This is a lovely summary of an inspiring human being, and it's made me wonder if something like this can be a regular theme of your posts. Given the billions of dollars spent insulting government and turning people against it, it would be great if you could use your virtual megaphone to help highlight heroes like Ms. Abruzzo who represent the best of what a public servant should be. It truly feels like this fight for democracy is going to get a lot uglier before it gets better, so reminders of the many great people out there fighting alongside us would sure be helpful.
Oct 6, 2022·edited Oct 6, 2022Liked by Robert Reich
I did not work for the NLRB, rather the DOL. There are several similar agencies, like the FLRA - the Federal Labor Relations Authority. One of the 183 types of cases I heard included the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. Some of those issues include:
-Union officer elections
-Union financial audits
-Filing of reports by unions, union officers and employees, employers, consultants and others
-Trusteeships over subordinate unions by a parent body
-Prohibitions against persons convicted of certain felonies holding union office or employment in certain positions
-Determinations as to whether an organization is a labor organization
Federal employees are required to follow administration policy, but not at the expense of the law. I was protected by the Administrative Procedure Act, and was sworn to be impartial, but that can not be said for most federal employees. I worked in several anti-labor administrations. One of my law school classmates held that position and I have been deemed guilty by association. But I would, like most other judges obey the oath before party. If a party, even DOL, did not like my decision, they could appeal, also through due process rights granted by the APA.
There are currently no NLRB cases before the Supreme Court but in the Ohio Adjutant General’s Department v. FLRA, the issue is whether the FLRA can regulate the labor practices of state militias. If the court’s conservative majority throws out the long-standing precedent that state national guards must comply with federal sector labor law, more than 20,000 employees could lose their collective bargaining rights..
I'm big on "merit selection" whereby people are not selected through the spoils system.
Every one of the cases that Robert mentions have to go to trial before administrative law judges. In the past, those judges were merit selected but Trump eliminated that. Hopefully all will abide by their oaths to be impartial.
Judges need to be selected by the people. It's the people's responsability to learn about the candidates. This is part of the problem of a representative government that people just want the rewards not the effort. What has to stop immediately is the party in power pushing judges on the public. This is just wrong and politicizes the entirity of the legal system.
This is only one view. A study of the subject shows that elected judges are more vulnerable than merit selected judges. Many states follow the Missouri Nonpartisan Court Plan, a nonpartisan judicial commission reviews applications, interviews candidates and selects a judicial panel. For the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, the Appellate Judicial Commission makes the selection. In 1967 Pennsylvania amended its constitution to create a system with a modified Missouri plan Trial (Common Pleas) judges are elected but after a term undergo a retention election -- yes or no. New York has a similar setup..
In the federal system the victor gets the spoils since Andrew Jackson. Few federal positions are filled using merit selection. The nominations are political. For more than 60 years, the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has evaluated the professional qualifications of nominees to the Supreme Court by conducting extensive peer reviews of each nominee's integrity, professional competence, and judicial temperament. Until GWB the ABA ratings were extensively used, but some unqualified candidates were appointed. Trump broke the mold. Relying mainly on loyalty, with help from the Federalist society, Trump made 46 nominations for federal judgeships that were not confirmed by the Senate. Of these, 6 were withdrawn by President Trump, 32 expired at an adjournment of the Senate, and 8 were withdrawn by Biden after he took office.
Trump killed Merit selection of judges like me appointed under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. I was hired from a best qualified list of 3 from a judicial register of over 700 judges. The process was: Applicants must have a minimum of 7 years of formal administrative law or trial experience. Applicants with this minimum qualification are rated on experience through their written descriptions of achievements which indicate their degree of possession of five types of critical knowledge and ability. Applicants' references complete forced-choice questionnaires listing 10 categories of job-related behaviors. Applicants write responses to essay questions designed as a work sample. Finally, applicants respond to a standard group of job-related hypothetical questions asked< by a panel of experts. Applicants are assigned a final numerical rating based on the sum of the scores for each of the four parts.
Applicants also had to pass an FBI background check. It's true that some applicants like me got a few points as veterans.
I don't like either party appointing anyone because we end up with a judicial system like our Congress which is dysfunctional and has been for years. I would offer this small change in what you've cited where inside professionals basically do an interview and test for adequate knowledge but since you can't get around who's politics are conservative and who's are liberal, let those that do the merit selections only approve them for ballot access. Then post the results of the interviews and essays and let the people vote them in. I understand that our representative democracy has gotten lazy because electors rarely get what they vote for and we have to overcome that but I think it's possible with some sorely needed public re-education on the need for each person that votes to do their due dilligence. And in specialty areas like the judicial system we can't get to a direct democracy were each individual is sitting as a judge or multiple judges so it must remain as a representative system.
That sounds great. In our county that’s what happens. I think a nonpartisan group of attorneys should choose. We have a couple of judges who were low end bad attorneys. Unless a voter has been in the so called justice system the voter is stabbing in the dark and you have what we have: a couple of horrible judges.
It's not an easy problem to address but having representatives installing judges is bound to be corrupting. I think that we're so stuck in the existing process that we need a place to go that would provide rullings and their reasoning as to the rulings and as long as we're willing to invest our time I think we can overcome the mess we have now where each president rushes to appoint attorneys that aren't going to do the people's business but big corporation business.
Even the local magistrates are rarely helpful to the individual complainent. I know because I had a series of cases that were related to my car being vandalized and the job that was done to repair it verses how it should have been repaired. My first court case I was all set and I had an internal email that I had been given that was my ace-in-the-hole. Except the lawyers for the insurer and the bodyshop said they weren't aware of this partiuclar item and they wanted the magistrate to reschedule the case and her argument was that I needed to produce it and I said 4 times I have it right here. She acted like I didn't say anything and the case was rescheduled but now they knew my tactic. I should have won that case but they weren't fighting fair. None of them. Not the lawyers, not the magistrate.
It was my first time in a magistrate court I didn't really know how to get people to testify on my behalf. I knew the law from a business law class I took in college. During the rescheduled hearing which was at a new magistrates office combined with a case against the body shop. I told the magistrate that I had the car out in the parking lot and would like to show it to her. Didn't even address my request with a yes or a no. Again just ignored me.
Daniel, I am sorry you ended up working with people who did not see their government service as a requirement to help the people of this nation. I suspect there are people like that everywhere. I did not find that in my government work, but I was not in litigation which may be the difference.
Oooo Ian! I love your idea of spotlighting some more of our government heroes. I worked for the Government for 4 years and found the experience to be tremendous. There were people of all kinds, including disabled folks, who worked with me, and all were dedicated, caring and extremely competent. That is opposite of what most people think of government workers. I had the pleasure of working with people in different offices because of my job. I found among them a desire to work collaboratively with no need of public recognition for their efforts. We the people have allowed comments like Reagan's about government being the worst thing to be the final word with little pushback. Dr. Reich's pushback here was a delight to me because it actually highlights the work of the kind of person I knew in my time of government employment. NOTE: I did not leave government employment on a negative note. I returned to full-time college.
Completely agee. Sadly, it is the arrogant blowhards like Musk and Trump who shout about their greatness that seem to get the most attention in the media and in the eyes of the public. The noble public servants are too humble and too busy working to make a better world for everyone, including those who despise them. I think one good way to fight back would be to give proper attention to the many wonderful, selfless people out there to help shift the anti-government narrative, restore faith in our institutions, and inspire people to support and work for those places.
