It’s funny how commercial jingles sometimes pop up into your head and how difficult it is to shake them once they do. This happened to me just the other day while in the midst of writing. I kept hearing:

“Look for the union label, when you are buying a coat, dress or blouse. Remember somewhere our union’s sewing, our wages going to feed the kids and run the house. We work hard but who’s complaining. Thanks to the I.L.G. we’re paying our way. So, always look for the union label, it says we’re able to make it in the U.S.A.”

These were the lyrics of a 1975 song by Paula Green that the International Ladies Garment Workers Union used to stimulate interest in products made by their members (as if there isn’t enough interest in ladies garments already). When I heard them however, I wasn’t thinking about clothing but politics. It seems that far too often these days we find a union label on those in elected office and that it’s increasingly becoming problematic for them.

The label certainly appeared to be firmly in place on politicians in Washington, DC when they told us that they were trying to create jobs. It seems however, that the only sector of the job market that they were interested in growing was that of union government workers. In fact, during a period of increasing unemployment in this country, the number of union represented government workers rose in 2009 by over 64,000, according to the Heritage Foundation piece, “Government Unions Win, You Lose”.

The label was likewise visible when we look back at the bailout of automakers General Motors and Chrysler. The government bypassed guaranteed debtors when reorganizing these companies, giving generous holdings of the new stock instead to labor unions.

Negotiations on health care reform saw this label firmly in place as well. The disparity of health coverage and the concept of taxing those with “Cadillac plans” was considered a crucial part to paying for the newly covered, but the president and legislators were quick to provide exception to union health care plans.

Perhaps this label is part of the reason DC politicians now enjoy some of the lowest approval ratings ever recorded, but they are not alone. Politicians in cities across the country also find themselves in a predicament related to the union label. Many over the years have heavily lobbied for and proudly proclaimed union endorsements in their campaigns to gain votes. Troubled local economies have them facing quite the conundrum now though.

Toledo for example finds itself looking at a budget deficit of over $40 million, while recognizing that the largest part of its budgets goes to the salaries and benefits of union employees. Granting generous contracts filled with high pay, copious amounts of vacation and sick time, and generous health and retirement contributions to those union employees has long been considered a sure and simple way to garner votes for these elected officials. Those currently in office instead find themselves in the unenviable position of requesting concessions from these long-time union supporters or tax relief from voters. Either could take out their frustration at the next election.

Elected officials in school districts aren’t immune from the effects of a union label. Once considered a sure path to victory in a springboard to higher office, they now appear to walk a tightrope.

Toledo is again a classic example of the dangers involved for those having to walk this path as they deal with their own projected $30 million deficit. Supporters in the Toledo Federation of Teachers explain that their members are making less than many of those in other Ohio urban school districts. Voters however, are quick to respond that teacher’s typical $53,000 per year salary is far above the median income of those funding those salaries (especially for a job which requires working 9 months per year). These elected officials therefore find themselves in the dubious position of requesting concessions and risking support of these unions, or supporting continuation of such agreements and risking the support of those who must approve tax increases to cover this deficit and re-elect them to this or higher office.

Things were different back in 1975 when this tune was written though. The Viet Nam War had ended that April with the fall of Saigon, the US automobile industry was dominant both in America and the world marketplace, and the US dollar was the standard by which all other currencies were measured. And of course, Richard Nixon had been shamed into resigning from office in August of the prior year. So perhaps it was easier back then for elected officials to wear the union label than that of a politician.

Columnist Tim Higgins blogs at http://justblowingsmoke.blogspot.com/.

Tags: Just Blowing SMoke

This entry was posted on Friday, March 19th, 2010 at 12:00 am and is filed under Just Blowing SMoke, Opinion.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.