longshoremen in New Jersey, and they were all doing great thanks to contracts and battles that started long before they started working.

Somehow, a lot of them felt that they did it all on their own and had that sense of entitlement that can afflict anyone who "makes it." It's not just sports stars and CEOs who look down on the "little people."

Give some people enough money and they identify more with the bosses than the trenches.

in Wisconsin. Lots of union backing for the Walker.
WTF!!??

-p

There were even a couple of unions that endorsed Raygun. Ironically PATCO was one of the two.

Some people like unions because they benefit personally, but don't give a shit about solidarity.

educating the membership & maintaining a fighting union because they themselves have made their deals with power.

The rank & file see the corruption and become cynical, also not willing to sacrifice for the greater good, or maintain solidarity.

...have plenty of time to watch Fox news and all of it's friends.

Of course this isn't true for everyone but to some a union only means one thing a great paying job. It doesn't mean brother and sisterhood and solidarity and they could give two shits if another union goes on strike or is getting kicked around.

They'll go to their union job and reap the benefits of the people before them who were beaten by the police and national guard but when its time to go home they'll put on Rush and listen to him rant about how evil their union is.


That being said this isn't the majority of union workers.

It's inexplicable. They all tend to be rural, redneck types that are really into hunting and Tom Clancy books. I do enjoy trouncing them in arguments in the break room though. I point out how ridiculous and contradictory their beliefs are and generally embarrass them in front of everyone but they only get mad and dig in deeper.

My conclusion is that it comes down to racism. They believe the Democrats are only for the blacks and they know the republicans are for the rich but they're still for the whites and of course one day they'll be rich too. It's crazy.

that lots of people believe that they are more likely (than not) to somehow strike it rich. I'd say it's entirely possible for *most* people to be able to achieve some kind of stability and comfort in their lives but so painfully few people are going to wind up millionaires. I mean, don't people notice that approximately 99% of the populations' salaries and lifestyles are NOWHERE NEAR that of the top 1-2%. Where does this idea that they are going to magically wake up millionaires one day come from?

Beats me.....maybe that 'thinking' is also why they are so easily manipulated and brainwashed by those who continue to keep them down, financially.

The level of cognitive dissonance necessary to maintain such a massive illusion without one's head exploding like that must be staggering!

The media. Watch CNBC for five minutes. They love telling their audience that becoming a multi-millionaire is the norm.

We don't like to talk about this because labor unions are supposed to be all about solidarity and everything. It's ugly but it's real. When my local was striking (12 years ago) some white members wouldn't stand next to black members at the picket sites. They just quietly went down the block and set up their own picket. Everyone understood they supported the strike, but they weren't about to stand there and be seen with a bunch of black troublemakers. The effed up part is we were still glad they were there with us. And when the stuff hit the fan they fought harder than anybody to keep scab trucks out of the site. They blocked the road and told the drivers to turn around or else. In that moment those guys were awesome. We never could have won without them. But for some reason they didn't like black people. Very frustrating.

And you're right, it's inexplicable from a logical standpoint.

Where I work, there is some racism I must say, but most of it comes from the "I got mine" attitude. Incredibly, some even bash other unionized workers in different industries as overpaid. WTF? I ask just how you'd get an economy to work if everybody but themselves should take a cut in pay. I just get indignant harrumphs, and as you say, they just get mad and dig in deeper.

There's another too. Some are really religious and feel it their duty somehow to knuckle under to authority. I've heard it explained as "Protestant work ethic". Management takes terrible advantage of them, and the more they're kicked in the teeth, the more and harder they try to excel and meet high handed manager's demands, as if demonstrating superior moral character. Astounding.

Fought hard in his last days and months of his life to stay alive to vote against Bush (but the cancer won).

Alas, he was also a mega racist.

Point being - people who can pass a progressive purity test are far and few in between.

