union membership by state map
Given that it’s Labor Day weekend let’s chat about labor—organized labor. This post from 2007 is still relevant. If you take a look at the map on your left something may jump out at you, as it did me. Where Labor is strong – Democrats tend to win. Where Labor is weak, they don’t. In the last election the electorate split fairly evenly, but amongst the groups that stand out as having gone Democratic, one is Labor. The general election was 49/49, but union members went 64/36 Democratic/Republican.
But it isn’t just about union members voting for Dems – that’d just make unions an identity group. As Matt Stoller pointed out back in 05 Unions actively help Democratic candidates. They give money, and they give it early. They do field and GOTV, and indeed, they probably have the best field organizations in America. Kerry ate Dean’s lunch in large part because of the International Association of Fire Fighter’s (IAFF) organizers out organizing (sometimes rather brutally) the Dean machine. (More on the IAFF and their endorsement of Dodd this time around later in the article).
Unions provide organizing space, they provide media surrogates, they conduct training, they support think tanks and so on. They provide a lot of the infrastructure that keeps the party going – and that pushes the party to pursue liberal and populist policies when in office.
historical union membership
As union membership has declined, so have Democratic electoral results. This isn’t an accident and it isn’t something that Republicans want to see stop. Unions have been under constant assault for decades – starting with Taft-Hartley in 47 (a bill Truman, his veto overruled, called a “slave labor bill”.) Recently, and egregiously, the NLRB has moved to classify nurses as supervisory workers, which would make most of them unable to be union members and basically de-unionize hospitals. (This is a loophole from Taft-Hartley, which made supervisory workers ineligible for unionization as a way of destroying the extremely powerful foreman’s unions that existed at the time.)
Democrats have often disrespected unions, even while paying them court. NAFTA was pushed through by Bill Clinton even though labor was largely against it. Indeed, I have been told that the unions went to Clinton and said “we have a war chest of many millions. We can spend it fighting NAFTA or pushing for universal health care. Your choice.” Clinton choice NAFTA over universal health care. Time and time again so-called free trade bills (which are usually more about free flow of money, than of trade, in any case) have been pushed over the objections of labor.
Meanwhile, the presumptive next nominee, Hilary Clinton, has as her chief strategist, Mark Penn, the CEO of Burson-Marsteller, a PR firm which is noted for its vicious anti-unionization campaigns. After receiving some complaints, Penn’s response? To stop doing anti-union work, which he claimed he’d never been doing in the first place (just getting the paychecks for). Did he tell his firm to stop doing anti-union work? No. Did Clinton demote him or get rid of him? No.
But, then, why should the Clinton campaign care what labor thinks? Sure, they complained, but when neither Penn nor Clinton really did anything to deal with the underlying problem (he’s the BOSS, and he should either make the anti-union work stop entirely, or if he can’t, quit the firm, if he doesn’t believe in it), labor really did nothing.
And in most cases, that’s labor’s pattern. They, like many Democratic constituencies, seem to be suffering from a certain learned helplessness. Take the IAFF, whom I promised to come back to. They endorsed Dodd last week. Now there are two possibilities here – one is that they are endorsing Dodd just based on his stellar record of getting behind their concerns. Hey, they backed Kerry when he was at his lowest (but remember that before that he had been the presumptive front-runner, a status Dodd has never had). The less charitable possibility was suggested in a Steve Clemons post:
My theory [on the Dodd endorsement]? It’s a case of the Althusserian “absent center” with Dodd as the donut hole.
The Firefighters don’t want to make the “wrong” choice between the three candidate that can win — Clinton, Obama, and Edwards.
They like Edwards like the rest of the movement but don’t think he’s going to win, and don’t want to piss off the Hillary machine. But they also don’t want to seem paralyzed and ineffectual. They want to be players. So they pseudo-aggressively endorse someone, but don’t piss off any of the big three by picking one of them against the other two.
After Dodd drops out following Iowa or New Hampshire, they see the lay of the land and jump to the likely winner.
I’m wondering how many endorsements by the unions we’re going to see for Edwards. Of the front-runners Edwards has the most union-friendly campaign and has promised the most union friendly policies. He’s been working hard for their support since the end of the last campaign. More to the point, to win, Edwards pretty much requires union support. Edwards’ strategy has always clearly been to do well in the early states and to get the union endorsements to supplement his ground machine, since he is well aware (having witnessed it personally in ‘04) that they have the best ground machine available.
If unions really are frightened of the Hilary machine holding grudges in 09 if they win, and unions won’t endors another viable candidate as a result, then the unions have made themselves into political eunuchs. If they won’t play, they don’t need to be taken into account. Hilary will throw them the occasional bone, sure, but is unlikely, as was Bill, to pursue policies that will do more than slow the long-term decline in union membership (look at the graph above and see how unions did under Bill). And unions need a reversal of that trend, not just a few years of slower bleeding, or even a halt.
Meanwhile the deeper reason that unions don’t get the respect they should in Democratic circles (and by “should” I mean on totally pragmatic “they make us win” terms) is probably because unions get little respect from white collar workers. Two episodes stand out for me on this – the first was that long period the 90’s where techies used to disrespect unions and resist unionization because they were being paid so well because “they were smart, and, like, knowledge workers” and therefore didn’t need unions. What they didn’t realize, because everyone who gets paid well always wants to think its because they, personally, are so wonderful, is that it was just a tight labor market for people with specific skills and that as soon as that skill set became common enough, the gravy train would stall. Sure enough, in the 00’s techies took it on the chin, and companies outsourced and offshored as much of their technical functions as they could. Suddenly a Bachelors in Comp.Sci wasn’t a ticket to the gravy train any more. Techies had made the classic error of attributing to themselves (genius knowledge workers who are each individually unique flowers with a skill set that can’t easily be replicated) what was a property of the situation (new technology, moving fast, not enough early adopters with the necessary technical skill set, therefore a labor crunch in the field).
And then, of course, there was the New York City Transit Strike – and the comments, I, as a blogger defending them, received from my commenters about how they should just be grateful to have decent jobs, shut up and go back to work, because my readers didn’t have half the benefits those blue-collar transit workers did and they didn’t deserve them anyway. No one seemed to make the connection that if the transit workers were costing the economy billions of dollars every day, then the economic value of what the transit workers did must be, ummm, rather larger than they were being compensated for. What was revealed then was a lot of ugly class hatred and envy – people with BA’s who felt that if they weren’t making it, neither should be blue collar workers without a degree. Fortunately, the majority of citizens of NYC actually backed the union (despite a full court press offensive against the union) and things worked out reasonably well.
But this middle class contempt for unions, and for the sort of people that make them up, boils up so frequently that I’ve come to believe it’s a deep malaise in the American middle class psyche. I’m not entirely sure why it exists, other than as manifestation of the very human emotion of envy, but it definitely exists. And as the middle and upper classes (who never liked unions to begin with) have become the powers in the Democratic party (try and get started in politics and you will quickly find that the easy route – internships – is mostly only available to you if mommy and daddy can afford to support you while you work for nothing) a fundamental misunderstanding, and often, outright contempt, for working people has taken hold (again, at the end of the day… remember all those “free” trade bills, passed by Democrats despite Labor’s strenuous objections).
Where unions are strong, Democrats win. But Democrats seem to have forgotten that at a very fundamental level and have allowed unions to sicken till they are but a pale shadow of what they once were. If Democrats want to win, they need to rectify that. If unions want their strength back, they need to hold Democrats to policies that aid unions, knowing that in so doing they are serving both sides. And the middle and upper classes that run the Democratic party need to get over their disdain for unions and recognize who their real friends are – even if only for hard-headed pragmatic reasons. There will be no new permanent Democratic majority like the one that ruled most of the post-war period, until the unions recover.
So this Labor Day Weekend I wish Labor nothing but the best. May a thousand unions certify and in so doing may Democrats sweep into office across the land.
jcapan
“Meanwhile the deeper reason that unions don’t get the respect they should in Democratic circles”
It’s also b/c regardless of how much they may rail against neo-liberalism (see some of Trumka’s excellent speeches) at the end of the day they check the lesser of two evils on their ballots. The dem party as symbolically illustrated by Rahm’s smug fucking face will not give you a moment’s attn. if you’re going to (ahem, Kucinich) roll over like a little bitch and vote their way.
The unions, like most liberals, will gain the power they rightfully deserve when they stop supporting a party that fails (willfully/ideologically) to represent their interests. From Clinton until 2010, the dem party has abandoned labor (& liberals). When will the consequences begin?
As for “middle class contempt for unions, and for the sort of people that make them up” this has been described wonderfully by the late Howard Zinn, how the M-C is simply a buffer between the ruling class and the people they prey upon. There’s historically been enough wealth to share with this class, which consequently runs interference for the parasites.
Ian addresses THE one and only issue here. It’s about class and if there’s a chance in hell of dem party redemption (or as is my preference 3rd party genesis), it’s this issue. Immigration, climate change, perpetual war, they are worthy subordinate causes, but the language of Zinn is the answer. There’s been class war waged against Americans for 30 fucking years. It’s time to fight back.
“I think it’s very important to bring back the idea of socialism into the national discussion to where it was at the turn of the [last] century before the Soviet Union gave it a bad name. Socialism had a good name in this country. Socialism had Eugene Debs. It had Clarence Darrow. It had Mother Jones. It had Emma Goldman. It had several million people reading socialist newspapers around the country. Socialism basically said, hey, let’s have a kinder, gentler society. Let’s share things. Let’s have an economic system that produces things not because they’re profitable for some corporation, but produces things that people need. People should not be retreating from the word socialism because you have to go beyond capitalism”
Howard Zinn, 2009
See also Hedges: http://www.truth-out.org/chris-hedges-this-country-needs-a-few-good-communists60024
anon2525
There’s been class war waged against Americans for 30 fucking years.
Agreed.
It’s time to fight back.
Agreed.
Ian addresses THE one and only issue here. It’s about class and if there’s a chance in hell of dem party redemption (or as is my preference 3rd party genesis), it’s this issue.
I disagree. It is not the one and only issue.
Immigration, climate change, perpetual war, they are worthy subordinate causes, but the language of Zinn is the answer.
I disagree. The killing of civilians by the military and mercenaries is the most urgent issue. That is a fact whether people want to agree or not. People’s lives are immediately at stake, more so than from any other cause. This would be immediately apparent to Americans if they were subject to the military and mercenaries’ attacks.
The destruction of the biosphere is the next most urgent issue. It is more urgent than class warfare. There is no class warfare in the middle of the day in the middle of a desert. Once the biosphere has been destroyed, there is no restoring it “over election cycles.” We have had the luxury over the past 10,000 years of not having to think about the biosphere because it was a constant that could be relied upon. Economists and politicians haven’t had to factor it into their thinking.
The depletion of resources is the next most urgent issue. The energy source on which industrial society is based is running out, and the using of it is destroying the biosphere. The 150+ year reliance on it can no longer be taken for granted.
Fighting back against class warfare is important, but these other issues are more urgent or more fundamental, not subordinate.
Brian
“It’s also b/c regardless of how much they may rail against neo-liberalism (see some of Trumka’s excellent speeches) at the end of the day they check the lesser of two evils on their ballots. The dem party as symbolically illustrated by Rahm’s smug fucking face will not give you a moment’s attn. if you’re going to (ahem, Kucinich) roll over like a little bitch and vote their way.”
—
jcapan is exactly right. Democrats will start supporting labor & liberals only when labor & liberals stop supporting Democrats for their misbehaviour. And not before then.
jcapan
anon2525
Of course, I’m not saying other issues don’t exist/aren’t incredibly important. I’m talking about galvanizing an electorate that’s never been more cynical. And while I bleed green and think Chalmers Johnson should replace Robert Gates, let’s be honest with ourselves here. Most Americans don’t give a shit about the environment or dead Afghani children–at least not if it means they’re going to have to sacrifice or fight on their behalf. It may sound brutal but the truth usually is. You can’t build a movement by relying on conscience. They’re too busy looking for work or struggling to pay for their health care or kid’s college to give thought to the biosphere or innocents being slaughtered by drone strikes in Central Asia. It’s both abstract and unreal (compared to the ostensible reality they see on the telly day in/day out). They don’t want to think about such things–fuck, they’re watching the tube, getting ripped/high to escape reality.
But worry about financial ruin is inescapable. And the insane military budget has to be (per Grayson’s vain attempt) part of this conversation but only in terms that resonate for American pocketbooks. Ditto any true green paradigm shift–don’t talk about biosphere collapse. Talk about the jobs it’ll create, the savings in energy costs once the gov’t subsidizes solar for millions et al.
