No, not a Wikipedia entry this time. Instead, this is something that I’ve noticed from supporters and hardcore members of trade/labor unions.

I’m not necessarily anti-union (workers and CEOs will always step on each other’s toes in mutual fashion), but why is it that the trade union supporters tend to voice the same reasons for the existence of unions and the need for unions in *all* business corporations?

Or rather, why is it that the trade union supporters (in all countries, I think) often use the terms “brothers”/”sisters” and “viva” as a form of exhorting exclamation, and possess a special dislike utter hate for “scabs” (or strike breakers)?

And finally, why is it that union supporters tend to voice expressions of a siege mentality against the owners and managers of corporations (who are, most likely, not that fond of unionization) and those who ally with them to push back against unionization? I mean, not as in “we must maintain the balance between the unions and the CEOs” but as “we must protect our jobs against the greedy CEOs”.

I don’t necessarily see unionization as socialism (or maybe it is, who knows), but the resulting split between the unions and the CEOs (often resulting in strikes and pickets) tends to offer a glimpse into what I call “union nationalism”.

For those who join the unions, doing such things as crossing the picket line to clock in is a definite “NO”, and those who do so are harangued to the public as “scabs” with no further delay after the strike; the reason for such is that the line-crossers are “scabbing” off of previous victories for worker’s rights by the unions and are being selfish to their co-workers. This is compounded by the fact that, in several corporations in several jurisdictions, unionization is mandated by law upon employment.

So when you have such things as the “right to work” laws to expand the number of “open shops”, the unions display fear against such laws and their supporters (Rick Berman, for one, is a perennial enemy of the unions); for the workers, the benefit of the “right to work” is no mandatory membership payments to unions, although this may (in the union’s POV) deprive the non-union workers of negotiating power for wages and benefits.

This has only served to redefine the conflict between trade unions and corporations by adding a new party – public relations firms and think tanks – to the corporations’ arsenal.

My personal opinion about this new conflict is that, because unions already have a poor reputation in the US and other countries, it doesn’t seem like the unions are winning with the current arsenal of well-used antagonistic, demagogic rhetoric to shame the corporations into fulfilling their wishes. The enlisting of PR and think-tanks by those who “want the extra penny” only further muddles matters for the unions, since this will give the corporations a stronger way to appeal to the emotions of those who dislike any socially-imposed restrictions (including libertarians and those who may be inconvenienced by strikes).

Sticking to the old union nationalism (that is, the celebration of the union and its struggles – and views both the non-unioner and the corporation owner as a worthless parasitic individual – in a similar fashion to how a nationalist celebrates the nation-state and its struggles – and denigrates the foreigner and the rich as dangers to the sovereignty, integrity and security of the nation-state) only makes things worse.