Is Labor Day Still Relevant Aside From Being A Three Day Weekend?

Labor Day. The (more or less) official day marking the end of Summer the same way Memorial Day marks the beginning of Summer. Typically, we use these days as sort of "markers" to plan our vacations and DIY outside jobs like painting the house or building a new deck, plus it provides the exclamation point to a three day weekend. Of course, it's always a time for sales! But, what is Labor Day besides a seasonal placeholder? Have you ever wondered way Labor Day even exists?

Well, as the name implies, Labor Day was set aside to celebrate or recognize "Working Class America". It is a tribute to the ordinary men and women who've made this country so successful; to the innovations everyday individuals have made to and for the collective good of us all. Whereas holidays like Memorial Day honor those brave men and women who have given their lives in the protection of this nation and its freedoms, Labor Day honors the collective "us", be it coal miners, teachers, first responders, truck drives, factory workers, garbage workers, and so on. It is "our" day.

I've often thought that the symbolic placement of Labor Day was somewhat appropriate. After all, when the work is finally done, only then does the worker have an opportunity to set and appreciate the joys of his or her labors. Thus, Labor Day falls at the end of the Summer, and all the hard work has been completed. In the same sense, Memorial Day comes at the beginning, and as such, we first honor those who've come before us and laid down their lives for our sakes.

Labor Day was, historically, primarily a localize event throughout the latter half of the 19th century. The First State to make Labor Day a state holiday was Oregon, which did so on February 1, 1887. The reason was primarily to attract skilled labor from the East Coast to work in its mining and lumber industry. Within the same year, others states passed their own legislation to make Labor Day a state holiday. Among these, were New York, which had been the center of the labor movement as a result of mass influx of immigrants from Europe; many of whom had been exposed to the ideas of worker rights thanks to mainly to the Socialist and democratic political groups . Other states included Colorado, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. By the close of the century, 23 states had proposed and adopted a day to honor workers. On June 28, 1894, Congress voted to make the first Monday of September a national holiday throughout the nation, its territories, and the District of Columbia.

The first actual celebration of Labor Day was in New York City on September 5, 1882 in conjunction with the Central Labor Union which encouraged other unions as well as businesses to participate. By 1884, Labor Day was seen as a celebration of workers complete with festivals, displays, speeches by politicians and community leaders, labor representatives, and parades designed to promote the comradeship of the various trade and labor unions. In addition, the American Federation of Labor (the AFL), introduced a proposal in 1909 that the preceding Sunday was to be dedicated to educational training such as the history of the union movement, how to organize, and the various objectives of the Labor Movement like gender equality, improving working conditions, child labor laws, 40 hour work week, the right to collectively bargain and organize, women's right to vote, and so forth. Many of these would eventually become federal laws. Workers were also taught about the Socialist Movement, which organized labor had, at least partially, had sprung.

Over time, many of goals proposed by organized labor became law. Federal agencies were created to protect workers---union or non-union---such as the Department of Wage and Hour, Occupational Safety and Health Agency (OSHA), the Department of Labor, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, the Department of Health and Human Services, and Department of Housing and Human Services, the creation of a Labor Relations Board to mention a few. Meanwhile, various laws were enacted such as the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (which was amended in 1963 to include the Equal Pay Act of 1963), the Civil Acts Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as well as various acts to prevent discrimination based disability, gender, sexual orientation, religion, ethnic heritage, or race.

Some have wondered if we really need to continue to celebrate Labor Day. After all, many of their original aims have been accomplished through federal legislation. Some unions, such as the AFL-CIO, are reduced to promoting so-called "amnesty" for the approximately 11 million illegal immigrants currently in the US. However, they're not promoting amnesty and allowing some 11 million individuals to skip to the head of the line out of the pure kindness. The majority of these illegal immigrants work in low income service or manual jobs; jobs which have a union unit such as for unskilled labor, hotel housekeeping, horse and dog track workers, and various trades such as roofing and carpenters. Today, the number of union members are declining rapidly (as of 2016, only 6.4% of private industry employees belonged to a union. Union membership peaked at 35% in the early 1950's), along with the coffers of these union. Unions would like to see the Federal Government turn a blind eye to illegal immigration in order to sign up these individuals. It would not just boost their numbers, but the dues paid would greatly enlarge their bottom line.

