Review of the article

Article Review
On the Future of American Labor
Name
Date
Institutional Affiliations
The American labor union has failed in its duty to protect the employees. Currently, most of the public unions agree to the proposition that every worthy benefit or wage ought to be balanced by the union’s dispensations like assenting to a two-tier salary scale, surrendering some hours, raised copays or even deductibles for medical procedures. However, these associations have done little to fight for the workers when they are faced with salary reductions, poor pays, unwarranted retrenchments and when they are denied compensation for retirements or injuries. According to Aronowitz, the US labor movement has continued to deteriorate and lacks the voice it had some times ago. By 1990s, the labor had already halved in density from the higher 35 percent membership in 1953. This is just an indication that workers have no hopes in the then merged AFL-CIO (American Federation Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations) who sought to democratize the labor movement. Their so-mediated organizing model that aimed at expanding the membership was an alteration of the core role of the previous service model of unionism that focused on petitioning for the members’ requests. Where the woes may have begun earlier in the 1970s, it was not until the era of Ronald Reagan that the impact was felt. Since then, members of the labor unions have turned to be mere clients. The restructuring of the economy through technological change, and company merges, so millions of workers lose jobs.

However, the very union they had betrothed to fight for then never raised a concern. This amongst others is the leading cause of disinterest in the movements. What Aronowitz asserts is that the labor movements in America are as good as obsolete (Ness, 2005). They no longer serve the needs of their members but are subordinate to the federal government.
From the rising unemployment rates, then standing at 5.5 percent, to the collapsing of the major industrial sectors, there was no need for restructuring the labor movements in the idea of democratization. The primary duty of the labor movements is to safeguard the employees from all forms of discrimination from the government or the private sector. By 1990, many of the companies had closed down their major branches. Further, the private sectors, with some offering part-time employment at wages that are too near the federal minimum, have been struggling to pay their workers and at times retracted completely. In the real sense, the unemployment rate in the state was caving into double digits. This situation could have been realized currently where the computer technology has locked out millions of employees in the US. It is even bound to rise further as more automated systems hit the market. According to Aronowitz, workers have been struggling with low wages regardless of paying too many deductions to the labor movements in the sense that it would cover them in times of need. However, the unionized labor has been shadowed by anxiety and fear. Instead of lobbying for better wages and working conditions for the workers, they have resulted to forcing specific employees to accept contracts that not only erode their pension and health benefits but also whose salary agreements fail to tally with the inflation. This is the sole reason why most of the employees and members of the union have lost trust with them as the guarantors of better negotiations and mainly because they visualize the labor as in full withdrawal.
According to Aronowitz, there are plausible cases when the unions have just observed and failed to step in to assist the workers. First, the union was in full knowledge of the situation the employees in the Wal-Mart, whose wages were close to the minimum in the state yet they were forced to work longer and under harsh conditions. The union failed to support their strike claiming them violations of the no-strike provisions in the contract. This was just a display of the timidity of the then organized labor movement. Further, at the time of elections, the reelection was highly politicized, and members were not allowed to exercise their liberal democracy. Even when the workers have lost jobs, the unions play dumb to their plight and continue to administer the deductions for social security, Medicare and unilateral cuts hence rendering the jobless bankrupt. This is thus a model for the bread and butter of the leaders. Despite the AFL-CIO having received an injunction from the Supreme Court to halt the vote tallying process in the 2004 elections, went forward to double their previous budget unwary of the charges it would impact on the members. This was evident with NUP leaders who, in the wake of the 2003 standoffs showed direct hostility to the concept of a democratic rank-and-file unionism. Instead of the democratic, bottom-up process, they adopted the dominating vertical hierarchical structure and refused to be dislodged from their seats. This has seen many companies relocate to the south where the organizers establish the need to win the workers through service providence. Aronowitz asserts that the unions have been critically politicized in that the likes of John Kerry could not stomach criticism from Stern. However, despite standing up for the people against Kerry’s support for the Iraq war that could have raised taxes in the country, Stern received condemnation from Democrats, union leaders, and their minions asserting he undermined the presidential campaign. According to Stern, the NUP leadership was linked to the top leadership and at no account could fight for the workers. These were but some proofs that the union is a syndicate subservient to the larger ruling party and meant for personal benefaction.
Aronowitz arguments are highly valid. Some of the reasons why the labor is losing are irrepressible while others are just methods to control the workforce while collaborating with the business owners and government to intimidated the employees. First, the globalization and technological change is highly inevitable. As computer era came in, many workers were destined to be retrenched as operations required fewer personnel. However, the union could have stepped in to lobby for job security and compensation for unfortified layoffs. It is evident that even as the remaining workers are working longer amid protests for job security and reduced work rate, the labor remains unruffled. The legal framework for collective negotiations no longer works. It is individual employees who negotiate for their wage scales and can annul, approve or even lower the terms without the labors approval. This means that the labor unions are no longer involved in contracting on behalf their members. Since the enactment of the NLRA (National Labor Relations Act) in 1938, the unions yielded their power as organizing tools. As it stands today, only some of the unions hold the voice, and the federal officers dictate them. The unions are mandated by national politicians who have since the 1947 amendment passed more bills to deprive the employees the right to conduct sympathy strikes and boycotts. The no-strike provision was adopted by the AFL-CIO among other unions in 1960 in favor for the right to bargain at the state level. The restrictions have seen the union’s voice diminish as is the ability for workers to negotiate. Even with the initiation of the labor organization strategies in the South, where unions were required to address workers’ disc
What the state encourages is a procedural method of solving grievances. However, as the situation holds currently, there are no ways of dealing with these concerns as the workers are intimidated individually. Adopting a procedural grievance method than a direct impact means that the employees can be singled out. Those showing discontent will always be fired unconditionally, and the labor unions do nothing to protect them. This is a current trend especially in the private firms where employees neither have compensation schemes nor pension, medical or national security fund benefits. The union activism is no longer there. The leaders act out of fear, anxiety, and greed where their main concern is personal benefaction and having relations with the federal government and political guerrillas. I agree with Aronowitz that what is lacking in the labor unions is the social movement prescriptions and courage to address labors’ concerns. The labor must fight for the direct engagement rights else they become proactive in engaging the workers during negotiations. Further, the unions must provide space for discussion and action, the formation of strategic directives and education for the members. This way, the members will feel represented and regain their confidence.
References
BIBLIOGRAPHY l 1033 Ness, I. (2005). Working USA. The Journal of Labor and Society, 271–291.