03/16/2010 08:45:29 PM EST

You're Not A Progressive If You're Not Pro-Union

posted by HistoryByDay

I don't believe in lengthy litmus tests.  The one that the conservatives based on Reagan is utterly hilarious as he would've axed from their group.  There are a lot of issues progressives believe in - from emotion issues such as being pro-choice to things ranging from education reform to the environment.  To be a progressive, one does not have to believe in everything top to bottom that would be on that lengthy list.

But not being pro-union, that's another story of which I'll cede no ground.

Email Print
Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit Facebook
Unions are why we have standards for worker safety.  Why the 5 day work week exists.  The 8 hour work day.  The reason for minimum wage.  Worker compensation laws.  Gender wage equality laws.  I could go on and on.

Unions are why there is progressivism in the United States.  Unions are the biggest, strongest, and perhaps last effort for the working man against the corporate power structure.  This is who we are and why we can fight.  The First Amendment grants us this right, and we will not step aside, back down, or otherwise stop the fight for progressive policies.

I understand there are some on the new "Left" not so thrilled with unions, which is the reason for this posting.

Let's be clear.

They may call themselves one, but they are not a progressive if they aren't staunchly pro-union.  They are a tea-tard who is trying redefine a group they don't belong to.

< Fill out your brackets now! | Breaking: Kucinich To Vote Yes On HCR >

Poll

Are You Pro-Union?
Yes 83%
No 16%

Votes: 18
Results | Other Polls
 Display:
You're Not A Progressive If You're Not Pro-Union | 5 comments (5 topical, 0 hidden)
Yup (none / 0)
Unions should be fucking mandatory. Once you’re facing a Corp alone on some decision to screw you, you will be kicking yourself you're not in one. I don't really consider people leftist if they aren't pro Unions to at least a certain degree. To be honest I don't know what "progressive" is though. I guess you need a new word for the left in America since Democrats largely are pretty right wing and the Republicans seem to be advocating nothing short of a civil war. As a socialist, one of the key things I believe in is workers checking the system together with power; however I fear they will assaulted soon as this country go further right.

by Alloy on 03/16/2010 09:02:52 PM EST

Agreed with ^ (none / 0)

Unions should be mandatory.

 You need loud voices and forceful actions, and those come from unions. You need someone to oppose corporations (and lets face it, thats one thing government surely can't do right) when they start to over abuse the people. 

 But, even unions can overstep and misstep sometimes, and when it does, when it even steps inches out of the predetermined crosswalk, the right wing media attack it as if some great atrocity had been committed.

 But considering all of the good unions have done historically, and continue to do, not to mention the fact that they are actually for the people, even when weighed against the few outliers of wrongdoing they do, it is apparently that they are not only necessary but a valued institution.  

 No matter what side you are on, left, right, or centrist, unions work for you, the common man. And if you think that they are somehow evil, out to get you, and need to be abolished, than you are an idiot who buys into right-wing pro-corporate propaganda, and you may as well vote David Lesar 2012.

"The term 'national debt' is a way for the rich to con the poor into paying the tab of the former's escapades."

by bballadante on 03/16/2010 09:46:07 PM EST

Nuance (none / 0)

Any time blanket statements are made, you will probably be wrong. Unions , as stated, hold an exalted position regarding workers rights. Any fair minded person would have to grant this. Like any other idea/institution, it can be taken too far.

A current example would be the teachers union. I completely disagree with tenure for teachers. I disagree with them not paying social security. I disagree with having to give them a lifetime retirement benefit of 80% of their highest income(in Illinois) along with free health care for life. I disagree with the number of admin positions needed per school.

Why? Because anytime there is a shortfall in the school budget, these things that no one in the private sector gets are the only issues that are off the bargaining table. First thing that will happen is that sports and activities will be ended. The union knows this is the best way to hurt the community and get a referendum passed.

In Ill the trick is to encourage early retirement by jacking up the salaries of staff the last 3 yrs so the lifetime pension will be inflated. All this takes away from the school systems main objective of teaching kids and that is just plain wrong.

So, if your asking for unions to be elevated to some religious status as a litmus test to prove you are progressive. I guess I'm not.

by finerbiner on 03/17/2010 09:18:50 AM EST

Re (none / 0)
That would be like being against democracy because Reagan was elected.

Anytime humans are involved in anything there is going to be times when things aren't perfect. Everybody knows that, but that wasn't the point.

My website: History By Day
Follow my on twitter @historyday.

by HistoryByDay on 03/17/2010 12:20:35 PM EST

[ Parent ]
OK (none / 0)
Maybe i misinterpreted your post. It seemed to me you were asking for an absolute and I don't believe in absolute anything. I do believe in organized representation though.

by finerbiner on 03/17/2010 12:36:52 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You're Not A Progressive If You're Not Pro-Union | 5 comments (5 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: