The "sales pitch" that is relevant here is the one put forth by the DoD and their enormously powerful SIGs for the last 75 years, namely "unions = communism" and "communism = bad".
As much as I would like to believe that there is a massive pro-working-class institution in the US that can afford to spend billions per annum on under-the-table PR/propaganda campaigns to shill collective action, it just isn't the case. The MIC on the other hand... putting those socialized taxpayer dollars to work against the evil working class (around the world).
The labor struggle has been so propagandized that it's impossible to talk about. Unions are about organizing to allow people to control their economic destiny. They've been violently repressed since the very beginning. The right-wing ideology of Reagan/Thatcher is prevalent, this hate of government and worship of the state subsidized corporate managers that control society. Anyways, I love the music in Dustforce, i'll leave you with a Chomsky quote
"The U.S. is different from Europe and other industrial countries in this respect. The U.S. is, to a very unusual extent, a business-run society. There are all kinds of reasons for that — it has no feudal background, so institutions that remained in place in Europe did not remain in place here. There are a lot of reasons. But the fact of the matter is that the U.S. is run by an unusually class-conscious, dedicated business class that has a very violent labor history, much worse than in Europe. The attack on unions has been far more extreme here, and it has been much more successful. Also, the business propaganda has been far more successful. Anti-union propaganda has been considerably more successful here than in Europe, even among working people who would benefit [from] unions. In fact, a rather striking aspect of business propaganda in the United States is the demonization of government, starting after the Second World War.
The Second World War ended with a radicalization of the population in the United States and everywhere else, and called for all kinds of things like popular takeovers, government intervention, and worker takeovers of factories. Business propagated a tremendous propaganda offensive. The scale surprised me when I read the scholarship — it’s enormous, and it’s been very effective. There were two major targets: one is unions, the other is democracy. Well, [to them] democracy means getting people to regard government as an alien force that’s robbing them and oppressing them, not as their government. In a democracy it would be your government. For example, in a democracy the day when you pay your taxes, April 15, would be a day of celebration, because you’re getting together to provide resources for the programs you decided on. In the United States, it’s a day of mourning because this alien force — the government — is coming to rob you of your hard-earned money. That’s the general attitude, and it’s a tremendous victory for the opponents of democracy, and, of course, any privileged sector is going to hate democracy. You can see it in the healthcare debate.
The majority of the population thinks that if the government runs healthcare, they’re going to take away your freedom. At the same time, the public favors a national healthcare program. The contradiction is somehow unresolved. In the case of the business propaganda, it’s particularly ironic because while business wants the population to hate the government, they want the population to love the government. Namely, they’re in favor of a very powerful state which works in their interest. So you have to love that government, but hate the government that might work in your interest and that you could control. That’s an interesting propaganda task, but it’s been carried out very well. You can see it in the worship of Reagan, which portrays him as somebody who saved us from government. Actually he was an apostle of big government. Government grew under Reagan. He was the strongest opponent of free markets in the post-war history among presidents. But it doesn’t matter what the reality is; they concocted an image that you worship. It’s hard to achieve that, especially in a free society, but it’s been done, and that’s the kind of thing that activists in the IWW have to work against, right on the shop floor. It’s not so simple, but it’s been done before."
Have you considered that it might not be a marketing campaign, but rather other people having an opinion different from your own? That unions indeed can potentially be damaging for society (and there are plenty of example of that) and it's not just a propaganda?
Unpopular opinion: Large segments of the american population don't even real realize they have foolishly internalized decades of anti-union propaganda.
They just think they are smarter/better/more rational.
I disagree. I think you have just eaten up the propaganda pushed by billionaires. There is an entire industry that is dedicated to pushing anti-union propaganda.
Any grassroots action that would threaten the interests of corporations, such as Walmart, is managed by propaganda. See gravypod's comment for how to give the impression that unions are bad.
Speaking of "relentless propaganda" (quoting the parent post), ever notice that every time the example used by pro-union folks is the Screen Actors' Guild or sports teams union? It's almost as if its a canned talking point.
You might also notice how none of these posters can point to any engineering unions (there's barely any in the US and it takes much more smarts to get an engineering degree than become a coder) or have the guts to use technical workers' unions like the Communications Workers of America as their example? Think very hard about why that is.
