Traditionally, forming a union meant to provide organized power to those that are normally powerless. It's the idea that a collective of workers can reach an equilibrium of power with the managers, so that the workers cannot be trampled on. The formation of unions in the past have brought to the table ideas never really considered before like worker safety, benefits, and even retirement packages.
When I ask myself who needs unionization the most, who has the least in my country, I usually automatically run to Wal*Mart workers. They're the poster-people for the necessity of unionization in ending managerial tyranny. Overt anti-union behavior from Wal*Mart—propaganda, spying, bribing, terminations—are why unions exist, of course. That and unreasonably low wages even compared to competitors.
Something occurred to me recently. Who, in my great country, are overused, abused, underpaid, and exploited more than anyone else? Who ultimately has no voice of their own, always being spoken for by those that do not share their interests? Military.
Don't worry, I know what you're thinking.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Hypothetical Devil's Advocate
But Will, if the military were unionized, they could strike during a time of war! What about the chain of command?!
|
What about an 18 year old kid with a gun in the desert putting his life on the line because he was born into poverty and a military recruiter said that the US military would pay for him to go to school? Who's going to stand up if he doesn't get to go to school? Probably some politician looking for political capital in a low income district... not someone with any real vested interest, just someone willing to steal the advocacy away from people that care enough to see the fight through. I remember Kerry fighting valiently for proper armor for humvees in Iraq. As soon as he was out of the election that fight fell silent. What about the soldier that doesn't get the armament and armor necessary to remain reasonably safe when risking his life for god and country? An organization of active troops fighting for the troops could really get attention, more than partisan veteran's organizations, more than a politician with a $200 haircut and a meaningless smile.
And a union does not necessarily mean a break down in command, either. That depends a great deal on the powers granted to the union. I'm sure some remember the American Servicemen's Union, which was essentially an anti-war movement among GIs during a draft, but it was less about guaranteeing that the soldiers were treated fairly and more about ending the war by any means necessary. I want to end the war in Iraq, but moreover I want the underrepresented and exploited troops to have some method of gaining rights. A military union of some kind could be a tool for fair treatment of the troops.
The idea of unionizing the troops is likely to scare a lot of people. It's a discussion that needs to happen, though. Please, think about it before dismissing it outright.