Unions stand up for the constitution

Posted on: February 24th, 2011 by ecthompson md No Comments

Linda Monk is a constitutional scholar and friend. She just posted this powerful piece on HuffPo:

In rallies much like those currently being held in Wisconsin, and across the nation in state capitals this Saturday, workers during America's first Gilded Age fought back against the forces of corporate greed that ground them to the bone.

In those days, the Supreme Court believed that the First Amendment to the Constitution, which protects freedom of speech, only applied to the federal government, not the states and the local governments. So any governor, or mayor, or town boss was free to put you in jail or kick you out of town for saying something they didn't like -- union organizing usually being at the top of the list. But union supporters didn't take that lying down -- they flooded towns with speakers who violated local laws that limited free speech.

One of those early union leaders in the fight for free speech was Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, the "Rebel Girl" of martyr Joe Hill's famous song. Flynn worked for the Wobblies, the Industrial Workers of the World, who organized miners and migrant workers in the western states in the early 1900s. These workers had little political clout because they moved from job to job and weren't registered to vote. Presaging the civil rights movement, their principal recourse was a mass protest.

Flynn helped lead one of those "free speech fights" in Missoula, Montana, in 1908. Here's how she described it:

We sent out a call to all 'footloose rebels to come at once -- to defend the Bill of Rights.' A steady stream of I.W.W. members began to flock in by freight cars... As soon as one speaker was arrested, another took his place. The jail was soon filled.

These mass protests in favor of free speech definitely had an effect. In 1925, the Supreme Court finally ruled that the First Amendment did apply to state and local governments, nationalizing the protection of free speech. Without the concerted action of union supporters, that victory would not have been possible.

Unions have contributed remarkable things to the American way of life: the growth of the middle class; expansion of health care and social security; paid vacations and paid sick leave; a work week that leaves time for families to enjoy each other. None of these things were possible in Elizabeth Gurley Flynn's day. As she said in 1962: "We never heard of vacations, let alone vacations with pay."

Make no mistake: What is at risk in Wisconsin, and every state in America, is the quality of life that American workers have fought -- and died -- for during the past century. When plutocrats like the Koch brothers tell the governor of an American state to roll back the clock on public employees, they are seeking to end protections for all workers. The Kochs are part of an ideological movement that hopes to end all legislation controlling wages, hours, and workplace safety -- returning America to a "Social Darwinism" that ensures survival of the fittest (read: richest). This is the constitutional theory that prevailed before the New Deal. To these extremists, Ayn Rand is on par with James Madison.

We must never forget that the most important achievement of the union movement was the protection of the right that makes all other rights possible -- freedom of speech. The First Amendment comes with a union label.

Post comment as twitter logo facebook logo
Sort: Newest | Oldest

Thanks for the shout out, Errington.

Linda; You did not mention the history of the union in the early 1900s! And when "communism" was being advanced "thru the unions"! US forces moved in and quite a few people were killed! Needless to say "communism" found more fruitful ground in what became the former USSR! Now? The SAME goals by the SAME groups are at work! They are an anathema to "freedom " loving people! They are destroying "free enterprise" and are against individual account abliity! Which in turn calls for MORE government control! Of peoples lives! Best to you!

of course. It is a great article.

EC Thompson; Will you argue for people like myself?? Who represents me? Am I less of a person than others? Why should I HAVE to pay the UNION anything? For a job? Thank you for your answers!

Rick – I do appreciate your persistence and your passion. Let's step back, and look at the situation in a different way. Why do we work? In my opinion, we work because we have to make money. This is just a simple fact of life. We work to earn money. We work to provide for ourselves and our families. If the basic necessities of life could be obtained without money I would bet none of us would work. We'd all be able to sit around and do the things that we like to do like play Xbox 360 all day. :-) So, I think we can agree that we work in order to make money. So that our goal should be to maximize the amount of money we make in the shortest amount of time. It is clear that we, as individual citizens, cannot negotiate the best deal for services ourselves. Executives can. Workers cannot. So, unions are the only tool, that I know of, that would allow workers an opportunity to maximize their economic potential. Pitting one worker against another, a common tactic that business uses against labor, does nothing more than drive down the prices for labor. The solution to your problem is union reform. Unions need to be more flexible, more open and more tolerant of others. Unions cannot be and should not be Democratic headquarters. Instead, unions should always support workers. That is their goal. That is their function. That is their sole reason for existence. Thanks for your comments.

