Log in

View Full Version : Can Labor Get Out of This Mess?



Two Americas
07-30-2009, 04:03 PM
Can Labor Get Out of This Mess?
David Bacon
Wednesday July 29

For anyone who loves the labor movement, it's not unreasonable today to ask whether we've lost our way. California's huge healthcare local is in trusteeship, its leading organizing drive in a shambles. SEIU's international is at war with its own members, and now with UNITE HERE, whose merger of garment and hotel workers is unraveling.

In 1995, following the upsurge that elected John Sweeney president of the AFL-CIO, the service and hotel workers seemed two of the unions best able to organize new members. Their high-profile campaigns, like Justice for Janitors and Hotel Workers Rising, were held out as models. Today they're in jeopardy.

This conflict has endangered our high hopes for labor law reform, and beyond that for an economic recovery with real jobs programs, fair trade instead of free trade, universal healthcare, and immigration reform that gives workers rights instead of raids. The ability of unions to grow in size and political power is on the line.

Today only 12 percent of workers belong to unions, and less in the private sector - the lowest level of organization since the years before the great longshore strike of 1934. And falling numbers aren't the whole story.

Some labor leaders now say that only huge deals at the top, far from the control of rank-and-file workers, can bring in new members on the scale we need. To make those deals attractive to employers, they argue, unions have to be willing to make deep concessions in wages and rights, and in our political demands - on everything from single-payer healthcare to immigration reform.

We need some better ideas about how unions should organize - we need to rethink even what a union actually is.

Part of our difficulty is that our labor movement, and workers themselves, think about their interests in relatively narrow terms. By comparison with workers in South Africa, El Salvador, or even Mexico and Canada, we are very conservative and reluctant to see the root of our problems in the system itself, or to talk openly about the need to change it drastically. It is more important than ever that workers see their class interest. But what is that interest? And how should we defend it?

Our labor movement has resources and wealth that are enormous by comparison with most unions around the world. But what good is it if we don't at least use it effectively to defend ourselves, or if it even becomes a brake on our willingness to take risks, like those French workers who lock their bosses in their offices, or Mexican workers, who facing the declaration of their strike in Cananea as illegal, have defied and fought it for the last two years?

Over the last four decades, corporations have built an international system of production and distribution that links together the workers of many countries, but in which workers have no control over the expropriation and distribution of the wealth they create. Further, this system has forced devastating and permanent unemployment on entire generations of U.S. workers, especially in African-American and Chicano neighborhoods.

Meanwhile, neo-liberal economic policies displace communities in developing countries, creating a reserve labor force of hundreds of millions, migrating both within and across borders, desperate for work.

Employers have always used the migration of people to this country as a labor supply system. Today that use is more overt than ever. NAFTA alone created such displacement in Mexico that over 6 million Mexican workers and farmers have come here looking for a way to guarantee their families' survival. Our immigration policy is then used as the means to criminalize not just their labor (by making it a federal crime for a worker without papers to have a job) but the very status of millions of people, who, like everyone else, have no alternative but to work.

Large corporations, with allies in the administration, among lobbying groups in Washington, and even in our labor movement itself, are now proposing changes that would substitute contract labor programs for family reunification, force all workers to carry a national ID in order to work, and require the firing of millions of workers who can't get the required "work authorization."

Our labor movement was organized by immigrants and their children - by people who came from somewhere else. But our unions have been organized in a working class deeply divided by race and nationality. The key issue confronting our labor movement for the last 180 years is inclusion or exclusion.

Today, undocumented immigrants ask: Will the unions I paid my dues to defend me when the government tells my boss to fire me because I don't have papers? It's not an abstract question. Two-hundred and fifty-four workers at Overhill Farms, fired two months ago in Los Angeles, are asking that question to UFCW Local 770 today.

For unions and workers to survive in this environment, they must demand increasingly radical reforms. Accepting the limits of "what's politically possible" as defined by Washington insiders, whether they seek to prevent discussion of single-payer or the repeal of employer sanctions, is a recipe for disaster. We cannot defend ourselves if our only goal is to "be at the table."

Each month for almost a year, over half a million people have lost their jobs. Meanwhile, banks have been showered with hundreds of millions of dollars to keep them afloat, while working families can't get their loans renegotiated so they can stay in their homes. Yet there has been no national demonstration called by either labor federation, demanding a direct federal jobs program or redirecting the bailout to workers instead of the wealthy.

http://www.inthesetimes.com/working/entry/4680/can_labor_get_out_of_this_mess_part_one/



(edited to replace Microsoft's non-standard proprietary characters so that the text displays properly in Firefox and other non-MS programs)

runs with scissors
07-30-2009, 11:30 PM
"We need some better ideas about how unions should organize, we need to rethink even what a union actually is."

Yeah, no shit.

