2009-10-21
KTracy.com's Travis Gearhart Starts Intense Union Debate on Political Voting
KTracy.com contributor and union worker Travis Gearhart might have kicked off a VERY interesting debate in Northwest Indiana that could spread far beyond the area known by many as the "Region."
In today's Post-Tribune (a regional paper), Jerry Davich has an article titled "Union steelworker wonders 'Why do we vote Democrat?'" Davich interviewed KTracy.com's Travis Gearhart and our lad did not disappoint!
Being a fair journalist, Davich did indeed seek a rebuttal from Robin Rich, an organizer in Travis' United Steel Workers union.
Yes, Travis put his neck out on this one. I'm curious to see what the Union does to him for stepping out of line now.
Anyway, here's Rich's response.
"Travis Gearhart is absolutely right to question why any union member would vote Democrat just because they are Democrats. Where he is confused is by thinking that the Republican party is a viable alternative.
"The history of the Republican party in the past 100 years has clearly been to represent the rich at the expense of the working person.
"With minor exceptions, and certainly with local exceptions, Republicans vote overwhelmingly against minimum wage, overtime after 40 hours in a week, health and safety legislation, (and) union/workers' right to organize. They branded Social Security and unemployment compensation as socialist plots. They voted overwhelmingly against establishing Medicare. The list goes on and on. It's a fact and it's in the history books.
"The only reason Mr. Gearhart has a good family wage and any decent conditions at all at U.S. Steel is certainly not due to either the company nor the Republican party, but the union movement and the supporters of workers in the Democratic party."
Let's look at her claims one by one.
The history of the Republican party in the past 100 years has clearly been to represent the rich at the expense of the working person.
A classic Marxist claim. For those of us who aren't subscribers to Karl Marx's ideology presented in his Communist Manifesto, we already know that the Republican Party is a lot more than a party for the rich. After all, we're the party of guns, social values, and a strong national defense. We're the party that supports small businesses and gives people a chance to make it for themselves, trying our best to ensure a level playing field. True, we've abandoned that a few times, but that's what the party still represents. We don't hate poor people (I'm technically a poor people), and I couldn't give a rat's tail what happens to Bill Gates or any other member of the "Bourgeoisie" in this economy.
Beyond that, it was the Democratic Party who voted overwhelmingly to give bailouts to the failing wealthy banks rather than the people who weren't able to pay off the loans they took out from those banks. If the Democratic Party was really so concerned with the proletariat, they should have given those that trillion dollars to the workers of this country to pay off their bad loans.
Republicans vote overwhelmingly against minimum wage
I've never worked in the steel mills, but I can say pretty confidently that NOBODY working in the steel mill makes minimum wage. This is important because when you increase the minimum wage, you are giving a relative pay CUT to everybody making more than minimum wage. Put two and two together, and an increase in the minimum wage means Union Workers are witnessing the value of their wages fall.
overtime after 40 hours in a week
Seriously, when did Republicans vote against paying people for their work once they put in more than 40 hours during a week?
health and safety legislation, (and) union/workers' right to organize
Republicans have a fear of government involvement in the workplace. I would argue that it is the responsibility of the Union to take its pin head organizers out of Washington and return them to the mills to make sure the workers are working in a safe environment. If the mills refuse to provide safety equipment or change dangerous procedures for the workers, the Union ought to either provide the equipment with union dues or organize a strike until the workplace is safe enough to meet expectations.
With regards to the second point, we have sometimes been on the wrong side of this issue. There is a time and a place for unions, such as the situation above. However, there is a significant difference between the "RIGHT" of workers to organize (which they have) and the "INTIMIDATION" of workers to organize. Workers should be allowed the benefit of secret ballots when voting on whether to unionize or not. Otherwise, the people voting are likely going to be pressured into voting one way or the other because of fear of being socially outcasted, or worse, become the new punching bag of either their employer or the union.
They branded Social Security and unemployment compensation as socialist plots.
Yeah, I forgot my tin-foil hat at home. In theory, I don't have much of a problem with Social Security. I do have a problem with how it's being managed by the government, but then again, I have a problem with how much of what the government is managing is managed by the government. Seriously, have you been to the BMV lately?
"Unemployment compensation" is another word for government welfare. If the union was actually doing its job and keeping workers employed by working with the companies that paid their wages, this wouldn't be as big of a problem. Look, people should live within their means. That means not living paycheck to paycheck. That can be hard and it might mean going without the new plasma TV or a Nintendo Wii - but everybody needs to have a safety net of their own. I've been unemployed twice in my life, both times I had bills, and I have never accepted unemployment (despite pressure from my family and friends to do so).
It is YOUR responsibility to live in a home, drive a car, and only subscribe to the services you can afford while saving this money. That way, if you lose your job, you've protected yourself. If there is an unexpected bill, you can afford to pay it. Too many people live paycheck to paycheck, and its the result of the government stepping in and telling people, "Hey, don't worry about anything. We got ya covered."
They voted overwhelmingly against establishing Medicare.
Medicare has only increased the cost of medicine, which has come back to bite union workers in the butt. I said earlier, union workers get paid more than minimum wage - they also get some really damn good health insurance packages. And that is to the Union's credit. But this really awesome health insurance is costing the steel mills more and more money as the prices continue to rise and it's forcing them into a financial corner, caught between union demands and the top price consumers are willing to pay for American Steel.
The only reason Mr. Gearhart has a good family wage and any decent conditions at all at U.S. Steel is certainly not due to either the company nor the Republican party, but the union movement and the supporters of workers in the Democratic party.
NOTICE! "The ONLY reason Travis Gearhart has a good family wage and any decent conditions at US Steel" has NOTHING to do with Travis EARNING the wage. Robin Rich has displayed through the ignorance of this statement the flaw of Marxist ideology. To the Union, Travis isn't worth crap... in fact, he's probably worth less than crap now that he talked to the press. The work Travis, or any other worker at US Steel does is totally meaningless to the union organizers like Robin Rich.
Robin Rich and her fellow organizers only care about two things: political ideology and power.
Travis has made an EXCELLENT point and I seriously hope this is not the last we've heard from this debate. Union workers need to begin reassessing their voting strategies and just how it is that their union bosses are spending their union dues.
