United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America (UE) Them and Us :

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 14788
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America (UE) Them and Us :

Post by blindpig » Sun Aug 24, 2025 4:44 pm

Image
A large crowd gathers outside the General Motors plant in Oshawa, April 9, 1937. The strike was a key moment in the fight for industrial unionism in Canada and a significant event in the history of the United Automobile Workers (UAW). Photo courtesy the Oshawa Museum.

Class struggle unionism, auto workers, Reds, and the 1930s
Originally published: Canadian Dimension on August 19, 2025 by Ken Theobald (more by Canadian Dimension) | (Posted Aug 22, 2025)

The current moment is an ominous one for the workers’ movement in North America. In response to Trump’s tariffs and trade wars, there has been a noticeable lack of class struggle perspectives or even basic solidarity coming from labour leaders on both sides of the border. The top leadership of some of the largest unions in the United States, notably the United Auto Workers (UAW), the United Steelworkers (USW), and the Teamsters Union, have embraced the tariffs, while, in Canada, many unions have fallen into the “Team Canada” trap of allying with the largest corporations and the state.

Image
Tony Leah
Baraka Books, 2024

One of the main priorities of the now ascendant far-right is to undermine workers’ collective power in order to better serve the interests of capital. Trump and Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, or “DOGE,” have terminated 30,000 federal employees, ignoring their unions and their collective agreements. The recently published Global Rights Index for 2025, produced annually by the International Trade Union Confederation, the world’s largest labour federation, states that “the Donald Trump administration has taken a wrecking ball to the collective labour rights of workers and brought anti-union billionaires into the heart of policymaking.” Many employers have followed suit, taking a hard line or refusing to bargain with unions and aggressively resisting organizing drives. At the same time, far-right politicians like Trump and Pierre Poilievre pose as friends of workers while camouflaging their true anti-union agenda.

Canada’s federal election on April 28 was yet another sobering wake-up call for the left and the labour movement. While a Pierre Poilievre government was avoided, the Conservatives did win a record high share of the popular vote, at 41.3 percent, and made significant inroads among working class voters. The Conservative gains were the most startling in the Windsor-Hamilton corridor, the former industrial heartland. This is home to auto workers, steel workers, skilled trades, and workers in many other sectors. The NDP lost all its seats in Windsor, Essex County, and Hamilton and now has no MPs from Ontario. This was the worst electoral outcome for the NDP since its founding in 1961. As Sid Ryan, former president of the Ontario Federation of Labour, noted in Canadian Dimension, the election result was “a catastrophe for the entire labour movement.”

In North America, the workers’ movement has been stagnant for far too long. Unions have seen a steady decline in membership, in bargaining strength, in impact, and in political power. Since 1954, union membership in the U.S. has been declining steadily. Union density reached a record overall low of 9.9 percent in 2024, and only 5.9 percent in the private sector. In Canada, union density has declined to 30 percent of the overall workforce and 15 percent in the private sector.

Before it descended into the morass of business unionism and embraced social democratic gradualism, organized labour had a long history of militant class struggle, direct action, and effective organizing both north and south of what was, until recently, the world’s longest non-militarized border.

Since its inception, the workers’ movement has grown in often dramatic and sometimes unexpected surges. These historic moments, when workers overcame their sense of powerlessness, brought about real change. These periods of progress were often followed by renewed offensives by employers and the state, forcing labour to constantly fight to defend its hard-won gains. There is renewed interest in these eras of union growth and militancy. They vividly demonstrate the importance of class struggle perspectives, of uniting the whole class, and of solidarity.

One period that stands out sharply is the 1930s: a time of dramatic working class struggles and radicalization against a backdrop of far-right ascendency and austerity. Against overwhelming odds and with few resources, workers built new forms of organization—industrial unions—as vehicles of class struggle, resistance and defiance.

Sam Gindin, former research director of the Canadian Auto Workers (CAW), writes about the significance of the 1930s in his article “Resuscitating the Working Class”:

When it comes to inspiring Canadian trade unionists, the 1930s stand apart. Few narratives match the era’s dramatic sit-down strikes, the on-to-Ottawa trek and the triumph of modern unionism. Moreover, the 1930s are not just an inspirational marker. It was then that capitalism last faced a degree of economic uncertainty comparable to the present and it was also at the beginning of that decade that labour last experienced an identity crisis akin to what unions now face.

Of the thousands of struggles waged by workers during the Great Depression, a number have had an enduring impact. One notable example is the dramatic sit-down strike by workers in Flint, Michigan, against General Motors, in 1937, the eighth year of the Great Depression. This was followed, within a few weeks, by workers in Oshawa, Ontario, going on strike against GM.

The Flint and Oshawa workers were members of the recently founded United Auto Workers (UAW), which held its first national convention in 1936. Previous auto unions, mainly organized by communists and leftists, laid the basis for the UAW. In Canada, communists organized the Workers’ Unity League (WUL), which pioneered industrial unionism in many industries. These WUL unions included the Auto Workers Industrial Union (AWIU). The WUL operated from 1929-36 before merging into the new CIO (Congress of Industrial Organizations).

Tony Leah has written a fascinating text about this period, The Truth About the ’37 Oshawa GM Strike, recently published by Baraka Books. Leah is a long-time union activist with extensive experience in bargaining, shop-floor representation, labour education, and political mobilization. He worked at GM Oshawa for almost 40 years and is a member of CAW Local 222. He has held many positions at the local and the national union level. He also holds a master’s degree in labour studies from McMaster University.

Based on extensive research and primary sources, Leah’s book is a captivating reconstruction of a dramatic event and period in working class history. Leah focuses on the roots of radical industrial unionism, taking a “peoples’ history” approach to researching and writing about the 1937 Oshawa strike. His book is a riveting account of what was happening on the ground in Oshawa, on the shop floor, in the workers’ frequent mass assemblies, and in the broader community. He succeeds in capturing the class and power dynamics of the time.

Leah describes the horrible working conditions in the auto plants, where assembly workers were averaging about $600 a year in income. The mammoth plants were generally filthy, unventilated, noisy, and unsafe places. Workers endured irregular shifts, speed up, arbitrary wage cuts, and long layoffs.

They were subject to relentless efforts to intensify their work and were under constant observation by supervisors who had total power to fire workers on the spot for any reason.

In the U.S., plants were often segregated by race as well as gender. Women were in the lowest paying jobs such as sewing or sorting parts. GM frequently used spies and thugs to try to intimidate workers. Workers were not even allowed to talk during their lunch breaks, and joining a union was a fireable offense.

The militancy of the new industrial unions like the UAW had dramatic effects. The gains won by the unions made a significant difference in the individual lives of members and the working class as a whole. These unions improved workers’ wages, working conditions, and job security. They gave workers a voice on the shop floor and in the community. At a societal level, the new industrial unions advocated for social programs and fought for the rights for workers and the oppressed. They fought for racial and gender equality. They promoted workers self-activity, class and political consciousness.

Union membership in the U.S. grew from less than three million in 1933 to almost 15 million by 1945. Union growth in Canada lagged slightly behind the U.S. during this period. But, by the early 1950s, Canada’s unionization rate had caught up to the U.S. and then surpassed it beginning in the 1960s with the organizing of the large public sector unions.

The Great Depression
The 1930s were a turbulent and contradictory period which saw a devastating global depression, and the rise of militarism and fascism. It was also a decade which witnessed a heightened level of class struggle.

In corporate circles in North America at the time, there was notable sympathy for fascist ideals. Faced with a looming war against Nazi Germany, many in elite circles favoured non-intervention. Government and corporate bosses were much more worried about the “red menace” than fascism.

The Great Depression began in the fall of 1929 and lasted for a decade—one of most severe economic crises in the history of capitalism. An eight-year drought that decimated the prairie economy started the same year. The length and severity of this global economic slump, which was preceded by a drop in world commodity prices, dealt a devastating blow to workers, farmers, small businesses, and communities. Factory closures, cuts to production, and job losses soared. Homelessness, displacement, poverty, and hunger were all widespread.

After 1929, the U.S. ramped up its protectionist measures and world trade dwindled. By 1933, Canada’s GNP had fallen by 42 percent and 30 percent of the workforce was unemployed. The unemployment rate remained high in Canada until 1942. For those who still had a job, wages were cut by as much as 40 percent, hours of employment were irregular, and the conditions of work deteriorated. For many, austerity and hardship continued during the war years.

Despite the hardship and despair of a seemingly endless depression, working class people organized, mobilized and fought back on a massive scale. For workers, the 1930s was a period of struggle, resilience, and resolve.

Leah emphasizes the significance of “the particular moment in history” when the Flint and Oshawa strikes took place.

Fascism was on the rise and international rivalries were setting the stage for a world war. The Western capitalist powers were trying to respond to the deep economic crisis of the Depression, then in its eighth year. Popular movements in opposition to the devastation wreaked by the Depression, war, and fascism, were calling into question the continuation of the capitalist system.

Conditions in the early 1930s were ripe for mass radicalization. Building on the experiences of the Canadian Labour Revolt that unfolded in the period from 1917 to 1925, workers formed new radical unions and used direct action to win recognition and contracts. Workers went on strike at an astounding frequency, using new tactics such as sit-down strikes and plant occupations. There were general strikes in multiple cities. The jobless organized into Unemployed Workers’ Councils and called for “wages for all.” People physically blocked evictions and farm closures and organized rent strikes. There were frequent and militant demonstrations and mass rallies demanding relief and government assistance. Leftist were able to channel collective anger into prominent campaigns for social reforms. In the U.S., there were public campaigns against Jim Crow laws, racism, and white supremacy.

The profound shock of the economic collapse led many to question the basics and rationale of capitalism. There had been difficult periods before for workers, such as the 1919-1921 depression, which fuelled the Winnipeg General Strike and a strike wave in 1919, but nothing like this.

Many were radicalized during this period, not just workers, but also artists, writers, intellectuals, and professionals. Many became communists, socialists, left-leaning social democrats, or anarchists. After the pointless carnage of the First World War, and then the Great Depression, people were looking for an alternative social order, a better world than wage slavery.

Leah writes that:

Capitalism as an economic/political system was increasingly called into question. Communist movements gained in strength and influence as workers looked for alternatives to improve their conditions of work and life.

Job losses often hit men the hardest and the longest during the depression. Women were somewhat more insulated because they were employed in more stable sectors such as health services, teaching, domestic and clerical work. Some men abandoned their families. Others left in search of work. Women’s unpaid workload increased significantly as they were expected to maintain the household and the family during hard times with much less income.

Throughout the 1930s, women were prominent in the wave of activism and the campaigns for relief and social reform. Much of the community organizing was done by women. They provided strike support and organized protests, notably in both the Flint and Oshawa strikes. The new industrial unions were open to women and they made up a significant percentage of the membership. These new CIO unions fought for equality for women workers, including equal pay.

There were countless struggles in the garment, textile and clothing-manufacturing sectors. The bitter Dressmakers’ Strike in Toronto in 1931 lasted for two and a half months, during which the 1,500 women strikers endured assaults, arrests, and jail. In 1937, there were sit-down strikes in department stores, restaurants and hotels in the U.S. Five-and-dime sales clerks occupied their work sites.

The impact on youth growing up during the Depression was severe. In many parts of North America, schools reduced the length of the school year, or even closed altogether. Out of desperation, masses of unemployed youth and workers rode the rails, crisscrossing the country in search of work or relief. Shantytowns proliferated across the country.

Relief programs in Canada were paltry where they did exist. Single men were not eligible for any type of relief. Both the Conservatives and Liberals did not even see it as a responsibility of the federal government to intervene or to provide any help. The provinces, municipalities and private charities were expected to do that.

In his 2014 essay, “Rethinking the Great Depression,” historian Edward Whitcomb states that: “two of the most important questions in Canadian history are why Ottawa did not do more to deal with the suffering and why it did almost nothing to address the causes of the crisis.” Whitcomb notes that the federal government’s “wartime spending just a few years later jumped to over six times as much” as it spent on Depression relief.

Conservative Prime Minister R.B. Bennett, elected in 1930, did introduce make-work projects and prison-like work camps which were supervised by the military. The camps were often in remote locations and had terrible living conditions. In British Columbia, communists organized the Relief Camp Workers’ Union and took their protests demanding better relief and support to Vancouver. From there, they organized the On-to-Ottawa Trek which was brutally repressed by police and the RCMP in Regina in what was called a “police riot.” Police shot into a large crowd of strikers in Regina, injuring hundreds, and arresting 130. Two people were killed in the carnage.

At the beginning of the Depression, there were no national standards for labour rights or social programs in North America. In the U.S., the struggles of the early 1930s created mass pressure for the programs and reforms rolled out by FDR starting in 1933 as part of the New Deal. For a variety of reasons, both jurisdictional and ideological, the Canadian state was slower to pass labour legislation, but eventually did in 1944 and 1948.

The rise of industrial unionism
The most dramatic and successful development in the workers’ movement in North America during the 1930s was the surge of industrial unionism to the forefront. Previously there had only been a few unions formed on an industrial basis, most notably miners. Workers in industry were often split into a dozen or more separate craft unions. Craft unions often excluded people based on race, sex, or even politics. In the challenging period of a depression, it became obvious that all of those employed in one industry should be united in one powerful union in order to increase the strength and effectiveness of workers’ collective power.

Scholar and activist Sam Gindin, who served as research director of the Canadian Auto Workers from 1974—2000, describes the significance of this turn:

Craft unionism, which was almost exclusively concerned with skilled workers, had exhausted its role and the mass of workers (the ‘riffraff’ as one craft official referred to the semi-skilled and unskilled) moved to a form of organization that united workers across skills, gender and—especially significant in the United States—race. But no less important, this did not just happen; the union rebirth cannot be understood apart from its intimate link to the role of the radical left, communists in particular.

There had been previous attempts to organize workers on a class basis—the Knights of Labour, the Western Federation of Miners, the Industrial Workers’ of the World (IWW), the One Big Union (OBU), and the “red unions” of the Workers’ Unity league (WUL). All of these labour centrals had storied histories and notable successes. But the emergence of the industrial unions in the 1930s was qualitatively different.

Much of the union organizing in the early 1930s was community-based, grassroots and egalitarian. There were a massive number of strikes, many of them militant, with workers using new forms of organizing and radical tactics. Between 1930 and 1941, there were 27,000 recorded work stoppages in the U.S., while many more went unrecorded. “We are All Leaders”: The Alternative Unionism of the Early 1930s, edited by Staughton Lynd, offers a glimpse into the plethora of organizing initiatives.

The Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) was formed in 1935 and began aggressively organizing the masses of “unskilled” and “semi-skilled” workers. The emergence of the CIO led to unparalleled growth of unions in mass-production industries in auto, steel, rubber, oil, chemical, textile, transport, and other sectors. Labour historian Eugene Forsey wrote that the emergence of the CIO “lit a flame” for the labour movement.

Industrial unionism proved to be a more effective vehicle of struggling against the boss. The early CIO unions were fearless, militant, and creative. Workers used new tactics. A favourite was the sit-down strike where workers would occupy the plant to stop production and to keep out management and strikebreakers. The Unemployed Councils and the women’s auxiliaries provided picket duty and strike support. Workers frequently defied court injunctions and often battled with the police and company thugs. Workers reached out and built community and international support. Sometimes these struggles escalated to general strikes in places such as Minneapolis, Toledo, San Francisco, Seattle, and Stratford, Ontario.

Leah writes:

Although there were earlier attempts to establish industrial unionism, the work of Communists in the late 1920s and early 1930s made its success possible. Combined with this was a militant approach of organizing workers to exercise their collective power against employers… Militant actions, including strikes, sit-down strikes, and the other ways in which workers organized to demonstrate their power at the point of production were essential to the establishment of the UAW in the U.S., and were important in the success in Oshawa as well.

The 1930s were a period of prominence for communists, leftists, and radicals. They were at the forefront of many of the most dramatic and militant strikes. Communists took the lead in organizing among those who had previously been ignored by established trade unions—the great mass of so-called unskilled industrial workers, the ethnic and minority communities, newcomers, Blacks, women, and the jobless.

‘Reds’ in the U.S. and Canada were recognized as being amongst the best and most effective fighters for the interests of the working class. They were the main advocates pushing for the industrial union strategy. Embedded in the working class, they were often the best organizers. They were motivated and committed enough to do the long-term work of building a core of activists on the shop floor or in the community. The communist parties showed what a relatively small and highly disciplined organization of revolutionaries could accomplish.

There was also an upsurge in anti-capitalist organizations beyond the scope of the communist parties. Former Wobblies and anarchists were still prominent and active in many struggles. There were radicals from many other tendencies in and around the Socialist Party. Trotskyists played a pivotal role in a number of labour struggles, notably the Teamsters’ strike and the general strike in Minneapolis in 1934.

Spurred on by the inability of the state to offer any real solution to the Great Depression, there were fervent debates going on in left-wing and workers’ circles. In both the U.S. and Canada, there were discussions about organizing a workers’ party, forming labour-farmer alliances, carrying out independent political action, and fighting for socialism and against fascism.

The level of repression by the state and police forces was brutal during the 1930s. The threat of violence always hung in the air. In his 1972 book, Labor’s Giant Step: The First Twenty Years of the CIO, Art Preis wrote:

Almost all picket lines were crushed with bloody violence by police, deputies, troops and armed professional strike breakers.

Image
The Memorial Day Massacre, May, 1937, where police attacked strikers outside Republic Steel in Chicago. (Photo: Chicago History Museum.)

In 1937, steelworkers in Chicago—Black, Latino and white—were on strike against Republic Steel. Union members, their families, and supporters gathered peacefully for a Memorial Day picnic and then planned to march to the steel mill. Chicago police blocked their path, threw tear gas canisters, and fired bullets into the crowd. About 100 people were shot, most of them in the back. Ten were killed. A coroners’ inquest later ruled that the police action was “justifiable homicide.” This type of state violence with impunity was common throughout the 1930s.

In their 1969 study, “American Labor Violence: Its Causes, Character and Outcome,” Philip Ross and Philip Taft stated that the U.S. had the bloodiest and most violent labour history of any industrialized nation in the world.

On numerous occasions, the Canadian state also demonstrated its willingness to rely upon its armed wing to serve the interest of capital and repress workers’ struggles, as in the case of the On-to-Ottawa trek mentioned earlier. Both countries routinely harassed and imprisoned labour leaders and deported those who were “foreign born.”

Barbara Roberts, in her book Whence They Came: Deportations from Canada 1900-1935, documents how many municipalities asked the federal government to deport immigrant workers simply because they had lost their jobs. Up to 18,000 people were deported on the grounds that they had become “public charges.”

Section 98 was enacted by the Canadian government in 1919 in response to the period of labour unrest which culminated in the Winnipeg General Strike. This law, which allowed strike leaders to be charged with sedition, remained in force until 1936. In 1931, eight members of the Communist Party of Canada (CPC) were tried, convicted and sentenced to five years imprisonment. The CPC was declared unlawful and was banned from 1931-1936. Hundreds of immigrant party members were deported.

The 1937 Flint and Oshawa strikes against GM
On December 30, 1936, a group of auto workers defiantly took over GM’s Fisher Body Plant in Flint, Michigan. This was the beginning of the dramatic Flint Sit-Down Strike, which lasted for 44 days, and spread to 150,000 auto workers in other cities.

The UAW was in a relatively weak position before the strike and the odds seemed to be stacked against them. Leah quotes media coverage in Life magazine before the Flint strike, which characterized the UAW as “puny” and “one of the least influential labor unions.”

The tactical decision to engage in a sit-down strike in Flint was brilliant. A small number of workers stopped production, occupied the plant, and kept out management and strikebreakers. In a classic picket line, they would have been more vulnerable. By utilizing a plant occupation they were more in control.

Leah references a fascinating account of the Flint Sit-Down Strike written by union organizer Walter Linder:

Once inside they set about organizing one of the most effective strike apparatuses ever seen in the United States. Immediately after securing the plant, they held a mass meeting and elected a committee of stewards and a strike strategy committee of five to govern the strike… Then committees were organized: food, police, information, sanitation and health, safety, ‘kangaroo court,’ entertainment, education, and athletics… The supreme body remained the 1,200 who stayed to hold the plant, the rest being sent outside to perform other tasks. Two meetings of the entire plant were held daily at which any change could be made to the administration.

On January 11, 1937, heat was turned off to the occupied plant and the Flint police, armed with guns and tear gas, attacked in full riot gear. They tried to force their way in and tried to stop the delivery of food and supplies. The strikers were able to repel attacks by the police, but 14 workers were shot and wounded. After the police were forced to retreat, more than 4,000 National Guard troops then surrounded the plant and set up machine guns. The workers were defiant. They ignored two court injunctions and seized yet another GM plant.

The Flint strikers relied heavily on outside support. The Women’s Emergency Brigade, who armed themselves with clubs, played a pivotal role of providing picket duty and support activities during the sit-down strike. A women’s auxiliary helped with overall organizing.

Image
Michigan National Guardsmen set up a machine gun on the road leading to the Fisher Body Plant, Flint, Michigan, 1937. (Photo: Walter P. Reuther Library)

Even though the UAW represented only a small number of auto workers before the Flint strike, they relied upon the discontent, militancy, and solidarity of the rank-and-file across the industry and beyond. The impact of the Flint strike was huge and it quickly expanded to other plants and other cities in the U.S. and Canada. Within a few weeks, there were 87 sit-down strikes in Detroit alone. There were a remarkable 477 recorded sit-down strikes across the U.S. in 1937 involving over 500,000 workers.

On February 11, GM agreed to recognize the UAW as the sole bargaining agent for its workers. The union movement now had a renewed confidence. The following month, auto workers at Chrysler used a sit-down strike to win a union contract. Within a few years, union agreements had been signed with GM, Ford, Chrysler, and the rubber companies, followed by the packinghouse, textile and electrical industries. The UAW had grown from 30,000 to 500,000 members in a matter of months.

Leah writes:

After forty-four days, the sit-downers achieved the seemingly impossible—an agreement by GM to recognize the UAW and bargain a contract with them. It would be difficult to exaggerate the importance of the victory and its impact on workers in the United States, Canada and internationally.

The Ford Company was the last holdout and it used brute force and thugs to try to keep the union out. In the infamous “Battle of the Overpass,” on May 26, 1937, Ford’s “security service” and Dearborn police brutally attacked UAW members who were peacefully handing out leaflets. This assault was extensively covered by the press and Ford was eventually pressured into signing a union contract.

On April 8, 1937, less than two months after the end of the Flint strike, almost 4,000 workers went on strike against GM in Oshawa. As Leah relates, this strike, which lasted for 10 days, and won recognition for the union, is also regarded as a landmark struggle that helped pave the way for the expansion of the UAW and other CIO unions in Canada.

As in Flint, the odds initially seemed to be against the workers. They were organized into the newly charted Local 222 of the UAW, up against the wealthiest corporation in the world. GM dominated Oshawa, just as it did in Flint.

There was no dues check-off in the 1930s, so unions had few resources. Sam Gindin argues that this “force[d] the union to find more creative ways to gain members—the GM Oshawa local, not confident in its ability to take on GM, attracted workers through bowling leagues and hunting clubs—but when the opportunity to have a steady income came, workers and their unions generally opted to lock that in.” He continues:

The postwar struggle for unionization in Canada led at Ford to a dramatic shutdown in 1945 and an arbitrated ruling (the Rand Formula) that offered unions the dues check-off (“union security,” as it was dubbed). This was generally hailed as a victory by unionists, soon became a pattern in major industries, and was subsequently enshrined in law. But in exchange, workers were to give up the right to strike during the life of the agreement and the union was to take responsibility for policing that ban.

In addition to facing a hostile press, the Oshawa workers were confronting Ontario Premier Mitch Hepburn, who was determined to crush the union. Hepburn had mobilized 100 RCMP officers, an OPP squad, and 400 “special constables” dubbed “Hepburn’s Hussars” to be sent to Oshawa. He claimed that it was necessary to do so because he had a secret report that the CIO was working “hand-in glove with international communism.”

Leah’s analysis of the Oshawa strike reveals “a battle where rank and file workers and shop floor militants were in charge.” He examines in detail the role of women, something largely ignored in other accounts of this strike. He looks at the particular historical conjuncture, a period of intense class conflict, when workers’ class consciousness and levels of resistance were high, and when workers were prepared to take militant action. He gives credit to communists and leftists for laying the ground work for the growth and expansion of industrial unionism.

Leah contributes not only extensive research but also his perspective as a rank-and-file union activist who is intimately aware of the demands of militant class struggle. The Oshawa UAW workers had 300 shop stewards in a workforce of 3,700, with a high level of shop-floor activism. Leah highlights the importance of the steward system: “The stewards built enough shop-floor power that they forced management to resolve workers’ grievances—even before the strike, and thus before there was a collective agreement.”

Leah writes:

Solidarity was enhanced by ensuring that women workers were represented on the GM bargaining committee and that women, whether workers or relatives of workers, were engaged in providing support for the strike through the establishment of a Ladies’ Auxiliary (an organization for women partners or relatives of workers that engaged in strike support activities).

A particular aim of Leah’s book is to counter the conventional narrative of the Oshawa strike established by historian Irving Abella and others. Leah shows how Abella downplayed or ignored the very factors which made the 1937 strike a success—the organizing by Reds, the extensive rank-and-file involvement, the role of women strikers, the high level of community support, and the tangible support from the International UAW. Abella disparaged the role played by the international UAW in an article published in Canadian Dimension in March-April 1972, titled “The CIO: Reluctant Invaders.” While promoting a Canadian nationalist agenda, Abella often erased or glossed over the radical origins of the labour movement.

Reclaiming workers’ history
In keeping with the subtitle of his book, “They Made Cars and They Made Plans: Reds, the Rank and File, and International Solidarity Unionized GM,” Leah affirms:

The achievements of the workers in Oshawa were the result of the incredible solidarity and mobilization of the rank and file members, the establishment of radically democratic structures of decision-making, the broad support from workers and community, and the significant benefits of being part of the radically disruptive international UAW.

Leah highlights the factors which made the early CIO industrial unions so unique and so successful, including the power of the “one-plant-one-union” approach as well as the emphasis on organizing workers as a class, and not separating them based on skill or trade. He emphasizes the way that the new industrial unions conducted their affairs in a democratic and accountable manner with a system of shop stewards, plant committees, and shop-steward councils, all democratically elected. And he documents how the unions consciously strived to accommodate and welcome all, regardless of race, ethnic background, gender or political persuasion. Leah highlights the emphasis on rank-and-file involvement and engagement, the openness to radical, left-wing perspectives and leadership, the centrality of direct action and mass struggle, and the importance of building solidarity, locally and globally.

It is refreshing to read an account of working class history where the role of Reds and leftists is acknowledged as a central one.

The gains of those dramatic struggles of the 1930s and 1940s, such as the Oshawa strike, include many of the things that working class people now take for granted: union recognition, collective bargaining rights, a minimum wage, unemployment insurance, social assistance for those in need, labour standards, health and safety regulations, and pensions.

Image
GM Oshawa Strike 1937. (Photo: City of Toronto Archives, Fonds 1266, Item 44146)

Radical repression
In the late 1940s and early 1950s, communists and radicals became the targets of orchestrated purges from the labour movement. These purges involved collaboration between corporations, the state, the police, and right-wing forces within labour. Radicals were effectively excised from nearly all of the CIO industrial unions, while unions which still had left-wing leaderships were forced out of labour federations. In the U.S., the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 prohibited many of the tactics used successfully by CIO unions and forced union officials to sign anti-communist pledges.

In Canada, social democrats in the CCF played a very significant role in ousting radicals. In a remarkably candid and exhaustive manner, Irving Abella documented these purges of the left in his 1973 book Nationalism, Communism and Canadian Labour: The CIO, the Communist Party, and the Canadian Congress of Labour 1935-1956.

John Stanton’s 1979 book Life and Death of the Canadian Seamen’s Union illustrates the underhanded tactics adopted in the purging of radicals from the labour movement. The Canadian Seamen’s Union (CSU) was organized in 1936 by a few dozen communist and militant seamen. Within three years, the CSU represented 9,000 workers, 90 percent of the merchant seamen working the Great Lakes and ocean ports. The CSU was a highly effective and militant union and a thorn in the side of the half-dozen companies which controlled Great Lakes navigation. In the late 1940s, the Canadian and U.S. governments, in conjunction with the shipping bosses, collaborated with American Federation of Labour (AFL) leadership in a campaign to crush the CSU. They brought in the Seafarers International Union (SIU), an affiliate of the AFL, headed by known gangster Hal Banks. In 1949, a gang of armed SIU thugs travelled by train from Montréal and attacked a CSU picket line in Halifax, beating many with axe handles and shooting eight workers. Barely 15 years after it was first formed, the CSU was crushed and many of its members were blacklisted, never to work in the industry again. According to Stanton’s account, both the Canadian government and the RCMP collaborated with and protected the criminals of the SIU. Just as during the ignominious Cold War period in the U.S., some top labour bureaucrats collaborated with the State Department and the CIA in suppressing popular movements and trade unions around the world.

In 1944, the AFL created the Free Trade Union Committee (FTUC) designed to create divisions within labour. By 1949, the FTUC was working with and receiving funding from the CIA to try to split the European labour movement into rival ideological camps. This anti-communist work of the AFL expanded into Asia, Africa and Latin America.

Several authors have documented the collusion of top labour bureaucrats with U.S. foreign policy objectives. The latest is Jeff Schuhrke, author of Blue Collar Empire: The Untold Story of U.S. Labor’s Global Anticommunist Crusade. Schuhrke writes:

The same twentieth-century labor movement that brought a measure of economic security and personal dignity to millions of working people also participated in some of the most shameful and destructive episodes in the history of U.S. imperialism. For decades, trade unionists in the United States have struggled to make sense of this, reluctant to discuss or even think about it… It is long past time for a thorough reckoning.

This marginalization and silencing of radical voices within the labour movement had a devastating impact. It was the beginning of a steady decline for organized labour. It led to a more docile labour movement, accommodating of bosses and the state. Unions became much more reliant upon full-time paid staff and a growing labour bureaucracy, and far less on the rank-and-file. Unions began promoting a very narrow concept of political action centred mainly on the parliamentary arena and voting, every few years, for the NDP in Canada or the Democratic Party in the U.S.

As Leah writes:

The commitment to democratic and militant unionism… was eventually undermined and largely destroyed by the adoption of anti-communism by most of the union leadership during the Cold War years. The destruction of left leadership in much of the labour movement was followed by the era of concessions, team concept, and subservience to the corporate capitalist class, as the gains of workers came under increasing attack by corporations and government.

The Great Depression only came to an end with the advent of a vast military conflict and the development of a war economy. During the Second World War, 40 percent of manufacturing capacity in North America was war related. In Canada, a surprising number of state-owned corporations were established to ramp up production in shipbuilding, aircraft, automotive, guns, heavy ammunition and a myriad of other industries and sectors. One of those government-owned entities was “Wartime Housing Limited,” set up in 1941 to rapidly build 46,000 houses for workers and later returning veterans. An obvious question is why this massive industrial capacity could not have been used at the height of the Depression, or in peace time.

Today we are seeing eerie echoes of the 1930s as the world descends into a period of instability punctuated by economic crises, military conflicts and rising global inequality. Right-wing populism, militarism, and fascism are on the rise once again. We’re witnessing increasing nationalism, protectionism, the scapegoating of migrants and newcomers, and mass deportations.

The 2025 Global Rights Index states:

We are witnessing a coup against democracy, a concerted, sustained assault by state authorities and the corporate underminers of democracy on the rights and welfare of workers… This attack is orchestrated by far-right demagogues backed by billionaires who are determined to reshape the world in their own interests at the expense of ordinary working people.

There is an urgent and pressing need to revitalize the labour movement. An effective fightback strategy would be muted without the central role of a militant workers’ movement. Such a movement is needed to defend all of those under attack—immigrants, refugees, precarious workers, trans and queer people, racialized people, and the Palestinian people, as well as workers—and to articulate a different vision of how the world could be.

There are occasional stirrings that show the potential and possibility of renewal. In the U.S., during the May Day Strong demonstrations, hundreds of thousands of workers and allies in 1,600 cities reclaimed the historic significance of the day to protest against Trump’s reactionary agenda. But much more needs to be done to revitalize the labour movement. In this context it is helpful to learn more about the history of the workers’ movement and the dramatic struggles of the 1930s. We need to reclaim that history, just as Leah’s book does, and draw inspiration from the radical dimensions of the labour movement.