Unfortunately, we now have to worry that drawing attention to any public servant fighting to make government work for the people could draw out the crazies, which, of course, is exactly what the GOP and corporations want. It's much easier to drown government in a bathtub when its employees are already crawled up in it hiding from an army of Forever Alone fact-averse Fox-watching pretend patriots.
People see the blow-hards as accomplishing things. But what did Trump accomplish? A tax cut for the wealthy promising that it would result in $4,000 per person. Did anyone get $4,000? He did a lot for Israel except for the one thing that needed done and that was to stop Israel from violating people's rights in Palestine. It's always the bullies that get away with their bullying just like the US in any of the wars of aggresssion since WW2 and not a single president has been held accountible. In fact the US isn't even a signatory to the World Court now why would that be? I can tell you. We don't believe in equal justice or civil rights for various people in countries that are known to violate them. We just care about controlling who's in power in what countries and that they are doing what we want them to like Ukraine. Coup'd by the US in 2014 to put someone in power that would start a war against Russia. Remember all the US so-called dignitaries that were in Ukraine back in the early 2010s?
Thank you for this! It is astounding to me that back in the 60’s I sang songs like Joe Hill and felt grateful that workers’ rights battles had been fought and won in the US for all time - how wrong I was! The class war continues and people continue to vote against their own interests, electing officials devoid of the slightest interest in the well-being of their constituents.
A lot more work needs to be done to convince Americans that unionization is in their best interests.
The Labor Day Gallup poll cited by Mr. Reich indicates that a majority of Americans (58%) are "not interested at all in joining a labor union". Only 11% were "extremely interested", the level of commitment I believe is needed to overcome management opposition.
Many states have "right to work" laws that allow workers to refuse to join the union at their place of work. My state, Virginia, is one of them (by the way, this law was passed by Dixie Democrats, not Republicans). I witnessed the Steelworkers Union struggle to get workers to join their union at Newport News Shipbuilding because of this law. The workers did not see the benefits of union membership. They just didn't want to pay the dues!
Which was why we, in California (which is not a right to work state) were able to pass a fair share law. Persons who objected to paying Union dues had to pay a fair share for the negotiating teams that won their pay increases, benefits and improved working conditions. Why should some worker, get all the union won benefit increases, and pay nothing at all?
There were two Steelworker strikes at Newport News Shipbuilding while I was there (one was very violent). Even though many workers refused to join the union and pay dues, they did actively participate in the strikes and manned the picket lines. Very few crossed the picket lines. A fair share law is a good idea, but not possible in Virginia with Youngkin as the governor.
Thank you for your reply. I'm sorry more major Unions aren't stepping up to defend and explain fair share. It isn't right that only union members pay a larger dues to cover the cost of negotiations. Those costs include paying the agency or company for the time off a negotiator needs to participate in the process, plus travel expenses. Part of the time off is presenting the union proposal to outlying branches. All the workers, whether dues paying or not get the same raises, benefits, and work improvements so why shouldn't they all chip into the cost.
They shouldn't they should pay just as much as everyone else or receive no benefit. But the real problem is we need all or none of a company to be unionized not a location by location fight but one location starts the process for all locations. But over time they will whittle away at the people that work for them and reduce benefits, etc and eventually will be right back where we started. Heck we can't even keep laws in place when one party loses control to the other. It's 4 years going one direction and the next 4 going the opposite direction. We've had no progress in our government for years except for Wall St.
Yes, but an "Attaboy" should be given to Linwood Holton. He served as the 61st governor of Virginia, from 1970 to 1974, and was the first elected Republican governor of Virginia of the 20th century. He was known for supporting civil rights, integration, and public investment. He placed his children in the mostly Black Richmond public schools, at a time when desegregation was a huge controversy in Virginia. He opposed the morphing of the Dixie Democrats into the Virginia Republican Party. He died last year. Sadly, his version of "moderate Republicanism" is now extinct.
Yes, “right to work” means they enjoy the benefits of having a union, they just don’t have to pay to be a member. Non-dues payers ask what went on in meeting, dues-payers have to decide whether to bother telling them. All the rights, won by coworkers who pay union dues--without any of the responsibility (ie not paying to support efforts of union that represents them, as workers). Freeloaders.
Similar to how our political system works. Some voters do the work others vote straight party, no matter that you elect interlopers like Sinema and Manchin, and others don't bother and then complain.
Unionization will never work and even if you get a particular store or shop unionized they company will ultimately close that store and let their business go to non-union locations. We need a law that forces companies to pay a percent of their income to all people equally. That's how we win this war on wages but until we get a government that's is either direct democracy or is truly willing to do the work of the people this will never ever be a reality.
Direct Democracy? 350,000,000 people (ok, 300 million 'adults') showing up in Washington DC to vote on whichever law is being discussed? I don't think so. We have a representative democratic republic because, even in 1789, the framers realized that even 4,000,000 were too many for a direct democracy. Like communism, direct democracies only work with very small populations. While I respect your opinion on unionization, I disagree. Honest unions (not infiltrated by criminal elements) brought this Country to the most admired government in the world between the end of WW2 and the 1970's. It worked because greed was not an admired characteristic of any group of people. The problem was many fold. The Teamsters Union of the 50's and 60's was infiltrated by the mafia. Joe McCarthy and his ilk used the bogey man of communism to point the masses toward authoritarianism, the Powell memo sent business men into a frenzy of greed. The Women's Lib movement scared the hell put of some men, Dr. King, with his great leadership, showed many of us the disgusting elements, and waste of talent of endemic racism, which further frightened some white persons.
A union with strong, ethical and honest leadership, can with the necessary assistance of dedicated workers in whichever industry (broad interpretation to include retail, government agencies, services. etc.), bring us back to a world in which no one is in want (well nourished, clothed, housed, and educated) There will always be some individuals who attain more wealth than most of us. I don't quibble that earned wealth is deserved, BUT, the obscene wealth retained by the oligarchy that exists in America today benefits no one. Bragging rights to being the 'wealthiest man in the cemetery' deserves no respect. Using your fortune to benefit all is respectable
First off I'd disagree that we ever had a period in which no one is in want (well nourished, clothed, housed, and educated). Not even all Anglosaxons had a period of no needs. Each community that came to America was the lowest of the low. It was their ability to create businesses (artisans) that could adorn rich people's homes that kept them alive but I don't think it was ever easy street.
Post WW2 when we were the only country that could rebuild Europe we did incredibily well and because of the greed people's wages went up, up, up because they wanted those profits from rebuilding Europe at all costs. As soone as Europe was rebuilt however then we had a sudden layoff of people and wage stagnations women were forced into the job market to make ends meet. While moms could stay at home we had a pretty good life as middle class Americans that were white but no one else was flying high. Blacks were prevented from living in white areas and were unable to get jobs not because they couldn't do the jobs but because they weren't given a chance. They couldn't go to school because they couldn't afford to ultimately the government subsidized them based on the children they had (not a well thought out plan like most government subsidies). After the oil embargo they bought up the Cadillacs that were sitting all over used car lots because they had become underpowered to meet government requirements for gas usage and the whites abandoned them. But when the black communties bought them up they were stereotyped as misuing their money just like they were if they bought something at the supermarket that some white person thought was extravagant. Even though the government gave them the money it soon became apparent that the whites were going to tell them what they could and couldn't buy.
