Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Whither" data-source="post: 4811326" data-attributes="member: 76643">I doubt it. You could view unions as a truce between workers and market forces, with the state throwing its weight behind the latter. For example unions made their strongest gains in the US in the late 1930s. These gains wouldn&#039;t have been possible without high levels of militancy in the rank and file. Unions were granted as concessions to prevent &#039;worse&#039; -- namely, widespread disruptions to production and, yes, communism. In other words, unions were tasked with culling the &#039;radical&#039; section of the workforce, to which they owed their very success.Once the threat was neutralized, Taft-Hartley was passed and the unions carried on presiding over their own lengthy decline. While there was some labor militancy in the late 60s, it never rose to the fever pitch of the 30s or let alone as it did in France ... but even the massive May 68 general strike in France accomplished very little. Janus v AFSCME was basically the nail in the coffin. Unions could&#039;ve banded together and very reasonably argued that the same rationale used by the court undermines the basis of taxation. After all, if we&#039;re given representation (regardless of how adequate or even wanted it may be) the understanding has been that we&#039;re supposed &#039;pay our dues&#039;, right? Obviously it would&#039;ve been a desperate measure, but -- desperate times ... Not to mention I think it would&#039;ve been wildly popular had unions mounted an attack on taxation, a rallying cry. But, no, the opportunity was missed.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Whither, post: 4811326, member: 76643"] I doubt it. You could view unions as a truce between workers and market forces, with the state throwing its weight behind the latter. For example unions made their strongest gains in the US in the late 1930s. These gains wouldn't have been possible without high levels of militancy in the rank and file. Unions were granted as concessions to prevent 'worse' -- namely, widespread disruptions to production and, yes, communism. In other words, unions were tasked with culling the 'radical' section of the workforce, to which they owed their very success. Once the threat was neutralized, Taft-Hartley was passed and the unions carried on presiding over their own lengthy decline. While there was some labor militancy in the late 60s, it never rose to the fever pitch of the 30s or let alone as it did in France ... but even the massive May 68 general strike in France accomplished very little. Janus v AFSCME was basically the nail in the coffin. Unions could've banded together and very reasonably argued that the same rationale used by the court undermines the basis of taxation. After all, if we're given representation (regardless of how adequate or even wanted it may be) the understanding has been that we're supposed 'pay our dues', right? Obviously it would've been a desperate measure, but -- desperate times ... Not to mention I think it would've been wildly popular had unions mounted an attack on taxation, a rallying cry. But, no, the opportunity was missed. [/QUOTE]

Verification