Gallup: Support For Unions Up, Young People Most Supportive

Interesting findings:

After falling to an all-time low in 2009, Americans’ support for labor unions has been inching up, according to Gallup, the consulting and polling company.

“Americans’ approval of labor unions has jumped five percentage points to 58 percent over the past year, and is now at its highest point since 2008, when 59 percent approved,” a report issued by Gallup said.

The low, at 48 percent, was in 2009.

“Perhaps most positive for the future of unions is the finding that young adults, those aged 18 to 34, are the most supportive of all age groups,” Gallup said.

Support for unions was at 55% when Gallup asked the question in 1979, so 58% support, bouncing back from the 2008 low, brings support back to recent historical levels.

But here's some cause for optimism in the future:

66% of people aged 18-34 approve of unions, while 53% aged 35-54 approve of unions and 58% of those aged 55 or older approve of unions.

It looks like younger people, seeing how badly they're getting screwed by globalization and other economic forces that are squeezing them on all ends are more open to unions than their elders - especially their Gen X elders.

De Blasio Says Some Nice Things About Labor Unions

In a Politicker article reporting that Bill de Blasio says he will try and do some retroactive pay for municpal employees working years without contracts under Bloomberg but cannot give full retro to workers, we learn that he said this:

Standing behind a wooden podium on the fifth floor of the Alhabrama Ballroom, he said would play a far more active role in helping labor recruit new members and protect their benefits and wages. He also disputed the notion that labor represented a "special interest" and said, rather, they reflect "the public interest."

"Our mission is to restore the middle class, which has been not just slipping away gently" but "is in danger of disappearing altogether" de Blasio said at the breakfast. "The American labor movement created the middle class in this country."

He went on to say there has been "a relentless assault on labor in the last few decades" and "then you see the middle class in sharp decline, the dumbing down of wages and benefits. That math isn't hard to do. The attack on labor has reduced the economic stability of American families, greatly." He added:

"And some out there will say labor is a 'special interest' and I will say it is in the public interest for people to be unionized so" so a family's breadwinner "gets good wages and benefits, the family is stable and strong economically. That is in the taxpayer's interest. That is in the society's interest.

"So, I look forward to doing all I can, not only to respect and work with public sector labor but to help build the private sector labor movement. New orgazing, supporting carwash workers, supporting security workers, support fast-food workers, this is the work of our times."

I can remember a candidate named Obama saying some very nice things about labor unions and union members during the '08 campaign, something about getting some comfortable shoes and walking picket lines if he needed to in order to support labor, and that candidate, once he became president, turning his back on labor (especially during the assault in Wisconsin.)

So words don't mean as much to me as actions and I'll wait to see how de Blasio handles contract negotiations and DOE policy as it relates to the treatment of teachers before I render judgment on him.

Nonetheless, it is nice to have a mayoral candidate say these kinds of words - I respect public sector labor, I want to expand private sector labor, labor unions are not special interests, they are in the public interest.

These are not words you would have heard from Chris Quinn.

These are not words you have ever heard from Mike Bloomberg.

You certainly won't hear them from Joe Lhota.

Or Andrew Cuomo.

Just like you won't hear nice words like these that de Blasio said about teachers the other day from any of those other politicians:

"I just want to say humanly, personally, Charlaine and I have just the deepest appreciation for the dozens and dozens of teachers who took Chiara and Dante by the hand over the last 14 years and supported them, uplifted them, were there for them in so many ways," he said at the union's headquarters near City Hall. "We have had an extraordinary experience as parents seeing just how good the teachers of this city are."

Again, I'll reserve judgment until I see Bill de Blasio put some actions behind these nice words.

Let's see what these contract negotiations look like in a few months.

Let's see what he does to change the tenor, tone and policies from Tweed.

Still, we're doing a lot better than we were in July when it looked like Anthony Weiner and Christine Quinn were going to be locked in a runoff to take on the labor-bashing Joe Lhota in the general election in November.

May 12 Protests And the 2013 Mayoral Election

Celeste Katz says the May 12 union-organized protests against the financial industry and Mayor Bloomberg's budget cuts are less about getting Bloomberg or the financial industry to change course and more about getting 2013 mayoral candidates to know the importance of these issues to working and middle class people and unions:

Unions are hoping it'll be the shout heard around Wall Street - and City Hall. They'd also like its echo to reverberate into 2013.

On May 12, demonstrators will stage what they hope will be a massive rally against the financial industry - and Mayor Bloomberg - over policies and budget cuts that could mean layoffs and the slashing of social services.

No question about it: The protesters have got to be smelling blood as third-termer Bloomberg struggles to burnish a blizzard-tarnished legacy.

Organizers are billing the rally as "The Day We Made Wall Street Stand Still." Participants include community groups and unions such as the United Federation of Teachers and 1199/SEIU.

"The big banks wrecked our economy and are back to making billions in profits and lavish bonuses, while the rest of us are still cleaning up the mess," said Mary Brosnahan of the Coalition for the Homeless.

She says the mayor should "ask Wall Street bankers to contribute their fair share to fixing New York City, rather than enacting devastating cuts."

...

As David Birdsell of Baruch College sees it, rallies against the cuts aren't only about generating discontent with Bloomberg, but also about setting the stage for the next mayoral election.

Birdsell notes that in the past five or so mayoral cycles, with the possible exception of 2001, "There hasn't been a really kind of strong, Democratic unionist argument for the way the city should run."

With Bloomberg out of the picture in 2013 and no obvious GOP hopeful, Democratic candidates are already making noise.

"This is an effort [to] suggest what kind of debate we should be having," Birdsell said. "We know that people are not confident about the economy - or their part in it."

