Cogitamus Has Smart Commenters

In a comment to Sir Charles's post about the workers occupying Republic Doors and Windows, marsfarmer had this to say:

It's important to remember, especially during the last weeks of Bushworld, that this anti-union sentiment is very much orchestrated by the right. I don't think American Labor is in it's last throes; I might have thought so 5 years ago.
When was the last time we've seen mainstream politicians, including a president-elect, publicly voicing support for an illegal building occupation? (Okay, besides the Iraq war.)
In Bushworld at it's peak, these workers would have been ignored or denounced until riot police turned the situation into a "standoff". Then it would be all over the news until something ugly happened and then all the talking heads would mumble about respecting "the rule of law" and "we are all victims" while workers are dragged from the building in front of TV cameras. Anti-labor talking points would be seamlessly worked into any major story but mainly the media would focus on the spectacle.
From my perspective, things seem to be changing. Nobody would have mentioned B of A five years ago. Nobody would have doubted the good faith of the employer five years ago. Nobody would have occupied that building five years ago.
The Anti-Union bullhorn is still blaring. You can hear the goons and ginks and company finks calling in to talk radio and yelling on Fox News. They are repeating their talking points ad nauseum. They are actually saying things like "these unions have broken the back of the American auto industry!" But these mantras are not based in reality, and unlike the run-up to the Iraq war, I think most people see the truth. The trick is to be vigilant and remember that the Right is wounded: they will howl louder and bite more viciously but this is not 2003.

Exactly right.  Obama's support for the workers is astonishing given the level of anti-union rhetoric and action we usually see from the "pro-labor" Democrats in DC.  I can't remember where I saw this, but it's important to remember that Obama doesn't really owe Labor anything for his electoral victories.  As unlikely as it may seem, it appears that our Democratic President-elect is supporting these workers out of nothing more than principle.

There's a lot of internalized anti-union sentiment among Americans, but marsfarmer is right that the situation is changing.  We have a real chance to change the narrative.

Comments

[Sir Charles]

I was just responding to marsfarmer and noting that I think he/she is rightabout there being some hopeful signs out there. In fact, the combination of the enormous political sea change coupled with the current economic crisis may make this a very opportune time for organized labor. I will be posting about some the ferment I see going in DC right now as various groups try to get their wish lists to Obama. There are several items that labor will be asking for and I think many of them will be possible for us to obtain.

[drip]

There are some possibilities for strong political action with respect to the bailout. I personally don't see the democrats breaking through the media-assisted denigration of the union movement, but I could be easily persuaded otherwise. In the meantime, there has to be a concerted effort to call out the self-interested liars from South Carolina (DeMint, Graham, Sanford) , Alabama (Shelby, Sessions) and Kentucky (Mr. Elaine Chou and Crazy Jim Bunning). Except for Bunning, who is not allowed to speak in public, I have heard every one of these people on either NPR or C-Span, blaming the entire car problem on the UAW. There is a further need to explain that the financial economy sucked the manufacturing sector dry over the last 30 years with the cooperation of the management of the manufacturers. The idea that "the unions are part of the problem" has to be excised from American conventional wisdom.

[BruceMcF]

It would seem that if we are going to elect a centrist as President, we are better off with someone with experience as a community organizer.

[janinsanfran]

BruceMcF: that comment catches my sense of the situation exactly. Another way I've said it: we elected a pragmatist and at this ghastly moment, pragmatism leans to the left.

I'm not able to pronounce on whether the unions contributed to Obama's victory, but they sure worked for it. In the recent past, they have not been able to collect on their political debts. It's not clear Obama feels indebtedness, but he's cautious enough to know he might need those unions...

[Corvus]

drip,

I have a lot of hope on this front, particularly in seeing the end of media-assisted denigration. I think there are basically two forces influencing this tendency. One, the media is owned by big corporations inherently hostile to an organized workforce, and that sentiment can't help but influence the perspectives of their news divisions. Its the perspective the bosses like. Second, in Overton Window terms, support of unions has been long since been defenestrated. Since at least as far back as NAFTA, but probably since the ascendancy of the DLC and Neoliberals, the Democrats have been abandoning and criticizing unions, and when both political parties are projecting themselves as against something, the media has no inclination but to follow their own preferred bias.

But now we will president who supports unions. Who has said that even if you aren't a member of a union, you have benefited from the existence of unions. Who voices support for sit-down strikers. When someone like that has the bully pulpit, it changes the dialogue going on in the country, because the needs of unions, of workers, becomes an issue on the national agenda. Just like that, it changes the conventional wisdom, the tone of the country. When was the last time you even heard about a sitdown strike, let alone hear the President(-elect) openly talk about it in sympathetic terms? In this atmosphere, the news media, in its need to seek some kind of objective middle ground, will be forced to follow change its tone (except for Fox).

[kathy a.]

this is a very sympathetic action by this union.

i do not know where all the anti-union sentiment came from. possibly some of it comes from folks who scrambled by well enough, because unions had already done the hard work of getting protections for workers. and definitely some of it came from the whole free-market, trickle-down, immigrants-are-suspicious BS that has been spewed for decades.

some of the distrust has to come from the actions of some unions, too. isn't part of the chicago story the corruption of unions? and in california, the most powerful union is the correctional officers, who have long influenced policies on criminal justice matters, and made the state top of the list in lockin' 'em up. the entire CA prison system is in a federal receivership because it is not providing adequate medical care to its many prisoners.

[drip]

Corvus, you are part of the smart blogger faction alluded to in the title to the post. I am part of the "things are going to get worse before smart people can actually take over" group. Witness this little gem from our national paper of record. In a comment to a previous post, I pointed out that the UAW has done management's bidding at every turn and still they're treated like some sort of ancien regime controlling industrial policy in the press and don't even think about a fair shake on television. As for Obama, I like what he says about unions and he seems to do what he says he'll do (at least on things I disagree with) but I would feel a whole lot better if there was an ass kicking secretary of labor right now. Richard Trumka would suit me fine.

[Corvus]

Trumka is my dream candidate, too.

I can barely read that article, it make my blood boil so. Sweet Jesus, I hate Republicans.

And drip, your comments are very smart. Stop with the false modesty; it is unbecoming.

[marsfarmer]

Corvus and Drip,
On the question of the decline in public perception of unions, let's not forget one more element that has contributed to a general lack of understanding and sympathy: the media have grown away from their working class roots.
I can't attribute it but I heard an interview on NPR with an old journalist who described the 40s and 50s when if an editor needed a story on a Friday night he could find ten reporters hanging out in the corner bar to cover it. But now everybody goes home to Connecticut so the story has to wait 'til Monday. The aspirations, expectations and backgrounds of journalists have changed. Reporters are more middle-class, less likely to have come from blue-collar backgrounds and so are less likely to understand the nuances of Labor vs. Capital.
As unions receded from the overall labor force in the 80s-90s and given the concurrent social stratification it's easy to see how unlikely it is that your average 30-something reporter would be the scion of steel workers.

[bigbadwolf]

i think a good way to highlight the southern auto plant issue would be for levin or stabenow to introduce a bill proposing that senators from right to work states be paid in proportion to senators from union states, the propotion being whatever the non-uaw/uaw proportion is. when the senaotrs scream, the answer is, we want you to be free and consistent. ans what would they be screaming about; the law would have to be prospective and they would be free to not stand for reelection. either they believe in right to starve laws or they don't.