Union Boss: Unions Aren’t About Worker Wages But “Massive Social Change”

Or, in other words, unions are little more than advocacy groups for progressive liberal causes according to AFL-CIO boss Richard Trumka. Which most honest observers have known some time now, but it’s a bit startling to hear a union boss like Trumka come right out and admit it.

If unions are, as Mr. Trumka describes, first and foremost about a liberal political agenda and not collective bargaining for workers then doesn’t that change the entire legal premise of organized labor? For instance, in non-right to work states many employees are forced to pay into a union. But if the union is more a political organization than a workers rights organization then aren’t they being forced to make contributions to a political entity?

Which is essentially the way things are now. Many American workers are forced to support unions with their dues, only to see the unions themselves concern themselves more with advancing liberal politics than caring for workers. Unions are an anachronism. Where once they may have been legitimate advocates for workers they’ve long since become unnecessary in that role, and so have morphed into political advocacy groups.

And given that reality, any laws mandating union enrollment or giving unions special treatment should be ended.

Rob Port is the editor of SayAnythingBlog.com. In 2011 he was a finalist for the Watch Dog of the Year from the Sam Adams Alliance and winner of the Americans For Prosperity Award for Online Excellence. In 2013 the Washington Post named SAB one of the nation's top state-based political blogs, and named Rob one of the state's best political reporters.

Related posts

  • http://sayanything.flywheelsites.com Mountainmouth

    Now if he would just declare himself a Communist he would be all the way out of the closet.

    Power to the worker – Comrade

  • robert108

    Unions have always been about social change, and about making fat cat union bosses and organizers into a powerful political force. The entire concept of unions is based on the Marxist ideology of exploitation of the workers by the management class, and is founded on Marxist class struggle. Any “benefits” to actual workers are incidental to the acquisition of political power. The Sherman AntiTrust Act of 1893 gave unions the special advantage of collective bargaining, which is forbidden to other Americans.
    It’s a testament to the political arrogance of the administration of the past two years that this guy feels free to express his lust for political power in public. The commies really think they are winning.

    • Neiman

      While I understand and truly appreciate how unions have gotten too big, too powerful, too Marxist perhaps and as the article suggests, they are more just political organizations now, having big stakes in large corporations and governments; yet, for the average union worker, it is not about socialism, Marxism, political power or social change, it is about getting a little more money per hour this year than last to help pay their bills and raise their families, a little better deal on healthcare, safety conditions and a little protection from the tyranny of power mad supervisors.

      Unions got too big, too powerful and they do own a lot of politicians through their campaign financing, getting out the votes and political endorsements; but, if you throw out the baby (employees) with the bath water (unions); I believe the companies and government will starve the employees, rather than give them raises and more benefits. In our school district there were lots of lay-offs; but employees could work on a call-in basis, often at 40+ hours/week, at $3.00 to $8.00/hour less, no health care, no contributions to retirement and all new employees would have to start at the much lower wages with pay freezes for three years and a maximum number of hours to avoid paying for their healthcare. That is what happens if it is left up to employers, only management make any money, our school district staff all got raises every year, as did managers throughout, with the Superintendent and Administrator both getting a $75,000 and $55,000. raises respectively in reward for their cost cutting efforts.

      So, it seems to me that it is evil unions and they are in many ways quite bad for the country or employees getting screwed and becoming a permanent underclass. Maybe that is best, more poor people without any bargaining power, having less benefits and those at the top doing quite well. Maybe that is best for America, but somehow to my mind it is not an attractive picture.

  • $8194357

    Yeah, the communists in the early 1900’s were all about uniteing the worker against their capitalist oppressors for sure. Then came the Chicago mob and muscled the socialists right out of the picture.
    This is part of the reason why Jefferson said that when we here in America get piled up one on top of another like the cities of Europe, we would become as corrupt as Europe. Big cities are a complete picture of why socialism don’t work. They have been in Democratic control from the mayor to the governors for centuries and the corruption, scandle and briberies for political favors once agian enrich the few on the top as the poor live in loyal poverty ridden voting blocks to keep the same folks who put them thier in power. Corperate farming and Federal subsidies work on the same skim the profit from the top down to the bottom crumbs as well for the little farmer while the large corperate farmers get the big cash payments. Jefferson and the founders new corruption follows government handouts and warned many times against them.

  • Shark

    The picture is amusing…Obama standing behind Trumka, with both hands on his shoulders, about to give Trumka a prostate exam. Why should Trumka be exempted from the same thing every other American is getting from this administration?

  • Nounion4me

    I am so glad I’m no longer a union member, AND I make more money and don’t have to pay dues that go to their BS causes.

  • http://nofreelunch.areavoices.com/ Kevin Flanagan

    That’s why they call it “collective bargaining.” The goal is to impose collectivism (communism.)

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_WDVHTUXYSEB3GW6OI5PRSZJX4U cringa

    Neiman, While I understand your argument, it is flawed on the basic premise of legality that this is now a political organization as stated. Many workers today do not have the comfort a union and do quite well. As long as people have the right to organize (unions), then this too counters your notion that by throwing the unions out we throw the employees out too.
    Unions are a result of poor managment – nothing else. Now that we are once again exposing them as a front for socialism then they need to go.

    Socialism has no place in this or any other country. While the goals are laudable, socialistic government is not the answer. It only serves to put a few in power while enslaving doers and slackers to government while killing the drive to excel leading to violent upheaval. Need proof? Look at the noble cause that Castro came to power under, N.Korea, Pol Pot regime, and currently Hugo Chavez.