The Labor Day trade, revised

Since Monday is Labor Day and I liked what I wrote last year (which was originally on monoblogue, and not this Substack) I'm freshening it up here.

Over the years - but not so much recently - I've made Labor Day the topic of one of my diatribes.

But last year I remembered a local Democrat political candidate holding the rare position of challenger here in Delaware making the remark on social media, "Enjoying Labor Day? Thank a Union."

All right, I'll bite. Yes, I am off Monday. However, I am also off several days in November and December because my employer offers vacation as part of his benefits package. It could be argued that unions led the way on that, but because practically all employers in my field have a similar package (or better) I would be led to conclude that the market has taken over where unions left off, and I don't have to pay dues to the market.

And what have we received in return for this day off? Well, Big Labor has been hand-in-hand with the Democrat Party for a century or more, which means we've also received the tyrannical federal and state governments we have now in part because of them. Unions who overplayed their hands made it more difficult for employers (the ones who really create jobs) to be profitable, meaning that thousands of erstwhile union employees were tossed out of a job when they made conditions too inhospitable for employers to continue making widgets. We used to make things in the Rust Belt, but 40 years ago the factories left for points down south or (worse) Mexico or overseas in China.

This candidate - who lost handily, by the way - would have been the voice for a county and city who have tried at various points to give workers true choice as to representation by becoming right-to-work localities, only to be thwarted by the spectre of an overreaching state government controlled by her party. Something I wrote in the Seaford article still rings true:

Here’s the thing. What unions seem to be most afraid of isn’t the fact that they would have to compete and sell new workers on the benefits of joining, but the prospective loss of political power they would suffer if the number of dues-paying members drops off. 

"One place gets it right," monoblogue, January 16, 2018.

This leads to my final point. When the unions were in their heyday 50 years ago, they had the Democrat party lock, stock, and barrel. Guys like Jimmy Hoffa, George Meany, and UAW head Leonard Woodcock drove the Democrat party platform back then, but things have changed. Now Big Labor is sucking hind tit well behind a number of other affinity groups like the environmentalists, LGBT+ lobby, and the "Latinx" community. The Teamsters wanted to keep the Keystone pipeline under the Biden regime, but they were trounced by the environmental groups - probably because a significant percentage of the rank-and-file of unions decided Donald Trump was the better choice.

So let's consider the trade here: one day off I could have taken as a vacation day if I wanted to vs. decades of decline, misery, and massive government growth (with the corresponding loss of freedom) under Democrat administrations. Yeah, that turned out to be a John Smoltz for Doyle Alexander deal for us, didn't it?

Update: It seems like the Democrats are already using the same playbook for 2024. Well, most of them anyway. Regardless, I’m certain a growing percentage of these union voters will laugh at the leadership and truly vote in their best interests for a more limited government.