Earlier this month Richard Trumka—President of the AFL-CIO—penned an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal. Those who have followed Trumka in the past are already well aware of his socialist leanings, but rarely does one piece say so much, especially coming from the left. His work is so revealing that it deserves its own blog post.
It’s one thing to read Karl Marx in his own words, and I recommend that everyone do so. But Marx has long since left this world, and few leftists acknowledge his Communist Manifesto (with Engels) as the roots of modern progressivism. For many, quoting today’s leaders seems more relevant. This is why Trumka’s piece is so important.
For the record, Trumka’s editorial is entitled Scott Walker’s False Choice and can be accessed at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703559604576176601936928690.html. I encourage everyone to read it in full for context. In the interest of brevity, I will focus on 4 of his comments.
1. Commenting on the Wisconsin situation, Trumka contends, “The real question, the one at the heart of our economic debate, is this: Do we continue down a path that delivers virtually all income growth to the richest 1% of Americans, or do we commit to rebuilding a thriving middle class?” The path to which he refers is capitalism. Given the past two years, how can anyone claim that we are “continuing” down capitalism’s path? Quite the opposite is true. And what evidence does he have to support his 1% claim? According to IRS data, the top 1% of wage earners paid 38% of all federal income taxes in 2008, while the bottom 50% paid less than 3% of the total. Like Marx, Trumka plays the class envy card early and often, and his claims simply don’t correspond with the facts.
2. Trumka later adds, “The freedom of workers to come together to bargain for decent living standards, safe workplaces, and dignity on the job has been a cornerstone of building our middle class. It’s also recognized in Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” Why does Trumka find it necessary to cite a United Nations document to support his case? Why not base his argument in the US Constitution?
3. Trumka laments that “a group of radical Republican governors is working overtime to export the most short-sighted private-sector labor practices into the public sector.” In the private sector, labor practices are based on supply and demand. Employers and employees voluntarily agree on the terms and workers are paid based on their economic contribution to the organization. What part of this is short-sighted? In fact, Wisconsin’s public sector’s approach is economically short-sighted and has contributed to the very crisis the Republicans there are trying to solve.
4. In closing, Trumka refers to Governor Walker and others and states, “Their claim is that public workers have become parasites, busting state budgets with bloated wages and benefits at a terrible cost to taxpayers.” Perhaps I missed it, but I haven’t heard anyone in the Republican leadership refer to public workers as parasites. The rest of this statement is spot on.
Admittedly, I am surprised that Trumka’s handlers didn’t do a better job of editing out the overtly Marxist overtones in the piece. Perhaps Trumka didn’t write it anyway.
It’s interesting that Trumka did not offer any specific suggestions to resolve the budget problem, not even the handy “tax the rich” argument. But then again, he has no interest in balancing the budget. In classic union parlance, that’s a management problem.
My point here is simple. Union members as a group may lean left of center, but some are conservative and it’s my guess that only a minority would qualify as full-fledged socialists. But union leadership is a different story, as Trumka’s op-ed reveals. The Wisconsin situation is about balancing the budget and PUBLIC sector unions, not class warfare, wealth redistribution, and UN mandates. Until now, many Americans have failed to see the connection between union leaders and the far left wing of the Democrat party. Perhaps Richard Trumka has set the record straight.
Well said, Parnell! Thanks for another great talk in Brunswick County– WE THE PEOPLE!
Big unions have been run by Marxists for decades but the average union member doesn’t know or care. This editorial leaves no doubt.
Question…why did the unions support passage of Obamacare? Heretofore, they have better medical benefits now than most. Doesn’t make sense to me. They supported a lowering of the standard of care, increased costs and eventually single payer. Of course, the unions are now getting waivers. Union rank and file were duped by their collectivist union leaders. Someone ought to tell them all to wake up.
Jeff- You are correct…If unions were only interested in the well-being of their workers, they would probably oppose Obamacare or not take a position at all. However–as we can see with the Trumka op-ed–the union leadership is really part of a socialist alliance. It’s not about healthcare, but about government control.