While union employees tend to earn more on the hour along with better benefit packages than their non-union compatriots, many companies have opted to move, be it to another state or out of the country, in order to avoid paying the higher union salaries and employment packages; thus increasing their bottom-line---even when factoring in shipping (union employees earn, on average 20% more than non-union employees). In addition, close to 35% of public employees belong to a union with teachers and librarians, trainers, those engaged in protective services having the highest overall rate of unionization. Men tend to more likely to belong to a union (based on historical employment in factories) at slightly above 11%, women still make up just over 10% of union membership. Based on race, black workers make up the greatest percentage of union members; greater than whites, Hispanics, or Asians. By age, the majority of union members are over 45 years of age and older. So those most greatly affect by the decline of union membership as a result of business relocation, closure, acquisition or passage of "At-Will" and "Right to Work" legislation tend to be older black males along with white males and females.

Before I go further, I think that I should explain "At-Will" employment since some of you may not have heard of it before or might be unclear as to what it is. At-Will means that you are hired by an employer "at will"; that is, you may be let go for pretty much any reason other than those which would violate existing federal laws such as race, religion, gender, and so forth. At the same time, you may accept, reject, or leave a job at your discretion. Therefore, employment is by mutual agreement between both parties---the employer and the potential employee. In a "Closed Shop" environment, if hired, you must join the union at that location. You have no alternative if you want the job. Membership is mandatory. However, you get the benefit of the union such as better wage and benefit package, restrictions on mandatory overtime, guidelines for promotions, terminations, and shift or job changes. You also have the benefit of having to a union steward in the event of a dispute or harassment by another employee or member of management. There are additional perks, depending on the industry and union.

Right to Work laws, which are an extension of the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act which prohibited employers to hire only union employees, are similar to At-Will laws. Right to Work assumes that, like At-Will, in that you were offered and accepted an offer of employment. However, you are not required to join a union if one exists at your place of employment. In most cases, unions are still required to protect your interests even if you aren't a dues paying member. Many say this is unfair in that an employee who opted out of union membership would be entitled to union benefits since it costs the union both time and money. At the same time, Right to Work laws hurt the bargaining power of unions since it not just reduces the number of dues paying members, but in the event of a strike, it would still leave employees working. At present there are 28 Right to Work states.

Personally, if this is the wave of representation, I think it should be modified to where a non-union employee is exempt from any union benefit, including representation by a steward, salary and/or benefit negotiations, and so forth. Hiring salary should be based on industry and state average, and not necessarily what the union negotiated If, as an employee, you think you can do better without a union, great. Have at it. However, you're on your own when comes to protecting your shift, specific job, work schedule, benefits, wages, and so on. You will also have to fight your own battles--- with no shop steward or union help unless you want to pay for it.

I'm not being critical of the individual who opts out of a union. That's their right, but I don't think the union should be under any obligation to assist them in any way. By the same token, I think unions have a duty to make employees want to join a union based on what it actively does. I've seen a lot of unions which were absolutely worthless when it came to protecting or helping its employees. The only things they were good at was being the company's "bagman", rubber stamping contracts, and trying to bully employees. I think too that unions should be active and visible in the community like the old activist unions of the 30's and 40's through the late 60's and early 70's.

Lastly, unions shouldn't be a "one trick pony" and operate as the cash cow for the Democratic Party. I've personally witnessed politicians make fun of unions as "ignorant" and still get endorsed. I've seen them not use any union "bugs" on their campaign literature or support legislation which would clearly hurt unions and they still get their endorsements, along with PAC money and volunteers. I've watched politicians who've never been a union member or who have worked against unions, get endorsed. At the same time, I've seen some very pro-labor Republicans or other party, who are shop stewards, union officers, or active union members, not get a second look let along any campaign contributions or endorsements. Then you see these same union officials whine about a lack of representation. You think?

Unions need friends on both sides of the aisle; they need to reach across party lines. In fact, they need to reach outside of party lines to Independents (Indies are the largest political demographic and growing) and Libertarians or the Green Party (who are the third and fourth largest political parties respectively). Better yet, organized labor should seriously consider forming its own Labor Party. The U.S. is the only industrial nation which does not have a political party dedicated to Labor. Even many second and third world nations have a Labor Party, and who is to argue that America's two parties aren't bought and paid for by the ruling Oligarchy? We just get to pick between the red "Kool-Aide" or the blue "Kool-Aide".

So there you have it friends. That's the brief history of Labor Day and the state of organized Labor. Most of its original goals have been met; they are now federal laws, with the majority being backed up with state and local laws, regulations and ordinances. Unions have been devastated by the shift from an industrial based nation to a service based nation. Kids are encouraged by" guidance councilors", teachers, and others to go to college where many wind up with a useless degree and a lifetime of debt when they would be better off going to a trade or technical school. At least there, they earn a skill where there is a real demand---some have a critical shortage---at a fraction of the time and cost. In fact, most graduates of trade schools will earn more than their college bound classmates over their lifetime. In Europe, especially Germany, technical and trade schools are looked upon with the same respect as a four year degree. In fact, all German unions provide additional education and a work-study program complete with On-The-Job-Training (OJT). Many, if not a majority, are hired straight out of the program.

