Organized labor has been in decline for more than three decades, and that decline does not seem to be slowing. In Wisconsin, a governor and legislature stripped the collective bargaining rights of public employees and survived a recall election. What's more, the governor survived a recall election by more votes and a higher percentage of the votes than he did in his original campaign. While the attempt by labor and citizens who support having a middle class was inspiring, the result was disappointing.
More disappointing than the loss, however, was the reminder of how terrible labor is at messaging, and of how poor their messengers are.
For the last thirty years, labor has been losing the most fundamental question surrounding them: Are labor unions a good thing or a bad thing? Mind you, this is an argument they should be winning in a landslide. But they are losing this argument in a landslide.
During the Wisconsin Recall, the entire nation was looking to what was happening in Wisconsin. Labor was presented with a golden opportunity to make a simple argument on why collective bargaining rights, and union rights in general, are so darn good for our country.
So many things could have been presented to the people. That unions helped build and maintain Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, the 40 hr. workweek, overtime, weekends, etc... That unions built the middle class. They could have posed the question, "Do you think if unions disappeared corporations would all of a sudden give middle class wages? No. Then what other way is there to build a middle class than by having the worker on the other side of the table so that all ships will once again be lifted by rising tides? There is none."
They could have shown the Wisconsin Governor's, and larger Republican Party establishment's objective for what it really was, the destruction of all the middle class and any power it retains. It is simple logic that if the teachers and public employees can't stand, then the firefighters and cops are done for sure. Maybe not now, but soon enough. And when they surely go down, right-to-work is inevitable. And then the labor movement, middle class and American Dream largely die in Wisconsin.
The people could have been asked to take a good long look in the mirror and decide on how they feel about the destruction of the only force in our politics that looks out for ordinary people. How do they feel about having nothing between them and the .1%? Do they wish the .1% to have unfettered control over the fate of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc... In the end, the basic question was, do you want a middle class or not? That is the question and argument that the Democrats and labor should have been making.
Instead, we got militancy and completely unintellectual arguments and comments like "We're gonna throw Scott Walker out." No basic education of what a union is, how they work, or why they are necessary. Just that "We are working our butts of to throw this guy out." Talking militantly does not and will not work unless the larger electorate and workers understand what a union is, how it works, and what is at stake.
What were quite possibly as bad were the messengers. The AFSCME labor leader I watched every night on MSNBC looked like an overweight, unshaven truck driver and talked very similar. He always seemed agitated and never made a compelling case for organized labor or why it is good and necessary.
It goes past the Wisconsin recall. Richard Trumka stated some time back that "We've been wanting to have this conversation for a long time." Really? Than have the conversation and put forth a compelling case. I like Richard Tumka, and in general he says the right thing. But watching him on Meet the Press or other shows demonstrates why he cannot win that fundamental argument that unions are good for all workers and that all workers should have one.
Whether you are a member of the AFL-CIO or just the five employees of a small business that meet to discuss ways to improve things for the company and the workers, a union is a good thing to have. Whether or not you bargain for more wages or just have a dialogue, it is always better for workers to have a voice on the other side of the table. Having a line of communication and dialogue is always a good thing for workers. And all workers would be better off with a union. When that is understood by workers, labor will come back in force in this country.
Bill Clinton made parts of the case in Wisconsin:
"If you believe in shared prosperity when times are good and shared sacrifice when times are bad, then you don't want to break unions, you want unions at the table and trust them to understand that arithmetic rules."
That if labor is weakened further the .1% will say, "see, we got them now. We’re finally going to break every union in America. We’re gonna break every government in America. We’re gonna stop worrying about the middle class. We don’t give a riff whether poor people get to work their way into it. We got our way now. We got it all. Divide and conquer works."
Bill Clinton did more to win the argument with those two comments than everything Trumka and the other labor leaders have done during the past two years. This is because he knows what the argument is and he knows how to win it.
Labor will come back in this country. Sooner or later, someone who is dynamic is going to realize that it is inevitable that labor will make a major comeback and that the person who leads that comeback will be read about in history books 80 years from now. That dynamic individual that gives it a shot and leads labor back will make the arguments Clinton made and others in the dynamic, persuasive fashion in which Clinton made them. That individual will make those arguments day after day, year after year, news show after news show, Sunday morning after Sunday morning, all across this country until the argument is won.
It will not be Richard Trumka or any of the other labor leaders I have seen. I like them. They are great Americans, but they are just not able to do it. My hope is that labor goes out and gets a blockbuster personality to be the face of labor. It may be an actor, a performer, a musician, a TV personality, a current or former politician, or some up-and-coming rock star of the labor movement I have not yet seen or heard about. But it should be someone who is a great communicator, dynamic, has connections, and demands an audience.
It should be someone that can draw attention to the issue, make the case that needs to be made, win the arguments that need to be won, and redefine the labor movement for what it really is: the only force that has ever and will ever make our free-market economy work for the 99%.