(This may be a quasi-duplicate--I think my first try may not have gone through.)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" <do.rflex@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wgm4u" <wgm4u@> wrote: > > > > Don't cha wish?!! > > Over time, organized labor managed to abolish child labor all > together, as well as institute an 8 hour work day, 40 hour work > week, mandatory breaks, safety guidelines, grievance procedures, > a minimum wage, the concept of a work free weekend, workers > comp, pensions, health safeguards, and paid sick days, vacation > days, and holidays. > > If you enjoy any of these things, thank a union member. Plus which, the labor movement is the only significant organized body to advocate for the interests of the wage-earning class against those of the investor class-- not just in terms of work rules but in terms of civil and economic rights in general. And that's why conservatives (and business-friendly Democrats) want to do away with unions. The struggle in Wisconsin isn't about budget concerns. It's about the forces of corporatocracy and the wealthy trying to pry the fingers of the labor movement loose from the edge of the cliff. In an excellent Mother Jones article, "Plutocracy Now-- What Wisconsin Is Really About: How Screwing Unions Screws the Entire Middle Class," Kevin Drum notes that the labor movement is so important because "politicians don't respond to the concerns of voters, they respond to the organized muscle of institutions that represent them. With labor in decline, both parties now respond strongly to the interests of the rich--whose institutional representation is deep and energetic--and barely at all to the interests of the working and middle classes." http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-labor-union-decline http://tinyurl.com/6z9ftad This is what's at stake in Wisconsin. This is why Rasmussen wants to minimize its significance.