As Tony Leah reminds us:

Radical industrial unionism requires radicals—people who understand that capitalism is a system designed to rob us and needs to be replaced. The successes of 1937 would not have been possible without the contribution of this outlook, and it is the ‘missing ingredient’ that we need in the labour movement today.

https://mronline.org/2025/08/22/class-s ... the-1930s/
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 14788
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America (UE) Them and Us :

Post by blindpig » Wed Sep 10, 2025 2:12 pm

Labor Day 2025: What We Face
Posted by Chris Townsend | Sep 7, 2025

Image

By Chris Townsend
September 3, 2025


Meet Sean Tierney – The Left Wing Doing the Work

Legendary U.S. trade union and communist leader William Z. Foster instructed workers more than 100 years ago that, “The left wing must do the work.” There are many ways to measure the multiple crises that some days seem to doom our U.S. trade union movement. And a small recent episode here in greater Washington, DC, illustrates so much of the problem we have when it comes to stimulating the trade unions to do the basic work of organizing the unorganized masses. It also reveals the simple answer to the question of “What can the scattered socialists do to get union organizing going?”

The Crisis of New Union Organizing

New union organizing in the U.S. today is sparse, especially shocking given the fact that more than 90% of the U.S. workforce is unorganized. Some new union organizing does proceed today under the steady hand of trained, veteran union staff. Some goes forward driven by young, mostly inexperienced, but highly motivated organizers. For all of that we can be grateful. Some union organizing is orchestrated without the NLRB process. Some takes place in the public sector, or in the rail and airline industries. All of it is heroic, but the cumulative results are insufficient to make even a small dent in the magnitude of the crisis. As Trump’s recent attacks on the federal unions reveal, it will take years and years just to regain these lost union members given the snail pace of new organizing by the labor movement.

Where are the unions? Mostly they just sit, inert, consumed with their own internal worlds, and increasingly surrounded on all sides by hostile elements. Taking the trade union message out to the unorganized workplaces to spread the hopeful word among the toilers is either an unknown activity or, at best, an occasional field trip reserved for paid staff. In many business unions new organizing is a bothersome “bill” that they can, and do, avoid paying. The most urgent crisis facing the labor movement today – its refusal to dramatically launch mass campaigns to organize the unorganized – has only worsened since I explored the topic last year. It has worsened every year of my entire 46 year run in this labor movement.

Where is the Left?

“Organize the unorganized!”, has been the call of our left in past decades, but not today. With some energetic exceptions, we instead see our fractured, scattered, and tiny left forces largely engaged in 101 different pursuits. Some are more compelling than others, but few, if any, are connected directly to the workplace or the trade unions. The workplace is mostly off-limits. Employer “boss rule” is complete and unchallenged by most in our left. And you can bet that the assorted moribund trade union “leaderships” that plod along are grateful that they face virtually no pressure from the left elements that do exist. With few left forces willing to demand or do the difficult work of new organizing, retreat becomes inevitable. The union officialdom draw their breath, draw their pay, while new organizing slows to a trickle.

What Can One Union Member Do?

A little more than two years ago, Sean Tierney found out about and came out to a new union organizing school I was running here in Northern Virginia. Sean works as a driver for a private contractor company in suburban, Washington, DC. He takes senior citizens and people with disabilities to wherever they need to go, and he is a member of the Teamsters Union. He is a socialist, and he keeps up with developments across our scattered labor movement and left wing. He knew he had a lot to learn about unions, and especially union organizing, since his shop was organized so long ago that nobody knows how it happened. Sean also joined Teamsters for Democratic Union (TDU) as soon as he found out about them and their mission of revitalizing the union.

Sean has helped with a number of the union organizing schools that I have run. He volunteered to pick me up and drive to the school I was running in Richmond, Virginia. We talked about a lot of things on the trip and he had one question; “Can the mechanics at my company join the union?” I answered, “Yes, of course, but you have to do the work of signing them up.” He then volunteered that he didn’t think that his union local business agent was interested in organizing them. He had been told already that they could not be organized. Sean didn’t know it yet, but he was supposed to give up right then. And he didn’t.

The Union Wins

The good news is that on August 7th, 2025, thanks strictly to the diligent work of Teamster member Sean Tierney, 8 mechanics at his company voted in an NLRB election by a 7 to 1 margin to join his local union. These workers, somehow left out when the unit was originally organized, now come under the coverage of the Teamsters union contract that covers Sean and 80-odd co-workers at the company. This is made possible by the NLRB election known as an “Armour-Globe” election, where workers can join an existing bargaining unit immediately. They do not have to wait for the union and the company to bargain an entirely new contract for the small group. Any union with an actual organizing program would have long ago identified this group and brought them into the union. Sean made it happen with his many months of persistent effort. He talked to the workers over and over again, answering their questions and keeping their morale up during the months when it looked like the union was never going to do anything.

Small Union Win Reveals Major Underlying Crisis

Why did this process take 15 months? Is the NLRB that slow? No, at least not yet. Did it take that long to sign up the workers? No. Sean did that in a couple days. Was it because the company resisted? No. The company never did anything to block it or slow it down, which is nearly always the case in these types of elections. Sean and I talked at least 10 times, as I was mystified why such an elementary organizing task was not proceeding. More than once I thought of calling his local union myself and explaining what was going on, but based on my own experience I didn’t want to get Sean into any “trouble.” You never know with many unions. Those reading this who belong to one of these types of unions today will know what I am talking about.

At one point, with both of us exasperated, I even gave Sean union cards from a different union. I figured maybe his union would get moving if it thought that another union was moving in to grab these workers for themselves. Sean at one point even showed the union staffer a union card from yet another union, telling him that they were going to organize these workers if his local wasn’t. These gimmicks are best avoided, but nothing else was getting the attention of the union.

From the point that the union finally requested that the NLRB conduct an election, until that election was won, it took exactly 3 weeks. That’s it. Three weeks. Again, what was the holdup? Well, the record is clear; during Sean’s entire 15-month quest to try to organize his 8 co-workers into his union each and every delay or dodge was orchestrated by one or the other staff member of his union local. That’s right. The paid staff of the union. They stared at him. Said they would get back to him. They told him they were “working on it.” Apparently being untrained, and lacking in very much real organizing interest or needed experience, the union staff knew little about how the organizing process worked. Is every Teamsters Union local like this? Certainly not. There are many who are organizing, and some are winning. So Sean kept pushing month after month, and I kept telling him that “Something would break loose, it’s bound to.”

Business Union Failure to Organize

All along the game was to see if Sean Tierney would go away. The business union goal after all is to control the members, keep them in the dark, keep them “in line” and looking up to the leadership and staff uncritically. In many unions – and there are far, far too many like this today – the members are not supposed to question things. Members asking questions are viewed with suspicion. Even if the member is trying to organize new members into their own local union. Even if the process of organizing these workers is about as simple as bending over to pick up some money laying on the ground. And you might think from this episode that this local union was overflowing with new members? No, federal government reports indicate that in the past 3 years alone this local has lost 2,800 members.

Sean Tierney is as pro-union as they come in this working class. But rather than put him to work helping to address this crisis, he gets pushed away for almost a year and a half. Sean Tierney alone expanded his shop’s union membership by 10%. Small, yes, but this opens the door to additional organizing where he lives. And in a related postscript, a different Teamster local from a nearby city just won an NLRB election and organized the shop where Sean worked prior to his current driving gig. It’s only a few miles from his home. He worked there and knows many of the workers. While we will never know, maybe if Sean had not been forced to waste time and valuable energy trying to get his own local to function, these workers might have joined his local instead? You can’t make this stuff up. Well, given that there are hundreds of unorganized shops and workers by the tens of thousands all over the area hopefully his local union will take him seriously when he brings in the next organizing lead.

Follow the Example of Sean Tierney

There are many more details in this saga as Sean has also had to wrangle with his local union over the past several years to bargain a better contract, and to encourage the members to get involved – even a little. He has been working for the past year to ensure that the members in his unit have access to a functioning and trained union steward. Sean, a socialist and a solid union man, has never become demoralized to the point of giving up. He talks with other union members he knows who face similar situations – or even worse – and shows what support he can. He calls me with union questions, or just wanting to compare notes. He stays as active as he can visiting picket lines and doing his duty to push back against Trump. He reads and studies to learn more about how the union can function better, going to meetings and seminars at his own expense. Sean checks for my articles on the Marxism-Leninism Today web site, and he reads other sites that offer useful trade union and political information. The unions tragically provide very little in the way of trade union study and training for members who want to actually build their own union. That needs to change, and has been a problem for many decades.

I want to salute the tough, unrecognized good work of Sean Tierney, as he lives out Foster’s admonition that, “The left wing must do the work.” Each small task to rebuild worker confidence in our trade unions as fighting organizations is a critical step forward. Sean sets an example for us all to follow. He has never allowed his employer, or his own union from deflecting him, demoralizing him, or aggravating him into giving up. If more on the left would take seriously the need to do their part in organizing the unorganized, and rebuilding and strengthening our unions, we would notice the difference.

https://mltoday.com/labor-day-2025-what-we-face/
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 14788
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America (UE) Them and Us :

Post by blindpig » Mon Sep 15, 2025 2:18 pm

Image

Labor Movement in fight for its life against neofascist threat
By Bill Fletcher, Jr. (Posted Sep 15, 2025)

Originally published: LA Progressive on September 12, 2025 (more by LA Progressive) |

In countries across the capitalist world, trade union movements are being challenged to their very core by the growth of right-wing populist and neofascist mass movements. What makes this situation especially dangerous is that labor unions and supporters are facing not just maniacal leaders or even military juntas, but a strengthening political alignment between segments of the capitalist class and these same right-wing social movements.

The post-Cold War rise of right-wing populism overlapped with, but had different roots than, neoliberal authoritarianism which, over the second half of the 20th century, curtailed the growth for left and progressive politics, while the ability to protest became increasingly limited. During this period, capitalist states reduced their role in any degree of wealth redistribution and enhanced their repressive apparatuses.

Right-wing populist and authoritarian movements arose in different countries in very different ways. In the United States, their rise preceded the emergence of neoliberalism as a growing, reactionary response to the progressive social movements of the 1930s and following decades. This later combined with the rise of neoliberalism in the 1970s and the stagnation of living standard for the average working person.

Neoliberalism also brought with it increased wealth polarization and, therefore, panic within the middle strata of society resulting in the classic dilemma for the middle strata: were they going to be crushed between the rich and the poor or was there another solution?

Neofascism (or “postfascism”) has emerged as an outgrowth of loosely entwined right-wing populist movements. In some cases, neofascism arose through a revolt against the impact of neoliberalism, and in other cases as revolt against the welfare state. In either case, what has come to unite these various movements has been revanchism, i.e., the politics of revenge and resentment by those who believe something has been taken from them by the “other.”

It is here that race, sex, gender and religion become critical categories for identifying scapegoats. Revanchism has been accompanied by the politics of the mythical return to a better time–a time that allegedly existed where everyone knew their place in society and ​“we” all lived comfortable lives.

The modern trade union movement arrived at a detente with the dominant sections of capital in most countries following World War II. This does not mean there was an absence or abandonment of class struggle, however, rather that class struggle shifted in form. In many cases it shifted to other-than-union working class organizations, or it took the form of struggles by segments of the working class–women, migrants, workers of color–resisting various forms of systemic economic and non-economic oppression.

