Ludlow remembered
I’ve written before on Coal Tattoo about the Ludlow Massacre and its place in labor and coal history.
Over last weekend, Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter and an estimated 700 people were on hand for the dedication ceremony for the Ludlow Massacre Memorial Monument, according to a story from the Durango Herald.
There’s also new YouTube video, with a speech by UMWA President Cecil Roberts at that event:
12 comments
[…] This post was Twitted by 304blogs […]
Thanks for posting this, Ken. It was truly an amazing event. And I’m glad my back is to the camera…
Ritter was there and rightfully booed by some of the crowd a smattering of who turned their back on him during his speech.
In recent weeks he vetoed two pro worker bills passed by his own party.
He was also picketed prior to entering the Ludlow grounds by the firefighters union with signs which read “Why does Ritter hate working families?” Both the crowd and the picketers were respectful to the Gov. during his speech even though the majority of Coloradans present wished he wasn’t there.
Ken,
Irony abounds in your noting of the anniversary of the “Ludlow Massacre” and UMWA President Robert’s citation of it to encourage the passage of the missnamed Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA). On the surface, there may be some connection as the gunfight at Ludlow occurred in part over whether the miners could be represented by the UMWA and its occurance along with violence here helped passage of the NLRA, which gives employees the freedom to choose or reject representation by secret ballot elections. However, what happened at Ludlow, the denial of employee free choice, is exactly what EFCA stands for.
The best history of Ludlow, titled “The Ludlow Massacre and Class Warfare in the American West” was written by a young George McGovern, who went on to become a US senator and democratic nomine for president. He opposes EFCA for the very lack of free choice that Ludlow represents. See online.wsj.com/article/SB121815502467222555.html - . McGovern’s thoughts can also be seen on youtube.
Because it denies free choice to employees and ecconomic freedom of negotiation to employers, EFCA deserves defeat. As Ludlow demosnstrates, coecion, whether by employers or unions, is wrong.
Forrest
I support Pres. Roberts and the United Mine Workers but what was all that about celebrating military service? I know he’s playing to the crowd but it’s as if Roberts forgot that the massacre was perpetrated by the National Guard. Enough with the mindless celebration of militarism already!
And Forrest, if EFCA represents coercion, what legal remedy do you see for the profligate union-busting that goes on today? Clearly labor law is far to weak to allow workers to freely organize without suffering retribution.
Thanks for your comment, Forrest.
I have not read McGovern’s book, but have always wanted to do so.
Have you read either of the two fairly new books on the subject:
“Killing for Coal: America’s Deadliest Labor War,†by University of Colorado historian Thomas G. Andrews.
“Blood Passion: The Ludlow Massacre and Class War in the American West,†by journalist Scott Martelle.
Ken.
Fred,
The loss in union density, which is occuring, arises from the too prevelent adversarial posture unions take to management. They secure benefits the employers cannot afford and work rights that kill productivity. They are too often indiferent to the compny and cause its failure. The failure of the union represented car companies compared to the relative success of those union free and similar ocurances do not go unnoticed by employees deciding whether they wish to become represnted. Allowing voters to make free choices by secret ballot is not union busting even though it results in union losses.
I am a republican and am distressed by the fact that the elected democrats are misgoverning our state. However, I do not sugest that we do away with the secrete ballot.
Forrest
Fred: Thanks for your support of President Roberts and the UMWA but let’s not compare the Colorado National Guard of 1914 with today’s military veterans. If you read McGovern’s book or the more recent ones you’ll see that the Guard in 1914 was not all all what we would consider the professional military of today. It was, instead, composed in large degree of company thugs and hired guns who were made guardsmen.
And Forrest, you know as well as I do that the Employee Free Choice Act does not do away with the secret ballot. Instead, it puts the decision about whether or not to have an election in the hands of the workers instead of the bosses. Since it’s the workers who will be in the union, that only makes sense.
