Look at this graph that Chris Hayes just put up on his show

[JayhawkSD]

14. I wish more attention would be paid to "collective bargaining"

and the difference between that and "unionism." The latter includes the former, but it also includes a whole panoply of add-ons, some of which are okay, and some of which are really destructive. Take this from a long time member of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and a guy who is so much a supporter of collective bargaining that I believe it should be a requirement of incorporation.

For instance, it came to be very common that the people who were negotiating the contracts were not full time workers in the plants they were representing, but were "suits" hired by those workers to do the negotiating for them. That was part of the downfall of the unions, because those suits had an interest in making the negotiations as contentious as possible, and dragging them out as long as possible, to make themselves look good and "justify" their pay to the workers. They communicated inaccurately to the workers, misrepresented management offers, and fomented discord to their own benefit.

Contrast that with the recent non-strike by grocery workers in San Diego recently. The workers in the store remained on the job, cheerfully and efficiently serving customers during four months of difficult negotiations after they voted the authorization to strike if needed. The negotiations persevered and were successful in preventing a strike because the union negotiators were people who were current full time grocery workers taking time out from their jobs to negotiate in behalf of their coworkers. There was trust on both sides.

That is the way unionism should work, focused upon and preserving the collective bargaining process. Yes, management has been hostile to unions, but big unions sowed some of the seeds of their own destructions as well.