When & Why Did the Republicans Turn Anti-Union?

[Wahoo Redux]

When I was a kid the unions were the champions of the working men and women.

There were actually vinyl record anthologies of union solidarity anthems recorded by Pete Seeger and other folk musicians in the '30s, '40s, & '50s.  "Talking Union" was one of the enduring classics.

Remember "Norma Ray?"

And now I am seeing all these political ads demonizing "big city unions" and "union interests" exclusively from GOP candidates.

What happened?  When did conservatives turn against unions and why?

I am sure there is a history of unions and politics on the net, but I thought people here would know about this.

[Ruralguy]

Unions were nowhere near as big of a thing in the South, but the Republicans sure are. So it may have just developed to not being much of a thing among quite a bit of the constituency.

[mamselle]

Unions were associated for some with socialism and communism, as well.

A cousin of mine, a truck driver in Michigan (but not one of THOSE drivers) has some of the records you're describing.

I've also seen songbooks with the lyrics and piano music in them.

M. 

[Puget]

I find your post a bit confusing-- do you think Pete Seeger was a Republican? (That would sure be news to him!).

So far as I know, Republicans were always anti-union (except for maybe Police unions). Business Rs because unions were against their interests, and socially conservative Rs because unions were "communist".

In fact, if anything more union members now are Republicans, as white, working-class non-college educated union members who used to vote D largely for union reasons are now voting more in line with others in their demographic.

[dismalist]

Everybody and his brothers were anti-union. It has little to do with party.

Here's a nice description of some history, though not very analytical https://psmag.com/economics/what-caused-the-decline-of-unions-in-america

One excerpt

"In the U.S., there was never a durable labor party, and it does matter," McCartin [whoever he is] says. "The Democratic Party became labor's more congenial ally, but it was never really all in. When priorities had to be set, the Democratic Party's willingness to prioritize labor was never quite there. Historically, that happened repeatedly. That made it hard for unions to advance a public policy agenda."

Anyway, it's the wrong question. Are unions good or bad, and for whom, and under what rules, is a better question.

[ciao_yall]

And now I am seeing all these political ads demonizing "big city unions" and "union interests" exclusively from GOP candidates.

Emphasis on big city. The Big City is where all the non-white immigrant people live and are ganging up to raise costs, and cut corporate profits, so the companies are forced to pay lower wages to Real Americans. And Real Americans have to pay higher costs for for their goods and services.

My lands, the Real Americans might be forced to pay for FREE DELIVERY!

[pgher]

I find your post a bit confusing-- do you think Pete Seeger was a Republican? (That would sure be news to him!).

So far as I know, Republicans were always anti-union (except for maybe Police unions). Business Rs because unions were against their interests, and socially conservative Rs because unions were "communist".

In fact, if anything more union members now are Republicans, as white, working-class non-college educated union members who used to vote D largely for union reasons are now voting more in line with others in their demographic.

+1. I don't think there was ever a time when, as a party, Republicans were pro union.

[Wahoo Redux]

I find your post a bit confusing-- do you think Pete Seeger was a Republican? (That would sure be news to him!).

So far as I know, Republicans were always anti-union (except for maybe Police unions). Business Rs because unions were against their interests, and socially conservative Rs because unions were "communist".

In fact, if anything more union members now are Republicans, as white, working-class non-college educated union members who used to vote D largely for union reasons are now voting more in line with others in their demographic.

I guess I was thinking of the blue collar working people that unions generally represent.

Maybe I should have asked, 'When did the working class turn against the unions, particularly in the political area?'

The Republicans generally appeal to the blue collar folks more often than the Dems do.  And the Republicans have been demonizing the unions and apparently the blue collar folks are buying into it.

I know that the political polarities were different in the early part of the 20th century when the Dems were the conservatives.

Pete Seeger was just an example of a working person's folk-hero. 

[ciao_yall]

Because people want to be independent and "earn their own keep."

They don't want to rely on others to support them. They want to be sooooo valuable to the rich guy that the rich guy will shower money on them. But if that rich guy is forced to pay other people living wages, well, that's less for themselves. Maybe.

They don't want the government to take care of them. Keep the government out of Medicare and all of that.

Unions are also the antithesis of social mobility. A union says that you will accept a lower place in society in exchange for a decent standard of living. Not having a union means you have the opportunity to join Management and become a Leader and a total Player.

[Parasaurolophus]

I don't think they've represented the working class' interests in my lifetime. Certainly not since Reagan, and maybe never in the modern era.

[mahagonny]

The Republicans generally appeal to the blue collar folks more often than the Dems do.  And the Republicans have been demonizing the unions and apparently the blue collar folks are buying into it.

Some of the unions are doing it to themselves. I'm looking right now at the AFT's 'American Educator.' the entire issue screams wokeist orthodoxy. There's Randi Weingarten with her half a million $/year salary swelling up with pride talking about the plight of the little guys. What are the articles about? Race, racism, race, race, privilege, 'diversity', academic freedom (the right to preach the wokeist orthodoxy as dictated by your union), etc...
I suspect the COVID-19 years have seen a plummeting of an already low opinion of teachers' unions among the lay public.
ETA: Here's where the tone deafness of union bigwigs shows: when they think of working for low pay, stretching your dollar, shopping at Costco, buying only used cars, taking an extra job to keep the wolf from the door, etc. they always circle back to their go-to social justice subject, race. They think that should cover their asses. There are other stories.