What I’m saying is that these other goals can only be achieved (if at all) once a more egalitarian society begins to materialize. As long as Americans are this divided from one another, they won’t be able to achieve much of anything. There needs to be one central narrative. Michael Moore offers us a pretty vivid example here:
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mike-friends-blog/happy-fuckin-labor-day
anon2525
…let’s be honest with ourselves here. Most Americans don’t give a shit about the environment or dead Afghani children…
Agreed. Or Pakistani children — witness the lack of donations for the Pakistani flood.
Agreed, people need jobs. Restart the WPA. But those jobs need to be directed toward replacing the fossil-fuel base of the industrial economy and transportation. Replacing that base will be an enormous task with lots of jobs to be done. If we don’t recognize the primacy of the biosphere destruction and the fossil-fuel depletion, then those jobs will not be of the right kind.
And people’s minds can be changed. Obama should have declared a national emergency when he was sworn in (during the inauguration), but instead he’s been protecting the status quo rent-seekers.
Also, people need to be made aware that the amount of money that americans spend on medical-services (insurance, drugs, administration, the whole bit) in excess of what is spent in other OECD countries exceeds the size of the (nominal) “insane military budget”. Put another way, we waste more annually on medical services than the entire military budget. Combined, the two cost roughly $2 trillion per year (the military budget plus the excess on medical services) out of a $14 trillion GDP. I would love it if Ian Welsh or someone could produce some approximation on how much of the GDP is lost to the financial services “industry” because I have not seen a good estimate of what that is.
“TBTF” will fail (again). And unchecked growth of costs in the “reformed” medical services industry will fail.
What I’m saying is that these other goals can only be achieved (if at all) once a more egalitarian society begins to materialize.
I do not expect the country to change direction until there is a (yet another) crisis. Unfortunately, the unprecedented problems we are talking about will not be able to be fixed/resolved if we wait until after they have happened. They are not like so many past problems. We won’t change direction until it is too late, but then it will be too late.
jcapan
Agree that our crises are of a piece. Thus, any successful movement is going to have to strive for a simple, coherent synthesis (something the left has been notoriously bad at for decades). All issues must be interpreted through a central prism/mantra (your pocketbook). Small gub-mit/lower taxes is only resonant b/c the dems counter-platform is incoherent horseshit (i.e. the working definition of centrism). Obama truly is the ultimate DLC spokesman–the ideology and the man are both ciphers. Obama as “one that has no weight, worth, or influence: nonentity” and the DLC as a “method of transforming a text in order to conceal its meaning.” i.e. A trojan horse for conservatism. h/t Merriam-Webster.
Any movement that’s going to work demands a spokesperson who believes in liberalism, not the gospel according Ronald Reagan. Someone prepared to say listen, we can all share in the prosperity or you can continue to delude yourselves into thinking you’re going to be a Koch someday.
I largely share your pessimism. I simply can’t see how (given the class hostility Ian refers to here, as well as the stupid political tribalism) the present system allows for genuine change. I hope I’m wrong.
Celsius 233
“When Labor Is Strong Democrats Win…”
But do we want democrats to win? I don’t! Ditto republicans! All fail!
There must be an alternative! But that too fails.
Crisis prevails, but not recognized…equals; fail!
Formerly T-Bear
@ ºC 233
The Sampson Solution? Might work, twas biblicalish.
lambert strether
Great post, Ian. I agree with the jcapan that class is the “key log.” Until that is addressed, nothing else can be addressed, including blowing Afghani children into red mist, which is done partly for pleasure, of course, by some relatively low-level operatives, but mostly because the MOTU are driven by greed, and weapons systems satisfy that that desire.
Desert Dweller
And while I bleed green and think Chalmers Johnson should replace Robert Gates, let’s be honest with ourselves here. Most Americans don’t give a shit about the environment or dead Afghani children–at least not if it means they’re going to have to sacrifice or fight on their behalf. It may sound brutal but the truth usually is. You can’t build a movement by relying on conscience. They’re too busy looking for work or struggling to pay for their health care or kid’s college to give thought to the biosphere or innocents being slaughtered by drone strikes in Central Asia. It’s both abstract and unreal (compared to the ostensible reality they see on the telly day in/day out). They don’t want to think about such things–fuck, they’re watching the tube, getting ripped/high to escape reality.
But worry about financial ruin is inescapable.
