FIRST, I will address unions. Then, in part two, I will address a more personal issue which I hope someone will respond to.
Part One: Why has Union Power declined.
Bravo for Joan DeMartin's wise and timely essay. Unions are positively correlated with almost every beneficial social trend in the United States within the past century. They were center stage in the fight for civil rights, health and safety legislation, etc.
So why has their power declined. Let me identify three possible culprits:
a) Consider this old adage: When a democrat becomes rich enough to buy his own home, he becomes a republican. Unions succeeded in making the slum-dwelling "huddled masses" of the tenements of Emma Lazarus move up the economic ladder, the workers bought homes in the suburbs and they forgot their roots and wallowed in petty bourgeois bs.
b) In the 1960's much of the left was mad at unions for two reasons: i) Traditional unions kept out black workers and ii) many unions were seen as being supportive of the Vietnam war as military spending meant more money for manufacturing and union workers who manufactured armaments. In the 1968 Democratic convention, many of the anti war protestors were academic types and students who were not members of industrial or trade unions and many of the bed rock supporters of the pro war factions, Hubert Humphrey and mayor Daley were in unions. (Of course, some unions were very much aligned with the anti war left, eg, Chavez and the United Farm Workers who were solidly behind Robert Kennedy.)
In any event, this planted a deep and searing schism in the American Left and Center Left. Many of the successors of the far left opponents of the Vietnam War were very adaptable yuppies who created a politics which seamlessly merged the trendiness of the 60's Left with the go getter capitalism of Ronald Reagan's America. I am talking about people like BILL CLINTON. With people like the Clintons at the helm, the demolition of union power and moxie was ineluctable.
c) Years ago, a much greater proportion of workers lived in urban settings. When populations are densely clustered, direct person-to-person communication is enhanced. The distant mass media is not all encompassing. Instead, many ideas are communicated in local person to person settings, including the church, the street, the stoop, the park etc. In these urban settings workers are able to hear what other workers have to say because they are all living together. Consequently, perhaps in urban settings in the first half of the 20th century, union power and identity were facilitated by the concentration of so many workers living close together. However, in post war America, suburbia eclipsed the urban cores. People were spread out. Instead of people congregating and communicating on the stoop, on the block etc., they were isolated in their split levels. The boob tube became the all powerful inculcator of thought and belief. And the television media for the most part was anathema to unions and progressive policies in general
ISSUE TWO: COMMUNICATIONS ON SUBSTACK
I want to communicate with my fellow writers on substack. I know how to communicate through mediums such as comments to posts; I am doing that right now in this message.
However, sometimes I want to write a confidential message to a fellow substack writer, i.e., I don't want third persons to see it.
Of course, I can ask a fellow writer for his or her e mail. However, she might not want to provide this information. My request for someone's e mail address might seem too imposing or even prying. I don't want to pry or impose. And I don't need another person's e mail if there is some way of communicating confidentially.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE: Tell me how I can send a confidential message to a fellow writer on substack, i.e., a message that will not be seen by third persons. I know there is a way to do this !!! Indeed, some people have sent me confidential messages.
FIRST, I will address unions. Then, in part two, I will address a more personal issue which I hope someone will respond to.
Part One: Why has Union Power declined.
Bravo for Joan DeMartin's wise and timely essay. Unions are positively correlated with almost every beneficial social trend in the United States within the past century. They were center stage in the fight for civil rights, health and safety legislation, etc.
So why has their power declined. Let me identify three possible culprits:
a) Consider this old adage: When a democrat becomes rich enough to buy his own home, he becomes a republican. Unions succeeded in making the slum-dwelling "huddled masses" of the tenements of Emma Lazarus move up the economic ladder, the workers bought homes in the suburbs and they forgot their roots and wallowed in petty bourgeois bs.
b) In the 1960's much of the left was mad at unions for two reasons: i) Traditional unions kept out black workers and ii) many unions were seen as being supportive of the Vietnam war as military spending meant more money for manufacturing and union workers who manufactured armaments. In the 1968 Democratic convention, many of the anti war protestors were academic types and students who were not members of industrial or trade unions and many of the bed rock supporters of the pro war factions, Hubert Humphrey and mayor Daley were in unions. (Of course, some unions were very much aligned with the anti war left, eg, Chavez and the United Farm Workers who were solidly behind Robert Kennedy.)
In any event, this planted a deep and searing schism in the American Left and Center Left. Many of the successors of the far left opponents of the Vietnam War were very adaptable yuppies who created a politics which seamlessly merged the trendiness of the 60's Left with the go getter capitalism of Ronald Reagan's America. I am talking about people like BILL CLINTON. With people like the Clintons at the helm, the demolition of union power and moxie was ineluctable.
c) Years ago, a much greater proportion of workers lived in urban settings. When populations are densely clustered, direct person-to-person communication is enhanced. The distant mass media is not all encompassing. Instead, many ideas are communicated in local person to person settings, including the church, the street, the stoop, the park etc. In these urban settings workers are able to hear what other workers have to say because they are all living together. Consequently, perhaps in urban settings in the first half of the 20th century, union power and identity were facilitated by the concentration of so many workers living close together. However, in post war America, suburbia eclipsed the urban cores. People were spread out. Instead of people congregating and communicating on the stoop, on the block etc., they were isolated in their split levels. The boob tube became the all powerful inculcator of thought and belief. And the television media for the most part was anathema to unions and progressive policies in general
ISSUE TWO: COMMUNICATIONS ON SUBSTACK
I want to communicate with my fellow writers on substack. I know how to communicate through mediums such as comments to posts; I am doing that right now in this message.
However, sometimes I want to write a confidential message to a fellow substack writer, i.e., I don't want third persons to see it.
Of course, I can ask a fellow writer for his or her e mail. However, she might not want to provide this information. My request for someone's e mail address might seem too imposing or even prying. I don't want to pry or impose. And I don't need another person's e mail if there is some way of communicating confidentially.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE: Tell me how I can send a confidential message to a fellow writer on substack, i.e., a message that will not be seen by third persons. I know there is a way to do this !!! Indeed, some people have sent me confidential messages.
I thank you for your help.