Instead, they rely on the things that are common to them (biases, anecdotes, stereotypes, tradition) passed on to them from non-rationalized opinion leaders (parents, religious leaders, peers) and apply them to politics, even if they are incorrect, contradictory, or flat-out ridiculous.

I'm not surprised they dig in deeper. In arguing with you, they reassess the things they already believe and believe them even stronger.

I recently saw an interview with Michelle Alexander who wrote "The New Jim Crow" and she dates it to the civil rights movement. The rich were insulated from integration, but the poor whites had to actually live the law and felt shamed. I haven't got the book yet, but it is on my list of must reads.

...between lefties and blue-collar hard-hats:

...however, that can't explain it all. I lived through it and those sentiments tapped into a dis-ease that has existed and been exploited by TPTB since before the beginning of USA-America. It's the same one that has been used to separate the races and the sexes and this one was aimed at the divide in ages. Divide, divide, divide. That's how TPTB have grown rich -- by using our own power against us.

- People are starting to wake up, so I think there's hope.

the hard hat riot was fake. then the media reports on the fake event, making it seem like this is some spontaneous outpouring of anger against hippies, etc.

then people who had a mild irritation with all that say "yeah, that's right!" and it feeds their anger because other people seem even more ticked off about it. when it's in the media for days, weeks, etc. along with talking points and slanted stories it comes to seem important and legitimate.

rinse and repeat, and you get a voting bloc.

much of modern history is the history of such fake "movements" of "the people".

hard hat riot, nyc can be put into the context of capital's (neoliberal) push-back against the new deal consensus and the (relatively) large share of the take labor was getting at the time, and the strategy of tension going on globally in which right-wing-sponsored terror attacks were blamed on the left. In NYC we also have the deliberate tactic of letting the city decay and the (fake) bankruptcy of nyc.

Right wing propaganda via Fox 'news', local news, newspapers, from their employers, or even from church. Mix in a dash of racism.

Some people don't connect the dots to see how the challenges they face in their personal lives are really related to national and global issues. The right-wing propganda is a big cause. It encourages people to direct their anger at all the wrong targets.

He really told it like it is.

I understand why Rush Limbaugh says the things he says, and to an extent I understand wy some people believe him. I don't understand why uniion members believe these things, especially not union members in my own family who are as smart as I am. I can guess the following:

• lower education
• less experience in the real world; or
• authoritarian leanings

Especially: "However, I can't explain why they don't seem to entertain doubts about their own position. They are capable of talking anti-management, but they don't seem to tie it into an overall world view. It is a puzzlement."

It has to be plain ignorance, either through low intelligence or lack of exposure. I mean, they should have the ability to connect the dots and tie it into their world view. I could well understand why those with authoritarian leanings can not and will not do so, but a person of average intelligence should be able to connect the dots and at least bark up the correct tree.

I get my anti-militarism from having been in the military, esp. in a war zone. I get my conviction that management is out to screw the working man from working in non-union shops where the bosses get away with whatever they feel like. I know from first hand experience what lack of job security feels like.

My brother thinks it's anti-American not to support American foreign policy. His military experience is limited to watching Saving Private Ryan. Because he got a union job right out of high school, he has never had to struggle to keep a job. He has no frame of reference to challenge Bill O'Reilly, a windbag with an authoritarian streak a mile wide.
[center]


Worst Person in the World[/center]

The book's almost 10 years old, but it's as relevant today as the day its last passage was written.

I don't pretend to know everything, but I grew up in an era when the entire south went from Democratic to Republican -- and their are multiple issues I've seen.

1. Religion -- Roe v. Wade, gay rights, etc. are seen as huge issues among a large percentage of the population. Less so now, but 10-20 years ago, this alone was enough.

2. Economic Issues -- This is long and complex -- and it goes back to the Civil War (Southern state per capitia income still hasn't recovered in relation to northern states). At least in the South, many/most unions are seen as hostile since they actively prevented companies from locating here for decades (and even today). I agree that the Unions were protecting their own members, but from the perspective of a lot of people down here, union members work half as hard for 2-3X the pay.

