Today’s Post reports that “Labor leaders lobby for same-sex marriage in Md.” The reason that seems improbable is that until recently, American organized labor, while misguided on many economic questions, was deeply traditionalist. They generally confined themselves to economic matters, and when they rendered opinions on other matters — say, the Vietnam War or trade with the Soviet Union — they were conservative. But a lot of those Reagan Democrats who belonged to unions no longer do so and have become Republicans, which was both a cause and an effect of the change in organized labor in the U.S. to something more like European unions — culturally leftist, post-patriotic, pro-open-borders. The American labor movement has indeed become what Marx imagined when he wrote that “the worker has no country” — except that it’s only possible here because the unions no longer represent many workers.
Just more evidence that liberalism is a cult. There's no earthly reason for this union to be lobbying for gay marriage. except that they wish to remain in good standing in the cult. So, they go out, repeat the catechism and celebrate their membership in the cult.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm sorry, but does Krikorian really think that labor union members who have no problem with gay couples getting married "have no country"? Wake up, Mark! You're in the minority on this issue now. That doesn't mean you don't have a country. It would take a diseased mind to believe that those who disagree with them are no longer have a country. But, geez, really, you are now saying that "America" consists only of those folks who don't want to see gay couples marry? Really?!!?? You're in for a rough rest-of-your-life Mark, cuz it's only going to get worse.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIn California, the union representing (nearly all Mexican) farm workers has come out in favor of same-sex marriage. Now, there's an authentic Mexican cultural value! And, it just SO relates to other issues such as worker safety and pay scales! Why, what enlightened, rational, unionized farm worker would bend over to pick strawberries unless... never mind.
At a nearby community college, circa early 1990s, the faculty union (I was not a member) wanted to add "domestic partners" to its health care benefits. At that time, "domestic partners" had no general legal recognition. Not being one of the Berkeley/Stanford grads who infested the place, I inquired why, given that the college's health care program was already under-funded and headed to bankruptcy, and that about half of the employees who did work were part-timers with no benefits, the union wished to add a new class of unrecognized non-workers to the health care plan. Not being tuned into PC at the time, I supposed that the "domestic partners" were trophy chicks for middle aged men who had dumped their wives (I used to work in a high-paying tech job, where that was not unusual). But no, explained my colleague; the "domestic partners" were same-gender companions who could not be legally married. Oh. Well then, why was that necessary? Why, it was because the college "could not get the best qualified" faculty applicants if it did not offer that benefit. Really? So I inquired of HR. Needless to say, every full-time faculty position ( the only ones who would get benefits) had numerous highly qualified applicants, including the STEM fields. UPDATE: In the intervening time, the head of that college's academic senate is "married" to his same-sex friend, thanks to advocacy judges in California.
Relating this to MK's usual topics, this is like making the old JAWD argument, then finding out that JAWD supposedly includes truck drivers, bartenders, and even a full-time tenured faculty member in higher education. This last actually occurred at the college I mentioned: The person was originally hired with knowledge that she was on a non-work visa, in expectation that immigration would cave. It took several years (after which she had tenure) for immigration to deport her to Asia. Oddly, immigration did not cave.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe unionists in northeastern Minnesota have formed a "blue-green" alliance with enviromentalists. Yes, that is right. The United Steel Workers, which represents thousands of iron miners, has aligned itself with enviro-wackos who want to end mining in the US.
Why? For the AFL-CIO in NE Minnesota, promoting left wing causes is more important than union jobs.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe anti-gay obsession is an outlook that is best left behind in the bygone Cold War era. Good to see Labor is joining the modern world; when will the GOP follow suit?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes it is George Meany's labor movement. Why do people constantly say things like this about people such as George Meany or Martin Luther King or other dead liberals? If they were alive they would be every bit as liberal, as slanderous toward those who disagree with them, as hateful of the middle class and as joyous over the death of unborn babies as Barack Obama and his allies.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhen people said that the Union members should be more Civil, this not what they meant!!!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou fail to acknowlege the beauty of the modern American Labor Movement (for "Progressives") and Democrats.
It does not matter how an individual union member chooses to vote in one parrticular election or about any particular issue.
They have already committed $1000's of dollars of their pay to support someone else's agenda.
The Democrat party is correct to stop courting the "working-class" vote.
What is one vote worth, after all?
Much better to force them all into unions and get the cash from them direct!
Added bonus?
Individual union members will have that much less money/power/freedom to offer any resistance!
(Am I the ONLY ONE who sees the Progressive agenda shaping up to no better than neo-aristocracy & feudalism, at best?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJust because the labor unions are pro-marriage equality doesn't make them any less pro-worker. Just like a conservative who supports marriage equality doesn't make him or her any less of a conservative.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse