From its inception, the U.S. labor movement’s fate has been intimately bound up with the fate of political democracy. That historic connection seems more true than ever at this time. From Starbucks to Amazon, from legislative victories by fast food workers in California to the AFLCIO’s creation of the new Center for Transformational Organizing, many signs indicate a labor movement stirring to life after years of false starts, retrenchment, and retreat. Yet this hopeful energy is coalescing just as political democracy in this country—as across much of the globe—faces a deepening crisis. Whether labor can rebuild its diminished strength will depend on whether or not political democracy survives its present crisis. And whether democracy survives will in turn depend heavily on whether labor steps forward to lead not only an effort to organize workers but a fight to defend and extend democracy.
Labor’s Evolution as a Democracy-Advancing Force
Taking up the challenge of leading a democracy movement at this fateful juncture would be in keeping with U.S. unions’ evolution. Over the course of its history, as I will suggest, labor emerged from decidedly imperfect beginnings to become America’s most potent democratizing force. Understanding this historical context is crucial if we are to grasp the challenges of the present moment, in which the very survival of our democracy is at stake.
It is first important to recognize that democracy and unions were linked from the beginning. The formation of the first U.S. unions coincided almost exactly with the founding of the republic. From the outset, these organizations voiced the democratic aspirations of their (white male) members. At the dawn of the nineteenth century, journeymen’s societies mobilized their members against what they saw as a “Tory” elite. In the 1820s, the emergence of “city centrals,” the first central labor councils, helped spawn Workingmen’s Parties in multiple cities, parties that fought to elect “mechanics” to office and campaigned for a widening of the franchise. In the early 1840s, Rhode Island’s mechanics provided the backbone for the “Dorr Rebellion,” a movement that threatened a civil unrest to win removal of property requirements that kept workingmen from the polls.
To be sure, the democratic vision of these antebellum efforts was as narrow and myopic as the white-male-dominated political culture in which they were steeped. Early unions were not at Seneca Falls in 1848, advocating for women’s suffrage; nor did they champion abolitionism and the enfranchisement of Black men. Black men won the franchise in Rhode Island in 1843, but did so in spite of the fact that white workers successfully pressured the Dorr movement to drop its initial demand that they receive the same voting rights as white men.
Both the labor movement’s defense of democracy and its privileging of white men in that defense continued into the post-Civil War era. In those years, the National Labor Union (NLU), the Knights of Labor (K of L), and the American Federation of Labor all took up the mantle of defending a threatened democracy.
They criticized growing monopoly control over government, attacked “judge-made law” for undermining strikes and labor reforms, urged their members to the polls, and, in the case of the NLU and K of L, experimented with independent political parties. But theirs was not an inclusive democracy. The NLU and the AFL tolerated segregated unions, the K of L foundered in part because its effort to bring Blacks and whites into the same organization was so controversial, and all three organizations supported Chinese exclusion, judging Asian immigrants to be unfit for citizenship in a democracy. As African-American disfranchisement swept the South in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s 1898 Williams v. Mississippi decision, which certified the constitutionality of a variety of mechanisms used to purge Blacks from the rolls of eligible voters, the AFL ignored the problem and focused on battling the open shop.
In part due to its narrow vision, organized labor’s defense of democracy achieved meager results in the nineteenth century. Thus, as the twentieth century dawned, the United States called itself a democracy, and the AFL claimed to speak for American workers, but in truth both claims were weak. Most adults in the United States had no access to voting, while the AFL represented a small sliver of the nation’s diverse working class. These realities began to change only when expanding democracy and broadening the ranks of the labor movement became linked projects.
Building that linkage was difficult. The United States was a democracy for only a fraction of its citizens before World War I. Black men were kept from the polls by grandfather clauses and nightriders. Poor Blacks and whites alike were subject to unpayable poll taxes. Despite a half-century of suffrage agitation, women had won the vote only in Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, and Idaho. In factory towns like New Bedford, Massachusetts, striking workers lost their voting rights if they received public relief. In Braddock, Pennsylvania, U.S. Steel’s foremen simply handed out ballots and instructed workers whom to vote for. In Huerfano County, Colorado, coal operators worked with local officials to draw electoral precincts so that polling places were on company property and on election day armed guards simply stopped any potentially “disloyal” workers from voting. The labor movement, meanwhile, spoke for only a thin stratum of U.S. workers. The AFL was excluded from growing industries like steel, autos, and electrical manufacturing, it claimed less than one-tenth of wage earners as members, and most of its affiliated unions expressed deep ambivalence if not outright hostility to expanding to include women, African-Americans, recent immigrants, and semi-skilled industrial workers.
Slowly, however, the labor movement began to change, broadening both its vision of democracy and its membership in ways that became mutually reinforcing. The first hints of that shift emerged during the progressive era when unionists and their allies began to recast their calls for union rights as demands for “industrial democracy.” That phrase became pervasive in the years between the Ludlow Massacre of 1914 and the end of World War I four years later, thanks in large part to the impact of the war itself. Woodrow Wilson fatefully cast U.S. entry into the war as a crusade to “Make the World Safe for Democracy.” That framing in turn provided leverage to workers who began demanding a measure of democracy at work—industrial democracy—as their right. In reference to their autocratic foe, workers began demanding the “de-Kaisering of industry” and calling “self-government in the workshop” a vital “part of the democracy for which our armies are fighting in France.” To appease such sentiments, Wilson created the National War Labor Board (NWLB) in 1918. It further legitimized the demands for industrial democracy by directing war-related industries to allow for the election of a shop committee through which workers could bargain with their employers. Significantly, these elections were open to never before unionized semi-skilled workers in war industries—including immigrants, women, and African-Americans who were then unable to vote in political elections. Indeed, when the board circulated shop committee ballots in some shops, not only were women encouraged to vote, but voters were instructed to vote for specified numbers of women candidates to ensure that women would have a voice in the committees elected.
Although the country’s wartime upheaval was short-lived, and emergency measures like the NWLB were supplemented by the repression of radicals, the genie of industrial democracy could not be re-bottled after the war. Union gains were rolled back, but employers could not simply restore the status quo ante. Women’s participation in the war effort eased passage of the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920, granting them the vote. African-Americans who had moved north for war-related jobs and participated in shop committees increasingly chafed at discrimination and their continued exclusion from craft unions and became an active political force in northern cities. Employers increasingly experimented with company unions in an effort to appease workers’ demands for industrial democracy. The labor movement itself was also changed by its wartime experiments with industrial union-like campaigns in industries like steel and meatpacking, which planted seeds for its 1930s resurgence.
The resonance between union-building and democracy-expansion deepened dramatically during the 1930s and 1940s. The Wagner Act and industrial unionism both amplified that resonance. Explaining the larger significance of his important 1935 legislation, Senator Robert Wagner argued that the “struggle for a voice in industry through the processes of collective bargaining is at the heart of the struggle for the preservation of political as well as economic democracy in America.” John L. Lewis, for his part, explained that the Congress of Industrial Organizations was about “making realistic the principles of industrial democracy.”  As the CIO organized mass production workers, women, African-Americans, and other minorities, and as it allied with groups like the National Negro Congress (NNC), which campaigned for racial equality and the restoration of Black voting rights, labor became a vehicle for the advancement of a broadening political democracy. U.S. participation in World War II in turn fed the dialectic of advancing union organization and political democratization. During wartime, the CIO and the federal government worked to counter racial discrimination and exclusion even as the U.S. Supreme Court struck the first significant blow against Black disfranchisement in the South through its 1944 Smith v. Allwright decision, which eliminated whites-only Democratic political primaries.
Despite the toll it took on labor radicals and the narrowing of political debate it fostered, the Cold War era set the context for another step forward in the mutually reinforcing dialectic between union organization and the growth of democracy. That step was embodied by the simultaneous emergence of public sector unionism and civil rights struggles, movements that strengthened each other and pushed the country toward becoming a truly multiracial democracy. Speaking to the AFL-CIO in 1961, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. called on the labor and civil rights movements to join together as “architects of democracy” to “extend the frontiers of democracy for the whole nation.” The union movement responded to the rise of the civil rights struggle unevenly, but public sector unions tended to be among the most engaged. Although the AFL-CIO itself failed to support King’s March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom in 1963, the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) was among the unions that supported the march. A year later, a strong proponent of alliance with the civil rights movement, Jerry Wurf, had been elected president of the fastest growing public sector union, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and union lobbyists helped secure passage of the Civil Rights Act. By 1965, labor played a major role in securing the Voting Rights Act. The 1968 Memphis sanitation strike, whose participants raised the cry “I Am a Man” and fatefully drew Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and AFSCME’s president, Jerry Wurf, to their side, symbolized the culmination of a half-century of struggle to expand democracy, and the ranks of unions had become deeply intertwined.
The Reversal of the Democratization/Unionization Dialectic
Remembering how deeply organized labor’s rise was linked to a broader struggle to democratize America in the half-century between the end of World War I and the assassination of Dr. King helps us better grasp the nature of the reversal that gathered momentum in the last third of the twentieth century. Not only did union density plunge, the mutually reinforcing broadening of unionism and democracy decomposed and a dialectic of mutually reinforcing decline replaced it.
The reversal began during the “long 1970s,” years bookended by the Memphis strike in 1968 and the disastrous PATCO strike broken by Ronald Reagan in 1981. Between these events, a number of ominous developments unfolded. Business became more stridently anti-union and better organized. The 1971 “Powell Memo,” the ambitious agenda drafted by future Supreme Court Associate Justice Louis F. Powell, helped rally a counterrevolution against the politics of reform; following the organization of the Business Roundtable a year later, employers stepped up their anti-union efforts, and by the end of the decade, they were showing increased willingness to break strikes, a shift that would go into high gear once Reagan removed corporate inhibitions regarding strikebreaking by firing the PATCO strikers. In the U.S. Senate, meanwhile, a filibuster blocked the 1978 effort to pass a labor law reform bill that would ease union organizing (just as the threat of a filibuster would later also block efforts to ban striker replacement, pass the Employee Free Choice Act in 2009, or bring today’s Protect the Right to Organize [PRO] Act to a vote in the Senate).
In this recent period, the U.S. Supreme Court resumed the role that it had played in the late-nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, abetting the forces that would roll back union power and democracy. From Buckley v. Valeo (1976), which equated money to speech by ruling that limits on campaign spending amounted to an infringement on free speech; to Citizens United (2010), which opened the floodgates to oceans of “dark money” in political campaigns; to Shelby County v. Holder (2013), which gutted the Voting Rights Act, the court removed restrictions on vast pools of secret money even as it liberated states to make it harder for citizens to vote. Seizing the opportunity created by Shelby, legislators introduced 395 new voting restrictions in forty-nine states between 2011 and 2015. At the same time, the court struck a series of blows against union rights, undercutting public sector union financing in Janus v. AFSCME (2018), restricting access of union organizers to farm workers in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid (2021), and the list goes on. Since the 1970s, the court’s impact has grown decidedly. As law professors Lee Epstein and Mitu Gulati have recently shown, the John Roberts Supreme Court far outstrips any other court of the last century in its tendency to decide in favor of business and against workers and unions, resembling the courts of the Lochner era and the nineteenth century (please see “The Trump Supreme Court Is Nothing New: A History of the Tyranny of the Supremes” by Steve Fraser in this issue).
The costs of the combined anti-labor/antidemocracy assault are perhaps most clearly visible in Wisconsin, where a successful attack on union power by Gov. Scott Walker in 2009 opened the door to a remarkably bold subversion of majority rule. Fifty percent of Wisconsin’s public sector workers and 15.2 percent of Wisconsin workers overall were unionized in March 2011 when Walker signed Act 10 stripping most government workers of collective bargaining rights. By the end of 2012, the percentage of unionized government workers dropped to 37 percent, and union density overall eroded to 11.2 percent, the sharpest drop in any state during that period. The erosion continued. By 2021, overall union density in Wisconsin had fallen to 7.9 percent, barely half of the pre-Act 10 figure. As union strength ebbed, anti-union Wisconsin Republicans moved to weaken majority rule. Even as Act 10 took effect, they worked in secret on a new electoral map so extreme that a federal court declared it unconstitutional on partisan grounds, a rare move that was later set aside by the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2019 decision in Rucho et al. v. Common Cause et al., which ruled that federal courts have no business challenging electoral maps gerrymandered for partisan purposes. When Democrats won the offices of governor and the attorney general in 2018, the Republican-dominated legislature promptly stripped both offices of many of their powers. When subsequent decisions by the U.S. and Wisconsin Supreme Courts resulted in a 2022 electoral map even more favorable to Republicans than the 2011 map, Republicans came within a hair’s breadth of winning vetoproof majorities in the state legislature despite garnering fewer votes than Democrats in contested state senate races, and even though incumbent Democratic governor, Tony Evers, won reelection by relatively comfortable margin. Multiple states are now following the Wisconsin model.
Reviving Labor as a Democracy Movement
Over the past two years, much of the discussion regarding the perilous state of our democracy has naturally revolved around Donald Trump, his Big Lie, and the storming of the Capitol by his supporters on January 6, 2021, and understandably so. Within twelve months of the failed uprising, 440 bills restricting voting access were introduced in forty-nine states and nineteen states succeeded in passing thirty-four such laws.10 The truth, however, is that the present threat to democracy did not begin with Trump, nor will it be turned back simply by defeating Trumpism at the polls. Although the assault on democracy stumbled in the 2022 midterms, rest assured the battle is far from over. The forces of anti-democracy and antiunionism are intertwined and must be confronted simultaneously.
Not only can unions lead this fight, they must lead if they hope to avoid increasing marginalization in the years ahead, for if democracy continues to erode, union strength will decline with it. Unless unions make the defense and expansion of democracy central to their effort to organize workers in the twenty-first century economy, that effort will surely be subverted by the undemocratic institutions that have come to frustrate majority rule over the past half-century: the anti-union judiciary, the U.S. Senate filibuster, and gerrymandered legislative districts. In the twentieth century, unions emerged as an imperfect yet utterly indispensable democracy movement, one that drew energy from and contributed to the expansion of a multiracial democracy. If it does not come to play a similar role in the years immediately ahead, then neither unionism nor democracy is likely to survive in any recognizable form.
An effort to create a union-led democracy movement was launched by the Communications Workers of American (CWA) when it announced the Democracy Initiative in 2013 in partnership with the NAACP, Sierra Club, and Greenpeace. That initiative created an umbrella coalition that in time drew over fifty membership organizations representing 20 million people, and it sought to mobilize them for an attack on the “barriers to democracy,” the Senate filibuster, money in politics, and restriction on voting rights. However, after Larry Cohen, who launched the initiative, stepped down from CWA’s presidency, it lost momentum. In recent years, other union leaders, including Randi Weingarten of the AFT, and Mary Kay Henry of SEIU, have spoken out about the threats to democracy. But most unions and their leaders remain absorbed with immediate electoral goals and the labor movement as a whole lacks a sustained multi-union effort to make democracy defense/extension central to labor’s work as we emerge from the 2022 midterms.
What would a labor-led democracy movement look like? If labor’s experience in the twentieth century offers any lesson it is that such a movement, if it is to be successful, must become more than a lobbying campaign to eliminate the filibuster and extend voting rights, as important as those goals are. It must see labor ground its fights for democracy in unions’ most essential work. As it did during its advocacy of industrial democracy in the mid-twentieth century and its support of struggles like those of the Memphis sanitation workers, labor must join its defense of democracy to its basic tools of collective bargaining and collective action. Thankfully, initiatives such as Bargaining for the Common Good, a network of unions and community organizations dedicated to expanding the horizons of bargaining and reviving labor militancy, are now attempting to do just this.
A good place for such groups to start would be by demanding adequate paid time off for voting. In a nation where many states (including some with a strong union presence such as Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and New Jersey) do not require employers to furnish even unpaid time off for voting, and where others, like Alabama, require employers to grant as little as one hour of unpaid leave, winning paid time off for voting should be a labor priority. Where it proves difficult to pass laws to win time off, unions and their allies should bring the fight directly to employers, demanding that they concede workers the time they need to participate in their democracy.
And the effort cannot stop with winning voting time; the fight for democracy must infuse every union’s mission. If it does not, then the very survival of both democracy and the union movement will be imperiled. With the 2024 election now around the corner, the clock is ticking.
1. For a longer version of this argument, see Sarita Gupta, Lauren Jacobs, Stephen Lerner, and Joseph A. McCartin, “The Lever and the Fulcrum: Organizing and Bargaining for Democracy and the Common Good,” in The Cambridge Handbook of Labor and Democracy, eds. Mark Barenberg and Angela B. Cornell (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2022), 102-16.
2. Joseph A. McCartin, Labor’s Great War: The Struggle for Industrial Democracy and the Origins of Modern American Labor Relations (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1997), 111-14, 60.
3. Sen. Robert F. Wagner, “The Ideal Industrial State as Wagner Sees It,” New York Times Sunday Magazine, May 9, 1937, 23.
4. John L. Lewis, Industrial Democracy (Washington, DC: Committee for Industrial Organization, 1937), 12.
5. Patricia Sullivan, Days of Hope: Race and Democracy in the New Deal Era (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1996).
6. Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’ speech to the AFLCIO, 1962, available at http://umdlabor.weebly. com/uploads/2/9/3/9/29397087/speech_transcript. pdf, p. 288.
7. Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court which held that legislated limits to working time violated the right of freedom of contract
under the Fourteenth Amendment. Also see Lee Epstein and Mitu Gulati, “A Century of Business in the Supreme Court, 1920-2020,” University of Virginia School of Law Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper Series 2022-55, Law and Economics Research Paper Series 2022-16, August 2022, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4178504.
8. Joseph A. McCartin, “Public Sector Unionism under Assault: How to Combat the Scapegoating of Organized Labor,” New Labor Forum 22, no. 3 (2013): 54-62; Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Union Membership in Wisconsin 2012, available at: http://www.bls.gov/ro5/unionwi.htm.
9. Dan Kaufman, The Fall of Wisconsin: The Conservative Conquest of a Progressive Bastion and the Future of American Politics (New York: W. W. Norton, 2018); and Dan Kaufman, “Will Wisconsin’s Republicans Make Voting Meaningless, or Just Difficult?” The New Yorker, July 25, 2022, available at https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/08/01/will-wisconsins-republica…; Bridgit Bowden, “Wisconsin Republicans Fail to Achieve Veto-proof Majority,” Wisconsin Public Radio, November 9, 2022, available at https://www.wpr.org/wisconsin-republicans-fail-achieve-veto-proof-major….
10. “Voting Laws Roundup: December 2021,” The Brennan Center, available at https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voting-laws-rou….
11. 50M People Building a Movement for Economic Justice and Democracy (Washington, DC: Communications Workers of America, 2014), available at https://www.scribd.com/document/99007004/BUILDING-AMOVEMENT-FOR-ECONOMI….
12. See Gupta, “The Lever and the Fulcrum,” 110-14; Joseph A. McCartin, Marilyn Sneiderman, and Maurice BP-Weeks, “Greater than the Sum of Its Parts: BCG’s Innovative Structure,” Non-Profit Quarterly, September 21, 2022, available at https://nonprofitquarterly.org/greater-than-the-sum-of-its-parts-bcgs-i….
13. For details on state laws with respect to workers’ voting rights, see https://www.workplacefairness.org/voting-rights-time-off-work.
ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers.Donate
Tangu kuanzishwa kwake, hatima ya harakati ya wafanyakazi wa Marekani imekuwa imefungwa kwa karibu na hatima ya demokrasia ya kisiasa. Uhusiano huo wa kihistoria unaonekana kuwa wa kweli zaidi kuliko wakati mwingine wowote wakati huu. Kuanzia Starbucks hadi Amazon, kutoka ushindi wa kisheria wa wafanyikazi wa chakula cha haraka huko California hadi uundaji wa AFLCIO wa Kituo kipya cha Kuandaa Mabadiliko, ishara nyingi zinaonyesha harakati ya wafanyakazi ikichochea maisha baada ya miaka ya kuanza vibaya, kupunguza, na kurudi nyuma. Hata hivyo, nishati hii ya matumaini inaungana wakati demokrasia ya kisiasa katika nchi hii - kama ilivyo katika sehemu kubwa ya ulimwengu - inakabiliwa na mgogoro mkubwa zaidi. Kama wafanyakazi wanaweza kujenga tena nguvu zao zilizopungua itategemea kama demokrasia ya kisiasa itaokoka mgogoro wake wa sasa au la. Na kama demokrasia itaendelea kuishi itategemea sana ikiwa wafanyakazi watachukua hatua mbele kuongoza sio tu juhudi za kuandaa wafanyakazi lakini mapambano ya kulinda na kupanua demokrasia. "Kuchukua changamoto ya kuongoza harakati ya demokrasia katika wakati huu wa bahati itakuwa kulingana na mageuzi ya vyama vya wafanyakazi vya Marekani. """ Katika historia yake, kama nitakavyopendekeza, kazi ilitoka mwanzo usio kamilifu kuwa nguvu ya kidemokrasia yenye nguvu zaidi ya Amerika. Kuelewa muktadha huu wa kihistoria ni muhimu ikiwa tunataka kuelewa changamoto za wakati huu, ambapo uokokaji wa demokrasia yetu uko hatarini. Ni muhimu kwanza kutambua kwamba demokrasia na vyama vya wafanyakazi vilihusianishwa tangu mwanzo. Kuanzishwa kwa vyama vya wafanyakazi vya Marekani kwa mara ya kwanza kulifanana na kuanzishwa kwa jamhuri. Tangu mwanzo, mashirika hayo yalitangaza matakwa ya kidemokrasia ya wanachama wao (waume weupe). Mwanzoni mwa karne ya kumi na tisa, jamii za wasafiri ziliwachochea washiriki wao dhidi ya kile walichokiona kuwa wasomi wa "Tory". Katika miaka ya 1920, kuibuka kwa "mji wa kati", halmashauri za kwanza za kazi za kati, zilisaidia kuzalisha vyama vya Wafanyakazi katika miji mingi, vyama ambavyo vilipigana kuchagua "mafundi" ofisini na kufanya kampeni ya kupanua franchise. Katika miaka ya 1840s, Rhode Island's mechanics alitoa mgongo kwa ajili ya 'Dorr uasi', harakati ambayo kutisha ghasia ya kiraia kushinda kuondolewa kwa mahitaji ya mali ambayo kuweka wafanyakazi kutoka kura. "Hakika, maono ya kidemokrasia ya juhudi hizi za kabla ya vita yalikuwa nyembamba na ya upungufu wa macho kama utamaduni wa kisiasa wa wazungu na wa kiume ambao walikuwa wamejaa.""" Waandamanaji wa kwanza hawakuwa huko Seneca Falls mnamo 1848, wakitetea haki ya wanawake ya kupiga kura; wala hawakutetea ukombozi na uhuru wa wanaume weusi. Wanaume weusi walipata haki ya kupiga kura katika jimbo la Rhode Island mwaka 1843 lakini walifanya hivyo licha ya ukweli kwamba wafanyakazi weupe walifanikiwa kushinikiza harakati ya Dorr kuacha madai yake ya awali kwamba walipata haki sawa za kupiga kura na wanaume weupe. Wote wawili utetezi wa harakati ya wafanyakazi wa demokrasia na upendeleo wake wa wanaume weupe katika utetezi huo uliendelea katika enzi ya baada ya Vita vya wenyewe kwa wenyewe. Katika miaka hiyo, Shirikisho la Kazi la Kitaifa (NLU), Knights of Labor (K of L), na Shirikisho la Kazi la Marekani (ALF) wote walichukua jukumu la kutetea demokrasia iliyokuwa ikitishwa. Walikosoa udhibiti wa kudhibiti wa serikali, wakashambulia sheria za mahakimu kwa kudhibiti mgomo na marekebisho ya kazi, waliwahimiza wanachama wao kwenda kupiga kura, na, katika kesi ya NLU na K of L, walijaribu na vyama vya kisiasa vya kujitegemea. Lakini demokrasia yao haikuwa ya kujumuisha. NLU na AFL zilivumilia vyama vya watu waliotengwa, KOL ilifilisika kwa sehemu kwa sababu juhudi zake za kuleta weusi na wazungu katika shirika moja zilikuwa zenye utata, na mashirika yote matatu yaliunga mkono kutengwa kwa Wachina, wakihukumu wahamiaji wa Asia kuwa hawafai kuwa raia katika demokrasia. Baada ya uamuzi wa Mahakama Kuu ya Marekani ya mwaka 1898 ya Williams v. Mississippi, ambayo ilithibitisha utamaduni wa utaratibu mbalimbali uliotumiwa kuondoa weusi kutoka kwa orodha ya wapiga kura wenye haki, AFL ilipuuza tatizo hilo na kuzingatia kupambana na duka la wazi. Kwa sehemu kwa sababu ya maono yake nyembamba, utetezi wa wafanyakazi waliopangwa wa demokrasia ulipata matokeo machache katika karne ya kumi na tisa. "Kwa hivyo, karne ya ishirini ilipokuwa ikianza, Marekani ilijita demokrasia, na AFL ilidai kusema kwa ajili ya wafanyakazi wa Marekani, lakini kwa kweli madai yote mawili yalikuwa dhaifu.""" Watu wazima wengi nchini Marekani hawakuwa na haki ya kupiga kura, wakati AFL iliwakilisha sehemu ndogo ya jamii ya wafanyakazi wa taifa hilo. Hali hizi zilianza kubadilika tu wakati kupanua demokrasia na kupanua safu za harakati za wafanyakazi zikawa miradi iliyounganishwa. Kujenga uhusiano huo kulikuwa vigumu. Marekani ilikuwa demokrasia kwa sehemu ndogo tu ya raia wake kabla ya Vita vya Kwanza vya Ulimwengu. Wanaume weusi waliwekwa mbali na uchaguzi na vifungu vya babu na wapanda farasi wa usiku. Wazungu na weusi maskini kwa usawa walipaswa kulipa kodi za kichwa ambazo hazikupaswa kulipwa. Licha ya kushawishi kwa haki ya kupiga kura kwa nusu karne, wanawake walikuwa wameshinda kura tu