Unionizing the Military
 

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.
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.

This is what organizations like the VA and supposed to be for, if you ask me. Any sort of union like you're saying would undermine the chain of command. There's no devil's advocate position necessary. It's exactly what would happen and it's exactly why there isn't one. You don't want anything at all that can cause a breakdown in the chain of command on the battlefield. Without it, an army is a collection of grunts with guns.

Unionize mercenaries... that makes sense, but the armed forces???? no. that just doesn't make sense at all. how could you think of that being a good thing where the chain of command is broken? if they didn't follow orders, then how would you expect them to follow orders to take a position that had dangerous activity?

I would agree that unionizing the military is a stretch.

Recruits take an oath of enlistment when signing up (or reenlisting) and have a right of redress for legitimate grievances under the UCMJ and the Military Whistleblower Protection Act.
-----Added 5/10/2008 at 06 : 58 : 00-----
Their "shop steward" should be the DoD Inspector General and the Armed Services Committees in the House and Senate.

Everyone responsible for looking out for the troops has become partisan and politicized. The DoD is VERY political, and of course the House and Senate committees are politicized. A politician sitting on one of the Armed Services Committees is there for military experience, to look good on the resume. You saw the House Armed Services Committee hearing on Iraq. Petraus parroted the administration.

The soldiers need something to protect them that has teeth. The VA doesn't have teeth. The House and Senate are hopelessly bogged down in perpetual politics. The DoD is under the thumb of the president.

The first report of under-armored humvees started coming out of Iraq in 2004. Today, there are still EFPs killing our soldiers because they don't have the right armor. Who was responsible for getting the FRAG Kit 5 onto the machines? All of the above. The DoD, the House and Senate. Even the VA.

Soldiers are the heart and soul of the military. Without them, there is no nation building but more importantly there is no national defense. If those charged with protecting them from unreasonable danger are impotent, then why shouldn't they organize? And they don't have to use a refusal to fight as their only bargaining chip. There are steps to be taken within the rules of the UCMJ that could be disobedience but not illegal. Can you imagine an endorsement from the Military Union? Can you then imagine the noticeable lack of such an endorsement? It wouldn't breach the UCMJ because it wouldn't specifically be badmouthing someone on the chain of command, but the consequences for elected officials of ignoring military issues would be unthinkable. Everyone loves the troops.

I'm sorry I don't understand what you mean by "politicized"

because it really basically comes down to COST.... these things cost money and that money has to come from somewhere. It just doesn't materialize because Willravel or some mother thinks that it should be.

It took YEARS to get airbags into every single car at a large cost to the many facturers purchaser in money and in fuel expense due to added weight for "safety" features.

They're doing it to gain political capital. The moment it no longer is worth the political capital, it's abandoned. How much have you heard about FRAG kits in the news lately?
If we can afford to blow up a bridge and rebuild it using contractors costing 1000x what it would in the US and at only 1/4 the speed, we can afford FRAG kits for our humvees. Prioritization of funds is a big part of the ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Some things can only become a priority because they have a public voice and face. As nice as "support the troops" is, it's not a face.

I know someone that would be more than willing to stand on the one leg he has left and say, "I've redeployed to Iraq. Please ask your representative to get me the protection I need." The DoD and military won't do that because they don't want the reality of war demonstrated for future recruits (which is where politics comes in).
The market moves a lot slower than a public system because it needs to know that the market wants the change. We know the FRAG kits will be helpful, we know they'll save lives. We know they're already installing them in some humvees, so we know the infrastructure is there.

I'm just using the FRAG kits as one example. I'm sure active military personnel or veterans that are members here could name a thousand things I'm unaware of that could help the or that could have helped them get the job done better and reasonably safer.

you are comparing apples to oranges.

getting GEAR is very different than unionizing soldiers.

Why should Wal*Mart workers unionize? Fair pay, benefits, respect. Why should the military unionize? Fair pay, benefits, respect. Part of that respect for the military is being given the tools necessary to get the job done right.

It's clear that the governing and responsible parties aren't capable on their own of taking care of the soldiers. Unionization ultimately argues a central point to capitalism, which I know you believe in: you're responsible for yourself. If soldiers want capable gear, reasonable protection, and what they're promised when they sign up, they have to try and organize from the bottom up. Relying on veteran's organizations that are ignored when they start to take sides on issues won't work. Relying on the DoD, House or Senate, all of whom are making politically responsible decisions, won't work.

Forget Wal*Mart. Those workers do need help, but they're not going to have their arm blown off because the higher ups didn't equip them enough. My priority is the military unless someone can convince me this is honestly a bad idea.

Think outside the box. TFP is about evolution.

Why not allow them to unionize with the specific constraint that it was illegal to strike or try to organize a strike?

Unionizing the military would be as wise as the Maginot Line. It would be horridly expensive, drain our resources, be endlessly constrained by red tape, and be just as effective.

As a soldier, I needed no one to look out for me. I knew what I was getting into, I knew how I could and could not get out, and I fully understood the consiquences of any actions.

Absolutely. I'm not advocating breaching the UCMJ. Orders should be followed.
You're assuming that I mean to simply cut and paste from trade unions. Obviously that's not the case. Striking isn't the only tool available to a union.