It's amazing how you can call something propaganda, while offering nothing but propaganda yourself.
Few of us actually need a union to advocate for us. We're perfectly capable of securing higher pay, and benefits through performance or threat of leaving for greener pastures.
That's not propaganda. That's worker's rights... which pro-union people are supposedly in favor of.
These days, Unions protect under-performing staff and enrich the Union leadership - all while negotiating a token raise once in a while. You can see it with your own eyes - just go work somewhere that has a union for at least one group of it's employees.
I feel like this is a very convenient scapegoat for American unions to avoid looking internally at their own flaws. Many Americans have negative opinions of unions. Corporations and their wealthy owners have certainly put a lot of money to influence public opinion this way, but they aren't omnipotent. These efforts would be laughable off if the value-add of the union was readily-apparent. Dismissing anyone's negative opinion of a union as being the victim of a propaganda campaign is infantilizing, and dismissive of lived-experiences.
My negative opinion of a union came from my own direct experience as being part of a mega-union that crossed multiple industries. The structure of the union was such that they were so divorced from the actual work being done that they could not possibly help us. Advancement meant playing the union political game, and not being good at your job. They were a constant thorn in all of our sides. I try to limit my disdain to that union in particular (not all unions are like this). But your comment dismissing concerns such as these fault of the business sound incredibly tone deaf. And as a result will not lead to a positive opinion of unions in America.
The anti-union marketing campaign is still going strong, so I suspect you are correct.
I have been forced to sit in company meetings where they help drive the anti-union message home every time there is the slightest talk about organizing. Have you had one? I am curious how wide the practice is.
I used to work in healthcare, which could really use some representation too.
I'm not sure the pro-union crowd are doing themselves any favor by constantly telling people they don't know what they want, insisting things could only be better, inventing straw-man arguments, and so on.
I described something that literally took place, and the behavior was performed by a union, not me. This isn't propaganda. It is a description of something that happened involving a union. If I am anti anything, it is anti-"institutions that have mismatched incentives and conflicts of interest", and so that involves both corporations and unions, but not all of them. Note that my original comment said very clearly that "unions are not a fix all and can become the same overlords". Your comment that I replied to seemed to imply that unions are a silver bullet that fixes anything wrong with corporation and worker relations, and that is what I was replying to that that is not always the case. There are plenty examples of this.
You say you will never understand why some American working class workers oppose unions. Well then I guess you will need be able to convince them otherwise. If your starting point is that the union experience is obviously a good one and you must be stupid to not see that, you have lost any chance of a serious conversation. People have reasons for feeling the way they do. Dismissing them as falling for propaganda is once again just calling them stupid.
I'm an American and I admit to having a very negative view of modern unions. When the word union comes up I immediately think of:
1) The Teamsters and their ties to organized crime
2) Police unions that shield officers from consequences
3) Teacher unions that prevent awful teachers from being fired
4) Ridiculous rules around duties on film/theater sets
5) The UAW is seen by many former workers as letting them down. Many other people feel the UAW bears some responsibilities for plant closures.
6) As supermarkets in my area started to unionize the service noticeably suffered.
7) Several friends were Verizon workers and felt that they were screwed by their union.
8) It is common for unions to fund candidates that many workers do not like.
If someone like myself has a negative view of unions it is up to people like yourself to change that perception if you want unions to gain traction in the US. Distrust of unions in the US are not always (usually?) driven by ignorance or propaganda. Unions themselves have done a very good job of alienating workers.
"The common portrayal of unions as good and corporations as evil is over simplistic and often backwards."
The common portrayal (at least in the US) is that unions are evil.
That's why American unions and union activity have been almost completely squashed in the US for decades now.
This sentiment is starting to change a bit as people are finally starting to wake up to the massive inequality in this country and the enormous wealth and power of corporations and the oligarchs who control them vs the barely subsistence existence of the ever growing lower classes.
As much as I would like to believe that there is a massive pro-working-class institution in the US that can afford to spend billions per annum on under-the-table PR/propaganda campaigns to shill collective action, it just isn't the case. The MIC on the other hand... putting those socialized taxpayer dollars to work against the evil working class (around the world).
reply