Now as for direct democracy we aren't the farming community anymore we have the internet and that can allow people to create positions and vote on them as they like. We eliminate the scandal from those that we no longer have to elect and tolerate because we have no other choice. It's so simple it's ridiculous not to do it rather than continuing to live with invasions of foreign countries that are getting more money from our tax dollars then we ourselves ever get.
First off I do agree that there has never been a time anywhere on Earth, when all of the people had adequate nourishment, clothing, housing, and education. What I said and meant is this is wrong, every person on Earth deserves those basic needs, Secondly, I disagree that each community that came to America were the lowest of the low. An awful lot of the British, Scottish, and French immigrants were of the 'aristocratic' and wealthier middle class who fled religious persecution, or came for the opportunity of a new land to exploit. Even, among the African slaves, who were captured and brought here against their will. came from the 'nobility' in their own tribes, and were highly intelligent people who were less able to defend themselves, or were just more passive in their own tribes than others. Also you have to admit, although the brutes that actually transported and brought them the America and the Atlantic Islands were all Caucasian, other Africans did a lot of the capturing and selling those unfortunates to the slave traders. I see your point on direct democracy, but until we have hack-proof computers and systems, that is not feasible.
Yes you are correct that black "kings" would often sell off their own people into slavery. And when I suggested that the newest set of immigrants was low man on the totem pole I meant when the landed here they came from various countries by the boatload and yes there were upper class people that would retain status but the workers often would fight amongst other nationalities or religions. Irish fighting the Germans, Catholics fighting Christians et. el. having to live in their own communities largely because of language but also for safety. We had joke books published in the USA that had specific jokes against the various immigrant nationalities. You could buy Polish, German, Italian, etc. and each was stereotyped as being their own kind of stupid literally using the "N" word of each nationality . They landed by the boatload often without any ability to find work because there were just too many coming. But when the super projects like skyscrappers and building mass transit systems they would hire large swaths of immigranst and pay them shit for doing some of the most dangerous work ever done and by hand. They didn't have super excavaters or cranes in those days. You dug using a shovel, rocks were blasted using dynamite by people that were willing to risk their lives to get an extra nickel. Children working in sweatshops making clothing and food.
This is essentially what Europe is going through since the US wars in the Middle East. Refugees coming into communities that are rejecting them and it's causing the breakdown of societies that had been in place for many, many years. Fighting over societal laws which are very different between the Muslim community and the Christian communites. Now you have Ukrainians being forced out of their country into other countries but their already somewhat Europeanized it shouldn't be as bad as the Muslims moving in. We already know that people that said they would open their homes to Ukrainians but rescinded their offer when black Ukrainians came knocking. It's the same problem the US went through before it was what it is today. Post 9/11 has caused some wrinkles because it reminded us that refugees being brought in from the Middle East don't live by the same rules as most of us in the US and again we get that breakdown of society and Muslims living in communities with other Muslims that will eventually impact our laws at the local levels.
Exactly right. I felt that way in my working days. I liked the idea of a union but when it came right down to it, it was just somebody else taking money out of my paycheck before I saw it. When you're scraping by from paycheck to paycheck it's hard to see the benefit of that.
Hm, that’s a bit cynical--a negotiated wage increase would not be only “enough to support the union.” Protecting members--like if the employer said, “Work extra hours for no pay.” You’d say no? Or you’d say, Okay, because I don’t happen to be busy?, or ... because I don’t need the money?, but I DO need the job.
See, a union works to ensure stuff, like if the ONLY overtime work, paid at time-and-a-half, goes to certain privileged workers (not you, no paid overtime for YOU). But, you can be required to work extra hours now-and-again for free to keep your job.
Unions are meant to make employers treat people fairly and not arbitrarily. And not just to have members pay dues for no reason.
Jer, you were supposed to feel like the union was not doing anything for you. The bosses wanted that so they didn't have to raise wages very much or make working conditions muchbetter, or do much for the workers. When the union doesn't have the funds to do the work and the bosses know a whole lot of workers don't support the union with their dues, they are great at doing what they can get away with. Unionized workers, particularly with mostly non-college workers as members do better than workers who have no unions, but it is hard to get that message out. So, the bosses, who are quite rich, will continue to dictate working conditions, compensation, and more because workers have chosen to stand against unions in their workplace or to stand against those who want to bring unions to the workplace. How sad for all of us.
I understand that now, but back then it was more about just keeping your head above water. The pay was always just enough to keep you coming back into work the next day, there wasn't enough to pay some union that half the time isn't able to do much for it's members anyway. I think that's the real reason a lot of people don't want anything to do with paying union dues. Same goes for people who don't vote, the feeling, or should I say the knowing that nothing changes for you. You have to have alot of money in order to buy yourself a politician and without that you're going to be the one getting shit on, no matter who is in office.
Here we are again with the people “voting against their own interests” because we simply do not tell the facts and make them indelible throughout media outlets.
In 1972 I left teaching in Calif. to see the world. I was hired by Pan American Airways. At my training Senator Lum ‘s (Hawaii) wife was the first woman hired who was married. Women could not be married or have children and only women had to share hotel rooms. Men became the “Purser”( in charge of crew) and had single rooms.
All that changed with the “Unionization of our airline. Many of our colleagues didn’t want to pay dues as they thought they would be too high. However, the gains made allowed a much more equal and a more professional work place. Women could marry, children were born, wages were better and we all had single rooms.
Remember, our airline had no domestic routes at that time. Just long haul, gone for days, jet lag to re-wire brains. As educational as the travel was, the Union made the job safer(hours flown were capped)rest seats became mandatory ,although slowly, and we had a fabulous medical leave insurance. We were proud and loved our company and our union.
Stories are constantly against the organizing of our labor force. But union workers are usually better at the job and more loyal to the company because they are well cared for! DUH
Pan Am was taken over by a viciously anti-union airline. But this year one can read that more people at that airline are wanting to unionize . That has been a thirty year journey from a unionized airline to a labor battle over whether or not crews today believe they deserve better!
Thanks so much for your heartfelt response. Amazing what you have been through, and your excellent experience with unionisation. Please spread the word as much as possible -maybe offer to speak at high schools about your experiences so that young people can get a first person view of the employment market they are about to enter.
This is no different than the LGBTIQ rights. They feel like they've completed the battle by getting the right to get married. At the time I warned that this was the beginning of the battle and no where near the end. Now we already hearing Clarence Thomas blow off his mouth that these laws need to be repealled. Where does it stop? When we go back to no interacial marriages Clarence? You never deserverd a seat on SCOTUS. The people need to elect SCOTUS judges they certainly shouldn't be appointed by either Wall Street party that have not had our interests at heart since Ronald Reagan.
Judy, yes it is disturbing that we are still fighting the same battles our grand parents and great grandparents were fighting. People who are busy, steeped in the traditions of the family or community, whose schools don't offer critical thinking, and who face other difficulties of that nature do often vote against their own interest because people they have chosen to respect tell them to vote in certain ways that don't benefit the voter but do benefit the "teller." I guess we will just have to keep fighting until there is nothing left to fight for either because we have lost everything we hold dear or have gained full rights for everyone in this country.