As for expenses, union fees go to the organization and hire-ons like attorneys. A volunteer union would be free.
You should have a conversation with my uncle, a vet from Vietnam. He thought he knew what he was getting into, too.

How would you like being deployed with an outdated weapon and unarmored transportation? How would you feel if you qualified 100% for college, and were even given the green light for school and they pull the funding when the bill for your first semester comes in the mail?

I get you have loyalty, but be realistic. The military isn't perfect.

It is illegal for air traffic controllers to strike, yet they did. Just how would that work if they decided to strike in the middle of a military campaign.

will, I'll just say it now, unionizing soldiers is a stupid idea.

will...I just dont see it.

There is a grievance process through the UCMJ and the whistleblowing law if a soldier believes illegal acts are being committed. There are benefits through the VA and the recently enacted GI BIll for the 21st century.

You cant have third parties determining "unreasonable danger" without undermining the chain of command.

And lastly, I think about police unions, probably the most comparable to what you have in mind. and how their record is mixed...often representing the police officer at the expense of the public interest.

thanks dc. I am not sure of the intricacies of the police unions, but they threaten blue flu from time to time. The PBA does a good job of getting them raises etc, but sometimes equiment comes from outside sources ala Hillary's gas masks.

IMO, a better solution than a military union, at least in terms of putting those in the military in harms way, would be better checks and balances before taking the country to war.

A recent National War Powers Commission, co-chaired by two former Secs of State, proposed "a new statute that would provide for more meaningful consultation between the president and Congress on matters of war."

But that is probably a subject for another thread

Negligence isn't something easily demonstrative under whistle blowing or the UCMJ. There's nothing illegal about pulling school funds or pretending that a military authorization from Congress actually constitutes a state of war and all of the conditions subject to such a state. They're gray areas, and they're left up to people that most certainly aren't low ranking military members that are the most directly effected by those decisions.
Most of these things are well known up the chain of command. The FRAG armor problem wasn't exactly a secret. The military leadership was having trouble with a separate body, the legislative, and funding. I can't imagine an acting general standing up and lecturing the Senate on not providing $16b for properly armored transportation when a quarter don't even want funds going to Iraq Like I said, politics get in the way.
US military aren't supposed to serve on US soil, so I see it as a different animal altogether.

Think outside the box on this. It's clearly not going to be a traditional union, of course. It may be an entirely new category of union. Instead of arguing for or against, do you have any ideas that could help it work?

I am a strong union supporter but I just dont see any union-type scenario that would serve the country and represent those in uniform....more than ensuring that the current system, both in terms of redress and benefits, is held more accountable.

Perhaps having independent Inspectors General in theater and who are not in the DoD.

It seems like the negatives are all so speculative, though. Isn't there Scandinavian precedence for this? Besides the practically barren wiki article, how familiar is everyone with the military of the Netherlands?
That's not a bad idea. I prefer the idea, though, of direct access to the troops. Instead of having their opinions filtered through the chain of command, how about the independent Inspector's General have an office which works directly with military personnel from the lowest rank all the way up? My ultimate concern is clearly representation of the interest of the lower ranks being represented in some transparent and independent way.

So, when a peaceful Green party candidate wants to run, will the military union endorse them? It's in the best interest to not use our military unless they are the last option. But a large vocal number of soldiers what to be used, unlike in the end of the Clinton era where there were base closings, questions about being ready for a two front war, and ads on TV from veterans groups.

I still don't see what this would accomplish.

Anti-war people don't generally enlist. A majority of the military may be against Iraq, but I'll bet my buttons they're not against Afghanistan or even Pakistan.

Speculative? Tell me where ANY union job has made the cost of labor CHEAPER?

Many other job benefits are direct result of unions, and the benefits of them are not legally mandated, but to be competitive with other companies. There's no mandate for sick days, vacation days, personal days. Yet many companies give them for the sole reason of benefit to the employee.

As far as the idea of another position that isn't DoD, you think THAT won't be political?

That's not anywhere near my intention. In fact, I hope that we'd be paying more. A soldier's income is abysmal. We don't give out enough military scholarships. We don't have enough of the right weapons and armament. No, my understanding and intention is higher cost leading to a more efficient and effective soldier.

I'll make a thread about how to cut overall military costs some other time. This thread is here to spend, but spend for the good of the lower ranking military. Also this thread isn't here for anyone to gripe about how much money might be taken from their paycheck, so let's just avoid that.
Let the troops decide how political they need to be to protect themselves. That's the whole point.

Soldiering is the only job you can't quit from (aside from the mob, but that's for another thread). That kind of thing is just asking for abuse from above. The most effective way to prevent abuse from above is organization from below.

That's absurd. War is not about kubaya warm fuzzies.

They sign up for a process of taking orders, not for being able to think and deciding things for themselves. While you may think that their pay is abysmal, it seems that many make a decent, fair, and honest living. Living on the base gives them subsidized housing, groceries, gasoline, movies, food, heck there was even a Burger King on Governor's Island (Coast Guard) back in the 90s that had $.35 burgers.

I met many squids during my years in Singapore and they weren't poor by any means. They'd take out a wad of cash plop it down on the table and say, "No one leaves this table until all the money is gone."

EDIT

Might just happen someday.
I doubt I'd support the movement.

Ridiculous