« More on Editorializing and Opinion in the News | Main | Coverage of Senator Craig—Why? »

September 3, 2007

Labor Day

Today, Monday, September 3, 2007, is Labor Day, but it has more significance to me as the day my daughter is predicted to go into labor with her second child (tenth grandchild) than as a tribute to the American labor movement, which has fizzled badly in recent years. The way things are going in the country today, I almost expect President Bush to rename the day of out-door barbeques as Private Equity Day or Celebrity Donor Day.

After all, Labor Day, which was originally celebrated in the 1880s as a day to honor the strength and esprit de corps of trade and labor organizations, was co-opted in the last half of the twentieth century by politicians who wanted to appeal to labor unions, which then controlled lots of votes and lots of money. But as union membership plummeted and, thus, available money dried up, politicians mined richer veins for potential donors—Wall Street and Hollywood. As political campaigns become more and more expensive because of ever higher costs associated with polling, consultants, travel, and, especially, television, political candidates go where the money is and egalitarian idealism is all but forgotten.

In the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century, there were good reasons for unions—workers were exploited by management. A general strike by labor in 1886 eventually led to a standard eight-hour work day, which was a good thing. But by the 1960s labor unions had become the oppressors. The pendulum had swung too far the other way. Many unions bullied management into acquiescing to egregious, featherbedding work rules. Many unions were run by corrupt bullies who were more interested in their perks than their members.

Maintaining their perks, among other things, motivated illogical membership drives, like the one I was involved with at the New School, where teachers are now represented by the United Auto Workers—now go figure that. I did get a raise, but it was just enough to cover my mandatory union dues. The ones who benefited the most were the union organizers and the lawyers who did the negotiations. Guess who pays? Tuition will go up and taxpayers will pay for defaulted student loans. Who makes money when tuition goes up? Private firms who chase students to give them loans will make money—see the NY Times story yesterday on Daniel Meyers of First Marblehead.

So, what does another day off mean to someone like me who is retired, or, who, like about 60% of all IBM employees, work from home? Nothing. And why would I want to honor labor, which implies labor unions, when I hate unions? I hate unions even more when I call a support line to get my wireless router or some software to work and I get some unctuous Indian named “George,” who I can’t understand, on the other end of the phone. I get angrier and angrier as he reads his mechanical responses from his computer screen: “Have I answered all of your questions, Mistah Waaaaanah?”

A flash of self-loathing wafts over me for not having the guts to say, “shut the fuck up,” but it passes quickly as I steam in anger over the unions that forced companies to go to India rather than deal with spoiled, demanding, corrupt, bullying American unions.

So what am I thinking on Labor Day? I’m hoping my daughter has an easy time with her labor and that she and her new son are healthy—a happy thought for a day just like any other for someone who has every day off, no thanks to the labor movement or unions.

I think Labor Day is the perfect name for a holiday in which people get paid for doing nothing--the ultimate goal of unions.

Posted by Charles Warner at September 3, 2007 1:24 PM

Comments

Media Curmudgeon Author Profile Page at September 5, 2007 3:59 PM writes:

A regular reader of Media Curmudgeon writes:

"I understand your angst about unions. Most things do swing too far in one direction before we push them back the other way. I was always amazed at the perks my brother-in-law got in the auto industry because of the UAW. As I recall, he got something like three weeks of vacation plus a handful of personal days plus a number of bereavement days (which he was allowed to take whether or not someone died) plus so many sick days (which he could take whether or not he got sick), etc. By the time he used his allotment of days off, he had weeks and weeks of, actually, vacation. And because all the union members got so many weeks off, the companies had to hire that many more employees to work while everyone else was used their multiple weeks off. Sure seemed extreme to me! Of course, I was in the advertising business and getting two or three weeks of vacation and three personal days a year forever---the perks of a grad school degree. Thank God for that pendulum.