Very interesting graph. Higher union membership occurred during the time when America had the most brilliant economy in the history of the world.
Lower union membership coincided with a) the days of robber barons, b) the Great Depression, c) the Great Recession of 2008, and d) the fentanyl-suffused, homeless, days of the new robber barons.
Marx misunderstood Smith because he thought that the proletariat would never be able to exert any power unless they rose up in revolution. The result? Russia, China, and North Korea, three failed states run by dictators who menace the world.
Here's to enlightened capitalism, democracy, and....unions.
I more-or-less agree but emphasize that the Revolution is upon us through the extreme elements of capitalism as currently organized under the ethos of “Free Market” as it is inspired to antagonize the unionization of workers.
Free markets are misunderstood, they require strong government. "Free" doesn't mean permission for the ultrawealthy to walk all over people, but rather the reverse. Jennifer Abruzzo is a step in the right direction.
@Michael. You don't have to misunderstand Adam Smith or Piketty for the trend against reasonable regulation and administration of markets to still be trending negative! I'm only going on about this to correct an impression given by your comment. Understanding is important, but people need to get behind activism and elect Democrats who will place effective regulators in key positions. So in this, I agree with @larry that the neo-liberal "revolution" is progressing, or more optimistically, has progressed to the point where we have to effectively say NO MORE and reverse the trends set in motion by Reagan and Clinton (Bill).
Remember! It took blue collar origins Joe Biden to finally place people who actually want to do something about corporate excesses to finally put somebody like this in a position of authority. The Democratic party lost all of these blue collar voters by ignoring them. This is why they rally for Trump. And it is not stupid of them to do this, only extremely short sighted. So Huzzah! Jennifer Abruzzo. And Huzzah Joe Biden. So much of this is way overdue.
For a long time, the Democratic party has been reluctant to support blue collar workers vigorously because they didn't want to offend corporate Democrats who provided big campaign contributions. That was a big factor leading to Trump, and I worry that many at the DNC are still more interested in those campaign contributions than they are in winning elections.
While you were sleeping Democrats have suffered because they were depicted as toadies for certain unions, like employees' unions. One of the reasons animosity against postal workers, teachers, etc is because they are unionized.
Nixon supported the Teamsters and other corrupt unions divided union organizations.
There always was a dichotomy between skilled and non-skilled labor. In “right to work" states, 24% of jobs in 2019 were in low-wage occupations, compared to 14.5% of jobs in other states without right to work laws. Today 28 states are "right to work" states.
@Randy. I see it your way. Trump voters are not all stupid. Some of them are, but many have real grievances that the recent 4 or 6 governments have ignored or exacerbated! The dumbest thing I ever did was vote for George Wallace back in the day (!! George Wallace ??), but yeah, a pure protest vote from someone who (at the time) did not think Democrats were on the side of people. But I expose my ignorant error just to support your point - even smart people will vote against their objective interests out of protest, and particularly if they are mostly ignorant of the import of their choices...
Yes indeed. Especially the "real grievances." They have been left in the dust. But I think it goes back farther than 4 to 6 past governments. But hey! George Wallace!!?? Yikes!!
Something good has come from the truly horrible Covid-19 pandemic! Working Americans have more leverage now than before for achieving higher wages and better benefits. Not taking anything away from Jennifer Abruzzo and her dedication to National Labor Relations Board and helping the American workers. Unions are kryptonite to corporate executives. SHARE THE WEALTH!
Thank you for the article about Jennifer Abruzzo! She certainly is an important force for good in this nation! I wish her tons of success, and will look out for news of her in the future!
Jennifer Abruzzo is actually doing her job for American workers. It is heartening to know that is possible today when the deck is stacked against the average worker for so long and wages have flatlined since the 70's. Good for her and the brave workers who unionize.
We need more public intellectuals to tell the truth to the American people. Robert I admire your work. We need more Jennifer Abruzzo's in the government.
I want to thank you for all of the great, desperately needed information you provide. Without your podcasts and writing I would not be aware of many of these things going on. It helps me to engage in educated conversations with others and influences me to continue to look for deeper knowledge and understanding.
Just as an FYI and not meant to be self-promotional on top of Mr. Reich's excellent and highly informative essays that I just recently and very gladly became aware of, here's a link to some recent articles related to all of this, located at https://wfmonitor.com/category/labor-movement/.
It makes me wonder why so many Americans vote Republican, who approve of Labour unions, since I'm sure 72% of Americans aren't Democrat voters. Presumably Republicans who do approve of Labour unions aren't of the MAGA (cult of Trump) variety and so may be reachable, so there's an opening for activists trained by experienced Democrat political operators (like Rob Reich :) )
@Daniel. It has to be true that "most" Republicans vote against their own interests because by very definition "most" people of any kind are somewhat average people. Republican policies (other than exploitative use of cultural tropes) are intended to help the well-off and large businesses. That group does not include "most" people.
An economy is an ecosystem, which cannot function properly, let alone thrive, if all its figurative flora and fauna are not healthy.
The best thing that labor unions can do is to make the larger public aware that the economy cannot be fully healthy when unions are not healthy, but that, as with an ecosystem, all workers, even those who do not belong to unions, benefit when those unions protect and expand the pay, benefits and rights of their members.
I worked for a factory and was a member of the Teamsters union local 493. We had excellent insurance and the local treated us like family. The company moved out of state and I went to work in a hospital where I was assured that, unlike the hospital’s competitor that was unionized, they were going to treat us well so we wouldn’t unionize. At first we were treated well. Over the years this treatment deteriorated. Then they hired a new CEO and placed a union buster in Human Resources. We received notices that we could be fired for any reason or no reason. When I checked with the labor department they said in effect no contract, no recourse. Valuable employees, long term with excellent records were walked out the door. Our raises came less often, and were minuscule, our insurance covered less and cost more, etc. I had worked there over 20 years when they froze my pension. Then my wage was frozen at less than $19.00 an hour after 26 years. All during this time the hospital (non profit) came out well in the green. The CEO got plenty of bonuses and extra money could go into real estate “for use by the hospital.” Then they merged with a hospital that was highly in debt (also buying up lots of property) allowing us to make a profit, offset by the losses at the other hospital. No doubt there is a piece I am missing. Still not sure how that helped our hospital. A lot of loyal, hardworking people were hurt. It goes way beyond that but hopefully I have made my point.
This is a lovely summary of an inspiring human being, and it's made me wonder if something like this can be a regular theme of your posts. Given the billions of dollars spent insulting government and turning people against it, it would be great if you could use your virtual megaphone to help highlight heroes like Ms. Abruzzo who represent the best of what a public servant should be. It truly feels like this fight for democracy is going to get a lot uglier before it gets better, so reminders of the many great people out there fighting alongside us would sure be helpful.
I did not work for the NLRB, rather the DOL. There are several similar agencies, like the FLRA - the Federal Labor Relations Authority. One of the 183 types of cases I heard included the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. Some of those issues include:
-Union officer elections
-Union financial audits
-Filing of reports by unions, union officers and employees, employers, consultants and others
-Trusteeships over subordinate unions by a parent body
-Prohibitions against persons convicted of certain felonies holding union office or employment in certain positions
-Determinations as to whether an organization is a labor organization
Federal employees are required to follow administration policy, but not at the expense of the law. I was protected by the Administrative Procedure Act, and was sworn to be impartial, but that can not be said for most federal employees. I worked in several anti-labor administrations. One of my law school classmates held that position and I have been deemed guilty by association. But I would, like most other judges obey the oath before party. If a party, even DOL, did not like my decision, they could appeal, also through due process rights granted by the APA.