This obviously doesn't apply to the OP, but does explain why a lot of people who you would think would be in favor of unions are not.

3. Assault Weapons Ban -- You have no idea how much impact this had on rural areas. This utterly stupid law destroyed a huge swath of rural supporters throughout the country.

Was it the law, or the bullshit right-wing spin campaign about the law? You know, Clinton was using it as the "first step" towards a "police state" and all the other stupid shit the gun nuts - both right-wing and slightly-less right-wing - have been saying since Eisenhower?

It criminalized by broad definition an object many working class types used benignly; working class types that would have otherwise voted on economic issues. Not saying it's right, but the dynamic is very real.

It sure didn't help that Clinton solidified their resolve by not only making gun control a bully pulpit issue, but also being a very enthusiastic "third way" type and supporter of globalism/free trade. In one fell swoop he managed to thicken the ranks of "Reagan Democrats" by representing the worst of both worlds.

I'm saying there was a lot of stupid false propaganda about the law that many seem to have taken at face value.

For instance, the assertion that there's a "broad definition." Or better yet, "no definition." Whereas the law actually makes a pretty clear definition of what its terms mean. You could argue the definition is a bit arbitrary, but you can't really call it "broad."

And yeah, Clinton was simply the most liberal Republican president since Roosevelt. Still, he managed to squeeze two terms out of it, and unlike another two-termer I can think of, is able to show his face in public.

...in popular configurations based on their accessories that it was a truly odious law. Many of them were very popular modern firearms.

I think the law can be argued to be broad in that it ended up including almost every new non-revolver, non-bolt action rifle firearm that was being produced unless altered to conform with the law.

Rifles and shotguns of any kind account for only 3 percent of murders.

The intent was to pass an "easy" gun control law to get a foot in the door that would lead to even more stringent gun control laws. It was a blatant political move and the Democrats were punished for it.

But for you, hack? Anything.

I'm not saying it's a good law.

Hell, even the "Brady Bunch" is like "dude, that was kinda dumb."

the AWB alienated many gun owners because it was a blatant political act that had nothing to do with public safety.

Everyone knows it was a stupid law - it was raw meat for liberal gun grabbers that blew up in their faces and permanently damaged the gun control movement. It was the greatest gift the NRA ever got.

Those evil fucking liberals.

it was a cynical ploy to placate progressives demanding gun control. Throw them bone to make them happy - who could possibly have any problem banning military weapons?

They were too stupid (the politicians not the progressives) to figure out what a disaster it would turn into.

He was also an abusive and paranoid sneak with a corrupt poitical machine. But he was responsible for more liberal policies than Clinton. The EPA, the Clean Air and Water Act, and wage and price controls come to mind offhand. When I think of Clinton, I think NAFTA and Third Way corporate cuddling.

The dues are what he cried about.....

$9 a week. Such a burden!

He was a 19 year old pipe fitter for a company in Maryland making $17/hr. $9 a week dues that he would scream and cry about. Safety equipment that he had to wear or use and the $9/wk fee were his complaints

After a few months of ignoring his cries of misery I asked him why he didn't just go to a non union company....

"I'll make less than half my pay!!!!!"

Yep, that's right. He couldn't understand the union was keeping him alive and healthy with safe equipment, giving him AWESOME benefits, and paying him 2.25 times more than the average worker at his skill level/age. All for 9 fucking bucks a week.

I would do unspeakable things to have what he had at the time.

It is beyond frustrating to hear anti union bullshit!

Or life probably hit him in the face at some point.

He quit to become a cab driver. To this day he says leaving that job was the worst decision he's ever made. He would likely be making $35/hr or more by now, have great benefits (he has none now), and a safe work environment.

Now he's flat broke essentially as any money saved always gets dumped into a new car because his cab is shot once again.

I simply laugh whenever he brings it up and give him a good "I told you so you idiot!"

He still cries about unions though and how they're fucking us all. Age does not guarantee wisdom.

