, abstinence might earn us
>something — like more members and more respect, which, in the end,
>is what we need to have real power to shape the political agenda.
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Labor mailing list
>Labor at lists.gp-us.org
>http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/labor


-- 
Paul Etxeberri

"Forests precede civilizations and deserts follow"   ---Chateaubriand