America has NEVER had a real Labor Movement - and we need one

[Taverner]

More than ever.

Discuss...

[villager]

1. Is "you're sure as hell right" the discussion you were looking for?

Though I think there was a fairly strong Labor Movement around the turn of the last century -- not accidental that IWW organizers were framed for murder, etc.

Not accidental that movement was co-opted by the mob, and wound up on the side of Nixon in the 60's, when a Labor/Hippie coalition -- to use the broad descriptors -- could have really, permanently changed America...

[Taverner]

3. Some say it was marginalized with FDR...but I disagree

He and Wallace were trying to include it in the new deal - but when Truman won the VP slot, and Wallace was out, all hope was lost

[David Zephyr]

5. Thanks for mentioning the Wobblies, villager.

This county as had very powerful labor movements at various times, but they were oppressed with violence, legally framed (as you point out), co-opted by corporate comfy worker movements.

Even prior to the IWW, there were labor organizations by a wide variety of working organizations and the result was almost always the same.

The OP is correct is wanting a labor movement, but it's not because people haven't given their lives and sacrificed everything for it. They did.

[Jackpine Radical]

7. Yes, what a classic instance of dividing natural allies.

"when a Labor/Hippie coalition -- to use the broad descriptors -- could have really, permanently changed America..."

And both we & labor fell for it. Labor LEADERS wanted the war--it kept unemployment down and kept both them and the bosses in power. The bosses paid the unions back for their support for the war with nice contracts, etc. But it was the children of the laborers, not those of the bosses, who were dying in the rice paddies. In ways, although the analogy is far from perfect, it's a bit like how the Reptilians are manipulating the Tea Party and others now.

[Smarmie Doofus]

2. We had a labor movement prior to the thirties....

... but FDR pretty much marginalized it with the New Deal.

Then the war..... then McCarthy, et al.... plus relative post-war prosperity.

I agree... the absence of a real labor movement... leaves the middle/working class completely without leverage.

[Jackpine Radical]

4. There needs to be an international labor movement.

Corporations are multinational; labor unions are bound by national boundaries. Whenever as corp doesn't want to deal with local labor, they can shift to a foreign workforce. Labor ought to be able to follow. We need worldwide labor standards & wage negotiations. This would ultimately end slave labor in underdeveloped nations and raise the living standards for all laborers. If there isn't enough work to go around, shorten the work week worldwide & pay for it out of the obscene profits of the corpos.

[Taverner]

6. YES

I agree 100%

[Smarmie Doofus]

8. +1 n/t

[Brickbat]

9. It did have a very strong labor movement, and because of it, those of us with jobs still enjoy some

of the at least rudimentary concessions it won decades ago: laws against child labor, the eight-hour day, weekends, and so on.

Unfortunately, we (the labor movement) have given back so many of what we have won, or have had it taken or legislated or stolen from us and not responded, and we've lost much of our leadership, righteousness and moral superiority on so many issues. I enjoy benefits from Mr. Brickbat's union that were paid for in blood and we are approaching those days again.