quote:

---

Given the depth of labor's difficulties, then, perhaps the reason that the answer to the question is "yes" is simply that we can't wait for labor to solve its problems, and maybe labor never will come back in its traditional form. Other elements of a progressive infrastructure -- such as environmentalists, the women's movement, mobilized consumers, and the voters now organized through loose transactional networks such as moveon.org rather than traditional membership groups -- have a presence in Washington and in our political life that could not have been imagined back in the days when Biemiller strode the halls of Congress, speaking for everyone. Yet those progressive groups do not speak to the economic issues that are the center of a progressive agenda and cannot speak for the families most struggling in the current economy. On the other hand, labor's agenda alone does not speak to all the elements of a progressive movement, such as women's rights and gay and lesbian rights. Still, there are efforts to build strong coalitions in which labor plays a part, such as the Apollo Alliance, a campaign to invest in energy independence which, if nothing else, can bring labor and environmentalists together for a cause.

One approach for labor is to view its role differently. Rather than making its political voice dependent on its success in organizing workers at the workplace, it could view itself as more of a voice for all workers, whether they happen to be union members or not. The AFL-CIO's efforts this election to reach not just members of its unions, but those who demographically resemble union members is one example.

---

In Canada, labour did create its own political party which of course has had its ups and downs over the years. The Canadian labour movement was not drawn in to the cold-war anti-communist hysteria of the 1950's anywhere near to the extent it was in the U.S. So there was no great "purge" of those with leftist sympathies.

Canadian labour was influenced to some degree by the "new left" of the 1960's and 1970's, organized much more effectively in the public sector resulting in a higher percentage of the workforce being unionized.

Canadian labour I think was much more influenced by the feminist movement, the LGBT movement, anti-racism movements, peace and the environmental movements. Also I think the Canadian labour movement has much more experience working in coalitions over various social issues than the U.S. labour movement.

quote:

---

So what advice would you offer to your sisters and brothers south of the border, then?

---

While I observe what's happening in the U.S. I think it would be pretty arrogant of me to tell my U.S. union brothers and sisters what to do.

The best that I can do is to talk about our experiences in Canada and let American trade unionists decide what would work in their circumstances and what would not.

For instance there's long been a debate in the US labour movement about whether to work within the Democratic Party or whether to form a separate labour party ... and, if a labour party was formed what its function should be.

I've watched this debate for over 25 years and I don't pretend to have an answer for this question. The two US parties are just about legally entrenched and its much more difficult than in Canada to start a new party.

quote:

---

Originally posted by robbie_dee:
. But it begs the follow-up: what happened to the progressive farmers?

---

Same thing that happened to the progressive auto workers, progressive lumber industry workers, progressive mine workers. They became middle class and forgot why they had become middle class.

[ 03 October 2004: Message edited by: BleedingHeart ]

I, and a few friends I know, consider voting NDP but end up not doing so partly because we're leery of the political debt the party might feel it owes to unions (there are other reasons, including not very fond memories of the results of Bob Rae's government).

quote:

---

I, and a few friends I know, consider voting NDP but end up not doing so partly because we're leery of the political debt the party might feel it owes to unions

---

So you prefer supporting parties that have a political debt to pay to large corporations?

quote:

---

(there are other reasons, including not very fond memories of the results of Bob Rae's government).

---

quote:

---

The Rae thing is less my thing than one of my friend's in particular. She had a big problem with the "Social Contract".

---

quote:

---

Well, the most cynical response, although that doesn't mean its not accurate, is that I don't mind voting for a party a little beholden to everything and everyone. That feels safer.

---

Well the Ontario Liberals and Conservatives have always received a much higher percentage of their campaign donations from corporations than the NDP ever did from unions.

Besides I don't have a problem with union donations, afterall unions represent ordinary working folks.

quote:

---

The Rae thing is less my thing than one of my friend's in particular. She had a big problem with the "Social Contract".

---

Well I had a big problem with the social contract too. It was the most politically stupid thing that the Rae government did.

But...the Harris/Eves wrecking crew and the McFiberals have been even worse.

[ 04 October 2004: Message edited by: radiorahim ]

>I, and a few friends I know, consider voting NDP but end up not doing so partly because we're leery of the political debt the party might feel it owes to unions"

I'm sick of people referring the historic link between the NDP and the labour movement as some sort of liability, as if Canadian unions are somehow up to no good, or are "special interests" (that's a laugh) and therefore shouldn't be trusted.

Such statements defy history. Anyone who looks at the history of evolution and struggle for liberties, democracy, social justice, universal well-being and community building, anywhere, can't help but notice the critical role played by workers organizing together in various ways into cooperative associations or other joint activity--in other words the labour movement: unions of various kinds.

So, the labour movement is organically linked to socialistic movements and political campaigns: the co-operative movements of Europe, both agrarian and industrial, such as the communes and cooperative townships, were supported by and involved with the labour movement. This includes to a large degree farmers.

As for social movements, for the most part, history shows that it is less a case of these movements (environmental, women, civil rights, etc.) influencing labour than it is these movements, at least in part, growing from the labour movement.

For example, while today in North America much of the environmental organizations are linked to corporate funding and yuppie intellectuals, the much older ecology movements in Europe spring from resources workers, such as miners and smelter workers. The same is true to a large extent with civil rights and democracy.

And the right to equal pay for work of equal value started long before the feminist movement. It was a European battle cry in the last century. Even International Women's Day's history is much more associated with labour than with feminism.

In Canada, the CCF started off with not only farmers, but trade unionist as well, along with socialist activists from previous organizations (Socialist Party of Canada, Wobblies, OBU, etc.) and social gospel "Christian" socialists.

This is largely where the innovation to start setting up cooperatives, credit unions and community-based ventures came from.

Since then, it's been labour that has championed causes like human rights, universal health care and education, social security, workers' compensation, small business development, consumer protection laws, FOI laws, pensions, and on and on.

So, why is being associated with union such a problem for some people? Obviously, those who are anti-union and opposed, or at least not happy with, these legacies and victories won't vote NDP.

But supposed "progressives" (that another funny term) who claim to support these things shouldn't have a problem with it.

Of course there are bad as politics that happen at times in the labour movement, as there are in every organization. But this is for the most part minimal compared to the power politics of the corporate boardrooms.

I think the link between the NDP and the labour movement has been grossly under-utilized--sometimes being reduced to simply and fund-raising exercise instead of education and raising awareness among working people. As for outreach, the labour movement does plenty to this to non-union workers, including some unions offering advise and help as much as possible, as well as working with charities, United Way etc.