5/30/07

You didn't really think labor leaders were on the side of oppressed workers, did you? 

While America learns to buy more expensive items at the encouragement of the labor unions and while Wal*Mart workers continue to be oppressed, labor leaders are considering endorsing one of the Wal*Mart poster children for President of the United States.

Howard Zinn, in A People's History of the United States and in Voices of a People's History of the United States, discusses how the labor leaders dine, work and relax with the leaders of industry.  These same leaders are supposed to be protecting the rights of workers from those very leaders of industry.  The one exception was the most pro-worker of all unions, the IWW (International Workers of the World).  It was the Democratic Party who worked to arrest the leaders of the IWW and to destroy the protectors of the workforce.  The alliance between the pro-business labor leaders and the leaders of industry and the Democratic Party conservatives has continued through the years.  Labor may use strong rhetoric.  The leaders have to pretend to be earning their pay.

In 2003, the UFCW workers went on strike against Albertsons, Ralphs and Vons.  They believed their leaders would stand by them.  Months later and much poorer, the workers found that their leaders had sold them out.  The contract that resulted after all that sacrifice by the workers, not by the labor leaders, cut their benefits and created a two-tier system which made it profitable for their bosses to fire them.  The union leaders didn't lose a penny.  They were well-paid for their betrayal.  Go to a Ralphs or Albertsons sometime.  See if you can find a worker who appreciates what their union did for them.

In 2003, a number of unions endorsed Howard Dean, the most anti-labor of the candidates.  Howard Dean supported industry over workers and industry over the environment and industry over public safety while he was Governor of Connecticut.  Was an endorsement of Dean an endorsement of industry first?

It is no surprise to workers that the leaders are on the verge of endorsing John Edwards, a big time Wal*Mart shareholder.  The people running Wal*Mart have to answer to their shareholders.  John Edwards could have used his shares to help employees.  Instead he used them to make a profit at employee expense.  He only decided to eventually get rid of his Wal*Mart Stock when the public turned on him.  Likewise, when the public found out about his holdings in the Sudan, he decided it was time to unload that, too.  What if the public hadn't found out about these holdings?

John's got an excuse for everything: the war, USA-PATRIOT, Yucca Mountain, his work for a predatory lender and $11 million dollar investment in a predatory lender.  He was misled by the dumbest President in the history of America.  He was getting an education.  If Americans want a stupid President, they already have one.  Why do they need to go dumber?

Barack Obama, in an effort to get union approval, encouraged his wife to work for Wal*Mart's number one supplier.  He voted to waive labor laws to allow foreign workers to receive low wages without rights in rebuilding New Orleans. 

If the union leaders liked their workers, they'd endorse Dennis Kucinich.  Kucinich is the only union member running for President.  He is the only candidate who has supported workers' rights all the way.  Labor leaders are expected to endorse an industry over workers' rights candidate, instead.  Why are union members paying their dues.

The endorsements are often undemocratic operations from the top.  Will the unions endorse a Wal*Mart poster boy for President in 2008.  Probably.  Don't expect friends of oppressors to suddenly gain a conscience.


Copyright © 2007 by Simon F. and NextPresidentofUSA.com