The AFL-CIO is cutting down on staff. The president of the organization says that a major restructuring of labor law in this country is necessary for the union movement to thrive, or even survive. How likely is it that we will get these changes? Since the early days of the Reagan administration, the government has been fiercely anti-union. There was a brief respite with Clinton when, at least, no further harm was done, but that's now the good old days.
This country, rabble-roused by the Repubs and besotted with the whole new-economy-work at home-Staples has got that-I'll fax you from my cell phone - scene--has shown labor the door, and the door overlooks a cliff that drops us straight into oblivion. How did this happen? Some of it is our own fault: there's no doubt that unions can seem wasteful and intimidating to those who don't know what's at stake, and labor hasn't been good at putting out its message since the 'seventies (remember the "Look for the union label" song?). But what's at stake is so important - the right of working people to make a living and to see some reward and a chance at progress. A lot of people; most people; will never be able to work at home or telecommute. The few manufacturing jobs left in this country cannot be phoned in; cops and nurses and mechanics and firefighters can't do their work from the web.
What, exactly, is the Demos plan, by the way, to reverse this? It's not enough to say that we object or to simply point out this immoral mess. We need a fucking clue, and candidates who can bee seen as part of a solution. Detachment, high-mindedness and too much of the long view won't get it done next time.
And don't even start me on the national ID card.