Whether through co-determination, tripartism, or industry agreements, the leadership of much of organized labor in the United States concluded that ​“peace in our time” had arrived, despite the fact that the larger working class, particularly among marginalized populations–frequently lacking collective organization and the right to freely organize, protest or bargain–were experiencing the underside of this brokered peace between the labor movement and capital.

Nationalism meets revanchism
Up until about a decade ago, trade union movements in the advanced capitalist world largely downplayed the significance of the rising right-wing populist and neofascist movements. To the extent to which it was acknowledged, there was a tendency to treat the question of right-wing authoritarianism as a marginal movement. In the 1980s, the National Education Association took steps to educate its members about the dangers of white supremacists and other right-wing authoritarian formations which had become very active in the Midwest and North West. Among the larger trade union movement, such actions were the exception, not the rule.

Neofascists claim to be in opposition to ​“globalism,” whereas much of the established trade union movement often seems to have accommodated itself to neoliberal globalization, even when unions are critical of certain elements of neoliberalism. For the far right, globalism is only partly about the globalization of capitalism, but more commonly refers to the migrant surge of the last 40 years, relocation of jobs overseas and what is seen as the disappearance of borders. Globalism, for those on the far right, is about the breakdown in parochial ways of thinking and acting. As a result, nationalism becomes the flag to protect not the nation state, but the old ways–traditional values. Nationalism becomes linked with revanchism and the idea that these old ways of doing things have been threatened and the possibility for a good life has been taken away from the average person.

To the extent organized labor failed to pay attention to shifts in the methods of work and in the workforce itself–and particularly the growth of casualization and the informal economy–it appeared to its critics to be a movement for an ​“elite,” though it is highly unlikely that most trade union members would think of themselves as such.

Despite electoral-political engagement by trade unions, there has been a stark reluctance by most union leaders and leadership bodies in the United States to explicitly name the fascist threat, or the broader threat posed by right-wing authoritarianism. This aversion must be situated in the context of the chronic illness that has befallen the U.S. trade union movement–and, for that matter, many other trade union movements in the advanced capitalist world.

This illness amounts to a decline in the face of the neoliberal offensive and a failure to accept that the terms of the post-World War II labor/​capital truce no longer hold. In fact, unions in both the public and private sectors are currently being obliterated by more politically-reactionary segments of capital. Rather than pushing the limits on democratic capitalism, the trade union movements have up to this point largely accommodated themselves to defeat, albeit a slow-moving defeat.

With the rise of right-wing populism and neofascism, the crisis has become acute. Neofascism sees the trade union movement as its enemy while at the same time trying to appeal to the working class who make up labor’s membership. However, to win over this base, the far right is harkening back to previous pseudo pro-worker appeals by embracing racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic politics that can present as being in the interest of everyday working people.

Toward an antifascist labor movement
The response of the global trade union movement to these efforts has been uneven at best. On the one hand, an international alliance of antifascist unions was established through the work of Italy’s Confederazione Generale Italiana del Lavoro (CGIL, the left-wing trade union confederation). Similarly, a 2022 report commissioned by the German trade union movement, the Deutscher Gewerkschaftsbund (DGB), indicated that there has been a high level of educational work conducted by European labor federations and confederations to raise awareness regarding the threat from the far right. These are promising efforts, but don’t yet amount to large-scale active campaigns conducted against the far right (whether in the workplace or communities) as well as campaigns against forms of discrimination and oppression that are often exploited by these same forces.

In the United States, efforts have been equally uneven. Until very recently, almost no anti-far right educational efforts were being conducted within the union movement. Though there have been some educational programs that have focused on racism and sexism, even those are more often than not very incomplete. The reluctance to touch on matters that most union leaders perceive to be ​“divisive” has repeatedly led to a retreat into the focus on the economic–including militant economic rhetoric and struggles–as if that will serve as the unifying force of union members. Despite decades of efforts in that direction, when facing down a far-right threat, they rarely succeed.

At the same time, principally in response to President Donald Trump’s second administration, resistance efforts have been taking place. In the federal sector, rank and file union members led by progressive local union leaders established the Federal Unionist Network (FUN) as a means of coordinating fight-back efforts to the attacks on federal sector workers by the Trump administration. This has been especially important in light of the anemic state of most federal sector unions.

Recently, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) displayed great courage when one of its key leaders in California was assaulted and arrested during a protest against Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE) raids and kidnapping of immigrants. SEIU and other unions mobilized their members, and those of other unions, to demand their leaders release and to oppose the ICE raids.

The Chicago Teachers Union, along with other local unions, helped organize nationwide May Day protests this year and is seeking to build continued protests against anti-worker, anti-democratic practices by the Trump administration. And, in higher education, the American Association of University Professors, the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association have all engaged in active protests and other mobilizations.

Yet, with the exception of Standing for Democracy, a newly formed strategy center and mobilization group, and the recently-founded group Labor for Democracy, there have been limited efforts to contextualize the current attacks in light of the growth of a mass fascist movement. In that sense, much of the current resistance work, as powerful and as essential as it is, misses the point that these are not normal circumstances. These are not fights against the expected assaults by conservative, neoliberal forces. The trade union movement is in a fight for its very existence, and for the existence of even a semblance of democracy and economic justice.

Throughout modern history, in U.S. trade union circles, it has been suggested that building a militant struggle for economic justice will unite workers and defeat the far right. Yet the fact remains that the trade union movements in Italy in the 1920s and Germany in the early 1930s attempted just that course and were met with disastrous political results.

There is no room for silence or middle ground. Trade unionism must either be anti-fascist, or it will be nothing at all.

https://mronline.org/2025/09/15/labor-m ... st-threat/
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 14788
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America (UE) Them and Us :

Post by blindpig » Wed Nov 05, 2025 2:48 pm

Teamsters at a crossroads: Rank-and-file challenge takes on O’Brien’s alliance with Trump
November 3, 2025 Lallan Schoenstein

Image
Richard Hooker Jr., a Philadelphia Teamsters leader.

The upcoming election for the leadership of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters — one of the largest and most powerful unions in the United States — could reshape the direction of the labor movement itself.

In November 2026, 1.3 million Teamsters will choose between incumbent General President Sean O’Brien and Richard Hooker Jr., a Philadelphia Teamsters leader who has become a leading critic of the current administration.

This election is about more than who sits at the top. It’s a fight over the union’s soul — whether it will stand with the working class or side with the bosses and politicians who exploit it.

A dangerous political turn

Under O’Brien, the Teamsters have drifted sharply to the right.

Once calling Donald Trump “our enemy,” O’Brien now praises him as “one tough SOB.” He met privately with the billionaire politician and even spoke at the 2024 Republican National Convention.

Hooker warns that this alignment “puts every working-class person in jeopardy.”

Trump, he points out, is a union buster who has cut jobs, eliminated labor protections, and attacked workers’ rights. He weakened the National Labor Relations Board and OSHA, and cheers on union-busting bosses.

O’Brien, who rose to power in 2021 as a self-styled reformer after the Hoffa era, has since courted the same corporate and right-wing forces he once criticized. His administration has shifted Teamsters’ political spending toward corporate-aligned and Republican-backed PACs.

To Hooker and many activists, this weakens labor solidarity and distances the union from the broader working-class movement.

Breaking the system of fear

The debate is also about democracy inside the union itself.

Hooker says the Teamsters have long been ruled by “a system of fear, bullying, retaliation, and intimidation” — a system that mirrors the boss’s own tactics. He accuses O’Brien of acting “like a king who expects blind loyalty.”

Hooker argues that members, not top officials, should set the union’s direction — from contract enforcement to grievance procedures to leadership accountability. His message is simple: the rank and file should have the power to decide how their union is run.

Fighting for jobs, pensions, and the future

At UPS — the largest Teamster employer — workers say the grievance process is slow and unclear. Hooker calls for transparency, direct communication, and stronger representation against management pressure.

Automation is another looming challenge. As logistics corporations rush to bring in robotics and artificial intelligence, thousands of Teamster jobs — and pension contributions — are at risk.

Hooker says the union must anticipate these changes and fight to protect wages, hours, and job security as technology transforms the industry.

A new chapter in Teamsters’ history

If elected, Richard Hooker Jr. would become the first Black president of the Teamsters — a historic breakthrough in a union whose membership includes large numbers of Black and Brown workers, even though its leadership remains overwhelmingly white.

Hooker’s campaign is more than a personal bid for office. It’s part of a growing rank-and-file movement to make the Teamsters once again a fighting union rooted in its diverse membership.

Which path forward?

The 2026 election offers a clear choice.

O’Brien’s camp defends a top-down union that cuts deals with bosses and courts the far right in the name of “access.”

Hooker’s campaign calls for a member-driven union — one that rejects collaboration with anti-worker politicians and puts power back in the hands of the rank and file.

It’s a choice between accommodation and transformation, between a union that adapts to the billionaire class and one that fights to defeat it.

The outcome will echo far beyond the Teamsters — across every shop floor where workers are asking the same question: Whose side is our union on?

https://www.struggle-la-lucha.org/2025/ ... ith-trump/

Unions should be on the side of workers, period. Neither capitalist party will champion labor despite the lip-service.
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 14788
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America (UE) Them and Us :

Post by blindpig » Tue Nov 11, 2025 2:53 pm

Image
Angel Lopez

Workers’ political consciousness in demobilized class societies: Redistribution, recognition and representation
Originally published: Marxist Sociology Blog on October 8, 2025 by Linus Westheuser and LInda Beck (more by Marxist Sociology Blog) | (Posted Nov 07, 2025)

Lisa shows up in her work overalls at a McDonald’s on the outskirts of Berlin. Outside, trucks thunder towards the Autobahn. Lisa grabs a coffee and sinks, exhausted, into a corner booth. She’s just come off the early shift, having been at the car factory since three in the morning, where she works as a temp on the assembly line. Really, she just wants to go home, but she still makes time for an interview. Lisa is one of the people we spoke to for a study on the political consciousness of a class that, until recently, was almost forgotten in public debate: the “old working class” of manual workers in industry, construction, and the trades.

“Is there even still such a thing as a working class?” university graduates ask us when we talk about our project. “Ah, the fashy crowd,” others say. These clichés are the result of a discourse in which for many years the working class had virtually vanished, only to reappear in stories about the rise of the far right. Media reports, as well as a veritable cottage industry of ethnographic explorations documenting right-wing views among workers, have consolidated an image of a class hopelessly lost to resentment and reaction.

Yet the statistics show a very different picture: While it is true that a growing share of workers has been voting for right-wing parties and candidates across Europe and the US in the last two decades, a more silent but equally pronounced trend is that of an altogether withdrawal and exclusion of workers from the political process. As we show for our German case, a host of indicators on political participation, party and union membership, the identification with representative democracy, or engagement in public debates show that workers, even more than the citizenry at large, are increasingly turning their backs on the political system. Strike activity has plummeted since the 1970s and parties and the media have essentially ceased talking about workers (see graphs below). In general, researchers document how the withdrawal of workers from politics is the flipside of a deepening of political inequality that sees workers’ preferences neglected wherever they clash with those of elites. Even in European countries, whose political systems are considerably less oligarchic than that of the US, today’s democracies operate by the creed “government of the people, by the elites, for the rich”, as one paper succinctly summarizes.