katika Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, na Idaho. Katika miji ya viwanda kama vile New Bedford, Massachusetts, wafanyakazi waliofunga kazi walipoteza haki zao za kupiga kura ikiwa walipata misaada ya umma. Katika Braddock, Pennsylvania, wasimamizi wa U.S. Steel walitoa tu kura na kuwaagiza wafanyakazi wapige kura kwa ajili ya nani. Katika Kaunti ya Huerfano, Colorado, waendeshaji wa makaa ya mawe walifanya kazi na maafisa wa mitaa kuchora maeneo ya uchaguzi ili vituo vya kupiga kura viwe mali ya kampuni na siku ya uchaguzi walinzi wenye silaha walizuia wafanyikazi wowote ambao wangeweza kuwa "wasio waaminifu" kupiga kura. Kwa upande mwingine, harakati za wafanyakazi zilikuwa na msimamo wa sehemu ndogo tu ya wafanyakazi wa Marekani. AFL iliondolewa katika viwanda vya kukua kama vile chuma, magari, na utengenezaji wa umeme, ilidai chini ya kumi ya wafanyakazi wa mshahara kama wanachama, na vyama vingi vilivyojiunga vilionyesha kutokuwa na uhakika wa kina ikiwa sio uadui wa wazi wa kupanua kujumuisha wanawake, Waafrika-Wamarekani, wahamiaji wa hivi karibuni, na wafanyakazi wa viwanda wa nusu. Hata hivyo, harakati za wafanyakazi zilianza kubadilika polepole, zikipanua maono yake ya demokrasia na idadi ya wanachama wake kwa njia ambazo zilianza kuimarika. "Mashambulizi ya kwanza ya mabadiliko hayo yalitokea wakati wa enzi ya maendeleo wakati wa chama cha wafanyakazi na washirika wao walipoanza kugeuza wito wao wa haki za chama cha wafanyakazi kuwa madai ya ""demokrasia ya viwanda"" - maneno hayo yalijulikana sana katika miaka kati ya mauaji ya Ludlow ya 1914 na mwisho wa Vita Kuu ya Kwanza miaka minne baadaye, shukrani kwa sehemu kubwa kwa athari ya vita yenyewe." "Woodrow Wilson alitangaza kuingia kwa Marekani katika vita kama ""mashambulizi ya kufanya ulimwengu salama kwa demokrasia"" na kuimarisha haki za wafanyakazi wa Marekani katika biashara." "Wakati wa vita vya kwanza vya dunia, Wilson alianzisha ""Bodi ya Kitaifa ya Kazi ya Vita"" (NWLB) mnamo 1918." Iliimarisha zaidi madai ya demokrasia ya viwanda kwa kuelekeza viwanda vinavyohusiana na vita kuruhusu uchaguzi wa kamati ya duka ambayo wafanyakazi wangeweza kujadiliana na waajiri wao. Kwa maana kubwa, uchaguzi huu ulikuwa wazi kwa wafanyakazi wasio na ujuzi katika viwanda vya vita - ikiwa ni pamoja na wahamiaji, wanawake, na Waafrika-Wamarekani ambao wakati huo hawakuweza kupiga kura katika uchaguzi wa kisiasa. Kwa kweli, wakati bodi ilipozungusha kura za kamati za duka katika maduka fulani, sio tu wanawake walitiwa moyo kupiga kura, lakini wapiga kura waliagizwa kupiga kura kwa idadi maalum ya wagombea wanawake ili kuhakikisha kwamba wanawake watakuwa na sauti katika kamati zilizochaguliwa. Ingawa mapinduzi ya wakati wa vita nchini yalikuwa ya muda mfupi, na hatua za dharura kama vile NWO ziliongezwa na ukandamizaji wa wakali, roho ya demokrasia ya viwanda haikuweza kufungwa tena baada ya vita. Mafanikio ya vyama vya wafanyakazi yalirudishwa nyuma, lakini waajiri hawangeweza kurudisha hali iliyokuwapo hapo awali. Wanawake walipoanza kushiriki katika vita, marekebisho ya 19 ya katiba yalianza kutekelezwa mwaka 1920, na wanawake wakawa na haki ya kupiga kura. Wamarekani wa Kiafrika ambao walikuwa wamehamia kaskazini kwa kazi zinazohusiana na vita na kushiriki katika kamati za duka walianza kukasirika zaidi na ubaguzi na kutengwa kwao kutoka kwa vyama vya ufundi na wakawa nguvu ya kisiasa katika miji ya kaskazini. Waajiri walijaribu zaidi na zaidi vyama vya wafanyakazi katika kampuni katika jitihada ya kutosheleza mahitaji ya wafanyakazi ya demokrasia ya viwanda. Harakati ya wafanyakazi yenyewe ilibadilishwa pia na majaribio yake ya wakati wa vita na kampeni za aina ya chama cha wafanyakazi katika viwanda kama vile chuma na nyama, ambayo ilipanda mbegu za uamsho wake wa miaka ya 1930. Mabadiliko ya kisiasa na ya kisiasa kati ya chama cha siasa na chama cha siasa ya chama cha siasa ya chama cha siasa ya chama cha siasa ya chama cha siasa ya chama cha siasa ya chama cha siasa ya chama cha siasa ya chama cha siasa ya chama cha siasa ya chama cha siasa ya chama cha siasa ya chama cha siasa. Sheria ya Wagner na ushirika wa viwanda wote wawili waliongeza sauti hiyo. "Sena ya 1935 ilihusisha ""kushindana kwa sauti katika viwanda kupitia michakato ya mazungumzo ya pamoja ni kiini cha mapambano ya kuhifadhi demokrasia ya kisiasa na kiuchumi nchini Marekani,"" alisema Robert Wagner, mwanasheria wa chama cha Republican, ambaye alielezea kuwa ""kufanya kanuni za demokrasia ya viwanda kuwa halisi.""" Ushiriki wa Marekani katika Vita Kuu ya Pili ya Dunia kwa upande wake ulilisha dialectic ya kuendeleza shirika la vyama vya wafanyakazi na demokrasia ya kisiasa. Wakati wa vita, CIO na serikali ya shirikisho ilifanya kazi kupambana na ubaguzi wa rangi na kutengwa hata wakati Mahakama Kuu ya Marekani ilipiga pigo la kwanza muhimu dhidi ya ukosefu wa haki za watu weusi Kusini kupitia uamuzi wake wa Smith v. Allwright wa 1944 ambao uliondoa wazungu tu wa kisiasa wa Kidemokrasia. Licha ya athari kubwa kwa wafanyakazi wakali na kupanuka kwa mjadala wa kisiasa, enzi ya Vita Baridi iliweka mazingira ya hatua nyingine mbele katika mzozo wa kuimarisha kati ya shirika la vyama vya wafanyakazi na ukuaji wa demokrasia. Hatua hiyo ilifunikwa na kuibuka kwa wakati mmoja kwa ushirika wa sekta ya