That's just my personal experience, but that's what it is. For instance a co-worker a few days ago was complaining that she felt singled-out by management, that they were picking on her. My advice was "take it to the union." Her response was "I don't want to be a bother."

Another time, a nurse was griping about the $40 / month union dues we all pay. When she was suspended, who did she go to? Well, the union, of course. They brought her back, with full compensation for time off during hte suspension... and she still thinks they're stealing her money to give to Obama.

More times than I can count, I've talked to people about this stuff and htye didn't even KNOW the union handled stuff like that.

Which is why I'm soon to go in for training as a union advocate, so I can help my co-workers out on this one.

Sometimes I think you have to be an actual evangelist to bring the message to people, some of whom are already in unions. There's so much anti-union propaganda that people can't help absorbing some of it, even people who should know better.

Your friend the nurse who got reinstated at full pay should have experienced a come-to-Jesus conversion after what she's been through. She should be carrying olive branches in front of the union rep who made it happen. It's sad to hear that she's still poor-mouthing the union.

it seems sunk into pretty much everyone's head that "Big labor" (Hahahahahahahahaha!) sinks all its union dues into the treasuries of politicians running for office.

I calmly explain that that is not the case; that unions are legally prohibited from using their dues for that. However they may solicit donations for the union's preferred candidate or party, that all such donations are the result of individual union members volunteering their own cash for that politician or party. I also point out that the careers of district attorneys can be made off of exposing union misuse of dues, and provide the phone number for the office appropriate for the person I'm speaking to.

There never seems to be a followup

And yeah, you have to really pound it in; as you say there's been DECADES of anti-union effort, put out by people who have bottomless pockets.

leadership isn't doing its job.

i'd also tend to imagine that such a union's organizing principle for political involvement of the rank and file was similar to the US government's: vote for our chosen slate of candidates then go away.

to operate a relentless propaganda program that comes at people from all sides. Furthermore, with all that money, they have been able to buy up most of the most effective and pervasive media outlets.

People are exhausted and stressed, ground down by scrambling desperately to make a living, so they have no resistance to such propaganda, and the continual dumbing down of our schools ensures that they have not had much chance to develop critical thinking skills that would help them analyze the lies they are being fed.

On edit: Our side simply doesn't do a very good job of selling itself. Partly it's because the RW has a lock on so many media outlets and also has so much money to spread their lies, but partly, too, it is that our side is just unwilling to learn how to explain itself in a way that would be clear and appealing to the average citizen.

Think about how often the Dems have allowed the Repubs to frame an issue, and then gone on to adopt the crappy Republican framing instead of challenging and demolishing it!

I've found Webster Tarpley the most consistent, educated (Princeton, Fulbright) historian and analyst. If only there were an organized liberal-left party to offer him an influential position.

He puts on a weekly radio show, and I am currently listening to all of the back episodes starting in 2010 -- just because he is so informative and manages to simplify everything down into the most pressing, simple slogans.

[link:http://tarpley.net/world-crisis-radio/|

Union Dues and Expenses
You can deduct dues and initiation fees you pay for union membership.

You can also deduct assessments for benefit payments to unemployed union members. However, you cannot deduct the part of the assessments or contributions that provides funds for the payment of sick, accident, or death benefits. Also, you cannot deduct contributions to a pension fund, even if the union requires you to make the contributions.

You may not be able to deduct amounts you pay to the union that are related to certain lobbying and political activities. See Lobbying Expenses under Nondeductible Expenses, later.

http://www.irs.gov/publications/p17/ch28.html

with TeaHadist and Pub union members in the first place?

Why don't the local union members make it so the TeaHadists and Pubs leave the union on their own?

Unions members used to know how to take care of the trouble makes not all that long ago sadly those day seem to be gone.

If unions are to survive in America, Unions need to look to their past and what it actually took to create and keep the unions in the first place.

