I’ve always thought that there is no issue in our society that labor should not be involved in. Global warming? Obviously. The war? Think of the economic damage, not to mention the number of working class people who are spilling their blood in Iraq. I’d be interested in hearing if you think there is a single issue labor shouldn’t touch (I’m going to guess that a few folks are going to say abortion or guns).

I raise this because a reader sent along (thank you!) a link to a story in the Los Angeles Times from the other day which describes an internal memo written for L.A. labor that argues that unions should be at the forefront of policy debates.

Los Angeles unions enjoy a decided “brand advantage” over corporations among city voters, and the labor movement should use that popularity to advance “union-led solutions” to key public policy issues in 2007, a memo written by top labor strategists says.

The two-page memo, which was obtained by The Times, argues for broader, more straightforward engagement on policy issues than many unions have undertaken in the past. Some labor leaders prefer to focus on their own contract issues, and even those who are active in politics often soft-pedal the “union” label.

To which I say: duh.This has been one of our weaknesses, historically: too many labor leaders see their job as simply dealing with what happens between the walls or within the four corners of the workplace. In fact, workers’ lives are much more complex and it’s impossible to build a wall that separates what happens at work from what people go through the rest of their lives. in the earlier part of the labor movement’s history, back in the old says of the 20th Century, there was far more involvement by unions in the complete life of its members–for the better, I’d say.

The memo also shows that, quite to the contrary of some of the conventional wisdom that focuses on labor’s decline, a lot of people have very positive feelings about unions.

The memo relies heavily on public opinion research conducted by a Democratic pollster, David Binder, including a survey of 800 city voters last fall. The document was written by three veteran strategists, John Hein, Bob Cherry and Don Attore, all of whom have retired from the political operation of the California Teachers Assn. The three work closely with Working Californians, a nonprofit research and advocacy group.

“There is a significant opportunity for organized labor in Los Angeles,” the memo says. “In particular, we’d highlight these factors: unions’ fundamentally positive image and ‘brand advantage’ over business corporations; the overlap between union priorities and the key concerns of voters across the electorate in L.A., and the opportunity to expand public understanding of the connection between local government and the full range of quality-of-life issues.”

And…

Binder’s poll found that unions have more public support in Los Angeles than in other areas of the state and country. Among city voters surveyed, 55% agreed that “without unions, there would be no middle-class left in America.”

Reflecting the labor movement’s influence in city politics, the memo argues for talking up local government’s ability to deal with issues such as the economy, healthcare and the environment, which generally are considered federal and state matters.

The memo calls “for a public education campaign focused on union-led solutions to the quality-of-life issues that Los Angeles voters regard as most important.” The memo suggests that such a campaign be conducted before 2008, when state and national election campaigns will probably consume union energy.

So, tell me, what issue, if any, should labor not touch?