Image
Mentions of the term ‘worker(s)’ in major German newspapers, 1949–2024.

Image
Working days lost due to strikes and lock-outs in Germany per 1000 employees, 5 years averages, 1971–2023.

Adding further nuance to the image of a solidly right-wing working class, studies show that workers are particular heterogeneous, diverse, and unsystematic in their attitudes. Even in contentious and highly politicized questions like immigration policy, there is much more disagreement and variance within the working class than in other classes. The spectrum of opinions is particularly wide and instead of tightly organized political belief systems what dominates is an everyday common sense that is “strangely composite”, as Gramsci put it. What all this tells us is that a sole focus on right-wing ideology captures only a narrow part of working-class consciousness. Most workers—including many right-wing voters—are politically demobilized and distant from all politics, and hold views that do not neatly fit the boxes of left- or right-wing party platforms.

How are we to understand working-class consciousness under these conditions? This is the question our paper seeks to tackle both conceptually and empirically. Theoretically, we build on Klaus Dörre’s notion of “demobilized class societies”: societies that continue to be structured by class relations but in which class-based identities and political representation channels have fragmented. Drawing on thinkers like E.P. Thompson, Axel Honneth, Nancy Fraser, and Pierre Bourdieu we argue that in this conjuncture, the dominant form of workers’ consciousness is a moral sense of injustice, a protest against violations of an implicit social contract. The reactive scandalization of broken promises and violated expectations, rather than systematic ideological edifices, dominate as a modus operandi of workers’ political consciousness today.

Empirically, we trace this in interviews with manual workers, observing how in everyday talk, workers articulate critiques pertaining to injustices of material redistribution, symbolic recognition, and political representation. We met workers at home or during their lunch breaks, on building sites or in cafés. “How would you describe yourself?” is a question with which many of our long conversations began. “I’ve got no problem picking up a hammer or an axe,” Lisa replies. “I don’t need to get all dressed up to go to the factory. It’s not a catwalk — I’m there to work. So I guess that makes me an unusual woman.” Our conversations revolve around self-understanding and grievances, pressures and the identity-shaping role of work — and almost always, politics, which most keep at arm’s length with a dismissive wave. What emerges is a picture of a working class more diverse, perceptive, and contradictory than the caricatures of talk shows or election coverage suggest.

Redistribution: The higher-ups take it out on the lower ones
What do workers think about politics and society? Where do they stand politically? To get a sense of this, it’s worth looking at feelings of injustice, anger, and criticism that were omnipresent in our interviews. Less than a clear ideology, what comes through is more of an intuitive unease with the status quo. “The higher-ups take it out on the ones at the bottom,” Lisa says, visibly angry. “They earn obscene amounts of money, retire on pensions that an average person could only dream of. And our pensioners get practically nothing. I don’t get it. It just doesn’t go into my head.”

Like Lisa, many of the people we spoke with see society as dichotomously divided into an “above” and a “below.” In this vision of society, a small, closed-off upper class of managers, bankers, and politicians, keeps multiplying its wealth, while ordinary people’s incomes stagnate and pensions for those at the bottom aren’t enough to live or die on. “Working class — that’s everyone busting their ass for a meager life,” says Robin, a construction worker. “And then there’s the upper class, up in some skyscraper, maybe stamping a paper from time to time, and the money just flows in on its own. They don’t even have to do a damn thing.”

Workers’ critiques closely match what economists have long described: the growing imbalance between the wealth of the few and the struggles of the many. At the same time, the upper class and its riches remain largely beyond everyday experience, tucked away in some vague “above” of distant skyscrapers. Things look different, though, when it comes to concrete experiences at work. Here, people sharply criticize bosses who enrich themselves through strategies that deprioritize the employees’ well-being, such as technologically assisted surveillance, relentless pressure and work intensification, temp contracts, or low wages. The conflict of interest between workers and management becomes obvious, summed up in a word that comes up again and again: “exploitation.” One respondent put it bluntly: “Profit, profit, profit. Wages lower and lower, profits higher and higher. Profit comes before the worker.” What exploitation stands for in this discursive repertoire is not necessarily the structural fact that owners claim the surplus generated by employees, but rather breaches of a moral economy triggered when managers and owners blatantly undermine workplace standards, the dignity of workers or certain relations of reciprocity organizing the implicit social contract of labor relations.

In another critique of unjust material relations, it is not individuals who are blamed for injustice and hardship, but an impersonal “system” that keeps everyone running in the hamster wheel of competition and growth. Fred, a young landscaper, for instance, sighs as he says: “In this system you’re basically just a puppet. You have to function. Everything’s getting more controlled, which just means more pressure on people. Because the competition is global. I think it’s just gotten out of hand.”

The acceleration of life, the tightening pace of work, job insecurity, even the ecological crisis — all are criticized as products of a misguided imperative of greed and intensification: “More, more, always more.” Business has to keep running, even at the expense of workers and nature, and that becomes the core target of systemic critique. “There’s going to be a collapse, no question”, a craftsman comments. “If we keep focusing only on growth — well, by definition, that has to hit a wall at some point.” In workers’ accounts, the uncontrollable systemic forces that ultimately drive toward crisis here remain faceless and nameless.

When workers talk about conflicts of interest with their bosses, the social divide between rich and poor, or the competitive growth logic of capitalism, they reveal what should surprise no one: workers are sharp observers of society. What’s missing, though, is a positive vision that could channel this sense of injustice. Almost everyone we spoke to waved off the idea that there are political actors who might actually help. With Klaus Dörre, we can understand precisely this coexistence of an awareness of inequality and political passivity as a symptom of demobilized class societies. In this society, it is first and foremost capital’s interests that remain effectively mobilized. They ensure that even in moments of massive state intervention — such as most relief packages and bailouts in recent crises — and despite all the appeals for resilience and a collective tightening of belts, it is above all property and profitability that are of the highest priority. Working people, especially those at the bottom of command chains, by contrast, find the channels of democratic influence largely closed. Often, what remains is only a shrug or quiet rage.

Recognition: Defending one’s slice of the pie
This demobilization shapes working-class consciousness. Under the pressures of enforced passivity, shrinking expectations, and political powerlessness, perceptions are reshaped. Collective action seems unrealistic, replaced by individual perseverance and the protection of whatever small private happiness one can manage. Lacking a sense of collective agency, workers retreat to a defensive position centered on warding off the transgressions of groups above (the rich, bosses, and politicians) and below (‘takers’, intruders, and cheats). Criticism of social injustices can, under these conditions, easily be redirected into competition among workers themselves.

The lack of recognition for one’s own existence and labor often gets scandalized by accusing others of having it undeservedly easy. The most common target of such resentment is migrants, who are said to “get everything” without lifting a finger. Listening to Lisa makes clear how closely anti-immigrant rhetoric is intertwined with neglected claims of her own: “Take our pensioners, for example — it’s unjust, what they get. It’s nothing. An asylum seeker gets more, sorry to say it like that. And they don’t do anything. They could do more for our pensioners, or for the homeless, build houses or something. No, they’d rather give a smartphone to migrants who’ve only been here three months.”

Frustrated claims for support, like those of pensioners, are set against the supposed privileges of foreign-born freeloaders. This rests on the assumption of a limited pie to be divided among different groups. Through their hard work, people feel they’ve earned a piece. But whether they’ll actually get it is increasingly uncertain. Racist tropes of laziness or criminality play a major role here, reinforced by the media’s stock images of idle welfare recipients. “When I see this on TV,” says a machinist, “all these people just collecting benefits and waiting it out … Meanwhile some folks are working two jobs just to get by. And then there’s some guy on welfare who can’t even be bothered. He’ll say, ‘for those low wages I won’t work.’ That’s outrageous! He’d deserve a boot up his ass.”

The silent authoritarianism of work discipline, the hierarchy and control that workers experience firsthand, is passed downward onto others, particularly groups of social outsiders. After all, the notion that shirkers can enjoy a decent life amounts to a devaluation of one’s own sacrifices. The burdens of physically demanding routines, combined with the sense of being dismissed by a society that has turned away from the working class, often result in competition directed downward. These symptoms of a demobilized class are ripe for exploitation by those who profit from undermining solidarity — from tabloids and corporate media to right-wing parties.

Yet a politics of solidarity could also build much more strongly on workers’ legitimate demands for recognition — without feeding into poisoned distinctions between “native” and “foreign” workers or “deserving” and “undeserving” poor. A key starting point is workers’ insistence on the social usefulness of their labor, which they feel is increasingly devalued. “The ones at the bottom are the foundation of society,” says Felix, a construction worker, “and those are the people with normal jobs. The ones keeping everything running: the baker, the hairdresser, the garbage collectors, the street cleaners, the bus drivers, the truckers. Without them, nothing works.”

The critique here is directed at the mismatch between the use value and hardship of one’s work on the one hand, and its pay and social status on the other. Their criticism of the excessive claims of the upper class, of exploitation, of a mad intensification of work, and of the disregard for manual labor points to important opportunities to renew left politics among workers. What is notable is that across workers’ narratives, critiques of misrecognition are often addressed to the state and political actors. Workers may be disappointed, but – at least in our German case – they still hold high expectations of the state organizing a just society. It would be interesting to see how our findings on workers’ critiques of redistribution, recognition and representation compare to those in other settings, like the US, with a different history of class organizing and political struggle.

Representation: Politicians Don’t Get Their Hands Dirty
Overall, our study seeks to achieve a shift in perspective that contradicts the view of workers as either hopelessly lost right-wingers or a sleeping class subject only waiting to be mobilized by the left. Workers are not too blind to see how society systematically stacks the deck against them. But they largely lack hope in a collective answer to their hardship. The biggest obstacle to a political mobilization that could shift the balance of power in their favor then is not false consciousness but rather the deep alienation and fundamental mistrust toward all of politics. “Honestly, I’m not interested in politics anymore,” Lisa says. “No matter what we do, we just get kicked in the ass. So I keep out of it. I don’t need that.”

Throughout our interviews, politics appears as the domain of “the elites,” with all politicians lumped together at the top. As Robin puts it: “Decisions get made by rich people. These politicians never get their hands dirty. None of them do. Maybe they dig around in the dirt once in a while when they feel like growing organic carrots in their little garden or something. But otherwise they’ll never get their hands dirty. Because they’ve got it too good.” Because the political elite never stoops to the level of ordinary people, politics is thought to remain outside workers’ sphere of action. It stands for a distant, self-contained world populated by experts, closed off to “normal folks.” Exclusion is answered with self-exclusion. As one respondent put it: “Politics to me is like: let them do their shit alone.”

This is the flipside of the sensationalist discourse about the supposedly solidly right-wing working class. Just as most contemporary workers are not staunchly right-wing, they are not left-wing either. The dominant political stance is one of turning away from politics altogether. That means many workers cannot be reached through conventional channels of political communication or through ideologically framed appeals (“against neoliberalism” and the like). Beyond the small minority active in unions, the left needs to begin at a much more basic point: proving that politics can actually solve the problems workers face day to day and give voice to their hidden grievances and violated expectations. A political language capable of this can draw from the rich reservoir of everyday critique — which is widespread, but can be mobilized in very different directions.