Union members can't be forced out. If union leaders or members tried to force other members out they would be facing intimidation charges from the National Labor Relations Board. The NLRB is not only an agency that protects workers from unfair actions by companies,they also protect workers from their unions.

Four hands in solidarity and they are all white hands.

For the life of me, I can't figure it out.

I mean really, they probably also hate the Union for requiring a couple hundred a year in dues in exchange for the extra 10k they make over non-union wages.

They're just dumb, don't know math that well, and have bad critical thinking skills. That's OK, but they need to be babied.

...that tells them unions are corrupt institutions and the wealthy are always and ever to be admired. The propaganda does not mention that corporations are corrupt institutions. The propaganda also plays upon their fears and social conservatism, i.e. guns / God / gays and oh yeah, abortion. Then throw in a certain flavor of anti-government (with the left, it was anti-militarism and anti-corporatism; with the right, it's anti-welfare state and anti-socialism), and voila! you've got union members who are against the very things that have raised their own standard of living.

All political groups engage in propaganda. The Democrats do it too. But the Republicans are better at it, and they also own most of the media outlets, so that have been very, very successful at it.

The more the country goes down the tubes economically, the more entrenched people's positions become and they refuse to consider that their positions may be wrong. None of us ever want to admit that our opinions may be based on lies or propaganda.

On the bright side, you never know when real change will occur or what will spark it. As with biological evolution, there are small, incremental changes and there are also large, sudden changes.

If our government worked more towards the common good and was more pro-worker, that would make a huge difference. I know, I know: Dream on.

As far as doing their job they are generally worthless.

They are inept.

So if they don't suck the supervisors ass they are out the door.

Don

as Ann Richards used to say.

Ostensibly, apprenticeships and other gateways to middle class union jobs are open to all, but current union members often pass superior information about where and when to sign up along to their children and friends.

The beneficiaries of such pure luck IMO often attribute their success to some kind of personal superiority, rather than to choosing the right parents. Just like Donald Trump, but on a much smaller scale, they wonder why the poor don't pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, the way they falsely believe they themselves have done.

Then, after the politicians they've voted into office pass and sign "right to work" laws, their lives are shattered. But Fox News makes sure they never run out of scapegoats on which to blame their almost inevitable misfortune, given long-term trends in union power. They beome "at-leasters": "At least I'm better than (insert latest scapegoat here)."

Many, actually every union worker I know who espouses teaparty-type leanings, managed to get their jobs straight out of HS, thanks to some relative. They understand very little about how hard the rest of us had to work (for years, even decades) to achieve the standard of living they had from the get-go. It's about being out of touch, or as you so aptly point out--- 'like Donald Trump on a smaller scale'...

I support unions and always will, but thanks to nepotism, many of today's union workers (maybe even the generation before them included) have no clue about the poor pay and working conditions that brought about hard fought, union inspired reforms in the first place. Ancient history to them, sadly.

"Ancient history"--often documentary film history presumably suppressed
by copyright holders and others who don't want labor's story told.

There must be many long-out-of-print documentaries about the 1930s labor struggles of the UAW and other unions that now are shadows of what they once were. But people with money may own perpetual copyrights and not care to make the films accessible to groups who want to distribute, show, and update them.

I don't know about specific labor documentaries, but I do know about a civil rights documentary that stayed out-of-print and largely unscreened from 1993 to 2006. Getting the award-winning film back in print was an epic struggle in itself. See, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyes_on_the_Screen and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyes_on_the_Prize .

I can't imagine that labor history also, just like civil rights history, has been stolen from progressives who want to use archival footage to educate new generations.

"Solidarity! Unless I know better". Or "unless it costs me money".

they are the cowards. They always have others fight their fights and reap the benefits. They never cross authority. They have no backbone.

And because of the Union they have the wages, benefits and security to sit back and judge
others.

These people are pathetic and will happily vote against their best interests.


Tikki

...in the 1970s as the the Democratic Party became dominated by the "social issue" concerns of the Middle Class.