I think there is still a place for unions. In fact, I think there is still a critical need for unions. However, they have to adapt and change; something they've often failed to do. I've provided some suggestions above. I hope some union member reads this and takes it to heart. Unions have given this nation so much. Without them, there's a good chance of going backwards in terms of employee rights, job safety, wages and benefits, especially since we are now an Oligarchy whose sole interest is control, be it resources, assets, governments, or us. Happy Labor Day everyone!


Department of Labor: History of Labor Day


Bureau of Labor Statistics: Union Members Summary


50 Years of Shrinking Union Membership In One Map


Right-To-Work Laws: Myths vs. Facts

Illegal Immigration Rekindled

Obama's assault on the Conservative Right continues unabated. Already in disarray following the election, Obama's "do nothing" approach to the economy, resulting in increased taxes on the already cash strapped middle class, was followed by a full out attack on the 2nd Amendment under the guise of controlling "gun violence". The next prong was pushing for amnesty of the estimated 11 - 12 million illegal aliens in the States (some estimates put the number as high as 40 million).

The first phase of the "money for nothing" amnesty program was proposed by the so-called "Gang of Eight", a bipartisan committee comprised of Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY), John McCain (R-AZ), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Lindsay Graham (R-SC), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Mike Bennet (D-CO), and Jeff Flake (R-AZ), all from states with heavy Hispanic populations. Their plan called for the immediate amnesty of illegal aliens now living in the US (and who knows how many more who will try to slip in before it takes affect) by registering with the federal government. They will have to pay a unspecified fine (what if they can't? Will it be waived?), pay back taxes (based on what? Employers will deny they every worked for them to avoid fines and/or public humiliation, and besides, it was mostly cash under the table). They will then have to undergo a criminal background check. Those that come back positive will allegedly not be able to go forward but there's most likely a good behavior or "don't-make-me-count-to-three" loophole to be built in. Meanwhile, they would remain eligible to draw from the public trough.

All this earns them a probationary status (can it be renewed? If so, for how long?). Meanwhile, they are to "go to back of the line" while awaiting reviewing of the applications; pass additional background checks such as employment history; pay any additional taxes just like any other immigrant (or citizen would), and finally, become proficient in English and civics. If they make it this far, they get the coveted "green card". Now, realistically, how many of you think 11 -12 million people are going to voluntarily do this? The final piece of their recommendation was strengthen the border regions to reduce further illegal crossing (that was supposed to happen decades ago as some of you may recall. Congress and the Presidents Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II ignored us instead). Common sense should tell you that there will be a mass influx prior to the implementation of this plan just like when happened when Reagan provided amnesty to the estimated 3 or so million illegal aliens in America in 1986. You will also likely see a further increase for "humanitarian" reasons, such as separation of families (what constitutes "family"? Cousins? Great uncles and aunts? Step or adopted families?).

Meanwhile, Obama has started a personal offensive to demand immediate legalization. Part of this has been the deliberate speaking Hispanic crowds, especially children and young adults; nothing plays better to the camera than children. Obama has already overstepped this executive authority by issuing a directive last year allowing children of illegal immigrants, who are working and/or currently enrolled (though not necessarily actively attending) school to remain in the US. This was in response to his previously failed "Dream Act". By issuing the directive, Obama bypassed Congress which has a Constitutional responsibility to set federal policy on immigration issues. Congress groused but did nothing as usual.

So, what's the end game here? Anyone who thinks Obama is pushing for amnesty of a huge segment of individuals purely out of compassion is either naive or shouldn't be allowed to have sharp instruments. The cold fact of the matter of matter is this is about economics. There are some 11 or 40 million illegal aliens now living and working in America (and let's not forget those here through "anchor babies"). Most of their income is off the books; cash under the table. By legalizing their presence, they provide billions of badly needed income tax to the government. Secondly, the increased population creates greater open competition for jobs. That drives wages down as more people compete for scarce jobs. Unions, notably the AFL-CIO and the Teamsters, have been duped into thinking it will improve their financial straits.

Since most of these individuals will be applying for low skill and often unionized jobs, unions are banking on an increase in member dues. However, many employers have moved away from hiring union members through "Right to Work" and "Employment at Will" laws. The only growth in recent decades to union membership has been in the public sector, which is now facing dramatic cut backs due to underfunded budgets, decreased tax bases, and unfunded pensions. Unions are hard pressed to provide job security to the members they already have. The end result for many of these workers may be paying out union dues from their already near poverty level wages for non-existed job security. Meanwhile, unions need to seriously re-evaluated their short and long term relevance.