Right-wing appeals draw their power from deeply internalized realities of competition and discipline, from resentment of migrants, and from framing entitlements in national and ethnic terms. Left-wing critique, however, can connect to an equally real core of workers’ social experience: their acute awareness of being disadvantaged in systems of distribution, recognition, and representation — and their sense of the injustice of this position. Although largely disarticulated as a class conflict in the Marxist sense, a sense of society being structured by unequal distributions of resources and power runs as a common thread through the statements of all our interviewees. It finds expression in a critique of social polarization and practices of overexploitation by owners and management, in the critique of inhumane market pressures, in the sense of a devaluation of manual work symbolized by low wages, and in complaints about the political inequality that results from the state neglecting the interests of ordinary people compared to those of the rich and the big companies. Money is the central medium through which all three dimensions of injustice—maldistribution, misrecognition and underrepresentation—are perceived and criticized in workers’ discourses.

The widespread criticism, anger, and biting dismissal of political elites shows that the legitimacy of capitalist democracy is under strain. “Just because I live in this system doesn’t mean I like it,” one of our interviewees put it. The current crises will only deepen these problems of legitimacy — though it is unclear what the consequences will be. Right-wing actors will seek to harness the all-too-understandable impulse to defend one’s slice of the pie first. The left, in turn, must develop a strategy that credibly promises to enlarge the pie for the working population as a whole: a strategy that highlights the strength that comes from fighting for shared goals, and that names the real opponents standing in the way. Our study seeks to contribute to such a strategic renewal by mapping the highly contradictory and polyphonous structure of workers’ political consciousness. As Axel Honneth writes, the sense of injustice of dominated social groups ‘negatively preserves […] a potential of expectations of justice, need claims, and ideas of happiness’ (Honneth, 1982: 18 ff.). Reconstructing repertoires of everyday critique focalizes forms of consciousness below the radar of established political ideologies. This exposes the everyday powers of judgement of politically passive groups which could act as seedbeds for political change. The moral outrage linked with workers’ sense of injustice, we believe, could fuel the kind of collective organizing that alone could turn the latent disapproval of workers’ everyday critique into a manifest force for moral progress.

https://mronline.org/2025/11/07/workers ... sentation/

******

Organizing for a Breakout

Posted by Chris Townsend | Nov 10, 2025

By Chris Townsend
November 6, 2025

Image

There is a military axiom that if your positions are encircled by far superior forces, you will inevitably be annihilated, unless you break out. I have been a member of our labor movement and left wing since I got out of high school in 1979. For every one of those 46 years our labor movement has been under heavy attack, and at the end of every year we were smaller and more exhausted than when it began. This year will be no exception.

With only a few scant exceptions the U.S. labor movement continues to avoid the key question of new organizing. The call to “Organize the Unorganized!” is no longer heard. Embattled unions must draw to their support the masses of unorganized – or face destruction. As the left, we had better face up to the fact that unorganized workers do not get organized by themselves. That’s our job. William Z. Foster taught us the simple fact that, “The left wing must do the work.” https://www.intpubnyc.com/browse/americ ... -unionism/

New union organizing today continues to dwindle in scale and in degree of success, with only a few contrary examples. Much of today’s labor journalism – what little remains – tries mostly to rally the faithful by extolling mythic breakthroughs and upsurges. Readers of this good-news-only reporting might not realize that our labor movement has already been exterminated from entire industries and regions of this vast country. They might not know that most of the unions do little to organize the unorganized.

But the recent UAW win at VolksWagen, the Staten Island Amazon success, the Teamsters’ Corewell Health East victory, UE’s addition of 35,000 new members, or the remarkable 13,000 workers in the 650+ store Workers United organizing wave at Starbucks, are all proof that large numbers of workers can be organized even in today’s hostile climate. Public opinion polls blare that overwhelming majorities of working people strongly support unions. Who among us is surprised by this fact? But why, at such a moment, are the unions doing so little to make new organizing any sort of top priority?

The only force capable of reversing labor’s decline is a unified, activated, and focused left. A labor left which works diligently to bring the healthy center elements inside the unions to the realization that mass campaigns of new organization are not just vital to our very survival, but actually possible today. A left that comprehends the consequences of further inaction. With the legality of the NLRA now headed for our thoroughly corrupted and Trump-controlled “Supreme” Court – there is no time to waste.

Scattered but expanding efforts such as the Emergency Workers Organizing Committee (EWOC), the Inside Organizer School (IOS), various Workers Assemblies, numerous salting initiatives, and other assorted left organizing projects are reflections of the wide support for labor organizing among workers. These efforts cannot substitute for the labor unions lacking coherent organizing programs, but they are adding greatly to the process of training members and organizers in the push towards new organization.

The broad labor leadership must be challenged on this key question. Only the left possesses an understanding of the significance of new organizing. We are part of the most financially wealthy labor movement in the history of the world, yet our small organizing efforts putter along as ineffective as ever. Some unions make sporadic forays into new organizing, but timid and erratic approaches doom much new union organizing long before the employers begin their bombing.

Yes, some unions are organizing and winning, but it is largely disconnected and scattered. Sitting atop this failed organizing situation is the AFL-CIO itself, both incapable and unwilling to show leadership on this life-and-death question. My own extensive efforts to generate organizing leads, to salt, to train organizers, and to initiate real organizing campaigns ends up too often searching in vain for even a single union interested in new organizing. An end must be put to this situation.

Faced with this crisis it’s time to turn the members loose! Members in great numbers can be trained and deployed with little delay. Then mobilized to reach out to the unorganized workers who surround us on all sides. There is no need for more complicated “studies” to find them, or expensive conferences to delay the task. New organizers must be trained basic-training style, and sent to the workplaces. Older and retired organizer talent must be tapped and mobilized, offsetting today’s dire experience deficit. It’s time for salting to be deployed on a massive scale in multiple industries, joining those salts already in place.

There is no time to wait for perfect targets to be discovered or developed. The unions who come forward can be pushed to do more. Those who sit it out will be bypassed. The labor left must mobilize, to stimulate individual participation as well as to place pressure on the unions to take this necessary action. A left obsessed with a grab-bag of disparate issues must set them aside. To the workplaces! Organize the unorganized!

Such a push will bring new drives, some wins, some losses, and valuable experience will be gained. It will certainly stimulate the employers and governments to combine and counterattack. The class struggle battle will be joined. We bet on the mood of the masses, workers across many sectors hopeful for progress, fed-up with the status quo, and tired from decades of backward steps. There are real signs that such a strategy has merit. The Starbucks organizing phenomenon itself offers one example.

Such a course of action – even if only launched in a few sectors or regions – would be electrifying. Thousands even tens of thousands would be put into motion. And the unions, now being decimated, will begin to move forward. The unorganized will join in small detachments at first, but in larger numbers as momentum builds. Breakout will become a possibility.

Is success guaranteed? Of course not. But we can proceed with the knowledge that with history as our guide, labor organizing upsurges are made possible by this chemistry. If you want to play a part in saving and rebuilding the labor movement you must jump-in and help row. It’s as simple as that. A labor left that complains, daydreams, waits on complacent labor leaders, or chooses to avoid the working class with 101 peripheral issues, will accomplish nothing.

To sum up; if we do not get out of this encirclement, and move forward towards break out, the labor movement will be annihilated. It’s that simple. All of us have a role to play, old and young, experienced and new. The labor left has a role to play, directly in the workplaces and within the unions themselves. As volunteers of all types, as organizers, as salts, and as community supporters. It’s time to go for broke and push as hard as we can on the labor leadership to either lead, or get out of the way.

https://mltoday.com/organizing-for-a-breakout/
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 14788
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America (UE) Them and Us :

Post by blindpig » Wed Nov 12, 2025 2:16 pm

We Can’t Rebuild the Labor Movement Without Taking on Big Targets
Posted by MLToday | Nov 10, 2025

Image

By Kate Bronfenbrenner
October 22, 2025 Labor Notes


Last year, U.S. unions cautiously celebrated a turnaround in their organizing fortunes. National Labor Relations Board election win rates had reached 79 percent, and the number of workers organized for the year approached 100,000, the highest number since 2009.

Yet these gains masked a harsher reality for labor, even before the disastrous 2024 elections. For the labor movement to grow, it needs to organize millions of workers each year, not 100,000. Organizing continues to lag in fast-growing, low-density sectors such as personal services, IT, finance, and health care, while union-heavy sectors like government and manufacturing keep shedding jobs.

Many organizing victories of the last few years—including landmark wins at Amazon, Starbucks, REI, and Trader Joe’s—have yet to yield first contracts, as employers refuse to bargain and some go so far as to challenge the legitimacy of the NLRB.

And things have only gotten harder since Trump began his second term, dismantling the regulatory state, detaining and deporting immigrant workers, and stripping a million federal workers of collective bargaining rights.

AVOIDING HARD TARGETS

Starting around the time of the first Trump administration, many unions responded to the increasingly challenging organizing environment by shifting to campaigns for smaller bargaining units in firms and industries less central to the global economy, where unions had more leverage to restrain the employer’s anti-union campaign.

The proportion of union elections has increased in customer-facing industries such as social services, education, digital media, retail and wholesale, and business, professional, and personal services. Although employers in these firms may oppose unions no less fervently than their counterparts in manufacturing or high tech, they are less mobile, and their client and donor relations put more constraints on their ability to engage in blatant union-busting.

Meanwhile, over the past two decades elections in labor’s traditional sectors, such as manufacturing, construction, transportation, and utilities, have dropped at a steeper rate than the decline in employment in these sectors.

The biggest private sector union wins in recent years have been in graduate student units in private universities such as Columbia, MIT, and Cornell. Unions such as IFPTE and OPEIU have set up new nonprofit divisions, focused on organizing advocacy organizations and grant-funded institutions such as museums. Small independent unions, such as the Campaign Workers Guild and United Campaign Workers, have targeted political campaign staff.

Unions have also been running fewer campaigns outside the NLRB process—that is, they’re making less frequent use of tactics like pressing the employer to voluntarily recognize the union if a majority of workers sign petitions or cards, demanding at the bargaining table to expand the union to cover unorganized units of the same employer, or pushing for elections supervised by community organizations rather than the NLRB. Where unions have used these tactics, it has again been mostly in smaller units in the non-profit, media, and service sectors.

COMPREHENSIVE CAMPAIGNS

Each decade from the 1980s to the early 2000s, more employers ran more aggressive campaigns. But according to soon-to-be-published research I conducted with a team of student researchers, during Trump’s first administration, employer campaigns became less intensive, on average, than they had in the past. Union win rates actually increased.

That wasn’t because Trump was pro-union—he stacked the NLRB with the typical management-side lawyers every Republican president appoints. It was because unions chose easier targets.