Thank you for helping put my finger on why I’ve become so irritated reading blogs that I really used to like. Way too many posts seem to be about things like congressional sausage-making, pointless exercises in futility like finding ways to elect “more and better Democrats”, those mean old Republicans, Tea Partiers and right-wing media figures, and Gitmo amongst other topics. And that isn’t to say that these things don’t deserve any attention at all, because they do, but blogs that focus heavily on these things and other abstract, “conscience” issues just don’t get it. These issues are important to their specific audience, but the people they ought to be trying to reach are scared shitless- finding a job is becoming more and more like finding the winning Powerball ticket, mere survival is becoming a huge concern, and most people know on some level that this is because by the week the game is becoming more and more rigged against us. People know that our government no longer represents us and don’t have our best interests at heart, if they ever did. I think there are important conversations that we not only need to have but are ready to have.
The bloggers who are relying on conscience to motivate and mobilize people are just indulging in mental masturbation, if motivating and mobilizing people is even what they are trying to do. Really, I can’t believe that such smart people can be so stupid. The class warfare issue needs to be pounded over and over again and presented to people so that it connects with them personally. Maslow had it right- as long as people are worrying about where their next rent payment is coming from, they aren’t going to give a shit about Afghani children, the injustices of Guantanamo Bay, or why Keith Olbermann thinks Bill O’Reilly is the Worst Person in the World for the 297th time. FWIW, I know that I don’t.
Desert Dweller
I should clarify that of all the topics I listed above, electing “more and better Democrats” is one issue that is a total non-starter as far as I’m concerned. I made it sound like that’s a topic worthy of any discussion at all, and IMO it isn’t.
jcapan
DD, here’s Greenwald yesterday:
“Since my interest is primarily in how political officials use, and abuse, their power — and in the establishment media’s relationship to those in power — the people in power are the ones about whom I write the most. Right now, that happens to be Democrats. Beyond that, there are literally thousands of Democratic websites and groups devoted on a daily basis to dissecting every utterance of Sarah Palin, right-wing polemicists and the like, and I just have little interest in replicating that.”
Sadly, he (and Ian) are in the minority. In some ways, it’s unfortunate that dems will likely lose the house this fall. Not b/c I give a hoot about most elected Ds, but b/c this will shift even more ostensibly left blog-energy towards attacking the GOP. I’d venture to add that Obama’s shop will be happy about this as well, as it’ll draw fire away from him. And this means even less energy than at present contemplating alternatives to the thoroughly rotten duopoly.
Anyway, the perfect example of mis-emphasis was the Shirley Sherrod episode. Watching left-leaning blogs hyperventilating about everything except the central conclusion of her speech, that it’s not about B vs. W, that it’s about the haves vs. the have-nots. It sailed right over their heads. Well, that and the fact that the netroots nation poll said 84% approved of Obama. I generally think it’s b/c most of these bloggers we’re talking about, the Yglesias, Ezras, Digbys of the cyberscape are really fucking comfortable. They’re a lot more interested in debating fellow members of the professional class (D or R) than standing up for a legion of Main Streeters. The union activists of days gone by (see Matewan), the folks who went door to door in coal country, facing hostility & violence on a daily basis, and talking to the “ignorant” who are openly mocked by the so-called left. Those activists were fucking heroes. Most bloggers are pampered entertainers/Springer with a patina of snark.
lambert strether
I’m not afraid of the Rs, or any more afraid of the Rs than I am of the Ds.
To be fair, one day at a time is working out great, I’ve got a lot of happiness and interesting work to do, but my horizon extends about 30 days out.
But like millions of others, I’m worried about way too few jobs out there, holding on to my house, will fuel bills spike this winter, and what will happen if I get really sick. Then then there’s eating cat food and dying in my own shit hooked up to tubes, after the Ds and the Rs cut Social Security. The optimistic scenario is that I can escape the country, but that might not be possible soon, the way border controls keep inching up.
Look! Over there! Sarah Palin just walked into a Denny’s!
* * *
Incidentally, I think it’s great that the “left leaning” blogs focus more on the GOP. Let them. After the HCR debacle (and, OK, the 2008 primary debacle) do we really want them near anything that could possibly be of importance? (With some exceptions. I’ve always been partial to Atrios, and he’s been putting the screws to the Ds on HAMP — though he’s way too nice to them.)
Celsius 233
Formerly T-Bear
@ ºC 233
How did you do that?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Sampson Solution? Might work, twas biblicalish.
Which is that? Bringing down the temple?
That could work.