Flame me if you must, But in some ways the movements of the late 60s and the 70s turned the Democratic Party from the party of the working class person into the party of minorities and educated middle-class whites. We have essentially abandoned the working class. That is why you don't see politicians ever talking about the poor, anymore, it's all about the "Middle Class". This is why the DLC was able to take over the party, because the Middle Class cultural left didn't give a damn about the working class.

Got heavily involved in identity politics. For better or worse, identity politics pushes many folks away because they can't relate to black issues, LGBT issues, women's rights issues, etc.

I was a an organizer for SEIU several years ago and I was struck on how "union ideology" had been removed from organizing. We didn't agitate, we didn't talk about the history and purpose of unions... all in all, I felt like I was participating in a membership drive for the local Moose lodge. It was a very disappointing experience. I know it's not gonna be like it was back when Big Bill Haywood and Joe Hill were around, but for Pete's sake can we not have a little PASSION to mobilize the base of the working class?!

Obviously the unions themselves support Democratic candidates, but I think a lot of union members call themselves republicans simply because of their background.

It's yet another classic example of people voting against their interests, but for a lot of people, political ideology is more of a religion, and a label of self-identification, rather than a true belief structure.

It's like people who call themselves Democrats simply because they grew up in a long family line of Democrats. They may be registered as such, but when it comes to actually believing and supporting Democratic policies, they may not care about that as much.

I think that's one problem why many people continue to call themselves republicans, despite it being completely nonsensical. Try to persuade a southern republican to support Democrats, and I doubt you'll be successful. Even if he believes in his heart that what your saying is true, he probably will associate his republican label with being a southerner, and with fitting in with his family. It's more of a thing of pride, rather than looking at the larger picture, and realizing that their stubbornness has real and frightening consequences.

It's like a friend of mine who I actually got to vote for Obama. He supported him, but as soon as he started realizing most his friends and family were republicans who supported McCain, he rather quickly molded into a stereotypical personification of a conservatives... Fox news, Obama bashing, right-wing talking points.

I confronted him on how he was just changing his "viewpoints" to fit in. I think he knew I was right, but there's no changing him now.

...nowadays than with blue collar working class people. That is why so many of them vote Republican, they associate the Dems with "elitist" middle class people, and to some extent that judgement is true, look at how many posters brag about shopping at Trader Joe's and Whole Paycheck here bash working class people for shopping at Wal-Mart, working class people percieve such crap as similar to saying "let them eat cake".

are correct.

It's all about identity. Unfortunately, liberals as a whole are widely branded as "elitist" (latte drinking, Lexus driving, tree huggers!). The ones who act like they're better than everyone else are the minority in my opinion, but they are probably most visible.

If someone has the tastes and resources for the finer things, no problem. But when they trash my blue collar tastes and habits, they ARE NOT impressing me, they are just showing their own particular brand of intolerance.

...is just as good as the "fine wine" that costs big $$$. Knowing that you are drinking an expensive wine fools your brain and make you think it tastes better.

In other words, the wine snobs are full of shit.

Perfect antidote for cognitive dissonance.

And it was "Third Way" types that, as I have said before, seemed to represent the worst of both worlds politically. This alienated the backbone of the population and created the "Reagan Democrats" voter bloc. I really do believe they did not realize this, or if they did at some level, they could have felt it was of little consequence. After all, the crux of the Third Way's thinking was the "realization" ( to them ) that the Democratic party's role of the protector of the working class was no longer viable...since the working class was marginalized politically.

It is also true that it is an identity politics at work, and I have recognized that as being wrong, but there are many more that were like me waiting to be tipped over, but they aren't going to do it by being Volvo driving free traders that care most about saving whales.

As to myself, even with the knowledge that to many in the democratic party were corporatists, the GOP went off the deep end all the way around, issues-wise. That's why I ditched their asses. I wish it hadn't taken so long.

Worked all over the country.A couple of things held true through all the years and cities no matter which Union Hall I was working out of.

