There’s a common story I tell about 2016, when I misunderstood that grabbing women by the p*ssy was a perfectly fine thing to brag about while vying for the top position in the institution of the United States.
It’s one where I returned to work after that election and told someone in my office I felt small and needed a cause. “You work for the Labor Movement,” he responded. “You are always in the cause.”
Indeed.
Eight years later I referenced a new work-related conversation in my Election Day post, which indicates that must have sunk in:
Yesterday we bargained.
Today we vote.
Tomorrow we respect the outcome.
In Labor we practice respecting the outcome constantly, immediately snapping to work on how we will support one another in the latest world order.
We stay in constant communication with field reps, organizers, labor lawyers and other unions about how to uphold what we’ve already fought for. About what new innovation may pose new, innovative threats to workers (hello, private equity).
We keep detailed notes for the next negotiation, when we will have the chance to address and effectively communicate our situation once more.
I realized while talking to Mr. McCartin, the worst thing (legislatively) that ever happened to the Labor Movement was 80 years ago—the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947.
Another side would say that bill fractured corruption in the Movement, such as mafia ties—and “fixed” certain things that made the economy overly vulnerable, such as the legality of workers to strike against the Federal Government (see: PATCO Strike of 1981). But it also opened the door to policies that severely altered the playing field away from organized labor, workers’ freedom to form Unions and their ability to have a voice at work.
It created an erosive affect on worker power, chipping away at the middle class slowly enough that people today wouldn’t easily identify where it started.
Nearly 80 years later, that scar continues to haunt us. And yet, the Labor Movement continues to stand back up and bring legislation before Congress to retain and regain power where it can. *takes notes*
________________
Way back in my 20’s, I was tasked in my college internship with cleaning up the files of the new department I was working in at the BCTGM (Communications). Thumbing through a fluorescent stock room for hours at a time, I remember seeing headlines in old issues of the BCTGM News that were strikingly similar to the ones we were writing ‘today’ (20 years later, it still feels like today, anyway).
“Income Inequality at an All-Time High”
“Social Security Under Attack”
“Corporate Fat Cats Take More Than Their Fair Share”
“Wall Street Run Amok”
I thought, how long is this struggle going to take?
In what year will these problems finally be solved and put us all out of a job?
Surely, in 2007, all of this inequity shouldn’t still exist…
________________
Cut to 2024, there is a common phrase my son’s baseball coaches use, which often reminds me I could have benefited from playing a little more team sport in my day. That is, “We either win or we learn.”
Including this past November 5th, I have voted in six presidential elections and four mid-terms. What I’ve learned is exactly that: In each and every government election, we either win or we learn.
Union elections are no different.
Workers will always be on a different plane than the people who sign their paychecks. Power may shift back and forth based on diligence, but all problems are never “solved” for both sides.
Therein lies the answer to when this struggle will end: Never.
It isn’t because our country or job creators inherently “suck,” or “hate us,” or any of the other things our emotions come up with when we lose. It’s because winning things we want in negotiations often means someone, somewhere else, is conceding something. Is learning something.
Progressive and conservative change causes ripples, which reach places all individual people can’t see, many can’t understand, and leave people operating within those areas upended. They are taking notes too, planning new proposals for the next negotiation, creating their own strategy to “fix” things for the next phase.
Believe me when I say: at no time more than 2016 did I feel like the things I lost in an election meant this country hated me.
The real truth was, someone else (a lot of people, in fact) was getting something from Donald Trump that felt like more of a priority to them than p*ssy-grabbing. It didn’t mean all, or even most, of those people condoned that behavior, it just meant he was relieving pain points for them that were different from mine. And they won.
As a wiser forty-something, this is what I would tell thirty-something Michelle of 2016, in her crisis bubble, feeling desperate for a cause:
Some elections will work out in your favor and others will be someone else’s time to thrive.
It isn’t always about you, and that’s okay. It’s good, even.
I would tell her to pay attention to the things that happen in this Union every time workers decide they are at an impasse and the next right thing is to go on strike.
I would tell her to watch how the bargaining unit comes together in solidarity for the fight, and how they split when it’s time to vote.
Watch how they duke it out, get their feelings hurt, call each other a “cop out” and then wind up back on the same team when it really matters.
Watch how they respect the outcome, but never give up.
I would tell her all of these people deserve a say, and it’s okay that half of them will emerge unhappy.
Someone will win this time, and someone will learn.
I would tell her that co-worker is absolutely right: This is the cause, and you will see it in time for the miracle that it is.
I would tell her this is what makes America ‘great’—we are in the right place.