umma na mapambano ya haki za kiraia, harakati ambazo ziliimarishana na kusukuma nchi kuelekea kuwa demokrasia ya kweli ya rangi nyingi. "Katika mkutano wa AFL-CIO mwaka 1961, Martin Luther King Jr. aliwaomba wafanyakazi na harakati za haki za kiraia kuungana pamoja kama ""mjenzi wa demokrasia"" ili ""kupanua mipaka ya demokrasia kwa taifa lote.""" "Wakati wa maandamano ya 1963 ya King's March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, chama cha American Federation of Teachers (AFT) kilikuwa kikishirikiana na chama hicho.""" Mwaka mmoja baadaye, Jerry Wurf, mtetezi mkubwa wa muungano na harakati za haki za kiraia, alikuwa amechaguliwa kuwa rais wa chama cha wafanyakazi wa sekta ya umma kinachoongezeka haraka, Shirikisho la Marekani la Wafanyakazi wa Jimbo, Kaunti na Manispaa (AFSCME), na wanasheria wa chama hicho walisaidia kupata kupitishwa kwa Sheria ya Haki za Kiraia. Mwaka 1965 chama cha wafanyakazi kilishinda kura ya kuunga mkono sheria ya haki za kupiga kura. "Mashambulizi ya 1968 ya Memphis, ambayo walishiriki waliinua kilio ""Mimi ni Mtu"" na kwa bahati mbaya ilivutia Rev." Martin Luther King Jr. na Jerry Wurf, rais wa AFSC, waliwakilisha kilele cha mapambano ya nusu karne ya kupanua demokrasia, na safu za vyama vya wafanyakazi zilikuwa zimeunganishwa sana. "Kukumbuka jinsi ""kuongezeka kwa kazi iliyoandaliwa kwa kina"" kulivyounganishwa na mapambano makubwa ya kuunda demokrasia ya Amerika katika nusu karne kati ya mwisho wa Vita Kuu ya Kwanza na mauaji ya Dk King, hutusaidia kuelewa vizuri asili ya mabadiliko ambayo yalikusanya kasi katika theluthi ya mwisho ya karne ya ishirini." Si tu kwamba unyonyaji wa vyama vya wafanyakazi ulipungua, lakini pia kupanuka kwa ushirika na demokrasia, ambayo ilijenga kwa pamoja, kulivunjika na kuondolewa na kuingizwa katika hali ya kushuka kwa ushirika. Mabadiliko hayo yalianza katika miaka ya 1970 na ya 1968 wakati wa mgomo wa Memphis na mgomo wa PATCO uliovunwa na Ronald Reagan mwaka 1981. Kati ya matukio hayo, matukio kadhaa yenye kuogopesha yalitukia. Biashara ikawa yenye kupinga vikundi vya wafanyakazi kwa ukali zaidi na kuandaliwa vizuri zaidi. "Memo ya Powell ya mwaka 1971 ilisaidia kuanzisha ""upinzani wa kupinga"" dhidi ya sera za marekebisho; kufuatia shirika la ""Business Roundtable"" mwaka mmoja baadaye, waajiri waliongeza juhudi zao za kupambana na vyama vya wafanyakazi, na mwishoni mwa muongo huo walikuwa wakionyesha nia ya kuvunja mgomo, mabadiliko ambayo yangeingia katika gear ya juu mara moja Reagan aliondoa vizuizi vya ushirika kuhusu kuvunja mgomo kwa kufutwa kazi." "Mwaka 1978 filibuster ilizuia juhudi za kupitisha muswada wa marekebisho ya sheria za kazi ambayo ingewezesha kuandaa vyama vya wafanyakazi, kama vile tishio la filibuster baadaye pia lingezuia juhudi za kupiga marufuku uingizwaji wa mgomo, kupitisha Sheria ya Uchaguzi wa Wafanyakazi wa Uhuru mnamo 2009, au kuleta Sheria ya ""Linda Haki ya Kuandaa"" leo kwa kura katika Seneti." Katika kipindi hiki cha hivi karibuni, Mahakama Kuu ya Marekani ilirudia jukumu ambalo ilikuwa imefanya mwishoni mwa karne ya kumi na tisa na mapema karne ya ishirini, ikiunga mkono nguvu ambazo zingebadilisha nguvu za vyama na demokrasia. "Kutoka kwa kesi ya Buckley dhidi ya Valeo (1976), ambayo ililinganisha fedha na hotuba kwa kuamua kwamba mipaka ya matumizi ya kampeni ilifikia ukiukaji wa uhuru wa kujieleza, hadi Citizens United (2010), ambayo ilifungua milango kwa bahari za ""fedha nyeusi"" katika kampeni za kisiasa, hadi Shelby County dhidi ya Holder (2013), ambayo iliondoa Sheria ya Haki za Kupiga Kura, mahakama iliondoa vizuizi juu ya mabwawa makubwa ya fedha za siri hata wakati iliondoa majimbo." Kwa kutumia fursa iliyotolewa na Shelby, wabunge walianzisha vizuizi vipya 395 vya kupiga kura katika majimbo 49 kati ya 2011 na 2015. Mahakama hiyo pia ilishambulia haki za vyama vya wafanyakazi, ikikataza fedha za vyama vya wafanyakazi katika kesi ya Janus v. AFSCME (2018), na kuzuia wafanyakazi wa shamba kupata msaada wa vyama vya wafanyakazi katika kesi ya Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid (2021). Tangu miaka ya 1970, athari ya mahakama imekua kwa kiasi kikubwa. "Mwanasheria wa sheria Lee Epstein na Mitu Gulati wamethibitisha kuwa mahakama ya juu ya Marekani, ambayo ilijulikana kama ""Trump Supreme Court,"" ina uwezo mkubwa wa kuamua kwa niaba ya biashara na dhidi ya wafanyakazi na vyama vya wafanyakazi, kama mahakama za enzi ya Lochner na karne ya 19." "Madhara ya mashambulizi ya pamoja ya kupinga wafanyakazi na demokrasia labda yanaonekana wazi zaidi huko Wisconsin, ambapo shambulio la mafanikio dhidi ya nguvu za vyama vya wafanyakazi na Gavana ""Boss"" Clinton lilipigwa marufuku." Scott Walker, ambaye aliwahi kuwa rais wa Marekani, alitoa kauli ya kuangusha sheria ya wengi mwaka 2009. "Hata hivyo, asilimia 50 ya wafanyakazi wa serikali ya Wisconsin na asilimia 15.2 ya wafanyakazi wa Wisconsin kwa ujumla walikuwa wamejiunga na vyama vya wafanyakazi mnamo Machi 2011 wakati Walker aliposaini Sheria ya 10 ya kuondoa haki za wafanyikazi wa serikali ya ""kujadiliana kwa pamoja.""" Kufikia mwishoni mwa mwaka 2012, asilimia ya wafanyakazi wa serikali waliojiunga na vyama vya wafanyakazi ilipungua hadi 37% na idadi ya wafanyakazi waliojiunga na vyama vya wafanyakazi ilipungua hadi 11.2%, kiwango kikubwa