I don't think they've represented the working class' interests in my lifetime. Certainly not since Reagan, and maybe never in the modern era.

Hey, we agree on something. Academia is a great example. The strongest, wealthiest and most entrenched unions (tenure track) reinforce provisions that are already there through the structure of tenure, promotions from assistant prof through full, sabbatical, full time status, etc. Whereas the adjunct union reinforces absolutely nothing that was already in place and opposes everything, through sheer persistence, and weakly.

[marshwiggle]

Because people want to be independent and "earn their own keep."

They don't want to rely on others to support them. They want to be sooooo valuable to the rich guy that the rich guy will shower money on them. But if that rich guy is forced to pay other people living wages, well, that's less for themselves. Maybe.

They don't want the government to take care of them. Keep the government out of Medicare and all of that.

Unions are also the antithesis of social mobility. A union says that you will accept a lower place in society in exchange for a decent standard of living. Not having a union means you have the opportunity to join Management and become a Leader and a total Player.

Both of these are caricatures that avoid the underlying issue: productivity. If you have two people of equal ability, but one has more ambition, then the person with more ambition will be more successful.
Unions rely on an inversion of the Lake Wobegon Effect; the half of the workers who are below average in productivity are subsidized by the half who are above.

The simple reality is that the working class people most opposed to unions are those who see their own hustle as vital to their success, and the working class people most in favour of unions are those who want their success guaranteed independent of their effort.

[ciao_yall]

Because people want to be independent and "earn their own keep."

They don't want to rely on others to support them. They want to be sooooo valuable to the rich guy that the rich guy will shower money on them. But if that rich guy is forced to pay other people living wages, well, that's less for themselves. Maybe.

They don't want the government to take care of them. Keep the government out of Medicare and all of that.

Unions are also the antithesis of social mobility. A union says that you will accept a lower place in society in exchange for a decent standard of living. Not having a union means you have the opportunity to join Management and become a Leader and a total Player.

Both of these are caricatures that avoid the underlying issue: productivity. If you have two people of equal ability, but one has more ambition, then the person with more ambition will be more successful.
Unions rely on an inversion of the Lake Wobegon Effect; the half of the workers who are below average in productivity are subsidized by the half who are above.

The simple reality is that the working class people most opposed to unions are those who see their own hustle as vital to their success, and the working class people most in favour of unions are those who want their success guaranteed independent of their effort.

I wouldn't agree with that characterisation. I have plenty of hustle and have moved on from my union job to administration. Still, I liked the stability and support that came with being in a union. I also believed that yes, maybe there were a few free-riders, yet I was ahead in terms of pay and benefits than I would have been without the union.

[marshwiggle]

The simple reality is that the working class people most opposed to unions are those who see their own hustle as vital to their success, and the working class people most in favour of unions are those who want their success guaranteed independent of their effort.

I wouldn't agree with that characterisation. I have plenty of hustle and have moved on from my union job to administration. Still, I liked the stability and support that came with being in a union. I also believed that yes, maybe there were a few free-riders, yet I was ahead in terms of pay and benefits than I would have been without the union.

It's not just free-riders; it's much more the people who  refuse to do anything not specifically required because it makes them feel "taken advantage of". The most productive people see going above and beyond what's required as basically investments in the future; i.e. regardless of what my contract officially says, the more my employer counts on me to get stuff done, the more secure I am.

[mamselle]

I agree there are many dimensions in which nuance need to be considered.

N= 1, I joined the musician's union in Ohio because that was the only way to a) play with all the other good players, all of whom were members, and b) get payment supports in the face of restauranteurs who were out to pay rock-bottom wages for seriously decent work (G. Schmidt, I'm looking at you).

When I moved away to a larger place, I originally joined for those reasons, plus, because I was new in town, it was the quickest way to get jobs. Also, all the agents I wanted to play for were union--most booked huge parties and orchestra/ballet stuff as well, so they had to be. 

After a few years, though, in the larger place it became clear that the union didn't always support the best players, some were outside that system, and undercutting wage supports. And because the competition was stiffer, even those of us who were decent (she says, modestly) were pressured to take below-scale jobs, or not play.

And it wasn't necessary to be union to get good jobs, so paying dues became less of an attractive arrangement, as well. In fact, I stopped paying my dues sometime in the early 1980s, kept playing jobs (but not with union members) and haven't rejoined since.

Obviously, this is different from other settings, but I heard scary stories about the Chicago union, and I knew my own uncle, a band leader in the 1940s, had had to struggle with getting reasonable compensation for his players and himself until the Columbus Local came in and all the players joined--and guess what, all those restauranteurs and hoteliers did just fine, with all the clientele their well-paid, very-good players attracted to supper clubs, dinner dances, wedding receptions, and so on.

And there was the whole thing with Jimmy Hoffa that never did (then) make sense. So, I realize there are pluses and minuses.

But that's the point--it's not all-one-thing-or-the-other, they can be good in some settings and less good in others, and the political associations (some of which had to do with kickbacks--that was the issue in Chicago, as I understood it) were complex as well.

Perhaps unless one has been a member of a union, one doesn't have enough perspective to comment?

Not that that is likely to stop folks, but it's worth consideration...

M.