Michael Hiltzik has another informative column up at the L.A. Times that makes a lot of important points about workers vs. workers (Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s divide and conquer strategy), how this rivalry is affecting the working- and middle-class, the weakening of labor unions, and “where to find a counterweight to ‘pro-business’ government policies” that create a wealth gap .

I’m going to concentrate on some specifics that are self-explanatory, but please read the whole piece.

The title is, aptly, “Corporate power increases as workers battle one another,” with the subheading, “Last week’s anti-labor election results only scratch the surface of a trend that destroys social cohesion and makes it harder for businesses — small and large — to prosper.”

As I read Hiltzik and listen to Rachel Maddow’s and Ed Schultz’s daily concerns about the drastic reduction in the number of unions (resulting in the drastic reduction in funding of Democratic candidates and causes), and after reading Paddy’s post Karl Rove’s Crossroads PAC takes on six more Democrats in crucial Senate races, I find myself reaching for my Pepto-Pinot cocktail earlier and earlier in the day.

Here are a few excerpts from Michael Hiltzik’s column:

Corporations collect their revenues from customers; unions get theirs from their members. But corporations don’t necessarily represent the interests of their customers (or haven’t you had to deal with your cellphone company lately?); while unions consistently represent the interests of their membership.
  [...]

The difference is that “shareholder democracy” is a joke: An anti-management shareholder campaign winning a majority vote at the annual meeting is man-bites-dog news. The increasingly prevalent democratic style in American corporations, especially in Silicon Valley, is for one shareholder or a small group to control a majority of votes (e.g. Google, Zynga, Mark Zuckerberg). Indeed, a single shareholder can control a corporation with less than 50% share ownership (hello, Rupert Murdoch).

By contrast, union elections are often close-fought affairs, with fundamental disagreements over policy and strategy at stake. None of this means that union members’ interests are always aligned with the public interest, only that leaders of a union with a million members will tend to pursue policies and support candidates serving the common interests of a million people and their families. A corporation with a million shareholders still might reflect only the interests of the two or three guys at the top. [...]

President Obama got horselaughs recently for suggesting that state and local government layoffs have been a big drag on the recovery. But 190,000 workers in those sectors have lost their jobs in the last three years. Ask your local shopkeepers, who depend on customers like them, if they think that’s funny.

And to drive home another point:

As you can see, out of ten groups that make political donations, only three are unions. And with super PACs, a handful of billionaires can influence election outcomes. So not only is it getting harder for businesses to prosper, it’s also getting harder for Democrats and democracy to prosper.