zaidi katika kipindi hicho. Mvua hiyo iliendelea kuharibika. Kufikia 2021, idadi ya wafanyakazi wa vyama vya wafanyakazi nchini Wisconsin ilikuwa imeshuka hadi 7.9%, karibu nusu ya idadi ya kabla ya Sheria ya 10. Kadiri nguvu za vyama vya wafanyakazi zilivyopungua, Wa-Republican wa Wisconsin waliopinga vyama vya wafanyakazi walihamia kudhoofisha utawala wa wengi. Hata kama Sheria ya 10 ilianza kutumika, walifanya kazi kwa siri kwenye ramani mpya ya uchaguzi, ambayo ilihitajika sana kwamba mahakama ya shirikisho ilitangaza kuwa kinyume cha katiba kwa misingi ya chama, hatua isiyo ya kawaida ambayo baadaye ilifutwa na uamuzi wa Mahakama Kuu ya Marekani katika Ruiz et al. Common Cause et al. ilisema mahakama za shirikisho hazina kazi ya kupinga ramani za uchaguzi zilizobadilishwa kwa madhumuni ya upendeleo. Wakati wanademokrasia walipofanikiwa kupata nafasi za gavana na mwanasheria mkuu mwaka 2018, bunge lililokuwa linatawaliwa na Republican liliondoa mamlaka ya ofisi hizo mbili. Wakati maamuzi ya baadaye ya Mahakama Kuu ya Marekani na Wisconsin yalisababisha ramani ya uchaguzi wa 2022 kuwa bora zaidi kwa Republican kuliko ramani ya 2011, Republican walifika ndani ya upana wa nywele ya kushinda veti-proof majorities katika bunge la jimbo licha ya kupata kura chache kuliko Democrat katika mbio za seneti ya jimbo, na hata ingawa gavana wa sasa wa Democratic, Tony Evers, alishinda uchaguzi kwa margin ya starehe. Majimbo mengi sasa yanafuata mfano wa Wisconsin. "Kutengeneza upya kazi kama harakati ya demokrasia: Katika miaka miwili iliyopita, mengi ya majadiliano kuhusu hali ya hatari ya demokrasia yetu kwa kawaida yamezunguka Donald Trump, uongo wake mkubwa, na uvamizi wa Capitol na wafuasi wake mnamo Januari 6, 2021,"" alisema Trump." Katika kipindi cha miezi 12 baada ya mapinduzi hayo kushindwa, sheria 440 za kuzuia upatikanaji wa kura ziliwasilishwa katika majimbo 49 na majimbo 19 yalifanikiwa kupitisha sheria 34 kama hizo.Hata hivyo, ukweli ni kwamba tishio la sasa kwa demokrasia halikuanza na Trump, wala halitaweza kugeuzwa kwa kushindwa kwa Trumpism katika uchaguzi. Ingawa mashambulizi dhidi ya demokrasia yalishindwa katika uchaguzi wa katikati ya mwaka wa 2022, tafadhali hakikisha vita ni mbali na kumaliza. Nguvu za kupinga demokrasia na upinzani wa vyama vya wafanyakazi zimeunganishwa na lazima zikabiliwe kwa wakati mmoja. Si tu vyama vya wafanyakazi vinavyoweza kuongoza mapambano haya, lakini lazima viongozwe ikiwa wanatarajia kuepuka kuongezeka kwa kutengwa katika miaka ijayo, kwa sababu ikiwa demokrasia itaendelea kuharibika, nguvu ya vyama vya wafanyakazi itashuka pamoja nayo. Kama vyama vya wafanyakazi havitafanya ulinzi na upanuzi wa demokrasia kuwa kiini cha juhudi zao za kuandaa wafanyakazi katika uchumi wa karne ya ishirini na moja, juhudi hizo hakika zitapinduliwa na taasisi zisizo za kidemokrasia ambazo zimekuja kukatisha tamaa utawala wa wengi katika nusu karne iliyopita: mahakama ya kupambana na vyama vya wafanyakazi, filibuster ya Seneti ya Marekani, na wilaya za sheria za gerrymander. Katika karne ya ishirini, vyama vya wafanyakazi vilijitokeza kama harakati ya demokrasia isiyo kamilifu lakini muhimu kabisa, moja ambayo ilichukua nishati kutoka na kuchangia upanuzi wa demokrasia ya rangi nyingi. Kama haitaweza kucheza jukumu kama hilo katika miaka ijayo, basi wala chama cha wafanyakazi wala demokrasia haiwezi kuishi katika namna yoyote inayojulikana. "Mkutano wa ""Uhuru wa Demokrasia"" ulianzishwa na chama cha ""Communication Workers of America"" (CWA) mwaka 2013 na ushirikiano wa NAACP, Sierra Club na Greenpeace." "Mkutano huo ulifanyiza muungano wa kuongoza ambao baada ya muda ulivutia zaidi ya mashirika hamsini ya wanachama wakiwakilisha watu milioni 20, na ulitafuta kuwahamasisha kwa shambulio dhidi ya ""vizuizi vya demokrasia,"" filibuster ya Seneti, fedha katika siasa, na kizuizi cha haki za kupiga kura." Hata hivyo, baada ya Larry Cohen, ambaye alianzisha mpango huo, kuondoka katika urais wa CWA, ulipoteza kasi. Katika miaka ya hivi karibuni, viongozi wengine wa vyama vya wafanyakazi, ikiwa ni pamoja na Randi Weingarten wa AFT na Mary Kay Henry wa SEIU, wamesema juu ya vitisho kwa demokrasia. Lakini vyama vingi na viongozi wao bado wamechukuliwa na malengo ya uchaguzi wa haraka na harakati ya wafanyakazi kwa ujumla inakosa juhudi endelevu za vyama vingi kufanya utetezi wa demokrasia na upanuzi kuwa muhimu kwa kazi ya wafanyakazi tunapotoka kwa uchaguzi wa katikati wa 2022. Harakati ya kidemokrasia inayoongozwa na wafanyakazi ingekuwaje? Kama uzoefu wa kazi katika karne ya ishirini inatoa somo lolote ni kwamba harakati kama hiyo, ikiwa inapaswa kufanikiwa, lazima iwe zaidi ya kampeni ya kushawishi ili kuondoa filibuster na kupanua haki za kupiga kura, kama muhimu kama malengo hayo ni. Ni lazima kuona kazi msingi mapambano yake kwa ajili ya demokrasia katika vyama vya wafanyakazi - kazi muhimu zaidi. Kama ilivyofanya wakati wa utetezi wake wa demokrasia ya viwanda katikati ya karne ya ishirini na msaada wake wa mapambano kama yale ya wafanyakazi wa usafi wa Memphis, kazi lazima iunganishe ulinzi wake wa demokrasia kwa zana zake za msingi za mazungumzo ya pamoja na hatua ya pamoja. Kwa bahati nzuri, mipango kama vile Bargaining for the Common Good, mtandao wa vyama vya wafanyakazi na mashirika ya jamii iliyojitolea