And to tie the failure of the union-represented auto companies to union membership is ludicrous. Those companies ran into trouble because the management (not the workers — they just build what management decides to produce) did not keep up with consumer tastes and demand for crash-worthy, high-mileage vehicles, and also because our nation — alone among the industrialized world — still does not have a national health care system, which added thousands of dollars to the price of every US-made vehicle. In the absence of such a national policy, American workers have the obligation to bargain for such benefits. Surely you’re not suggesting workers shouldn’t have health care? Even Wal-Mart doesn’t agree with you on that one.
Phil, I have nothing but admiration for the work of the United Mine Workers, but social justice cannot be won by conflating the interests of the working class with the military or the police or business owners.
- peace
p.s. Forrest your argument just doesn’t hold water. C’mon - the auto industry collapsed because of unions? I guess management’s atrocious decisions to over the past three decades had nothing to do with it.
Geez … isn’t enough that Coal Tattoo debates mountaintop removal and climate change? Now, the Employee Free Choice Act, too — another hot button.
I am always bothered when companies use the phrase “legacy costs” when they mean health-care benefits for retirees and their spouses (or widows). Often, these benefits were bargained for in exchange for higher wages … companies liked the idea, until time to pay up came.
Obviously, the coal industry is another business where companies have struggled with “legacy costs” … and I wonder what the productivity of the industry and its ability to compete would be like if we had national health care instead …
What do you think, Phil?
Ken:
You are absolutely right about the corporate use of phrases like “legacy costs” to de-humanize their obligations to employees. Another that really bothers me is “human capital.”
From the very first contract that included health care benefits negotiated by John L. Lewis, UMWA members have been giving up wage increases in order to get those benefits. So, when nonunion companies like Massey provide less in health care benefits than companies with a UMWA contract do, it means the nonunion companies can pay a little more in wages. That is one way nonunion companies like Massey are able to convince younger miners to not vote for the union in an organizing election.
But with national health care, that issue would be off the table and then the Masseys of the world would be faced with having to convince
their workers to stay nonunion on some other issue besides pay. Given the working conditions and safety issues inside a union mine compared with a nonunion mine, the nonunion companies would be hard presses to stay that way.
The same is true for any number of other industries, of course.
Ken,
There is much to answer. However, your and Phil’s posts have three premises that need countered. First is organized labor’s oft repeated but practically erroneous claim that EFCA does not eliminate secret ballot elections. What it does is allow unions which secure a card majority to, at the union’s choice, obtain recognition without an election. The unions will always choose to aviod a secret ballot election because if employees are able to make their choice upon hearing both sides and without the coercion involved in publically announced votes, they may vote against the union.
Second is the apparent argument that unions are unfairly disadvantaged in persuading employees to vote for them in fair elections because they secure health benefits for those they represent and union free employers do not have to pay for health care and thus can pay higher wages. That simply assumes that employees deciding to vote against a union promising better health care and making the free choice between higher wages and more expensive health care by voting against the union are wrong to do so and should be coerced to pay taxes for their and others health care. That is another example of organized labor seeking to take away the rights of employees to the freedom of choice.
Finally, there is the argument that signatory employers pay for the UMWA’s system of cradle to grave health care. The historical fact is simply that the system was so expensive that twice congressional action to divert tax revenues paid on coal production by all producers and ultimatly passed on to consumers, meaning all of us, was necessary to rescue the system from bankruptsy. Hundreds of millions of Americans’ money has thus been taken to support health benefits the signatory operators were force to promise in bargaining but, in the end, simply could not afford.
Now organized labor wants to create a similar system making similr, perhaps unsustainable promises. It wants our federal governmant to promise health care which will cost the taxpayer at least $1trillion above expected revenues in the first decade. This promise is sought when all acknowledge that the federalgovernmant cannot with expected revenues pay for the medicade and medicare benefits now promised.
When these costs drove coal companies into bankruptsy, the federal govenment picked up the tab and taxed us to pay for it. Who will pick up the tab when the federal government cannot pay for these new promises? The tax payers again, if they can do so. Coal companies who made promises they could not ultimately fullfill can be excused because otherwise they would be struck and put out of business. If the coalition which put the present administration in office suceeds in getting the government to make similar unsustainable promises, there will not be any excuse but the pernicious habit of insisting upon what the government can be persuaded to do.
Forrest
Leave a Comment