Wall Street executive suites may barely hear protesters' chants. It may be too late to expect Bloomberg to alter his attitude toward what he sees as the city's economic engine. Unions and citizens alike may well end up feeling the budget knife.

But one thing's sure: 2013 hopefuls will be listening. Whether the unions' theme will be their rallying cry in the next election is a story yet to be written.

After twelve years of authoritarian Bloombergian control of the school system, NOTHING is more important to children, parents, teachers and administrators than electing a mayor who is committed to a democratic partnership of the school system, who will listen to stakeholders in the school system other than the corporate entities who have the no-bid contracts for the computer systems, the test prep, and the data tracking appartatus, who sees the public school as the place to educate the WHOLE CHILD, not just the part of her/him who will grow up to be a compliant corporate employee.

So far, I am leaving my preferences for 2013 open - but just barely.

I have some potential candidates I definitely will NOT support.

I do know that charter-friendly whore-hound Eliot Spitzer will NOT be getting my support.

I also know that Mayor Bloomberg's little buddy, Christine Quinn, - the candidate who just met in a back room with the education reform industry and walked out with some IOU's from the education reformers/hedge fundies - will NOT be getting my support either.

I do not trust Anthony "On the Clinton's Payroll" Weiner and doubt I will be supporting him in 2013 unless I hear some very definite progressive ideas on education and the school system from him (ideas which I doubt the Clinton/corporate-friendly Weiner will be issuing.)

As for the rest, Scott Stringer, Bill de Blasio, and John Liu, well, I could be open to voting for any of them, but I have to say as of now, de Blasio and Stringer seem too wishy-washy in their battles against Bloomberg for me to be too positive about them. Liu I like, but I long ago stopped trusting politicians so again, I need to hear some very specific progressive ideas from him about the schools before I will go out of my way to support him.

I am taking the Eugene V. Debs quote that "I would rather vote for what I want and not get it than vote for what I don't want and get it" to heart this time around.

I learned that lesson in 2008 - post Race to the Top, post-TALF, post-Bernanke renomination, post-Central Falls, Rhode Island firing (and subsequent cheering by Obama and his Secretary of Education Privatization Arne Duncan.)

Regardless of party and affiliation, I need to hear some VERY SPECIFIC PROGRESSIVE ideas from the candidates on education, the economy, and the state of the city before any of them get my vote.

John Liu To Compare Public, Private Employee Salaries

You know, the more I watch NYC Comptroller John Liu, the more I like him:

(Reuters) - Saying that public employees have become scapegoats for the fiscal problems of U.S. states, New York City Comptroller John Liu plans to release a report on Wednesday that compares public sector salaries with those in the private sector.

Speaking at a National Institute on Retirement Security conference on Tuesday, Liu said he will "battle rhetoric with research," with a further series of reports on public employee compensation and pensions.

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has suggested the state close its budget gap with cuts to public employees' pay and benefits. He also has called for the end of public employees' collective bargaining rights, which has sparked demonstrations at the state capital.

"I'm happy about what they said in Wisconsin because I think it lays bare the ideological underpinnings of what's really happening," Liu said.

"A year ago it was about big corporate bonuses," said Liu about taxpayers' anger over the financial crisis and subsequent economic recession. "Now there seems to be a great deal of vitriol directed at public employees."

Liu, who manages the city's $113 billion pension funds, said eliminating collective bargaining "is rather extreme."

"Chipping away at the retirement security of public employees won't enhance the retirement security of private sector employees," he told Reuters on the sidelines of the conference.

No, it sure won't - but it WILL enhance the retirement security of the wealthiest 400 Americans (Gates, Broad, Bloomberg, Buffet, Koch Brothers, et al.), which is really what all this is about anyway.

Once again, John Liu is proving that some Democrats actually still represent working and middle class Americans as opposed to the corporate oligarch class so many Dems (think Obama) represent.

Compare Liu to the former Democratic darlings of the education reform movement - Adrian Fenty and Michelle Rhee - both of whom have come out in support of Scott Walker's union-busting proposals, and Liu just looks better and better to me for 2013 in NYC.

Wouldn't it be nice to have a politician elected who doesn't, you know, reflexively bash teachers and union members to make his/her corporate overlords happy?

Even Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal Finds Strong Support For Union Collective Bargaining Rights

The minions who work for Murdoch and Zuckerman like to say that Americans are sick and tired of the "gold-plated benefits" union members have and are ready to strip collective bargaining rights from public employees unions.

Today, the Wall Street Journal releases its own poll showing that is not so:

Americans strongly oppose efforts to strip unionized government workers of their rights to collectively bargain, even as they want public employees to contribute more money to their retirement and health-care benefits, the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll shows.

Eliminating collective bargaining rights for public-sector workers over health care, pensions or other benefits would be either “mostly unacceptable” or “totally unacceptable,” 62% of those surveyed said. Only 33% support such limits.

The results don’t bode well for Wisconsin’s newly elected Republican governor, Scott Walker, who is locked in a standoff with statehouse Democrats and unionized state workers over these rights. Many of the Republicans gearing up to take on President Barack Obama in 2012 have seized on the budget battle in Wisconsin, a crucial swing state, as evidence the country wants to dramatically scale back government spending.

...

Similarly, 77% of the 1,000 adults interviewed for the poll think unionized state and municipal employees should have the same rights as those union members who work for private companies.

Those are very strong numbers in support of the right of unionized workers in the public sector to collectively bargain and have the same rights as unionized workers in the private sector.

It's interesting how this fight in Wisconsin seems to be clarifying so much on union issues.

The CW from the asshats in the Beltway on the TV is that Americans hate unions and are ready to dispense with them.

But like most CW, it is bullshit through and through.

When even the Wall Street Journal poll shows this, I think you can say that we have incontrovertible data showing this is true.