More on trade-unions as the Bush administration tries to “restrict collective bargaining”:http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A39934-2005Jan26?language=printer at the Department of Homeland Security, and ask Congress “to grant all federal agencies similar authority to rewrite civil service rules governing their employees.”
bq. Yesterday, union leaders decried provisions that would curtail the power of labor unions by no longer requiring DHS officials to negotiate over such matters as where employees will be deployed, the type of work they will do and the equipment they will use. They also object to provisions that would limit the role of the independent Federal Labor Relations Authority and hand the job of settling labor-management disputes to an internal labor relations board controlled by the DHS secretary.
After going back and forth on this, I’m coming to the conclusion that this is of a piece with tort reform and the privatization of social security. They’re all part of a massive experiment in conservative cultural engineering, which aims to transform the Democratic party into a permanent minority by eviscerating the political power of its key constituencies (trade unions, trial lawyers) and transforming ordinary citizens into a new investing class. As I’ve “said before”:https://www.crookedtimber.org/archives/002698.html, I don’t think that this will work – but I’ve no doubt that the administration can do some serious damage to Democrats’ ability to raise funds, and (much more important) get volunteers out on the streets to canvas for votes. I’ve no doubt that the Democratic party could live without the trial lawyers – but if the administration succeeds in crippling unions, it will very seriously hamper Democrats’ ability to win back the Presidency and other offices in 2008. I suspect that many middle class bloggers simply don’t realize how important unions are in organizing and getting out the vote in the Midwest and elsewhere. As Sam Rosenfeld has “said”:https://www.crookedtimber.org/archives/002698.html, it’s frustrating that the Democratic leadership in the Senate isn’t saying anything about strengthening labour law – improving the bargaining position of unions is clearly in the long term organizational interests of the Democratic party.
Update: “Sam Rosenfeld”:http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/01/index.html#005333 has more to say on this story too.
{ 11 comments }
Maynard Handley 01.27.05 at 10:32 pm
To hell with crippling the Democratic party. How about crippling the country?
Sure the damage won’t be apparent in four years, but try twenty years.
Uncle Kvetch 01.27.05 at 10:44 pm
To hell with crippling the Democratic party. How about crippling the country?
Hear hear. Given the Democratic Party’s chronic inability to stand for anything other than its own perpetuation, its future is the least of my worries right now.
Uncle Kvetch 01.27.05 at 10:55 pm
To hell with crippling the Democratic party. How about crippling the country?
Hear, hear. Given that today’s Democratic Party doesn’t stand for much of anything other than its own perpetuation, its future is the least of my worries right now.
trostky 01.28.05 at 3:26 am
Um, being freed from the grip of the public-employee unions would do wonders for the competence of the Democrats to run a government, at least as seen from out here in California.
Look, in the private sector, there is a natural, zero-sum rivalry between workers and owners over how the spoils of business should be shared. In the public sector, that zero-sum rivalry is between the workers and whom?
Yeah, it’s simplistic, but nonetheless
gmoke 01.28.05 at 4:40 am
There’s another way to look at this outside of party politics. The “conservatives” are intent on transforming corporations from limited liability institutions to zero liability institutions. The only real citizens of a present-day Republican government are corporations. Nobody else has any rights or privileges. They are working towards corporate feudalism and we will become the serfs – no unions, no right to sue for redress of grievances, no possibility of fighting back.
gmoke 01.28.05 at 4:42 am
There’s another way to look at this outside of party politics. The “conservatives” are intent on transforming corporations from limited liability institutions to zero liability institutions. The only real citizens of a present-day Republican government are corporations. Nobody else has any rights or privileges. They are working towards corporate feudalism and we will become the serfs – no unions, no right to sue for redress of grievances, no possibility of fighting back.
gmoke 01.28.05 at 4:44 am
There’s another way to look at this outside of party politics. The “conservatives” are intent on transforming corporations from limited liability institutions to zero liability institutions. The only real citizens of a present-day Republican government are corporations. Nobody else has any rights or privileges. They are working towards corporate feudalism and we will become the serfs – no unions, no right to sue for redress of grievances, no possibility of fighting back.
praktike 01.28.05 at 5:01 am
Er, what do you mean if they succeed?
This would simply be the final nail in the coffin. Union membership is what, 8% now?
ry 01.28.05 at 2:38 pm
Um, has anyone looked at this from a pragmatism angle? How would unionizing the entire US military affect its capabilities?
What, you want a set up where the person who is one of the ten experts on X refuses to go to NY and work on a case because it would mean little Billy would have to leave his idealic school?
The nature of the job at DHS, like service in the military, isn’t parrallel with working in the Ford plant.
jif 01.28.05 at 6:26 pm
Argh. The upside of the union in the Federal gov’t is that it makes it difficult for bosses (who are sometimes political appointments) to financially reward suck-ups and financially punish those who disagree. The pay scale and grades mean that non-political hires will get raises even when they work for political appointment bosses who are from the other side of the political fence. This has the potential to politicize positions that aren’t supposed to be political- that are merit based. How efficient would a unionized military be? I don’t know. How effective will a political echo chamber be in all other branches of the Fed? Take a look at the Bush administration for your answer.
Oh. Right. It will get you into a war based on cherry-picked intelligence because there is no check installed.
ry 01.28.05 at 7:51 pm
jif,
You missed the point entirely. What happens when the police decide to suffer from ‘the blue flu?’ The people are screwed as the agency tasked to protect them evaporates(poof). Is that a good thing? That’s where I’m going with the capabilities argument.
DHS is tasked with something that has far more dire consequences than a police force striking would. How would a ‘blue flu’ affect the ability of DHS to function?
Oh, and unions aren’t political? Come now, don’t pretend to be niave. And the heads of unions aren’t going to award major posts within the organization to like thinkers to create an echo chamber? Please.
Unions have a place in the world(like in the private sector, non-military civil service), but giving them the Pretorian ability to vote themselves higher pay at will or decide who is Ceaser is suicide.
Comments on this entry are closed.