Look Tim, If you 𝒅𝒐𝒏'𝒕 let labour use their main form of power, 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒊𝒓 𝒍𝒂𝒃𝒐𝒖𝒓, (in the form of strikes) but 𝒚𝒐𝒖 𝒅𝒐 let capital put their main source of power, 𝒎𝒐𝒏𝒆𝒚, into elections you get the intended result.
A political system geared toward capital's interest and largely unresponsive to workers.
As the disproportionate amount of money directed by capital can (and is) also funneled into newspaper media, think tanks, nonprofits, public intellectuals, YouTube personalities, authors, University programs and research institutions, etc, you start influencing not only what political power decides, but also what they (and we) talk about, prioritize and the data/political theories/economic models they use.
This is called hegemony.
Tim, your particular issue with Unions goes all the way back to 1950. UAW (United Auto Workers) I believe the largest union in the US at the time, struck a "deal" with GM. The "deal" removed the ability to strike from the workers (essentially this removed their ability to protest anything), as well as gave up the right to bargain benefits. It was then used as a model for labor-union contracts from then on.
Why even in 1950 do Unions seem so powerless? Because 3 years prior to that in the post-war haze of 1945-6 there was an immense wave of strikes across the US. Workers were being crammed together, working in obscene conditions for pitiful wages. So as a response to the wave of strikes Congress passed the Taft-Hartley act, which made almost every form of striking illegal and also made you sign an affidavit swearing you weren't a communist. It also made it illegal for Unions to make political contributions. It also made it illegal for "supervisors" to engage in Union activities and authorized employers to be able to fire them for that legally.
Truman, seeing this as an egregious intrusion on Free speech Vetoed it, Labor leaders called it a "slave-labor bill".
Of course Congress overrode the veto with 60% of house democrats and 50% of senate democrats voting in favor.
His opposition was mostly facetious however, as Truman relied upon it in twelve instances during his presidency
Indeed, this is why your choice for President really can make a difference
Organized labor nearly succeeded in pushing Congress to amend the law to increase the protections for strikers and targets of employer retaliation during the Carter and Clinton administrations, but failed on both occasions because of Republican opposition and lukewarm support for these changes from the Democratic President in office at the time
You know what made everything go to shit Tim?
Look Tim, If you 𝒅𝒐𝒏'𝒕 let labour use their main form of power, 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒊𝒓 𝒍𝒂𝒃𝒐𝒖𝒓, (in the form of strikes) but 𝒚𝒐𝒖 𝒅𝒐 let capital put their main source of power, 𝒎𝒐𝒏𝒆𝒚, into elections you get the intended result. A political system geared toward capital's interest and largely unresponsive to workers.
As the disproportionate amount of money directed by capital can (and is) also funneled into newspaper media, think tanks, nonprofits, public intellectuals, YouTube personalities, authors, University programs and research institutions, etc, you start influencing not only what political power decides, but also what they (and we) talk about, prioritize and the data/political theories/economic models they use.
This is called hegemony.
Tim, your particular issue with Unions goes all the way back to 1950. UAW (United Auto Workers) I believe the largest union in the US at the time, struck a "deal" with GM. The "deal" removed the ability to strike from the workers (essentially this removed their ability to protest anything), as well as gave up the right to bargain benefits. It was then used as a model for labor-union contracts from then on.
Why even in 1950 do Unions seem so powerless? Because 3 years prior to that in the post-war haze of 1945-6 there was an immense wave of strikes across the US. Workers were being crammed together, working in obscene conditions for pitiful wages. So as a response to the wave of strikes Congress passed the Taft-Hartley act, which made almost every form of striking illegal and also made you sign an affidavit swearing you weren't a communist. It also made it illegal for Unions to make political contributions. It also made it illegal for "supervisors" to engage in Union activities and authorized employers to be able to fire them for that legally.
Truman, seeing this as an egregious intrusion on Free speech Vetoed it, Labor leaders called it a "slave-labor bill". Of course Congress overrode the veto with 60% of house democrats and 50% of senate democrats voting in favor. His opposition was mostly facetious however, as Truman relied upon it in twelve instances during his presidency
Indeed, this is why your choice for President really can make a difference Organized labor nearly succeeded in pushing Congress to amend the law to increase the protections for strikers and targets of employer retaliation during the Carter and Clinton administrations, but failed on both occasions because of Republican opposition and lukewarm support for these changes from the Democratic President in office at the time