"I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night alive as you and I..."

I am weary of talking about unions, but I can't let regurgitated Hannity propoganda go unanswered.

Much like the consistently intellecually dishonest right-wingers who claim that real wages have gone up, but casually skate over the fact that they're not speaking in constant dollars, Maury plucks out select pieces of my argument for the necessity of organized labor and dissembles. Acting on the pretense that his argument is honest and not just more sophomoric Karl Rove spin, I will grace it with serious answers.

Q) "Are you trying to tell me if an employee at Wal-Mart, which abhors unions, were to lose their arm in an accident, they would have no recourse?"

A) No, I am not. I have no doubt that a worker permanently crippled at a WalMart would be compensated (I am less certain he or she would be set for life.) ... right now. Because of the threat of work stoppages, i.e.: because of the rise of organized labor, the government stopped supporting and joining in the abuse of workers and passed laws to meet some of the workers' demands. Every one of those laws was fought tooth and nail by Management, and by much of government. Let's be clear: the Oligarchy/Plutocracy didn't and doesn't give two shits about the health or safety of its workers. The laws in question were passed not because of any ethical or moral code, but only because organized labor held the power to delay and diminish profits; because workers organized and said enough. Should the threat of work stoppages and the accompanying threat of delayed or diminished profits disappear, we would without question see workers' protections diminished and ultimately go by the wayside. It could take 10 years, or 20 or 50; but without the real threat of an organized workforce halting production, Walmart or Home Depot, and the politicians in their pockets, would happily let an employee bleed out on the back loading dock. Don't kid yourself otherwise. Furthermore, Walmart and other non-union corporations provide benefits solely out of fear that their workforce could unionize. I have sat through the anti-union screeds at some big box retailers, and it's easy to see the cause and effect.


Here's the real deal: Maury and wingnuts like him are offended by the pinko commie idea that workers might get together and try to snag a bigger piece of the pie. Their position is inherently contradictory crap, of course. Management constantly colludes in an attempt to depress wages and benefits. In the wingers' bizzaro world, it's considered Capitalism for management to use the resources gained on the backs of workers to organize and hire lawyers and create committees to figure out how best to decrease compensation for those workers; but it's considered anti-American Communism for workers to organize in an attempt to increase their compensation. What a load of selective, anti-competitive crap. Management can organize and try to get the most out of isolated employees, but workers can't organize to try to get the best deal that they can. Hmm...Suppressing competition: sounds pretty anti-Capitalist to me, but there you go. The nuts don't really want a free market where EVERYONE can pursue their own best interests. They want a market where the bottom 99% pursues the best interests of the upper 1% (The truly disgusting thing is that Maury and Co. want you to believe the two are the same thing). Should unions go away, you'll see Maury's World reinstated as quickly as the police goons killed the preacher in the Grapes of Wrath.

Oh, and John McCain is as much a maverick as I am a saint.

Much Peace