This article says union membership is 12% "and less in the private sector." Do you know what the private sector percentage is?

curt_b
07-31-2009, 04:07 AM
n/t

curt_b
07-31-2009, 07:44 AM
The current top entry on the In These Times Working Blog (where the Bacon post that TA posted above originated) is:

Union 101: Why Unions Matter and How They Work
by Lindsay Beyerstein

http://www.inthesetimes.com/working/

It's a condescending outline of how union democracy works and how "Sandy the widget makers" interest is represented from the local to the international levels. About halfway through she says:

"The primary purpose of a union is to negotiate a contract. The most key features of a contract are wages, hours and working conditions. When negotiating a contract, both sides usually have to make concessions in order to reach a deal. The threat of a strike is an important negotiating tool, but the vast majority of contracts are reached without a strike."

The primary purpose of a labor organization should be to build power for workers. Both at their workplace, in their communities and as a class. There was a time when US Trade Unions operated from that premise. Contracts can be steps along the way and offer relief from some exploitation.

The oddest part of this is the next paragraph which explains how a contract is negotiated:

"If the two sides reach a deal, the bargaining agent takes the contract back to the membership for a vote. A majority of workers in the “bargaining unit” must vote to accept the contract."

The two sides being the boss and union staff. She never considers this in the context of rank and file power.

I want to be clear: I am pro-union, but articles like this do nothing to contribute to a Left understanding of US unionism.

Two Americas
07-31-2009, 12:17 PM
That link is taking me to an article about green jobs. This should be the right one -

http://www.inthesetimes.com/working/entry/4689/union_101_how_is_organized_labor_organized/

I agree with your critique of that article completely.

runs with scissors
08-02-2009, 11:49 PM
I also found this on Wikipedia:

[div class="excerpt"]Union membership had been steadily declining in the US since 1983. In 2007, the labor department reported the first increase in union memberships in 25 years and the largest increase since 1979. Most of the recent gains in union membership have been in the service sector while the number of unionized employees in the manufacturing sector has declined. Most of the gains in the service sector have come in West Coast states like California where union membership is now at 16.7% compared with a national average of about 12.1% ("Union Membership Up Slightly in 2007". http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/25/AR2008012503076.html. ) [1]

Union density (the percentage of workers belonging to unions) has been declining since the late 1940s, however. Almost 36% of American workers were represented by unions in 1945. Today that figure is around 12%. Significantly, the rapid growth of public employee unions since the 1960s has served to mask an even more dramatic decline in private-sector union membership.

At the apex of union density in the 1940s, only about 9.8% of public employees were represented by unions, while 33.9% of private, non-agricultural workers had such representation. In this decade, those proportions have essentially reversed, with 36% of public workers being represented by unions while private sector union density has plummeted to around 7%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_unions_in_the_United_States#Membership[/quote]

Kid of the Black Hole
08-03-2009, 06:42 AM
the organizers express this a little differently, although it is a roundabout way of saying the same thing.

The Union does not exist per se to build class power but it is an organization that can be used as a segue into building class power and an organization that naturally lends itself to that goal if its membership is given free rein.

Of course the stated "business" of the Union isto negotiate, but that also represents a foothold that can be used to aim much higher and that is difficult to suppress once it gets rolling.

Basically the point they made was that the Union took anyone who didn't like shit from the Boss which is presumed to pretty much BE everybody.

One thing about Leninism/Ant-Leninism (with All Power To The Soviets greatly confounding the matter) is that one can watch Lenin's own progression and trajectory unfold and see how it happened for themself. I find going back to his writings and thought instructive, but convoluted by too many interpreters after the fact and much too much sediment piled on by psychologizers.

The Trots talk about "rank and file power" in a totally different context than what we mean by the term. Its a distinction without meaning currently (and not only because of the lack of Soviets). But it is a dividing line for the Socialist Left.

Didn't read the article because I don't have time right now, but also because I have a soft spot for girls named Lindsay so I might not be able to read with a critical eye. Unless its a guy, then I will rip the fucker apart :D

curt_b
08-03-2009, 11:28 AM
Kid,
"The Union does not exist per se to build class power, but it is an organization that can be used as a segue into building class power and an organization that naturally lends itself to that goal if its membership is given free rein."

Am I understanding correctly that "The Union does not exist per se to build class power" means that nothing about the formation of a labor organization necessarily leads to building power, but that if its members desire it to be, it can readily become a center for development?

So, is the segue into a political body? It seems to me that any struggle that is worker led; and results in a better understanding of class alignments and solidarity; and can become the basis for further struggle, builds class power. But, I understand at some point institutions must develop that vie for state power. The questions then would have to be about the formal organization, Soviets, Workers Councils, Parties, Congresses etc.

Just a couple more things: "rank and file" as a dividing line, is the distinction based in the USSR's and the Party's methods of representation? And have you scanned the TUEL booklets? I'd love to see them posted here or at Soc Indy.

Kid of the Black Hole
08-03-2009, 01:25 PM
to precisely what is said, because the subject is so open to such a wide swath of view points and people approach it from different "places' that any little slip of the tongue can confound everything. I may be guilty of that.