There are currently no NLRB cases before the Supreme Court but in the Ohio Adjutant General’s Department v. FLRA, the issue is whether the FLRA can regulate the labor practices of state militias. If the court’s conservative majority throws out the long-standing precedent that state national guards must comply with federal sector labor law, more than 20,000 employees could lose their collective bargaining rights..
I'm big on "merit selection" whereby people are not selected through the spoils system.
Every one of the cases that Robert mentions have to go to trial before administrative law judges. In the past, those judges were merit selected but Trump eliminated that. Hopefully all will abide by their oaths to be impartial.
Daniel I agree that all judges must be merit selected. That’s just one arena that 45 smashed during his stint .
Judges need to be selected by the people. It's the people's responsability to learn about the candidates. This is part of the problem of a representative government that people just want the rewards not the effort. What has to stop immediately is the party in power pushing judges on the public. This is just wrong and politicizes the entirity of the legal system.
This is only one view. A study of the subject shows that elected judges are more vulnerable than merit selected judges. Many states follow the Missouri Nonpartisan Court Plan, a nonpartisan judicial commission reviews applications, interviews candidates and selects a judicial panel. For the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, the Appellate Judicial Commission makes the selection. In 1967 Pennsylvania amended its constitution to create a system with a modified Missouri plan Trial (Common Pleas) judges are elected but after a term undergo a retention election -- yes or no. New York has a similar setup..
In the federal system the victor gets the spoils since Andrew Jackson. Few federal positions are filled using merit selection. The nominations are political. For more than 60 years, the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has evaluated the professional qualifications of nominees to the Supreme Court by conducting extensive peer reviews of each nominee's integrity, professional competence, and judicial temperament. Until GWB the ABA ratings were extensively used, but some unqualified candidates were appointed. Trump broke the mold. Relying mainly on loyalty, with help from the Federalist society, Trump made 46 nominations for federal judgeships that were not confirmed by the Senate. Of these, 6 were withdrawn by President Trump, 32 expired at an adjournment of the Senate, and 8 were withdrawn by Biden after he took office.
Trump killed Merit selection of judges like me appointed under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. I was hired from a best qualified list of 3 from a judicial register of over 700 judges. The process was: Applicants must have a minimum of 7 years of formal administrative law or trial experience. Applicants with this minimum qualification are rated on experience through their written descriptions of achievements which indicate their degree of possession of five types of critical knowledge and ability. Applicants' references complete forced-choice questionnaires listing 10 categories of job-related behaviors. Applicants write responses to essay questions designed as a work sample. Finally, applicants respond to a standard group of job-related hypothetical questions asked< by a panel of experts. Applicants are assigned a final numerical rating based on the sum of the scores for each of the four parts.
Applicants also had to pass an FBI background check. It's true that some applicants like me got a few points as veterans.
We are super proud of your accomplishments! Thank you for your good service.
I don't like either party appointing anyone because we end up with a judicial system like our Congress which is dysfunctional and has been for years. I would offer this small change in what you've cited where inside professionals basically do an interview and test for adequate knowledge but since you can't get around who's politics are conservative and who's are liberal, let those that do the merit selections only approve them for ballot access. Then post the results of the interviews and essays and let the people vote them in. I understand that our representative democracy has gotten lazy because electors rarely get what they vote for and we have to overcome that but I think it's possible with some sorely needed public re-education on the need for each person that votes to do their due dilligence. And in specialty areas like the judicial system we can't get to a direct democracy were each individual is sitting as a judge or multiple judges so it must remain as a representative system.
That sounds great. In our county that’s what happens. I think a nonpartisan group of attorneys should choose. We have a couple of judges who were low end bad attorneys. Unless a voter has been in the so called justice system the voter is stabbing in the dark and you have what we have: a couple of horrible judges.
It's not an easy problem to address but having representatives installing judges is bound to be corrupting. I think that we're so stuck in the existing process that we need a place to go that would provide rullings and their reasoning as to the rulings and as long as we're willing to invest our time I think we can overcome the mess we have now where each president rushes to appoint attorneys that aren't going to do the people's business but big corporation business.
Even the local magistrates are rarely helpful to the individual complainent. I know because I had a series of cases that were related to my car being vandalized and the job that was done to repair it verses how it should have been repaired. My first court case I was all set and I had an internal email that I had been given that was my ace-in-the-hole. Except the lawyers for the insurer and the bodyshop said they weren't aware of this partiuclar item and they wanted the magistrate to reschedule the case and her argument was that I needed to produce it and I said 4 times I have it right here. She acted like I didn't say anything and the case was rescheduled but now they knew my tactic. I should have won that case but they weren't fighting fair. None of them. Not the lawyers, not the magistrate.
It was my first time in a magistrate court I didn't really know how to get people to testify on my behalf. I knew the law from a business law class I took in college. During the rescheduled hearing which was at a new magistrates office combined with a case against the body shop. I told the magistrate that I had the car out in the parking lot and would like to show it to her. Didn't even address my request with a yes or a no. Again just ignored me.
See my response.
Elected by the unknowing electorate.
Daniel, I am sorry you ended up working with people who did not see their government service as a requirement to help the people of this nation. I suspect there are people like that everywhere. I did not find that in my government work, but I was not in litigation which may be the difference.
I didn't say that!!!!!
What I say is that candidates for employment should be merit tested and well qualified rather than be a stooge for a political party.
When new administrations come in, in my experience, it takes 4 years to find the restroom let alone figure out the truth.
What a good idea to highlight those in government helping to create improvements and strengthen government.
Oooo Ian! I love your idea of spotlighting some more of our government heroes. I worked for the Government for 4 years and found the experience to be tremendous. There were people of all kinds, including disabled folks, who worked with me, and all were dedicated, caring and extremely competent. That is opposite of what most people think of government workers. I had the pleasure of working with people in different offices because of my job. I found among them a desire to work collaboratively with no need of public recognition for their efforts. We the people have allowed comments like Reagan's about government being the worst thing to be the final word with little pushback. Dr. Reich's pushback here was a delight to me because it actually highlights the work of the kind of person I knew in my time of government employment. NOTE: I did not leave government employment on a negative note. I returned to full-time college.
Completely agee. Sadly, it is the arrogant blowhards like Musk and Trump who shout about their greatness that seem to get the most attention in the media and in the eyes of the public. The noble public servants are too humble and too busy working to make a better world for everyone, including those who despise them. I think one good way to fight back would be to give proper attention to the many wonderful, selfless people out there to help shift the anti-government narrative, restore faith in our institutions, and inspire people to support and work for those places.
Unfortunately, we now have to worry that drawing attention to any public servant fighting to make government work for the people could draw out the crazies, which, of course, is exactly what the GOP and corporations want. It's much easier to drown government in a bathtub when its employees are already crawled up in it hiding from an army of Forever Alone fact-averse Fox-watching pretend patriots.
Exactly!
