My dear friend Janie asked me to lend some perspective a while back and I forgot to do it. I apologize for that.

I am not going to get into all the issues here, as that has been handled admirably, but rather I will provide a bit of historical perspective on labor, and where it is today.

Before doing so, I would like to second Dianavan on the issue of the underclass vs the overclass. It is quite simple to see the effect of capital centering in fewer hands, which is the mark of success for the overclass. When it happens, we create and ever larger underclass, and at the top of the underclass is the working poor. Folks like Janie who are eminently qualified, educated, and effective in their profession. Yet they have a hard time supporting their families. I don't dispute that business create jobs. But business is created by a healthy middle class. The dream that became the United States of America happened because, after a bumpy start, we created a prosperous middle class. Look at all the great civilizations, they rose to prosperity on the backs of the middle class, and failed when the middle class weakened. It is not a new concept.

One of the most important pieces to creating this prosperous middle class, was their empowerment by law, beginning in 1888 with the first federal law that protected workers. This was in the railroad industry. It is interesting to note that all labor law is rooted in commerce law, to protect commerce. In the case of the first federal law, it was to insure the trains ran. Many laws followed, including Taft-Hartley, Landrum-Griffin, etc. These are now embodied in the National Labor Relations Act. Labor law is a favorite ping pong ball in politics, depending on the mood of the electorate. The years beginning with the Reagan Administration until present have seen labor weakened to point worse than we have seen in many years.

Much is made of the fact that Organized Labor now represents around 8% of the workforce. When one eliminates from the figure the workers not eligible to be organized, the number is somewhere around 20%. At one time the labor unions represented about 36% of the workers in this country. There are many reasons for the decline, including technology. But one cannot minimize the effects of two very important things. One is the unfair trade laws which penalize American workers for having fair wages and benefits. In the pursuit of profits, the company CEO's justify shifting work to countries that have very poor environmental standards, very poor worker safety protection laws, and no ability to form effective collective bargaining units. The effect of this is simply moving the sweatshop to other countries and thenshipping the same product back here. Testament to this is the incredible profit made by corporations. Once upon a time in America, the boss would keep a company going as long as s/he could cover expenses, and try to preserve jobs. Today a company will close, not because it isn't profitable, but because it isn't profitable enough. The second reason for the shrinking of most unions has to do with the steady erosion of labor laws which served to protect the workers right to organize. I used to wish that I had the Canadian laws to organize under. Unfortunately the disease that has decimated America's Unions has spread north and infected Canada. Their laws are still superior to ours, but they are in decline. And there is a corresponding drop in the prosperity of the middle class with the labor laws being weakened. I used to be able to assure workers that they could not be fired for organizing a union. I can no longer say that with confidence. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is ostensibly the organization that was created to represent the interests of the worker. Today it is run by pro business interests. At the street level, the Board Agents are still overwhelmingly pro worker. But the Administration is so pro business that Board Agents often are worried that if they find in favor of the worker, it will be killed at a higher level. These things, among many others, have all contributed to the shrinking of America's organized workforce. One last thing before I move on to the next piece. Many unorganized workers have expressed a desire to be organized, and support for the concept of unions, but are very afraid because they have families to raise. Were there the climate free of harassment and intimidation, as the law supposedly protects, there would be a much higher percentage of organized workers.

As to the state of labor. Janie suggest that the International Unions have strayed from their traditional roles and have become big businesses unto themselves. While I am sure there are some like that, I must tell you that is not the case in my union, or in many others that I have worked with. Virtually every labor leader that I have worked with are radically inclined, and in the fight every single day of their lives. I have seen examples of labor officials that were simply drawing their checks and not really working hard for the membership, but they are the exception rather than the rule. In virtually every institution this is the case, and Organized Labor should not be held to a different standard.

But that does lead me to an area that I believe some labor leaders need to pay attention to. When we started, we were a movement. Once Unions became established as legal bargaining representatives, they became institutions. When we are under attack, as we are now, we take on the radical aspects of a movement, and that is when we shine. I am always troubled when labor organizations call themselves partners with management. We are not partners with management. Workers are not associates. Workers need to pay attention to the perceptual attack they are under. An Associate plays golf with the boss. We are workers. We bargain our labor for wages and benefits. When the economy is good, and laws fair, we profit by virtue of our labor's worth to the company. When the economy is down, and laws weakened, it is often our concessions that save companies. The perceptual battle occurs after concessions when we try to get back our share. We are called greedy. Another example of perceptual warfare is going on right now with the sale of Chrysler. The press and management are prepping the public for their attack on retirees and workers by creating the perception that the legacy costs are outrageous, and of course they must be brought in line. They are trying to get you to buy into this,in the hopes you won't remember the pension raids of 20 years ago. Want to know why the funds aren't there for retiree health care and pension benefits. Because the Reagan courts allowed the raid of the excess pension funds even though they were simply the earnings of the negotiated pension contributions of the workers. This left the pension funds underfunded. And here we are.

Be careful of the perceptual attack. These folks talk about retiree health benefits as if they were a bad thing. And you folks nod your heads. I kind of liken it to gas prices going from $2.00 a gallon to $3.00 a gallon and everyone being happy when it drops back to $2.50 a gallon.

Do you feel like you just asked an Irishman what time it is? **smile**

Mick