One of the amazing phenomena of the last century was the rise and fall of the labour union.

The growth of unionism was a miracle in itself -- the powerless and hungry defeated the powerful and wealthy with no other weapons than sweat and endurance. The powerful had police, the army, the law, control of the media, control of the very jobs that union support put at risk, the labourer had only his/her labour, and the strength of endurance s/he had built working under the appalling conditions imposed by the bosses.

The defeat of the union movement was, ironically, a measure of its success. By the end of WWII, the majority of industrial and related labour in the soi-disant advanced states belonged to unions. Now, almost the only unions left with any strength are white-collar unions such as those for government employees.

Why? First, because the unions succeeded in getting their members a good, even fair, slice of the pie and, like all upwardly mobile groups in history, the members used their improved position to have more kids, to give them "all the things we never had", to send them to university. The upshot was the stereotypical Boomer -- a slightly spoiled, educated individual who had little or no knowledge of the sacrifices that s/he had benefitted from, and who was, as often as not, embarrassed by his working class parents. Remember Archie Bunker?

Boomers, not necessarily a majority of the baby boom, set the tone for their times through the constant attention of the media and the power of their dollar. They despised the union, and believed sincerely that they got where they were through their own efforts -- forgetting the goods their parents had forgone to pay tuition and living expenses. They wanted the material things they had been promised, unalloyed with any reminder of the needs of others. As far as they were concerned, a degree, a power suit and enough ambition was the path to riches.

They were ripe for plucking, and they got plucked. Their self-centredness made them easy victims for Reaganists, Thatcherites, Mulroney Cronies, and lackies who argued that union corruption and high wages threatened the all-important prosperity of the nation in a world that could only run right with the freest possible trade.

Were unions corrupt? There were a couple of spectacular instances in North America, and some abroad. But for every Teamsters' scandal, there were dozens of less public, less powerful unions still fighting for decent working conditions and pay for their members. But the big scandals got the publicity, and made it possible for the powerful to argue that all unions were bad. Since the Boomer already despised his/her unionised parents, it was an easy sell.

Are unions uncompetitive? Only if you really believe that corporations really ought to have the right to farm out their labour to places where 12 year old children work for $US.30 a day or less, and the consumer has a right to buy whatever s/he wants as cheaply as possible, regardless of how it was made. Do you really believe that? One generation did, and they have taught their children to accept the consequences.

And, there have been consequences. First, for the Boomers themselves. They accepted the virtue of intense one-on-one competition in the job market. They learned to despise those less successful. They begrudged spending taxes on social programs to help the poor gain the same opportunities they had benefitted from.

Then, they were downsized. In great numbers. By those very corporations who had won the right to move to whatever labour market was cheapest. By governments, with less money to spend, who found that the large pool of labour provided by a baby boom meant that people would work harder for less for fear of losing their jobs.

Did they get the message then? Nope. Despite wide publicity for the plight of the downsized, the growth of the two income family as necessity, and the continued flight of jobs, no one made the connection. Instead, there was talk of the need for even freer trade, the development of a service economy (read, servants are cheap), the need to work smarter, not harder, resentment against immigrants and the poor for crippling the economy with their demands. No one thought of banding together to fight for a fair break -- that would have looked too much like unionism. It would be an admission that, despite the colour of a collar, a workie is a workie. Instead, there were analyses of the Boomers' rediscovery of The Family, a sop to the losers in the economic Darwinism of our times.

These attitudes remain strong -- look at the conditions permitted in many modern industries, and the way in which the young accept them. Even the technology industries, where, hype had it, every worker was a potential billionaire, were/are made up largely of underpaid, overworked young people (older workers having been shunted aside because they are too expensive, with the excuse that they are not up to the bleeding edge). Corporations have successfully persuaded governments to set aside basic labour legistlation -- like hours in the work week, holiday time, safe conditions -- because it ubdercuts their competitiveness. And, the young worker, who has probably only heard of unions second-hand, believes the Law of the Jungle is what society is about, and never thinks for a second that, perhaps, s/he is not getting a fair shake, or deserves more respect and reward for what s/he does.

This is not helped by the remaining powerful unions, the majority of which now represent white collar, middle-class professionals -- workers who don't like to think of themselves as labour. They bring to the struggle all the class biases that have built up over decades. They are no longer on the side of the poor and struggling. One by one, they -- and their associated political parties -- have sold out the less advantaged in pursuit of power. And, when they get it, not surprisingly, they use it for the classes they now represent, within the cultural context that will keep them in power -- a context that does not include questioning the economic ideology of our times.

If it weren't so sad, it'd hafta make ya laugh.

But, what if, just for a second, the purpose of society was not univerally accepted as the promotion of the freest possible trade and the largest possible profits for the corporations? What if Rousseau was right, and a society's members had the right to set their own values -- against the law of the Jungle -- in a social contract? What if we did have a duty to our Brothers and Sisters to assist them in realising a good life for themselves and theirchildren? Maybe, then, Free Trade and the largest possible economic indicators would not be the most rational and obvious goal of a civil society. Maybe the economy would be no more than a servant to other goals. Maybe we would discover that co-operation is at least as important as competition in creating a just world, and that a just world does not include the kinds of disparities of wealth and poverty seen in the late 19th and again in the late 20th centuries.

Maybe we would start banding together to do something about it. Sure, we have a long way to go -- but our grandparents did it, and so can we. If we are prepared to learn again that oppression for one is oppression for all. If we are willing to put aside our immediate self-interest to work for the advancement of the group. If we are ready to question the common wisdom, not be taken in by bland reassurances, and argue our case forcefully. If we are able to endure, as our grandparents did, in the firm belief that human dignity is not proportional to national origin, economic or social status. If, in short, we are prepared to unionise, to stand up for the poor everywhere, to strike if need be -- but never again to back down.

Are we?