People see the blow-hards as accomplishing things. But what did Trump accomplish? A tax cut for the wealthy promising that it would result in $4,000 per person. Did anyone get $4,000? He did a lot for Israel except for the one thing that needed done and that was to stop Israel from violating people's rights in Palestine. It's always the bullies that get away with their bullying just like the US in any of the wars of aggresssion since WW2 and not a single president has been held accountible. In fact the US isn't even a signatory to the World Court now why would that be? I can tell you. We don't believe in equal justice or civil rights for various people in countries that are known to violate them. We just care about controlling who's in power in what countries and that they are doing what we want them to like Ukraine. Coup'd by the US in 2014 to put someone in power that would start a war against Russia. Remember all the US so-called dignitaries that were in Ukraine back in the early 2010s?
Thank you for this! It is astounding to me that back in the 60’s I sang songs like Joe Hill and felt grateful that workers’ rights battles had been fought and won in the US for all time - how wrong I was! The class war continues and people continue to vote against their own interests, electing officials devoid of the slightest interest in the well-being of their constituents.
A lot more work needs to be done to convince Americans that unionization is in their best interests.
The Labor Day Gallup poll cited by Mr. Reich indicates that a majority of Americans (58%) are "not interested at all in joining a labor union". Only 11% were "extremely interested", the level of commitment I believe is needed to overcome management opposition.
Many states have "right to work" laws that allow workers to refuse to join the union at their place of work. My state, Virginia, is one of them (by the way, this law was passed by Dixie Democrats, not Republicans). I witnessed the Steelworkers Union struggle to get workers to join their union at Newport News Shipbuilding because of this law. The workers did not see the benefits of union membership. They just didn't want to pay the dues!
Which was why we, in California (which is not a right to work state) were able to pass a fair share law. Persons who objected to paying Union dues had to pay a fair share for the negotiating teams that won their pay increases, benefits and improved working conditions. Why should some worker, get all the union won benefit increases, and pay nothing at all?
There were two Steelworker strikes at Newport News Shipbuilding while I was there (one was very violent). Even though many workers refused to join the union and pay dues, they did actively participate in the strikes and manned the picket lines. Very few crossed the picket lines. A fair share law is a good idea, but not possible in Virginia with Youngkin as the governor.
Thank you for your reply. I'm sorry more major Unions aren't stepping up to defend and explain fair share. It isn't right that only union members pay a larger dues to cover the cost of negotiations. Those costs include paying the agency or company for the time off a negotiator needs to participate in the process, plus travel expenses. Part of the time off is presenting the union proposal to outlying branches. All the workers, whether dues paying or not get the same raises, benefits, and work improvements so why shouldn't they all chip into the cost.
They shouldn't they should pay just as much as everyone else or receive no benefit. But the real problem is we need all or none of a company to be unionized not a location by location fight but one location starts the process for all locations. But over time they will whittle away at the people that work for them and reduce benefits, etc and eventually will be right back where we started. Heck we can't even keep laws in place when one party loses control to the other. It's 4 years going one direction and the next 4 going the opposite direction. We've had no progress in our government for years except for Wall St.
Was it not the Dixie Democrats who morphed almost immediately after the Civil Rights Act into today’s republicans?
Yes, but an "Attaboy" should be given to Linwood Holton. He served as the 61st governor of Virginia, from 1970 to 1974, and was the first elected Republican governor of Virginia of the 20th century. He was known for supporting civil rights, integration, and public investment. He placed his children in the mostly Black Richmond public schools, at a time when desegregation was a huge controversy in Virginia. He opposed the morphing of the Dixie Democrats into the Virginia Republican Party. He died last year. Sadly, his version of "moderate Republicanism" is now extinct.
He sounds like t kind of Republicans I grew up with .
I believe so, that was part of Nixon's 'Southern Strategy'
Yes, “right to work” means they enjoy the benefits of having a union, they just don’t have to pay to be a member. Non-dues payers ask what went on in meeting, dues-payers have to decide whether to bother telling them. All the rights, won by coworkers who pay union dues--without any of the responsibility (ie not paying to support efforts of union that represents them, as workers). Freeloaders.
Similar to how our political system works. Some voters do the work others vote straight party, no matter that you elect interlopers like Sinema and Manchin, and others don't bother and then complain.
Unionization will never work and even if you get a particular store or shop unionized they company will ultimately close that store and let their business go to non-union locations. We need a law that forces companies to pay a percent of their income to all people equally. That's how we win this war on wages but until we get a government that's is either direct democracy or is truly willing to do the work of the people this will never ever be a reality.
Direct Democracy? 350,000,000 people (ok, 300 million 'adults') showing up in Washington DC to vote on whichever law is being discussed? I don't think so. We have a representative democratic republic because, even in 1789, the framers realized that even 4,000,000 were too many for a direct democracy. Like communism, direct democracies only work with very small populations. While I respect your opinion on unionization, I disagree. Honest unions (not infiltrated by criminal elements) brought this Country to the most admired government in the world between the end of WW2 and the 1970's. It worked because greed was not an admired characteristic of any group of people. The problem was many fold. The Teamsters Union of the 50's and 60's was infiltrated by the mafia. Joe McCarthy and his ilk used the bogey man of communism to point the masses toward authoritarianism, the Powell memo sent business men into a frenzy of greed. The Women's Lib movement scared the hell put of some men, Dr. King, with his great leadership, showed many of us the disgusting elements, and waste of talent of endemic racism, which further frightened some white persons.
A union with strong, ethical and honest leadership, can with the necessary assistance of dedicated workers in whichever industry (broad interpretation to include retail, government agencies, services. etc.), bring us back to a world in which no one is in want (well nourished, clothed, housed, and educated) There will always be some individuals who attain more wealth than most of us. I don't quibble that earned wealth is deserved, BUT, the obscene wealth retained by the oligarchy that exists in America today benefits no one. Bragging rights to being the 'wealthiest man in the cemetery' deserves no respect. Using your fortune to benefit all is respectable
First off I'd disagree that we ever had a period in which no one is in want (well nourished, clothed, housed, and educated). Not even all Anglosaxons had a period of no needs. Each community that came to America was the lowest of the low. It was their ability to create businesses (artisans) that could adorn rich people's homes that kept them alive but I don't think it was ever easy street.
Post WW2 when we were the only country that could rebuild Europe we did incredibily well and because of the greed people's wages went up, up, up because they wanted those profits from rebuilding Europe at all costs. As soone as Europe was rebuilt however then we had a sudden layoff of people and wage stagnations women were forced into the job market to make ends meet. While moms could stay at home we had a pretty good life as middle class Americans that were white but no one else was flying high. Blacks were prevented from living in white areas and were unable to get jobs not because they couldn't do the jobs but because they weren't given a chance. They couldn't go to school because they couldn't afford to ultimately the government subsidized them based on the children they had (not a well thought out plan like most government subsidies). After the oil embargo they bought up the Cadillacs that were sitting all over used car lots because they had become underpowered to meet government requirements for gas usage and the whites abandoned them. But when the black communties bought them up they were stereotyped as misuing their money just like they were if they bought something at the supermarket that some white person thought was extravagant. Even though the government gave them the money it soon became apparent that the whites were going to tell them what they could and couldn't buy.
Now as for direct democracy we aren't the farming community anymore we have the internet and that can allow people to create positions and vote on them as they like. We eliminate the scandal from those that we no longer have to elect and tolerate because we have no other choice. It's so simple it's ridiculous not to do it rather than continuing to live with invasions of foreign countries that are getting more money from our tax dollars then we ourselves ever get.
