• Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    96
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    It’s a bizarre thing, but union workers are often conservatives who completely ignore the anti-union sentiments of the GOP. They think the only union in the world that should exist is their own, and no others.

    This is how the GOP is able to convince unions to vote against their own interests. The GOP will tell a union to its face how important it is, earning their votes. Then, once elected, pass legislation harming that same union.

    • Donkter@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      62
      ·
      4 months ago

      The GOP has also successfully gaslit their base into believing the two best things for unions are controlling immigration and “tax cuts”.

          • mommykink@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            22
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            Strict immigration controls. Workers have the best leverage for negotiations when there are no alternative sources of labor for corporations to scab with, and what group makes a better scab than disorganized, desperate, immigrants who probably lack the qualifications (education, experience, language) to enter a proper union?

            Make no mistake, no one wants mass immigration more than the owner class.

            • aubeynarf@lemmynsfw.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              13
              ·
              4 months ago

              That seems to make sense until you think about the additional growth in demand required to avoid industry shutdowns that is almost solely down to immigration, since the US birth rate is like 1.8 per woman.

              Multinationals are happy to move the jobs to Mexico or Vietnam or China; they don’t need to employ immigrants in the US to lower labor costs.

            • BlemboTheThird@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              9
              ·
              4 months ago

              Immigrant labor is actually cheaper when immigration is tightly controlled, at least it is in the US where “restricted” really just means more illegal immigrants rather than fewer overall. When you let people in legally, they’re documented, unions can actually reach out to them, and they are protected by things like minimum wage.

              Illegal immigrants are not.

              • WamGams@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                4 months ago

                Something like 70% of “illegals” in the US are illegally here for less than half the year. It’s agricultural workers who just don’t go home when the season ends.

                These people do nothing to harm the 7% of private employees who are already in unions.

              • mommykink@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                8
                ·
                4 months ago

                I’m talking about the best interests of existing union workers.

                Have you spoken to many on-the-ground union workers?

                When you let people in legally, they’re documented, unions can actually reach out to them, and they are protected by things like minimum wage.

                This is exactly what those people are opposed to. They want their Unions to be exclusive with a small labor pool. Less workers + good Union support = more money per worker. There are obviously some exceptions.

                • BlemboTheThird@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  4 months ago

                  Fewer legal immigrants doesn’t mean fewer workers, it just means fewer people being paid above board. That extra money doesn’t go to union members, it goes to stock buybacks and CEO packages. The more of a company’s workforce is part of the union, the stronger the union’s negotiating position, and THAT’S how unions get more money for their members.

            • MirthfulAlembic@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              4 months ago

              This is a notoriously difficult thing to prove out either way in data, and I’m sure it varies situationally.

              The Mariel Boatlift natural experiment did not demonstrate a decrease in wages or increase in unemployment. It makes sense: immigrants both work and consume (i.e., create demand). Unless every immigrant happens to work in the same industry/union, the sum total of immigrants may create demand for labor equal to or greater than they fill.

              It also may have the impact you’re suggesting. But it doesn’t have to be zero sum. And, understandably, people only remember when they lost a job potentially tied to immigrant labor. Nobody asks if the job they’re applying to was created due to demand immigrants added to the economy (and how could a company know that?).

    • Pistcow@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      4 months ago

      Worked in many union shops as a degree operational support function. Typical union front line are dumb fuck conservatives with let’s go Brandon bumper stickers. They’re making $45/hr and don’t realize they’re supporting the party that wants them making $14/hr like the warehouse next to theirs.

      https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hYTQ7__NNDI

    • A_Filthy_Weeaboo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      33
      ·
      4 months ago

      As someone who worked in a union I can vouch for this ^

      Most of the guys I worked with don’t even like the union they are in, they felt they were cheated into giving their money away for “no backup”

      When in reality these guys would have lost their jobs YEARS AGO but because the union defends them against management, but because these guys can’t do what ever the hell they want (ie call in 80 out of 90 days, taking 1 hour breaks, having todo what their job description says) they just don’t care…

      They also think “They’ll never out source our jobs, or robots can’t replace us!” When in fact management DID do that years ago but the Union won in deliberations and everyone seems to have forgotten.

      I hate this timeline

    • AdamEatsAss@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Most people only consider a few key stances when deciding on a candidate. The GOP is anti-union but that may not be what is most important to truckers in a union.

    • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      I do generally think it’s more of a case where American workers are often reactionary due to America’s overall circumstances and Material Conditions in the broader geopolitical landscape, than anything else. Nationalism is a big thing in America, Union or not.

      Imperialism also inflates Worker’s living standards, as well as keeping a domestic underclass of immigrants willing to work for the barest wages via threat of expulsion. Unions can often be anti-immigration because of this, additionally adding to reactionary rhetoric among unions.