New PEW Report: Labor slips in public mind 2-2010

The new PEW research poll released this last Tuesday has labor slipping in the public's favor.

http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/591.pdf

the above link is the full survey
---------------------------------
This is from the overview: http://people-press.org/report/591/

Favorable views of labor unions have plummeted since 2007, amid growing public skepticism about unions’ purpose and power. Currently, 41% say they have a favorable opinion of labor unions while about as many (42%) express an unfavorable opinion. In January 2007, a clear majority (58%) had a favorable view of unions while just 31% had an unfavorable impression.

The latest nationwide survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted Feb. 3-9 among 1,383 adults reached on cell phones and landlines, finds that favorable opinions of unions have fallen across demographic and partisan groups. Still, far more Democrats have favorable views of unions (56%) than do independents (38%) or Republicans (29%).

Last year, a Pew Research survey found a decline in the proportion of the public saying labor unions are necessary to protect working people, while more expressed concern about the power of unions. In April 2009, 61% agreed with the statement “labor unions are necessary to protect the working person,” down from 68% in 2007 and 74% in 2003. In the same survey, six-in-ten (61%) agreed that “labor unions have too much power,” up from 52% in 1999.
----------------
Comment: this bodes ill for if the unions do not do a little Public Relations, their continued impact in politics is doubtful. Many in Missouri freely say that unions have out-lived their purpose and is now just another special interest seeking to bilk the public and its own members.

Problem two: when one hitches its wagon to another's star (like trying to cash in on say Obama's popularity there is a problem. Labor's popularity will slip when its "star" slips.

Making the compromise on healthcare to support "excise tax on healthcare benefits" has the appearence of back room deals and that was not a politically deft moment in labor's history. Of course, one could argue that unions were "tricked-bagged" into its support; but that argument is lame (although propably true in my opinion).

Fellow workers note: if you are going to play political games you must play by the fast and dirty rules of politics. Never let yourself get into a trick-bag position like a Hobson's choice situation. Hobson's Choice is a free choice in which only one option is offered. As a person may refuse to take that option the choice is therefore between taking the option or not; "take it or leave it". The phrase is said to originate from Thomas Hobson (1544–1631), a livery stable owner at Cambridge, England. To rotate the use of his horses he offered customers the choice of either taking the horse in the stall nearest the door or taking none at all.

Alas, so much of the positions of the political parties are Hobson Choices.

Another useful term to this argument:

Zugzwang (German for "compulsion to move", pronounced [ˈtsuːktsvaŋ]) is a term originally used in chess which also applies to various other games. The concept finds its formal definition in combinatorial game theory. It describes a situation where one player is put at a disadvantage because he has to make a move – the player would prefer to pass and make no move. The fact that the player must make a move means that his position will be significantly weaker than the hypothetical one in which it were his opponent's turn to move.

(many times in recient times Organized labor has had to make political moves which as a player it had to make a move. Alas, moves were counterproductive and other options should have been taken.)