kupanua upeo wa mazungumzo na kuamsha mapambano ya wafanyakazi, sasa inajaribu kufanya hivyo. Mahali pazuri pa kuanza kwa vikundi hivyo kungekuwa kwa kudai wakati wa kutosha wa kulipwa kwa ajili ya kupiga kura. Katika nchi ambapo majimbo mengi (ikiwa ni pamoja na baadhi yenye uwepo mkubwa wa vyama kama vile Pennsylvania, Connecticut, na New Jersey) hayahitaji waajiri kutoa hata wakati wa kupumzika bila kulipwa kwa kupiga kura, na ambapo wengine, kama Alabama, wanahitaji waajiri kutoa kama saa moja tu ya likizo isiyo na kulipwa, kushinda wakati wa kupumzika bila kulipwa kwa kupiga kura inapaswa kuwa kipaumbele cha kazi. """Wapo ambao ni vigumu kupitisha sheria za kupata muda wa kupumzika, vyama vya wafanyakazi na washirika wao wanapaswa kuleta mapambano moja kwa moja kwa waajiri, wakidai kwamba watoa wafanyakazi wakati wanaohitaji kushiriki katika demokrasia yao." Na juhudi haziwezi kukoma na kushinda muda wa kupiga kura; mapambano kwa ajili ya demokrasia lazima infuse kila ujumbe wa chama. Ikiwa haitafanya hivyo, basi uhai wa demokrasia na harakati ya vyama vya wafanyakazi utahatarishwa. Uchaguzi wa 2024 unakaribia, saa inaendelea kukimbia. 1. Uwe na mtazamo wa kweli Kwa toleo la muda mrefu la hoja hii, angalia Sarita Gupta, Lauren Jacobs, Stephen Lerner, na Joseph A. McCartin, <unk>The Lever and the Fulcrum: Organizing and Bargaining for Democracy and the Common Good,<unk> katika The Cambridge Handbook of Labor and Democracy, eds. Mark Barenberg na Angela B. Cornell (New York: Chuo Kikuu cha Cambridge Press, 2022), 102-16. 2. Uwezekano wa kupata Joseph A. McCartin, Vita Kuu ya Kazi: Mapambano kwa Demokrasia ya Viwanda na Asili ya Mahusiano ya Kazi ya kisasa ya Amerika (Chapel Hill: Chuo Kikuu cha North Carolina Press, 1997), 111-14, 60. 3. Uwe na mtazamo wa kweli "Sherry Wagner, ""The Ideal Industrial State as Wagner Sees It"" (Jimbo la Viwanda la Kihispania Kama Wagner Anavyoona), New York Times, May 9, 1937, p.23." 4. Uwe na uhakika "John Lewis, ""Demokrasia ya Viwanda"" (Washington, DC: Kamati ya Shirika la Viwanda, 1937)." 5. Uwe na mtazamo mzuri. Patricia Sullivan, Siku za Matumaini: Mbio na Demokrasia katika Enzi ya Mpango Mpya (Chapel Hill: Chuo Kikuu cha North Carolina Press, 1996). 6. Uwe na uhakika Mchungaji. Martin Luther King Jr. katika hotuba yake ya kwanza katika AFL-CIO mwaka 1962 alipokuwa akihudhuria mkutano wa wajumbe wa chama cha siasa cha chama cha Republican. "Kama ilivyoelezwa katika makala ya ""Soma: 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 10 10 11 11 11 11 11 11 ""Kutoka kwa ""Kutoka kwa ""Kutoka kwa ""Kutoka kwa ""Kutoka kwa"" Kutoka kwa ""Kutoka kwa"" Kutoka kwa ""Kutoka kwa"" Kutoka kwa ""Kutoka kwa"" Kutoka kwa ""Kutoka kwa"" Kutoka kwa"" Kutoka kwa"" Kutoka kwa ""Kutoka kwa""" P.S. (P.S. 28) 7. Uwe na mtazamo gani? "Lochner v. New York (1989), uamuzi wa mahakama ya juu ya Marekani, ulisema kwamba ""mipaka ya kisheria ya muda wa kazi ilivunja haki ya uhuru wa mkataba chini ya Marekebisho ya kumi na nne.""" "Lee Epstein na Mitu Gulati, ""A Century of Business in the Supreme Court, 1920-2020: Chuo Kikuu cha Virginia School of Law, Sheria ya Umma na Nadharia ya Sheria, Mfululizo wa Karatasi za Utafiti wa Sheria na Uchumi, Mfululizo wa Karatasi za Utafiti wa Sheria na Uchumi, Agosti 16, 2022." 8. Uwe na mtazamo gani? Joseph A. McCartin, "Umoja wa Sekta ya Umma chini ya Mashambulizi: Jinsi ya Kupambana na Mnyama wa Utoaji wa Kazi, Forum Mpya ya Kazi 22, no. "Mfano: ""Bureau of Labor Statistics, Union Membership in Wisconsin, 2012,"" inapatikana katika ukurasa wa 5 wa ukurasa wa 5 wa ukurasa wa 6 wa ukurasa wa 7 wa ukurasa wa 8 wa ukurasa wa 8 wa ukurasa wa 8 wa ukurasa wa 8 wa ukurasa wa 8 wa ukurasa wa 8 wa ukurasa wa 9 wa ukurasa wa 9." 9. (a) Kwa nini? "Wikipedia: ""The Fall of Wisconsin: The Conservative Conquest of a Progressive Bastion and the Future of American Politics"" (New York: W.W. Norton, 2018) na ""Will Wisconsin's Republicans Make Voting Meaningless, or Just Difficult?"" (The New Yorker, Julai 25, 2022) ni makala ya kwanza ya jarida la Washington Post, na ni makala ya kwanza ya gazeti la Washington Post, iliyochapishwa na Bridget Bowden." Kumi. "Kama ilivyoelezwa katika taarifa ya ""Voting Law Roundup"" iliyochapishwa na Kituo cha Brennan, ripoti hiyo imepatikana kwenye tovuti ya ""Voting Law Center"" ya Marekani." 11. (a) Kwa nini? "Mfano wa ""50M People Building a Movement for Economic Justice and Democracy"" (Washington, DC: Communications Workers of America, 2014) ni kitabu cha kihistoria kilichoandikwa na mwandishi wa habari na mwanaharakati wa siasa, na kinachotolewa na shirika la habari la Washington Post." 12. (a) Kwa nini? "Kama ilivyoelezwa katika ""The Lever and the Fulcrum"" na ""The Power of the Power of the Power of the Power of the Power of the Power of the Power of the Power of the Power of the Power of the Power of the Power of the Power of the Power of the Power of the Power of the Power of the Power of the Power of the Power of the Power of the Power of the Power of the Power of the Power of the Power of the Power of the Power.""" 13. (a) Kwa nini? Kwa maelezo juu ya sheria za serikali kuhusiana na haki za kupiga kura za wafanyakazi, angalia https: www.workplacefairness.org/voting-rights-time-off-work. ZNetwork ni kufadhiliwa tu kupitia ukarimu wa wasomaji wake.