EC Thompson; Life would be pretty "boring" if we did not work! Man and woman were MADE to work! As the saying go's "idol hands" are the "devils" playhouse! Also personal responsibility is a virtue that people should be taught! And not that someone owes them, or they are entitled to, for merely existing! I see on your website a book the is a book of HATE being sold! Namely portraying Christians as like the Taliban! I take it is fine to "hate Christians" is that right? EC Thompson? Many Christians have "died" fighting the Taliban!

Ec; I like your idea that the unions should "detach" themselves from the "democrat party" let each member decide for himself ! Also the idea that voting by union members must be a "private act! At that point it IS MORE Representative of the "members"!! You know a little democracy!! Those are good ideas!

Rick - Have you read the book? If so constructive criticism is always invited. Simply lashing out is not. Thanks for your comments.

Now that you started name calling, I'm guessing that we're done. It is the Democratic Party. Thanks for your time.

Ec Tompson,MD?? Excuse me what name did I call "somebody"?? If me saying that the book you suggest I read was a book of HATE, is NOT TRUE unless I buy one? Did you read the BOOK?? Well reread the TITLE and the INTRO as follows! (AMERICAN TALIBAN _HOW WAR <SEX<SIN<AND POWER BIND THE RADICAL LEFT!!!!) The large caps as emphasis!! Now tell me if you see HATE there! Would you like to debate the MOST LIKELY of the TWO?? Your selected version or MINE??? You maysimple call me "brickmason"! Since that was before I retired! If you like!

Who decides if anything is right or wrong?? We are nothing more than "animals"! Thus everything and thus nothing is relative, eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we ALL go into non-existance!! Is abortion right? Is abortion wrong? Is murder right? Is murder wrong? Is theft right is theft wrong? What is a constitution? Why have one? Is it right or wrong? Is it wrong to hate? Is it right to hate? And why? Is black white or is white black? And why argue? You die tomorrow and go into non-existance! Or if you blow yourself up you could be in paridise with many young virgins waiting for you! Suppose someone says to another animal, do this or do that! The other animal has a gun??? Now who is in charge! So then it is only violence that wins out! But everyone knows violence (we are told) never proves anything! But THAT is the way ANIMALS ARE!!! These are the things some people would LIKE everyone to believe! So THEY and ONLY THEY can RULE over you!!

Mr Thompson ; I agree that if one joins the union he will make more money and benefits! But what of people that do not believe in "unions"? Granted I HAD to join because I needed a job and it was in a part of America that had very few non-union contractors! So tho I paid and joined and then payed more! I was quite angry how they used "my money" to support some people I did not agree with! Some how to me it seemed unamerican! If it were the otrher way around that the employer demanded money each mth to give them their propaganda I think you would agree it was not right!! I notice my dear friend also you being black I would think you would be against ALL discrimination! Am I wrong!

Did you have a vote or were you excluded? If you had a vote and lost the vote or disagreed with the outcome, it is the American way. I didn't vote for Bush. I disagreed with this policies. I worked for change. If you disagreed with the union and had a chance to vote and air your concerns, I don't understand your objection. You're upset because the whole union didn't bend to your will? Here's my problem with your line of reasoning. You believe that because you didn't like the politics of unions, there was something wrong with unions and they should go. I would say that unions are the balance that we have against a CEO who is for the most part focused on profits and not your welfare. As a matter of fact, in the charter of most businesses the CEO has a duty to maximize profits. So, if he is worried about the workers and losing money, he has violated his agreement with the Board and the Shareholders. We need unions to have a powerful voice for the workers. It is that simple. Finally, if you didn't like the politics of your union. You should have worked to change them. It is a long slow process but clearly can be done. Unions aren't perfect. There is nothing that man does that is perfect. Nothing. I appreciate your comments. Thanks.