First off I do agree that there has never been a time anywhere on Earth, when all of the people had adequate nourishment, clothing, housing, and education. What I said and meant is this is wrong, every person on Earth deserves those basic needs, Secondly, I disagree that each community that came to America were the lowest of the low. An awful lot of the British, Scottish, and French immigrants were of the 'aristocratic' and wealthier middle class who fled religious persecution, or came for the opportunity of a new land to exploit. Even, among the African slaves, who were captured and brought here against their will. came from the 'nobility' in their own tribes, and were highly intelligent people who were less able to defend themselves, or were just more passive in their own tribes than others. Also you have to admit, although the brutes that actually transported and brought them the America and the Atlantic Islands were all Caucasian, other Africans did a lot of the capturing and selling those unfortunates to the slave traders. I see your point on direct democracy, but until we have hack-proof computers and systems, that is not feasible.
Yes you are correct that black "kings" would often sell off their own people into slavery. And when I suggested that the newest set of immigrants was low man on the totem pole I meant when the landed here they came from various countries by the boatload and yes there were upper class people that would retain status but the workers often would fight amongst other nationalities or religions. Irish fighting the Germans, Catholics fighting Christians et. el. having to live in their own communities largely because of language but also for safety. We had joke books published in the USA that had specific jokes against the various immigrant nationalities. You could buy Polish, German, Italian, etc. and each was stereotyped as being their own kind of stupid literally using the "N" word of each nationality . They landed by the boatload often without any ability to find work because there were just too many coming. But when the super projects like skyscrappers and building mass transit systems they would hire large swaths of immigranst and pay them shit for doing some of the most dangerous work ever done and by hand. They didn't have super excavaters or cranes in those days. You dug using a shovel, rocks were blasted using dynamite by people that were willing to risk their lives to get an extra nickel. Children working in sweatshops making clothing and food.
This is essentially what Europe is going through since the US wars in the Middle East. Refugees coming into communities that are rejecting them and it's causing the breakdown of societies that had been in place for many, many years. Fighting over societal laws which are very different between the Muslim community and the Christian communites. Now you have Ukrainians being forced out of their country into other countries but their already somewhat Europeanized it shouldn't be as bad as the Muslims moving in. We already know that people that said they would open their homes to Ukrainians but rescinded their offer when black Ukrainians came knocking. It's the same problem the US went through before it was what it is today. Post 9/11 has caused some wrinkles because it reminded us that refugees being brought in from the Middle East don't live by the same rules as most of us in the US and again we get that breakdown of society and Muslims living in communities with other Muslims that will eventually impact our laws at the local levels.
Exactly right. I felt that way in my working days. I liked the idea of a union but when it came right down to it, it was just somebody else taking money out of my paycheck before I saw it. When you're scraping by from paycheck to paycheck it's hard to see the benefit of that.
The idea was that the Union would negotiate wages that would support the union .
Hm, that’s a bit cynical--a negotiated wage increase would not be only “enough to support the union.” Protecting members--like if the employer said, “Work extra hours for no pay.” You’d say no? Or you’d say, Okay, because I don’t happen to be busy?, or ... because I don’t need the money?, but I DO need the job.
See, a union works to ensure stuff, like if the ONLY overtime work, paid at time-and-a-half, goes to certain privileged workers (not you, no paid overtime for YOU). But, you can be required to work extra hours now-and-again for free to keep your job.
Unions are meant to make employers treat people fairly and not arbitrarily. And not just to have members pay dues for no reason.
Jer, you were supposed to feel like the union was not doing anything for you. The bosses wanted that so they didn't have to raise wages very much or make working conditions muchbetter, or do much for the workers. When the union doesn't have the funds to do the work and the bosses know a whole lot of workers don't support the union with their dues, they are great at doing what they can get away with. Unionized workers, particularly with mostly non-college workers as members do better than workers who have no unions, but it is hard to get that message out. So, the bosses, who are quite rich, will continue to dictate working conditions, compensation, and more because workers have chosen to stand against unions in their workplace or to stand against those who want to bring unions to the workplace. How sad for all of us.
I understand that now, but back then it was more about just keeping your head above water. The pay was always just enough to keep you coming back into work the next day, there wasn't enough to pay some union that half the time isn't able to do much for it's members anyway. I think that's the real reason a lot of people don't want anything to do with paying union dues. Same goes for people who don't vote, the feeling, or should I say the knowing that nothing changes for you. You have to have alot of money in order to buy yourself a politician and without that you're going to be the one getting shit on, no matter who is in office.
Dear Judy,
Here we are again with the people “voting against their own interests” because we simply do not tell the facts and make them indelible throughout media outlets.
In 1972 I left teaching in Calif. to see the world. I was hired by Pan American Airways. At my training Senator Lum ‘s (Hawaii) wife was the first woman hired who was married. Women could not be married or have children and only women had to share hotel rooms. Men became the “Purser”( in charge of crew) and had single rooms.
All that changed with the “Unionization of our airline. Many of our colleagues didn’t want to pay dues as they thought they would be too high. However, the gains made allowed a much more equal and a more professional work place. Women could marry, children were born, wages were better and we all had single rooms.
Remember, our airline had no domestic routes at that time. Just long haul, gone for days, jet lag to re-wire brains. As educational as the travel was, the Union made the job safer(hours flown were capped)rest seats became mandatory ,although slowly, and we had a fabulous medical leave insurance. We were proud and loved our company and our union.
Stories are constantly against the organizing of our labor force. But union workers are usually better at the job and more loyal to the company because they are well cared for! DUH
Pan Am was taken over by a viciously anti-union airline. But this year one can read that more people at that airline are wanting to unionize . That has been a thirty year journey from a unionized airline to a labor battle over whether or not crews today believe they deserve better!
Thanks so much for your heartfelt response. Amazing what you have been through, and your excellent experience with unionisation. Please spread the word as much as possible -maybe offer to speak at high schools about your experiences so that young people can get a first person view of the employment market they are about to enter.
Judy, Thank you and your suggestions are excellent!
I think you have a lot to offer - go for it!!
And how many airlines are left? Like everything else they are in monopoly status and as long as that's the order of business we have no power.
This is no different than the LGBTIQ rights. They feel like they've completed the battle by getting the right to get married. At the time I warned that this was the beginning of the battle and no where near the end. Now we already hearing Clarence Thomas blow off his mouth that these laws need to be repealled. Where does it stop? When we go back to no interacial marriages Clarence? You never deserverd a seat on SCOTUS. The people need to elect SCOTUS judges they certainly shouldn't be appointed by either Wall Street party that have not had our interests at heart since Ronald Reagan.
Judy, yes it is disturbing that we are still fighting the same battles our grand parents and great grandparents were fighting. People who are busy, steeped in the traditions of the family or community, whose schools don't offer critical thinking, and who face other difficulties of that nature do often vote against their own interest because people they have chosen to respect tell them to vote in certain ways that don't benefit the voter but do benefit the "teller." I guess we will just have to keep fighting until there is nothing left to fight for either because we have lost everything we hold dear or have gained full rights for everyone in this country.
Very interesting graph. Higher union membership occurred during the time when America had the most brilliant economy in the history of the world.
