1.  Do the predictors of union participation suggest that union leaders will likely be involved in an adversarial relationship w/ mgt.? 

Marxist perspective & dissatisfaction w/ job both are factors increasing the likelihood of union involvement

This seems to put one in an adversarial relationship

On the other hand, US unions have adopted a Business Unionism perspective
This mitigates against an adversarial relationship

It seems as if some adversarialism is inevitable because as Holmes' dissent in Vegelahn v Guntner states, workers & firms have different interests

But in practice it seems that the degree of adversarialism is related to specific historical conditions & not to any philosophy:

Conditions:
 - history of conflict       e.g. JP Stevens & Textile Workers
 - risks in job      e.g. UMWA & deep mining in Appalachia
 - degree of industry decline     e.g.  Teamsters & Greyhound

BUT even while these conflicts were red hot, other unions had quite moderate relations w/ their firms
 

Return to Question 1

Link

2.  How can the inclusion of women in top leadership positions in local & national unions be increased?
 

Women now work in %'s greater than men. 
They are likely to work in less unionized sectors
But unions are advancing organizing in these service sectors
So women will grow in Labor as they grow in the workplace & as the unionized sector transforms

This will provide a large base of women in unions from which to draw leaders

The younger generation of men is more comfortable w/ women peers & women leaders

Also, unions can do more to attract women now by addressing issues important to them:
 - daycare
 - women's health issues
 - sexual harassment
 - comparable worth
 - glass ceiling

Unions should affirmatively prepare talented women by creating in-house training sessions, sponsorships to form training & degree programs
 

Return to Question 2

Link

3.  How do you reconcile the fact that a majority of those elected to Congress are endorsed by COPE & the failure of Congress to pass any significant labor law reform? 
 

a.  Politicians are not bound to anyone or any position regardless of the money & / or endorsements they receive
b.  "Politics makes strange bedfellows" 
     When various people contribute to the same politician, it does not mean they have the same agenda
     Many contributors disagree intensely
     Candidates need to build a complex, often fragile coalition of supporters to win
c.  The American electorate has not aligned itself behind candidates who espouse a strong Labor agenda
      Therefore, almost any candidate supported by Labor, also has many other
       constituents who have very different agendas. 
       Labor is almost always a minority faction in a candidates coalition
 

See Also:  Labor Political Action

Link

 

Return to Question 3

Link

4.  Since unions represent all employees in bargaining units they have organized, should they be allowed to endorse particular candidates for office? 

There is a difference legally btwn endorsing & giving $$ to a candidate

The union is an agent of the members; it is an institution

American law grants legal 'personhood' to many such entities

They have different rights & responsibilities than people

Thus unions are seen as having different interests than that of any single member

Thus unions are free to endorse whoever they believe to be in the best interest of the union;  members don't have to agree 100%

Employees should have the option of contribute or not to a political budget for a particular candidate or issue
 

Return to Question 4

Link