When & Why Did the Republicans Turn Anti-Union?

[Hibush]

The question might actually be "when did the working class become Republican?"

I suspect in has come after the destruction of unions. The demolition and demonization of unions in the US took on new forms in the 80s. The intent of those campaigns was to make people who would benefit from unions find them distasteful. Many of those people were socially conservative, which made for easier courting by the Republican party.

[downer]

Back on Ancient Rome and Greece, slaves aspired to get their freedom and eventually become slave owners themselves. Or they hoped that for their children.

There's no particular reason to expect the working class to be progressive.

[pgher]

The question might actually be "when did the working class become Republican?"

I suspect in has come after the destruction of unions. The demolition and demonization of unions in the US took on new forms in the 80s. The intent of those campaigns was to make people who would benefit from unions find them distasteful. Many of those people were socially conservative, which made for easier courting by the Republican party.

Yes, absolutely. I have family members who are staunchly pro-union, in a trade union that has taken good care of them into retirement. They are hard-core Democrats. I also have family members who are in the same union but haven't seen the same benefits over time, or who were in the union and have moved into non-union positions, and they are Trump-ists.

I have friends who live in the rust belt who have seen unions decline dramatically, along with the automotive industry that used to support the local population. As a result, the general population has gone more and more Republican.

[marshwiggle]

I also have family members who are in the same union but haven't seen the same benefits over time, or who were in the union and have moved into non-union positions, and they are Trump-ists.

This is an interesting contrast:

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.

Moving from union to non-union jobs doesn't have a universal outcome. (Not surprising, but this is a convenient illustration.)

[financeguy]

Since a large amount of union activity today is in the public sector, most republicans oppose being taxed to pay someone to lobby for them to pay more tax. The circular nature of the beast is what has led many politicians of all political stripes to oppose unionization for public workers.

[Wahoo Redux]

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.

Do you have any direct evidence of these assertions? 

[marshwiggle]

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.

Do you have any direct evidence of these assertions?

Not specifically, but that kind of difference in outlook comes up in lots of areas of life. I'd call it something like the "tank-motorcycle dilemma".

Suppose you live in a city with heavy, chaotic traffic and are trying to choose a vehicle. If you choose a tank, you'll be very protected in any collision. If you choose a motorcycle, you'll be virtually unprotected. On the other hand, since a motorcycle is highly maneuverable, you can avoid many collisions that you couldn't in a tank. So there are two competing strategies; rely on the safety of the structure, or rely on your own agency. Each will work in some situations, but the important point is that the choice itself  creates a certain amount of self-fulfilling prophecy.


*Back in the 70's, when cars not made in North America were viewed with suspicion, one of the complaints voiced about foreign cars (which tended to be smaller) was that they'd be no protection in an accident. I always thought this missed the point, because a small, agile car seemed to me the best way to avoid being in an accident. The "tank" and "motorcycle" just exaggerate this real debate that I've heard many times.

[mahagonny]

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.

Do you have any direct evidence of these assertions?

Not specifically, but that kind of difference in outlook comes up in lots of areas of life. I'd call it something like the "tank-motorcycle dilemma".

Suppose you live in a city with heavy, chaotic traffic and are trying to choose a vehicle. If you choose a tank, you'll be very protected in any collision. If you choose a motorcycle, you'll be virtually unprotected. On the other hand, since a motorcycle is highly maneuverable, you can avoid many collisions that you couldn't in a tank. So there are two competing strategies; rely on the safety of the structure, or rely on your own agency. Each will work in some situations, but the important point is that the choice itself  creates a certain amount of self-fulfilling prophecy.


*Back in the 70's, when cars not made in North America were viewed with suspicion, one of the complaints voiced about foreign cars (which tended to be smaller) was that they'd be no protection in an accident. I always thought this missed the point, because a small, agile car seemed to me the best way to avoid being in an accident. The "tank" and "motorcycle" just exaggerate this real debate that I've heard many times.

Interesting speculating, but still only speculating.

[dismalist]

Again, the wrong question.

Another better one is: When did unions stop excluding Blacks? Hint: The civil rights laws forced them to.