Lastly, but no less importantly, many of these newly emancipated immigrants will see Obama as their "Lincoln". The result will be a mass influx in the rolls of the Democratic Party just a former slaves rushed to register as Republicans. The result could be a nearly insurmountable number of new Democratic voters (Democrats currently has a slight advantage of about 2% over Republicans; however, most Democrats tend to lean conservative on fiscal issues and more left on social issues. The largest political group, Independents, with 38% of registered voters, tend to lean conservative on most issues with some exceptions on social issues). In addition, this could throw states with large Hispanic populations but Republican controlled governments (either governorships and/or state legislatures) to the Democrats. By adding even 7 or 8 million new voters to their rolls, this could be a knockout punch for the GOP.

Meanwhile, the Republican Party has shown itself to be woefully inept when it comes to reaching out to Hispanics (a largely conservative population) to the point where they are even losing their traditional Cuban-American base. Women and other minorities, mostly blacks and Asians, have also shied away from the GOP in near record numbers. Even with Obama's largely anti-Israel stance, American Jews still embrace the Democratic Party along with the majority of young college age voters. In 10 years or less, Republicans could become as scarce as white elephants (had to throw that in).

Americans are a welcoming people. But they are also a people who love and respect the rule of law and fair play. When someone's first act is a violation of our laws; when they jump ahead of people following the rules; when they take from our system without contributing back into the system, it leaves a very bad and lingering taste on their mouths. One that will not go away any time soon regardless of what some piece of legislation or demagogue says. The best solution is permit a probationary status for illegal immigrants while their applications are processed behind those who are doing it legally so that they can start paying into the system they've been taking from. They need to accept that Americans speak English. Learning it and civics should be mandatory for anyone applying for a green card. Until then, don't accept excuses like "I don't speak or understand English".

Meanwhile, employers should be heavily fined, even shut down, for not complying to immigration laws. They are simply taking advantage of the lack of federal enforcement and backbone to avoid paying a living wage and providing a decent working environment; in short, subjecting a population to economic slavery. Finally, the border must be sealed. Now. Future violations must be severe and swift. Otherwise, our social net will continue to fail until no one can be provided for. Pressure needs to be brought to bear on governments who encourage their citizens to break US laws by sponsoring existing and new groups whose aim is social and economic reform. Only then will they get their act together or face political oblivion amid social, economic, and political chaos. A little realistic reform now might go a long way.


A Reagan Legacy: Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128303672

Gang of Eight Accelerates Immigration Reform Pace
http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/gang-accelerates-immigration-reform-pace/story?id=18354593

A Mega Union: Really?

The AFL/CIO is meeting this week to discuss basically the future of the mega-union. However, there are huge fissures in the union movement today. Labor rank and file seems to understand the current political and economic landscape much better than Labor leadership does. They understand their economic realities and the oft confusing distinctions between the two parties, while leadership is in a perpetual catch up mode. 

The rank and file knows not every Democrat coming down the pike is necessarily pro-union, and not all Republicans are anti-worker. They understand that for unions to be successful (12% of the workforce now compared to 37% in 1960); they must reach out and support pro-labor candidates where ever they can find them. They know that Labor needs friends on both sides of aisle just like corporations, who have friends on both sides. You can’t fight with only one arm. Why should unions be expected to?

Case in point, I am the state chair of small union affiliated with UAW and AFL/CIO, the National Writers Unions. I belong to the Central Labor Council. My wife is a retired Teamster. We both belong to the Retiree Local 89. I am also Republican. I ran against a conservative non-union "good ole boy" Democrat with a poor Labor voting record, I received no support from Labor leadership, and yet just under half of my volunteers (approximately 15 people) were active or retired union members. 

Look at the Governor’s race. Here in Kentucky, all of the union leadership endorsed Democrat Ben Chandler on behalf of their union, while the majority of union membership voted vote for Republican Ernie Fletcher. it would have been less embarrassing to have allowed the members to vote without intimidation or manipulation and gone with their choice. The same story is repeated everywhere throughout the country, especially in the Northeast.

Until unions have a political party of their own (as every other Western nation does), it must look pass the letter behind a person’s name. They must look at whether or not the candidate supports the basic tenets of the union movement. If the candidate is or has been in office, then examine their voting record regardless of their party affiliation. Don’t assume anything. 

If it’s predominantly pro-labor, then support that individual. If not, then find someone else who is. Unions aren’t an arm of the Democratic Party and shouldn’t be treated that way by either party. And never should the union vote be taken for granted. As for me, I believe in and trust the rank and file to make the right decisions over union "leadership" any day of our hardfought 40 hours workweek.