Thank you for your answers! Here is the problem that I faced and others have also! If you made it known were you stood politically, your fellow workers would harass you!! And make your work so miserable you would then be sorry you did! Others would see and then "conform"! I have a friend that meets each year with fellow retired workers of the UAW (like a re-union )of sorts! They allow a time for anyone to get up and speak! My friend who has known these guys for YEARS expressed his concern for America IF Obama were elected! He got just a couple sentences out,and his fellow "FRIENDS" and workers grabbed him and pushed him out the door! (So much for FRIENDS,FREEDOM,and DEBATE,)if you disagree with the union BOSS'S! I also had a neighbor that was a union Stewart! (He and his family seemed to be nice people!) He told me how he got mad at the CEO of the Co he worked for! So he grabbed him picked him up and banged him against the wall! While pointing his finger in his face and saying to other CEOs you better get ride of this SOB! I asked did they fire him? He start laughing."Right "!! There he was a week later clearing out his office and loading his car! I also watched a few months later several of the concrete trucks from the firm they worked for!! In the middle of the day! (Working hrs!) and about 10 to 15 guys from the company outing in a garage floor and drive way! I talked to neighbor a couple days later! And said that many guys putting in your drive and all the concrete they used must have cost you a pretty penny! He said NAW!! We are "brothers" we help each other out!Then about 1 year or so past! I noticed funny looking vehicles coming to his house! They would stay a few hrs and leave! When I was outside cutting the lawn he was also! So I asked him about the crazy looking pick-up that came there! He said oh! They are my "protection" I say WHAT? Yep my own guys have threatened to KILL-ME! I ask why? He said I was not able to get the TRIPLE TIME they want for working before 5 AM! He then told me that most of his guys make over $100,000 a year. And they could make more because some do work longer and make 125,000 a year! (That would have been 20-25 years ago in CA!) Driving a "CONCRETE TRUCK"!! Non-union workers were making12-15 dollars an hr at the time!! ( Tax payers BILL? Why UNION scale!) For the needy!! Not the GREEDY?? IS THIS WHAT AMERICA IS ABOUT?? That is why I say it seems UNIONS are more like a "MAFIA" operation! And lastly the POLITICAINS see to it the CO gets ALL HIGHWAY and BRIDGE work! NON-UNION can not even BID!! Another PLUS for the freedom of the people? And the BILLS for the TAXPAYERS! You make it sound like the union exercises no COMPULSION!! Baloney that is what they are good at! Taking advantage of OTHERS to position THEMSELVES and those they support to CONTROL peoples lives! And gain wealthy, all the while "pointing a finger" at others,accusing THEM of what THEY are doing!! Explain to me how the MAFIA operates! If not from THREATS! And UNDEMOCRATIC means!! HOW do you JUSTIFY people conducting their life this way! The ":GREEDY" are not JUST CORPERATIONS!!

You are right that many unions were inflitrated by the Mafia, especially during the 1950s and 60s. That's why RFK held hearings on that topic as a senator from NY. Some people even believe that JFK was assassinated by the mob as payback to Bobby. So we have to acknowledge history on that front, also. That's why RICO was passed, and union bosses have been convicted on that front. Reform is necessary in any social organization, but that does not mean you need to abolish the organization. Just because government is often corrupt does not mean we should abolish government. Unless you're a libertarian, of course, who believes in abolishing the government anyway. And the libertarians are the ones who are fanning the flames about public unions. They have their own agenda.

Rick – Let me thank you for this very interesting and informative discussion. I appreciate your input. I appreciate your willingness to share some of your personal experiences. In spite of the fact that you and some of your friends have had bad experiences with unions, I don't think that that is necessarily a reason to condemn unions. A union is a complex social network. There are good elements and data elements. The question is how to we improve the good and get rid of the bad. This is what union reform is all about. I am never going to condemn a union worker for making a good salary. That salary was negotiated with management. Management negotiated the salary with the thought that they were going to be able to still make a profit, so where's the harm? Finally, I would add that greed on the side of unions or corporations does America no good. In America, we have to find the right balance. Corporation should be allowed to be flexible and should be able to make a profit if they are selling a product that Americans want to buy. On the other hand, workers should be able to work in a safe environment have adequate time off and make a living wage. Union reform is a great thing. No unions, destroys the balance and plunges the American worker into a game called worker arbitrage. Where American workers compete head-to-head with workers in Bangladesh, China and Mexico. Currently, this is the environment that we live in and this is why the American middle class is slipping slowly. The middle class is shrinking as wages continue to be cut and benefits continue to be cut. More Americans are slipping into the lower class because of this trend. Again, thanks for your comments.

