Coincidence? Seriously?

Thinkprogress.com reports has noticed a very odd "coincidence." Maine, Missouri and New Hampshire all have quite similar bills before the legislature, all basically aimed at doing damage to collective bargaining / unions. We here in Wisconsin are so caught up in our own struggle, we don't always notice that ours is not the only battle. As important as our struggle is, we can't forget that this is one battle ... albeit a key battle! ... in an ongoing war against the middle class, and I would argue, against families.

Tennesee is also in on the fight. Ohio is under the gun as well. All across the country, collective bargaining rights are under the gun. Unfortunately, there are still a lot of peole who don't get why they should care.

There are many ways that unions impact non-union people. Labor, as a group, has a history of fighting for better working conditions, minimum wages, safety laws, overtime pay, etc. Just a little over 100 years ago, disability pay was a pipe dream:

While workers injured on the job or their heirs might sue employers for damages, winning proved difficult. Where employers could show that the worker had assumed the risk, or had been injured by the actions of a fellow employee, or had himself been partly at fault, courts would usually deny liability. (~Economic History of Workplace Safety)

If you have ever had compensation for an injury, or disability pay, even though you may never have been part of a union, you owe them a huge thank you. Labor was an instrumental player in getting an 8 hour work day established as the US norm. Some people would like to tell you that is a myth, but the history of trade unions is quite clear. Although I don't normally like to tag wiki sites, this one is a good overview and links to other sources, so feel free to read more HERE. I believe that they want to convince peole this is a myth because it is something we all appreciate. It doesn't take too much imagination to be grateful we don't have to work 12, 14 or 16 hour days, 6 or 7 days a week.

Where there are labor unions, there is much less likelihood of child labor. It isn't surprising, therefore, that when labor is under attack, there are people out there trying to repeal child labor laws. Just last week, I mentioned Jane Cunningham of Missouri who wants to roll back the clock on child labor protections.

I don't know how many times I have heard the argument that we may have needed labor unions once upon a time, but we have laws in place now, and so we don't need unions any more. I sincerely feel this is naive and will get us into a ton of hot water down the road, if we let these sentiments rule the day. Often, unions are the only champion for these laws staying in place. In a world where corporations feel their only reason for existence is for profit, do you really think that they would not try to get more out of their workers for less money, or less expensive work conditions, if they could legally get away with doing so?

Not every working person is a union worker, but I strongly believe that every working person should be a supporter of unions and the existence of collective bargaining.



Additional Sources:
Economic History:
http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/aldrich.safety.workplace.us
Child Labor Public Education Project
http://www.continuetolearn.uiowa.edu/laborctr/child_labor/about/ending.html
Jane Cunningham - rolling back child labor protection:
http://ozarksfirst.com/fulltext?nxd_id=406876