I personally think that the existence of a Union, one that is not compromised to the nth degree, IS building of class power. That may or may not be its stated goal..normally not. It is not even about member desire because the majority of the members may not desire any such thing at any given time.

The focus of the TUEL books is more that Unions are not an independent political body for the workers but exist as a nexus for ALL workers to come together and enjoy the protection that solidarity provides and also utilize the uninhibited medium it provides for workers to confer -- which includes workers confering about building class power. The Union is by far the most conducive setting for those types of discussions and efforts to take place. Not only am I basing that on the literature but also from testimonials from across the spectrum -- even my Dad who is an Eleanor Clift style apologist expreses a certain fondness for when he worked for United Parcel. So does my Sean Hannity reading Uncle who was a roofer and not even in a Union that I know of (he probably was at some time)

These booklets I have are from the mid-late 70s so you have to remember to filter things through that lens. It really did seem as though the international struggle was the pulse of the proletariat and it really did seem like labor's rebuild in the United States was a foregone if not-quite-yet-arrived conclusion for the same reason..the proletariat were making inroads everywhere so it was just a matter of time.

I will try to scan one and put it up in the next few days..one has a talk from Don Tormey who Anaxarchos is a big fan of. Tormey was a Fosterite as Anaxarchos would put it.

The reason I think that "rank and file" is a dividing line is because the Trots (and they're almost all Trots even if they don't invoke the "Master" directly) want to make it about some kind of collectivist worker takeover..which is intrinsicly hostile to the taking of state power..because its bureaucratic, authoritarian, not democratic enough or whatever

They fill the void with all sorts of laughable prescriptions for "direct" worker control. I see it as a lack of seriousness on their part, personally.

curt_b
08-03-2009, 05:15 PM
Theory & Practice. If you can read this and not understand what we're doing here, then you belong in the endless arguments about defining capitalism, the being nice, and the not alienating liberals threads. Come on! The discussion between me and The Kid is not semantics. It's strategic, and those of you that don't get that are the reason that this board can't focus on Leftist politics.

Kid of the Black Hole
08-03-2009, 05:55 PM
Another one has fallen apart and I have to find and piece together all the pages..I got it in pretty rough condition.

While I don't have the device that scans in text, I will make regular scans of the pages. Its about 30 pages long so it might be cumbersome, but Soc Indy lets you upload attachments

Check there either tonight or tomorrow..I may be going out to catch a movie, or I may stay home after doing my stretches if my arm flares up bad and I have to ice it. If I stay in, I'll start scanning tonight.

I found the booklets very instructive..simply stated, direct, no bullshit. Its great.

curt_b
08-03-2009, 06:05 PM
I've got these youngsters and immigrant workers that have never seen them. I want to give them a taste

Kid of the Black Hole
08-03-2009, 06:57 PM
they turned out fine but they are too large to put as attachments on Soc Indy and uploading each file (each of which is two pages) is going to take a while

I have the scanner to do Optical Character Recognition but it is my Mom's machine and she lost the CD with the necessary software. I will rummage around and try to find that or work on uploading the scans somewhere if that proves hopeless

runs with scissors
08-04-2009, 12:35 AM
I'd never heard of TUEL but with some Googling found this article, and this statement jumped out at me:

[div class="excerpt"]Lessons From the Trade Union Educational League
By CHARLES WALKER
....

TUEL led difficult major strikes and won some that would have challenged the typical efforts of the Samuel Gompers types of that time; it recruited thousands of members in its short life-span; and more importantly, it advocated democratic, rank-and-file unionism, the end of union leaders’ cooperation with the boss class, industrial unionism, workers’ political independence (a labor party), anti-racism, and international workers’ solidarity. Its founding declaration stated that the TUEL “is campaigning against the reactionaries, incompetents, and crooks who occupy strategic positions in many of our organizations. It is striving to replace them with militants, with men and women unionists who look upon the labor movement not as a means for making an easy living, but as an instrument for the achievement of working class emancipation. In other words, the [TUEL] is working in every direction necessary to put life and spirit and power into the trade union movement.”
....

http://www.geocities.com/mnsocialist/tuel.html[/quote]

blindpig
08-04-2009, 08:23 AM
[div class="excerpt"] These booklets I have are from the mid-late 70s so you have to remember to filter things through that lens. It really did seem as though the international struggle was the pulse of the proletariat and it really did seem like labor's rebuild in the United States was a foregone if not-quite-yet-arrived conclusion for the same reason..the proletariat were making inroads everywhere so it was just a matter of time. [/quote]

Been reading Foster's 'Toward a Soviet America"(1932), things were looking good, quite rosy, then came Roosevelt & Hitler, who in their different ways knocked things off the rails. Of course the New Deal was to some degree a response to the 'partial demands' of the American Communist Party.

Here we are again, work, work, work.