What of the rights of the individual? If a co is unionized the "indivdual" that will not "pay to play" will not be hired! How can that NOT be unconstitutional? Is it not a Legal Mafia of sorts!!

Individual rights are extremely important. But in the workforce, as an individual you can't negotiate workmen's comp, health care, time off, etc. You can hope that you have a generous boss or you can collective bargain with the union. 99 times out of 100, you are much better off joining a union. It is better for you and your family.

Right to freedom of association is an individual right expressed in a group context. You are free to not "join" a union; you can just pay a "bargaining fee." You are also free to not work a union job. For instance, you could move to Mississippi, my home state, where there are lots of nonunion jobs, and the highest poverty rate in the nation.

The supreme court was not swayed by protests. It was changed by a change in law. The Bill of Rights as attached to the constitution were a limitation on Federal power, attached to compromise with the Anti Federalists so that the constitution could be ratified. Some Federalists wanted a Bill of Rights and some didn't. Some saw the constitution as a ceiling, that the government could go no further, and some saw it as a floor, from which to build up. Many of the Anti Federalists viewed the Constitution as having far too vague of language and giving far too much power to the National government. In fact they would say our criticisms of Nat'l Gov't overreach are misguided because such overreach as a natural consequence of a constitutional government. The constitution was meant to establish a government of enumerated (listed, limited) powers. The Anti Federalists wanted a bill of rights attached to provide in strict language that limitation, some Federalists didn't want it because it would make the Constitution more vague (so instead of being a limit, it would be more like "well it doesn't say we CAN'T do this..."). But in terms of our history, the Bill of Rights was meant to check federal government, NOT the states. The whole issue was the ability of the National government overriding the liberty of the states. The federal was defined, limited, the states were indefinite and flexible. Some disagreed, some thought the National government should have more power so it could check abuses of citizens by state governments or by the tyranny of the majority (one reason I don't care what polls say one way or the other, policy should be judged on its merits not its popularity among a crowd). Where this changed was just after the Civil War. Congress passed three new amendments to the constitution. One banned slavery (the Emancipation Proclamation just prohibited it in "rebelling territories" which didn't include the North, new Western states or even the whole South), one expanded voting rights (general language but it meant the new freed slaves) and one, the 14th amendment afforded to all CITIZENS the "privileges and immunities" granted by the constitution, and the protection of due process of law. That's where things started shifting to include states. In the case of Gitlow v. New York, the court made a wild swing in their reasoning to further enforce the rights issue. It wasn't what the courts "believed", it was the history of the constitution and the law of the land. Private unions, unions for mine safety and meat packing plant safety etc, do have a noble history to fall back on, of realizing the problem of Laissez Faire Capitalism in its negligence of human life. They did go too far, they became corrupt and politicized and problematic, but our system worked better because they helped show the issue and helped correct it. Public unions are a different matter historically, and politically.

Will the Viking - I appreciate your thoughts as always. I'm not sure that your reading of the constitution is correct. Alexander Hamilton argued before the ink was dry on the constitution that nation should form a national bank and buy up all of the debt that the states built up. That wasn't in the constitution.

OK, Will, it sounds like you are ready to go into the constitutional weeds with me, so I will oblige. James Madison himself wanted to include in the bill of rights a provision that would have protected free speech, right of conscience, and several other key rights against the states. That amendment, which he called "the most valuable in the list," was excluded in Congress. Then the Marshall Court ruled in the 1820s that Bill of RIghts only applied to national government (someone believed otherwise in order for the case to GET to the Supreme Court). Then came the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, which protected the "privileges and immunities" of all citizens against the states. Plenty of history from the legislative debates shows intent was to apply most if not all of the provisions in the Bill of Rights against the states. But Supreme Court didn't do that. Instead, very piecemeal, it applies SOME of the provisions to states through due process clause, mainly beginning with Gitlow. To say that nonincorporation of free speech was "the law," and that unions played no role in changing "the law," when they were the principal groups demanding free speech, is a very crabbed reading of both history and the Constitution. Them's just the facts, man.

thank you so much for your insightful comment. I truly appreciate you stopping by.