Formerly T-Bear
It is the Castilian keyboard but you can find it in special characters(Mac) or character palate (PC) too.
Yup, about the only way to dislodge TPTB, put paid to the corruption and possibly regain control over the political process. Yes, bring that sucker down, by any and all means. Thought the Sampson Solution would be a good handle for it.
YMMV.
Celsius 233
^ It does have a nice “ring” to it.
The real problem of course is people. Too easily mis/lead; too easily scared; too easily lazy (intellectually) and thus, too easily bullshitted.
And now the final solution has been implemented; the core of the middle and lower middle class has been relegated to serfdom while the real rulers have consolidated their wealth and power. Just who out there will put the end to this checkmate? So the temple will stand.
chicago dyke
let’s not forget to mention the disconnect of the ‘creative class’ of the left and actual working people who may or may not be in a union. if one speaks with those in working class jobs about unionization, you’ll find a very different emphasis. working people understand the reality of what modern day union representation can bring them, which is to say often “not much.” many people resent their union leadership and paying dues that seem to end up in the pockets of politicians who do nothing to help them once elected, and often do a great deal that hurts them. i live in the state that is the birthplace of american unionism, and working people here are much, much more sophisticated in their understanding of how unions operate than most bloggers and upper class writers on the left are, imho. it annoys me greatly to read or hear the condescending tone that many liberal writers take, “you working class people are so stupid for not organizing yourselves!” when in truth, working people would be more than happy to organize and be in a meaningful union that protects them, instead of one that does not. don’t get me wrong, most union organizers are the real deal and have the right priorities. but it’s important to point out that many union leaders are effectively Villagers, in all the ways we normally construct that identity.
The Raven
anon2525, I am surprised at how much we agree on the issues.
“Most Americans don’t give a shit about the environment or dead Afghani children–at least not if it means they’re going to have to sacrifice or fight on their behalf. It may sound brutal but the truth usually is. You can’t build a movement by relying on conscience.”
People do sacrifice. All the time. Relying on conscience? Perhaps not. But movements without conscience fail, either in blood or depression. Isn’t that the ultimate lesson of the Obama Presidency? The Administration seems not to grasp the power of their “hope and change” campaign slogan. Because they didn’t understand, they didn’t try to deliver, and now look where they are. I don’t think they will lose as badly as Ian does, but it is not going to be a good election for Democrats.
I suspect, though, that if we make it, it will be because of a spiritual revolution. So we will end up relying on conscience after all.
BTW, I like Brad Delong’s Labor Day, 1894. If Delong concentrates on writing economic history, I think his own place in the history of economics is assured.
lambert strether
CD writes:
We saw that in the HCR debacle, where the union locals were strongly for single payer, and the national misleadership funded anti-single payer efforts, including the career “progressives” at Open Left and FDL, who shilled for the public option bait and switch, denied single payer advocates any oxygen, and ultimately censored them (showing, incidentally, that in a fair fight, their policy prescriptions would also. But then you knew that).
I don’t know what the structural answer to this is, either. It’s like we need to stop our institutions from “bolting,” or something.
lambert strether
“…their policy prescriptions would also.” -> their policy prescriptions would lose.”
Neuron glitch!
stevo67
DD and Jcapan,
couldn’t agree more. Progressives have recognized for some time that Obama and the Dem leadership in Congress “just aren’t into us.” The slower among us are starting to catch on. The question of the day is what’s next? Is it easier to let the DLC Dems crash and burn so that Progressives can pick up the pieces and recapture the soul of what it means to be a Democrat? Or should we write off the Dems altogether and go the 3rd Party route? No matter what course the Progressive movement takes, we need to speak about our values. The Dems haven’t for the last 30 years, and the results speak for themselves.
anon2525
Apparently, Labor Day was celebrated yesterday in France.
Economist Richard Wolfe on the large, combined strike by six unions in
France yesterday:
(From a radio interview I heard with Wolfe today.)
stevo67
Anon,
I was wondering if/when something like that was going to happen across the pond. The last time we saw anything similar in the good ol’ US of A was a few years back when Latinos had massive street-wide protests in several cities against proposed immigration “reform”. Hispanics are another group none too pleased with Obama and our fearless Dem leaders in DC.
anon2525
More from Richard Wolfe about the strike in France:
Workers of France, unite! All you have to lose are the losses that the banksters want to socialize.