Unions raise wages by excluding. Used to be the sons of non-union members who were excluded, even if they were lily white. The excluded look for work elsewhere, pushing down wages for them. Unions [American institutions] create a wage differential, nothing more. If they can't exclude, they have no point.

[kaysixteen]

Whatever the history of any given union in particular, or unions/-ism in general, the current economic reality for working-class white America is not good, and this tremendous declensionism has gone hand-in-hand with the decline of unions (though has been noted here down South they were always much less prominent, and socially conservative southerners had their reasons, however lame, for eschewing them).   Work a week for Wallyworld and you will realize just how better off you'd be with a union.   And just why WW makes all new hires in orientation sit through intense anti-union propaganda videos.

[ciao_yall]

Again, the wrong question.

Another better one is: When did unions stop excluding Blacks? Hint: The civil rights laws forced them to.

Unions raise wages by excluding. Used to be the sons of non-union members who were excluded, even if they were lily white. The excluded look for work elsewhere, pushing down wages for them. Unions [American institutions] create a wage differential, nothing more. If they can't exclude, they have no point.

And, once unions took people of color, suddenly these people also had a path to secure, well-paying jobs and a solid financial future.

Research shows that white people often eschew a program that will benefit them, once they learn that people of color will also benefit. Weird, huh?

Kind of like colleges and universities. When they were all white people and all white male tenured professors, great! A bit ivory tower but oh well. Once diverse populations started attending and non-white, non-males attained PhDs, suddenly they are all evil and faculty are all adjuncts.

[mahagonny]

Again, the wrong question.

Another better one is: When did unions stop excluding Blacks? Hint: The civil rights laws forced them to.

Unions raise wages by excluding. Used to be the sons of non-union members who were excluded, even if they were lily white. The excluded look for work elsewhere, pushing down wages for them. Unions [American institutions] create a wage differential, nothing more. If they can't exclude, they have no point.

And, once unions took people of color, suddenly these people also had a path to secure, well-paying jobs and a solid financial future.

Research shows that white people often eschew a program that will benefit them, once they learn that people of color will also benefit. Weird, huh?

Which research is that, and when was it done? I just wonder if you might have some of that 'Progressophobia' that Bill Maher talks about. I don't doubt that what you  describe once happened. But things are different now. White people are claiming to be of mixed race in order to help their odds of getting into Harvard, and Ibram Kendi is complaining about them trying to usurp black privilege.

Kind of like colleges and universities. When they were all white people and all white male tenured professors, great! A bit ivory tower but oh well. Once diverse populations started attending and non-white, non-males attained PhDs, suddenly they are all evil and faculty are all adjuncts.

I don't quite get what you're saying here. Do you mean the public began to not appreciate the professoriate as it should because of racism?
Nobody outside of academia imposed adjunctification. Higher ed did this to itself.

[marshwiggle]

Research shows that white people often eschew a program that will benefit them, once they learn that people of color will also benefit.

Has that research tested whether it works the other way as well? Given how tribal humans are, it would make sense if that was a tribal thing that happened to any tribe when members of another tribe get admitted to some formerly exclusive space.

[mahagonny]

Research shows that white people often eschew a program that will benefit them, once they learn that people of color will also benefit.

Has that research tested whether it works the other way as well? Given how tribal humans are, it would make sense if that was a tribal thing that happened to any tribe when members of another tribe gets admitted to some formerly exclusive space.

I've often wondered why more urban-dwelling black people don't move to the suburbs after getting a little success with their small business or other career. I suspect they feel comfortable living among people who look like them. Yet moving to a more affluent neighborhood would have its advantages.
Similarly, some black folks choose to be treated at a hospital either in their neighborhood or one that many other black folks use, even when their insurance is good enough to afford other choices including hospitals that are ranked higher. Could this affect life expectancy rates?
Same group preference is normal human behavior, but not always advantageous in the long run.
Mahag and wife just helped a black friend of our grown child move into an affluent white neighborhood. She wondered if the neighbors would be welcoming. They are. I had told her they would be. I was right.

[Wahoo Redux]

Research shows that white people often eschew a program that will benefit them, once they learn that people of color will also benefit.

Read Dying of Whiteness, Johnathan Metzger.