This is actually ironic given what David Sirota is saying today about the New York Times and its anti-union stance.

Over the last few years, the New York Times ownership – through its editorial board – has supported, applauded and demanded efforts to force unions to happily shred contracts they negotiated and accept pay/benefits cuts (see here, and here for examples). Though the Times is billed as "liberal" for its positions on social issues, this anti-union stance has been part of its broader economic conservatism for years. And now, we see how that conservatism – at least with respect to union issues – may come from a more personal, self-interested place, rather than a principled ideological motive.

After reading that blog post from Sirota. I then found an article by Steven Greenhouse in the NYT talking about the difference between European and American unions; mainly that the Europeans take to the street while the Americans do not.

“I actually believe that Americans believe in their political system more than workers do in other parts of the world,” Mr. Gerard said. He said large labor demonstrations are often warranted in Canada and European countries to pressure parliamentary leaders. Demonstrations are less needed in the United States, he said, because often all that is needed is some expert lobbying in Washington to line up the support of a half-dozen senators.

Professor Kennedy saw another reason that today’s young workers and young people were protesting less than in decades past. “This generation,” he said, has “ found more effective ways to change the world. It’s signed up for political campaigns, and it’s not waiting for things to get so desperate that they feel forced to take to the streets.”

Honestly, I think hitting the streets can still be warranted here in the United States. Maybe those New York Times workers might want to hit the streets. If you did something in DC I’d join you too!

Steven Greenhouse–who by the way has written an excellent book–writes in the NY Times that the two labor federations are working together for the upcoming election in 2008. Actually I don’t think this is the first time they’ve done this. I think they might have done this for the 2006 mid-term elections as well.

Mr. Cohen said there had been initial discussions about what might be done to bring back some of the breakaway unions, but he said the overwhelming focus for the next 15 weeks would be on the political campaign. After Election Day, he and several other union presidents said, talks might pick up on patching up differences between some Change to Win unions and the A.F.L.-C.I.O.

The question is after the election is over, could we realistically see CTW folding back into the AFL-CIO?

Technorati : afl-cio, change to win, steven greenhouse

The Big Squeeze: Tough Times for the American Worker by Steven Greenhouse

My review

rating: 5 of 5 stars
It’s an amazing book. It really made me angrier than usual when you see how every American and immigrant worker (legal or undocumented) in America is treated. I start to wonder what would happen if say a company in a country in Europe (with universal healthcare) were to start seeing how valuable the American workforce could be and started to import some of it’s workers. Which would hopefully lead to more people leaving.

I mean they should seriously think about it. Why should we be loyal to a country and it’s corporations when they do nothing to protect or help us? They outsource and offshore not only manufacturing jobs but also the high-tech jobs which leaves us no chance. Many of us can’t even afford a college education or healthcare anymore. It would be better to pay taxes and support a government that would value its workforce.

View all my reviews.