Come to work in a non UAW made car,your gonna get towed or car vandalized.

Come to work and mention anything good about a Republican,you wont have a job the next day.


Good vid on Unions from the movie Matewan.

Looks like labor solidarity only exists in Hollywood..

seriously or is this a trick question?

what makes them tick is they're racist

that's it, there's nothing deeper than that, there's nothing to wish for, you already know but you don't wanna admit it...your family members are fucking racist, no use arguing w it, it's completely illogical irrational and makes no fucking sense

something about race makes otherwise intelligent people stupid and so it puzzles us because we see otherwise intelligent people all caught up in stupid ass race hatred

non racists don't admire reagan and hannity, that's yr first, last, and forever clue

the key is racism, that's what makes em tick sad to say

worked over the system and won ... but they don't see IMO that in the big picture many are living off the labors of many others before them.

On a somewhat similar note I have some friends that have worked the system for welfare, section 8 housing, food stamps, on and on ... now they are doing better in life they say, "I ain't gonna pay for someone else's insurance with Obamacare, let them get their own." To me, that's a WTF too. I just don't get that, people helped them, but now they want nothing to do with helping others. Again, I think it's self-centeredness.

And, I think capitalism breeds self-centeredness.

Another manifestation of the "I got mine, the hell with you" attitude.

I seriously asked one of my better friends ( and co-worker ) how he squares having an anti-management attitude with his strong support for conservative fiscal policies that are often hostile to his livelihood. He more or less matter of fact-ly stated that it was his way of getting the best of both, "looking out for #1" if you will.

What can you say to people like this?

their minds are cast in cement. I think at the root of it is we have several generations that have really not faced the hardships of the Great Depression, WWII, etc. and only through life experience will their attitudes be changed. What they don't get is none is an island.

There will be an adjustment period, I don't know what form it will be, but something will eventually happen. None can expect the world is going to be just this way for eternity. Sadly, it might not be very pleasant.

I doubt there is much one can say to people like that. What I've noticed is people with that attitude are always the first muscling their way to the front of the line when times are bad, like at places I've worked. They were the first scheming as to how to get more.

I think an out of control capitalistic system breeds a lot of this behavior wherein people are taught from practically birth to smash and climb over the next guy to get ahead. We certainly don't foster, really, cooperation in the US, but rater competition.

It used to be more balanced IMO, now to me, it seems heavily titled toward competitiveness and "I got mine, the hell with you" attitudes.

democrat and have never voted (nor will I) vote for anyone other than a democrat. I consider myself a liberal all of my life, but have some conservative views on some social issues which many, here, won't agree agree with. Many union members feel the same way. We are not in lock-step with the democratic party, like many here, but have supported them since FDR gave us the legal right to organize.

Remember, it takes a lot of guts to put your job on the line to try and get your fellow worker to do the same in order to organize or vote to strike. How many here, today, would do that? God bless those before us who were willing to do that. And it continues today. The benefits we enjoy today, sick leave, paid vacations, overtime pay, 40hr week, week ends off, FLA, paid holidays and many more... you can thank organized labor.
The good conditions which some of you enjoy today, your boss, didn't out of the goodness of his heart just up and decide to give them to you.

Some union members don't always vote their best interest, but the big majority do. That's
what counts.

While I was growing up, he was a staunch union democrat (Local 444). However, he did drywall and saw his profession flooded with illegals in the 1980's and 1990's. Union after union was getting busted and his wages dropped every year (not just a "no raise" year). I remember, as a kid, things got so bad my mother had to make our clothes. He saw many of his friends/coworkers getting laid off and lose everything (i.e. ended up homeless).

To this day, he hates the Democratic party. I would say the majority of his views are aligned with the left, but he refuses to support the Democratic Party because he said they claimed to support the unions for their compaign contributions, but then screwed them over to get the latino vote.

Honestly, I see much of what he says and it ticks me off. However, I will not cut off my nose to spite my face.

...and not all union members are informed enough to disobey.