Lower union membership coincided with a) the days of robber barons, b) the Great Depression, c) the Great Recession of 2008, and d) the fentanyl-suffused, homeless, days of the new robber barons.
Marx misunderstood Smith because he thought that the proletariat would never be able to exert any power unless they rose up in revolution. The result? Russia, China, and North Korea, three failed states run by dictators who menace the world.
Here's to enlightened capitalism, democracy, and....unions.
I more-or-less agree but emphasize that the Revolution is upon us through the extreme elements of capitalism as currently organized under the ethos of “Free Market” as it is inspired to antagonize the unionization of workers.
Free markets are misunderstood, they require strong government. "Free" doesn't mean permission for the ultrawealthy to walk all over people, but rather the reverse. Jennifer Abruzzo is a step in the right direction.
@Michael. You don't have to misunderstand Adam Smith or Piketty for the trend against reasonable regulation and administration of markets to still be trending negative! I'm only going on about this to correct an impression given by your comment. Understanding is important, but people need to get behind activism and elect Democrats who will place effective regulators in key positions. So in this, I agree with @larry that the neo-liberal "revolution" is progressing, or more optimistically, has progressed to the point where we have to effectively say NO MORE and reverse the trends set in motion by Reagan and Clinton (Bill).
I agree, but a caveat still applies.
And she'll be gone in 2 years.
Remember! It took blue collar origins Joe Biden to finally place people who actually want to do something about corporate excesses to finally put somebody like this in a position of authority. The Democratic party lost all of these blue collar voters by ignoring them. This is why they rally for Trump. And it is not stupid of them to do this, only extremely short sighted. So Huzzah! Jennifer Abruzzo. And Huzzah Joe Biden. So much of this is way overdue.
For a long time, the Democratic party has been reluctant to support blue collar workers vigorously because they didn't want to offend corporate Democrats who provided big campaign contributions. That was a big factor leading to Trump, and I worry that many at the DNC are still more interested in those campaign contributions than they are in winning elections.
Democrats. Way too much time worrying about offending so and so or such and such instead of standing up for something.
While you were sleeping Democrats have suffered because they were depicted as toadies for certain unions, like employees' unions. One of the reasons animosity against postal workers, teachers, etc is because they are unionized.
Republicans made inroads during the Truman administration and soon the "right to work" movement undermined unions state by state. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft%E2%80%93Hartley_Act
Nixon supported the Teamsters and other corrupt unions divided union organizations.
There always was a dichotomy between skilled and non-skilled labor. In “right to work" states, 24% of jobs in 2019 were in low-wage occupations, compared to 14.5% of jobs in other states without right to work laws. Today 28 states are "right to work" states.
All true, Daniel. Not sleeping. If anything, too awake! But.... If you go back far enough these Union members were all Democratic base voters.
Employers relocated to the sunbelt, offshore.
Employers (read corporations in most cases) only like people of color when they work for sub par wages...
@Randy. I see it your way. Trump voters are not all stupid. Some of them are, but many have real grievances that the recent 4 or 6 governments have ignored or exacerbated! The dumbest thing I ever did was vote for George Wallace back in the day (!! George Wallace ??), but yeah, a pure protest vote from someone who (at the time) did not think Democrats were on the side of people. But I expose my ignorant error just to support your point - even smart people will vote against their objective interests out of protest, and particularly if they are mostly ignorant of the import of their choices...
Yes indeed. Especially the "real grievances." They have been left in the dust. But I think it goes back farther than 4 to 6 past governments. But hey! George Wallace!!?? Yikes!!
young, dumb and broke... What can I say
More likely we lost unions through the Nixon southern strategy and Reaganism. We had equivalent employees in place during Democratic administrations.
Something good has come from the truly horrible Covid-19 pandemic! Working Americans have more leverage now than before for achieving higher wages and better benefits. Not taking anything away from Jennifer Abruzzo and her dedication to National Labor Relations Board and helping the American workers. Unions are kryptonite to corporate executives. SHARE THE WEALTH!
Thank you for the article about Jennifer Abruzzo! She certainly is an important force for good in this nation! I wish her tons of success, and will look out for news of her in the future!
laws lacking enforcement have a tendency to fail. Thank you for this upper. Our mental health needed this.
Jennifer Abruzzo is actually doing her job for American workers. It is heartening to know that is possible today when the deck is stacked against the average worker for so long and wages have flatlined since the 70's. Good for her and the brave workers who unionize.
We need more public intellectuals to tell the truth to the American people. Robert I admire your work. We need more Jennifer Abruzzo's in the government.
I want to thank you for all of the great, desperately needed information you provide. Without your podcasts and writing I would not be aware of many of these things going on. It helps me to engage in educated conversations with others and influences me to continue to look for deeper knowledge and understanding.
Some of best news I’ve heard lately. Thank you.
Just as an FYI and not meant to be self-promotional on top of Mr. Reich's excellent and highly informative essays that I just recently and very gladly became aware of, here's a link to some recent articles related to all of this, located at https://wfmonitor.com/category/labor-movement/.
yes, put it out there. George. No time for self-effcement
It makes me wonder why so many Americans vote Republican, who approve of Labour unions, since I'm sure 72% of Americans aren't Democrat voters. Presumably Republicans who do approve of Labour unions aren't of the MAGA (cult of Trump) variety and so may be reachable, so there's an opening for activists trained by experienced Democrat political operators (like Rob Reich :) )
Or like all of us political operators who read Mr. Reich's blog -- or substack -- or whatever it is called.
Why? The collective racist subconscious. Unfortunately most Republicans vote contrary to their own well being.
@Daniel. It has to be true that "most" Republicans vote against their own interests because by very definition "most" people of any kind are somewhat average people. Republican policies (other than exploitative use of cultural tropes) are intended to help the well-off and large businesses. That group does not include "most" people.
Absolutely right, Daniel. Knee jerk race-based voting. Just awful.
An economy is an ecosystem, which cannot function properly, let alone thrive, if all its figurative flora and fauna are not healthy.
The best thing that labor unions can do is to make the larger public aware that the economy cannot be fully healthy when unions are not healthy, but that, as with an ecosystem, all workers, even those who do not belong to unions, benefit when those unions protect and expand the pay, benefits and rights of their members.
Go, Jennifer! The "little" people really do matter.
I worked for a factory and was a member of the Teamsters union local 493. We had excellent insurance and the local treated us like family. The company moved out of state and I went to work in a hospital where I was assured that, unlike the hospital’s competitor that was unionized, they were going to treat us well so we wouldn’t unionize. At first we were treated well. Over the years this treatment deteriorated. Then they hired a new CEO and placed a union buster in Human Resources. We received notices that we could be fired for any reason or no reason. When I checked with the labor department they said in effect no contract, no recourse. Valuable employees, long term with excellent records were walked out the door. Our raises came less often, and were minuscule, our insurance covered less and cost more, etc. I had worked there over 20 years when they froze my pension. Then my wage was frozen at less than $19.00 an hour after 26 years. All during this time the hospital (non profit) came out well in the green. The CEO got plenty of bonuses and extra money could go into real estate “for use by the hospital.” Then they merged with a hospital that was highly in debt (also buying up lots of property) allowing us to make a profit, offset by the losses at the other hospital. No doubt there is a piece I am missing. Still not sure how that helped our hospital. A lot of loyal, hardworking people were hurt. It goes way beyond that but hopefully I have made my point.