Part I

First, An Extremely Abbreviated History of Labor Unions

Local unions of craftsmen existed in the colonies in 18th Century America. In fact, the Declaration of Independence was signed in Carpenter’s Hall in Philadelphia in 1776. Early in the 19th Century larger, but for the most part, unsuccessful local unions organized in the attempt to protect workers from unscrupulous employers as the factory system industrialized America. Unions had become necessary because the typical workday was twelve hours or longer and wages sometimes lower than a dollar a week. Later during the Nineteenth Century, larger unions such as the Nation Labor Union (1866) were organized. That short lived union collapsed during the economic depression of 1873. However, The Knights of Labor were organized in 1869, and Samuel Gompers organized the American Federation of Labor in 1886.

A myopic look at organized mine workers can be generalized to the need for unions in all areas of industry. The United Mine Workers union was organized in 1890, and was the result of the merger of The Knights of Labor with the National Progressive Union of Minors. A short list of clashes with corporate and / or local, state, and Federal government forces demonstrates that labor union protection for minors was necessary into the third quarter of the 20th Century.

1. Nineteen minors killed by police in Lattimer Massacre, Lattimer, Pennsylvania, September 10, 1897.

2. Twenty people, including women and children, killed in Ludlow, Colorado on April 20, 1914 by state militia, and thugs hired by the Colorado Fuel and Iron Company.

3. 12 men killed in a battle between residents of Matewan, Virginia and the Felts Detective agency, hired by coal mine owners on May 19, 1920.

4. An outgrowth of the Matewan incident, The Redneck War (1920-21) started when 10,000 miners marched on Logan, Virginia. It ended with the battle of Bear Mountain between the miners and state militia, police, and mine guards.

5. The Harlan County War of 1973 when Duke Power owned, Eastover Coal Company workers in Harlan County, Kentucky voted to join the United Mine Workers Union. The company refused to sign the new contract, a strike followed in which (scabs) workers from outside the company were brought in to replace the unionized workers. The local courts sided with the corporation and during the last months of the strike women and children on the picket line were run over by cars, beaten and hit with baseball bats, and arrested.

The deaths of trapped coal minors this past year (2005-2006) demonstrate that working conditions in mines are unsafe to this day, and that unions are necessary to protect workers from corporate entities that serve only commercial and financial interests.

For more on the “History of Labor Unions,” go to The National Learning Curve The United Kingdom education Website.

Stay tuned for “part II” to come in the near future.


Sources

Wikkepedia. “United Mine Workers,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Mine_Workers. Modified 23:48, 15 March 2006. Viewed 10:48 EST, Tuesday, March 28, 2006.

The Social Studies Help Center. “The Labor Union Movement in America,” http://www.socialstudieshelp.com/Eco_Unionization.htm. © 2001-2006. Viewed 10:51 EST, Tuesday, March 28, 2006.

The National Learning Curve. “Trade Unions,” http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAtu.htm. Viewed 9:44 AM EDT, Tuesday, April 4, 2006.

Labor Arts. “About Us,” http://www.laborarts.org/about/. ©, Labor Arts Inc. Viewed 10:13 AM EST, Friday March 31, 2006.

Montgomery County Public Schools (Montgomery, Maryland). “Social Studies: An Apprenticeship in Liberty.” http://mcps.k12.md.us/curriculum/socialstd/curriculum/ushist.html. © 2003. Viewed 10:18 AM, Friday, March 31, 2006.

Public Schools of North Carolina, Standard Courses of Study, Social Studies :: 2003:: Eleventh Grade Social Studies. http://www.ncpublicschools.org/curriculum/socialstudies/scos/2003-04/067eleventhgrade. No copyright. Viewed 10:30 AM EST, Friday, March 31, 2006.

That Headline is a distinct possibility. The policy of preemptive-strike is alive and well in the Bush Administration. In fact, the 49 page National Security Report released March 16, 2006 reaffirms that neo-conservative policy.

"When the consequences of an attack with weapons of mass destruction are potentially so devastating, we cannot afford to stand idly by as grave dangers materialize. …The place of pre-emption in our national security strategy remains the same."*

Bush mentions pre-emption in direct connection to Iran, though he cautions that all diplomatic avenues must be thoroughly explored first. Sound familiar? Apparently, despite the poor ratings this administration is pursuing the same course that led up to the “pre-emptive” war in Iraq. Lest you should forget, that war was to be over in six months.

Anything can happen.


*Riechmann, Deb. “Bush Sees Iran as Possibly Greatest Threat,” on Comcast News, http://www.comcast.net/comcast.html. Associated Press, March 16, 2006, 7:58 AM EST. Viewed March 16, 2006,10:02 AM EST.

You may send E-mail comments to

ZacSfuts@Comcast.net

, or post them below.

The President has intimated that the news media are responsible for his low ratings because they state only the negative about the Iraq war. In a series of speeches this week, including the televised news conference on Tuesday, March 21, 2006, Mr. Bush and his supporters have repeatedly slammed the news media.

First, I will state the obvious.

The news media are not to blame for the drop in Mr. Bush’s ratings in public polls. Why? Because, the news media must report independently of all social, political, and religious institutions, including their own. Additionally, like the general population of the United States, the members of that particular estate cannot help but have various ideological positions. They will report as they observe and understand the events taking place around them based on these positions. For instance, it is implicit that FOX News will defend the right wing Republican position rabidly, while CNN will typically favor Democratic ideology.

Second, there are authentic reasons for Mr. Bush’s drop in ratings, the most important of which is that the Neo-con six-month Iraq war has entered its 4th year! Moreover, there are many other not so minor reasons for the President’s drop in popularity, including the mundane – “Damn, he just keeps saying the same thing over and over again.” (Where have I heard that line before?) Seriously, centrist, dare I say “old fashioned” Republicans and right leaning Democrats worry about Mr. Bush’s close ties to evangelical Christian divisiveness and prejudice. Liberal Christians fear that - Jesus Christ’s and the New Testament’s message of tolerance and love to all people - is being overcome by the evangelical message of intolerance. Many women worry that they will become second class citizens, no longer in charge of their lives because Roe versus Wade may be struck down by a supreme court made ultra-conservative by the President’s new appointees. Many Gulf coast citizens find no hope of rebuilding their hurricane-destroyed homes, as government bureaucracy (FEMA), the current administration, this Republican congress and middle-class America seem to have abandoned them. Gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered Americans fear that we will be made into second class citizens by the proposed 28th Amendment to the constitution that comes to a Senate vote in June. The third estate American, white-collar and blue-collar workers, fear unemployment because jobs are out-sourced, and companies sold to foreign interests. Thus, it’s not only because of the Iraq war that Mr. Bush’s popularity has fallen so precipitously. It’s also because, one at a time, Americans find that they may no longer have a place at the table.

Never the less, the Iraq war, and the ancillary energy concerns are Mr. Bush’s biggest problem, and he has mistakenly squandered his presidency on them.

You may send E-mail comments to

ZacSfuts@Comcast.net

, or post them below.

First, do we understand what enriched Uranium is?

It’s this simple. Iran wants a complete enriched uranium program and they see us as those who have and those who want them to have not. Do they need enriched uranium? Do we?

No!

So, why doesn’t the USA offer to cut our own production of heavily enriched U235 as part of the negotiations?

Because we want to be the have nation, and we want Iran to be one of the have not nations. Is there any chance the Bush Administration would consider to negotiate based on the above statements?

NO!

There you have it.


You may send E-mail comments to

ZacSfuts@Comcast.net

, or post them below.