Between 2016 and 2021, employers failed to mount any campaign against the union in 13 percent of NLRB election campaigns—not one letter, leaflet, or captive-audience meeting. Yet, if the elections were weighted to reflect the same types of firms unions were organizing 20 years earlier, unions would actually have faced significantly more intense employer opposition and would have won fewer elections. Most employers continue to fight unions tooth and nail. Unions are increasingly avoiding these fights.

Because union and employer campaigns respond to each other, union campaigns also declined in intensity between 2016 and 2021. Fewer than a quarter had organizing committees representative of the workplace, ran campaigns that engaged community allies, involved other unions or the media, or held rallies and job actions. Even fewer (just 5 percent) mounted global solidarity campaigns or engaged with unions at other branches of the parent company.

Most importantly, even in campaigns where they faced more aggressive employer opposition, most unions continued to pick and choose a few tactics rather than develop a more comprehensive organizing strategy. Comprehensive campaigns systematically deploy a broad range of tactics including strategic research, representative rank-and-file organizing committees, volunteer organizers drawn from the membership, a focus on issues that resonate with workers and the community, escalating actions in the workplace and beyond, the development of leverage via alliances with sympathetic politicians, community organizations, and other unions (in the U.S. and abroad), and preparation for the first contract fight during the organizing campaign. They also provide sufficient staff and financial resources to carry them out.

My past research has shown that comprehensive union organizing campaigns are associated with significantly higher union win rates, even when controlling for employer opposition and the organizing environment—and this continues to be the case today.

CAN’T AFFORD TO WAIT

It should not be surprising that unions are shifting their focus towards the kinds of companies they believe will yield the most success in organizing. Workers in smaller units in the service, retail, and nonprofit sectors need and benefit from unions no less than their counterparts in larger firms in more mobile sectors of the economy.

However, there are costs to this trend. Unions are winning fewer workers, in smaller units, and increasingly those wins are at the margins of the economy. As we have witnessed in the first year of the Trump administration, the world’s largest and wealthiest corporations are increasingly driving our nation’s economic and social policies.

Difficult as it may be, unions must organize workers in the nation’s largest and most powerful corporations, and they cannot afford to wait for labor law reform or a more favorable administration to do so.

To build worker power during the second Trump administration, unions will need to learn or relearn how to organize outside the NLRB process and without the benefit of federal government enforcement. And they will need to do it with the same scale and intensity that they used to win major strike victories at the Big 3 automakers, hotel chains, and Hollywood in 2023.

Most importantly, unions will need to leverage the power of workers and their allies, through worker- and community-centered, strategic, multifaceted, and escalating campaigns, to make the cost of fighting the union greater to employers than the cost of recognition and bargaining a fair agreement. It won’t be easy—but taking on corporate power never is.


-Kate Bronfenbrenner is the director of labor education research and a lecturer at Cornell University’s School of Industrial and Labor Relations. She is a member of the AAUP/AFT Cornell Chapter.


[This article is part of a Labor Notes roundtable series: How Can Unions Defend Worker Power Against Trump 2.0? Click here to read the rest of the series.]https://labornotes.org/content/how-can- ... nder-trump

PHOTO CAPTION: Difficult as it may be, unions must organize workers in the nation’s largest and most powerful corporations, and they cannot afford to wait for labor law reform or a more favorable administration to do so. Above, members of the Alphabet Workers Union (CWA), which is organizing workers at Google, join Labor Day demonstrations this year. Photo: Alphabet Workers Union

https://mltoday.com/we-cant-rebuild-the ... g-targets/
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 14788
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America (UE) Them and Us :

Post by blindpig » Thu Nov 13, 2025 3:03 pm

‘An Indictment of the Trade Union Movement’: Why No One is Organising Seasonal Workers
Posted on November 12, 2025 by Yves Smith

Yves here. This article does not mention (not surprisingly) one of the most successful efforts to organize farm workers. The United Farm Workers union explicitly opposed migrant labor and got the old bracero program cancelled. UFW’s achievements included:

The first genuine collective bargaining agreement between farm workers and growers in the history of the continental United States, beginning with the union contract signed with Schenley vineyards in 1966.
The first union contracts requiring rest periods, toilets in the fields, clean drinking water, hand washing facilities, protective clothing against pesticide exposure, banning pesticide straying while workers are in the fields, outlawing DDT and other dangerous pesticides, lengthening pesticide re-entry periods beyond state and federal standards, and requiring the testing of farm workers on a regular basis to monitor for pesticide exposure.
The first union contracts eliminating farm labor contractors and guaranteeing farm workers seniority rights and job security.
Establishing the first comprehensive union health benefits for farm workers and their families through the UFW’s Robert F. Kennedy Medical Plan.
The first and only functioning pension plan for retired farm workers, the Juan de la Cruz Pension Plan.
The first functioning credit union for farm workers.
The first union contracts regulating safety and sanitary conditions in farm labor camps, banning discrimination in employment and sexual harassment of women workers.
The first union contracts providing for profit sharing and parental leave.
Abolishing the infamous short¡©handled hoe that crippled generations of farm workers and extending to farm workers state coverage under unemployment, disability and workers’ compensation, as well as amnesty rights for immigrants and public assistance for farm workers.

Wikipedia notes that the two unions that combined to form the UFW were more akin to mutual-help societies before the successful grape boycott of 1965. Later strikes and a lettuce boycott were more contentious, and the UFW was also plagued by uneven organizing and internal dissent.

The headline itself makes clear that those sympathetic to migrant farm workers don’t expect them to have agency, as in organize themselves, due to their lack of a lasting home in the UK, and that bigger union movements need to take up their cause. While this is a noble sentiment, with unions on the back foot across the Anglopshere, this is a big ask.

And one also wonders, if as in the US, the big reason for farm workers being presumed to need to get skimpy pay to keep fresh food affordable is not the economics of farms per se, but of the food industry, with middlemen squeezing both farmers and grocers.

By Emiliano Mellino. Originally published at openDemocracy

Since arriving in the UK more than two years ago, Julia Quecaño Casimiro has been working hard, but not in the way she expected.

Julia, originally from Bolivia, came to work at a farm in Herefordshire after a recruiter promised she would earn £500 per week picking fruit. But, in her first fortnight on the farm, she was paid £150.

This meagre pay and other poor working conditions pushed her and 90 colleagues to go on strike – the first industrial action of its kind to get UK media attention.

However, without any support from charities or unions, their efforts soon fizzled out. Some returned to Latin America; others ended up in London, homeless and with little money in their pockets.

Julia was compelled to act because of government inaction – more than two years on, an investigation by the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority has yet to conclude – and the apparent indifference of society at large. “I realised that in this country you have to speak out for justice to work,” Julia told the Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ) and openDemocracy’s Beyond Trafficking and Slavery.

In January, Julia and around 10 former colleagues from Haygrove, one of the biggest fruit producers in the UK, staged a protest outside the Home Office.

These workers, all originally from Latin America, set up a campaign under the name Justice is Not Seasonal, which calls for an end to exploitation on farms and the right for victims of modern slavery to remain in the UK.

The group is also part of an ongoing employment tribunal claim against the farm, and has briefed members of parliament about their experiences. (Haygrove denies the allegations and says it ensures high welfare standards.)

Most of this campaigning work has fallen to Julia and her colleagues. She said they have received support from civil society organisations and a small independent union, but she has never spoken to anyone from a large trade union.

This is a common experience among seasonal workers. Despite the role large unions play in protecting workers from exploitation – and the resources at their disposal – there is no evidence of seasonal workers becoming members.

The government recognises the vital role these workers play in keeping supermarket shelves stocked, and issues around 35,000 seasonal worker visas each year. But since 2022, the TBIJ has uncovered numerous instances of mistreatment on farms: from unsafe and unsanitary housing, to wage theft and even physical assault.

Many workers fear repercussions if they protest, but some have taken action that has flown under the radar. Workers have organised collective grievances to enforce their rights, made complaints to authorities, and even gone on unofficial strikes without union backing.

“What Would Be the Point?”

Caroline Robinson, the director of the Worker Support Centre (WSC), which supports hundreds of seasonal workers every year, says some of the centre’s clients had already taken unofficial strike action to protest conditions on their farms.

But because unions are not present on farms, she says, there’s a lack of awareness among workers about the benefits of membership. She said she doesn’t know of any seasonal workers that are part of a union.

“They feel like things have been raised already, and there’s a lack of care about those issues in the UK in general – so what would change?” said Robinson.

The terms of the visa also make organising difficult. Workers are only in the UK for six months at a time, meaning they don’t qualify for full protections against unfair dismissal, which only kick in after two years. They also fear being blacklisted for speaking out. So many continue to seek work on UK farms despite the poor conditions.

Their lives are also more tightly controlled than those of ordinary workers. Government-licensed private recruiters have the power to revoke their right to be in the country. And seasonal workers live on the farm where they’re employed – meaning that their boss is also their landlord.

Robinson says most workers who have approached the WSC for help do not speak English, which can be a further barrier to addressing mistreatment. The centre solves this by employing former seasonal workers, but unions don’t.

The Moral Argument

Nearly two decades have passed since the last time a major UK union tried to organise migrant farmworkers. In 2006, following media reports of mistreatment of migrant workers at S&A Produce, one of the biggest strawberry producers in the UK, the Transport and General Workers’ Union (TGWU) decided to step in. The workers, who came to the UK on a predecessor to the seasonal worker visa, had complained of unsuitable housing, poor pay and mistreatment.

The union recruited workers, submitted 200 individual grievances, organised protests, put pressure on supermarkets and mounted a press campaign. Eventually, the farm agreed to sign a collective bargaining agreement to negotiate on pay and conditions, and gave elected union representatives time off for union work.

Despite the campaign’s success, this was the last time TGWU or its successor, Unite, invested significant resources in organising migrant farm workers.

Ivan Monckton, who was on TGWU’s executive council at the time, said that the union tried to recruit full-time farm staff, and work with foreign unions to recruit seasonal workers before they arrived in the UK. Neither proved successful.

“At the end of the season, obviously everybody left. They went back to Poland, and we had no membership,” he said. “The whole exercise cost the union a fortune, literally thousands and thousands of pounds.”

Steve Leniec, the chair of the agriculture subsector at Unite, said a union will always weigh up the cost of a campaign, its likely outcome and whether it retained members, before committing resources to it. He believes that, despite the costs, unions have a moral duty to “defend” seasonal workers, and that improving their conditions would also help other workers in the UK.

He thinks the union should explore steps to support seasonal workers joining, such as offering reduced membership fees when they are not in the UK, and allowing them to access legal support upon joining – generally only available after four weeks of membership.

“If we get a reputation as the union that looks after migrant workers, then other migrant workers who come to the country will seek us out, rather than waiting for some awful thing to happen,” he said.

“But that’s an argument that’s got to be won,” Leniec said. “Not everyone who pays union membership is necessarily in favour of supporting migrant workers.”

A Different Standard

In 2023, after leaving the farm, Julia approached United Voices of the World (UVW), a small union popular with London’s Latin American community, with experience organising low-paid precarious and migrant workers.

Even though she wasn’t a member, UVW agreed to give her free legal advice so she could bring a tribunal claim.

Petros Elia, UVW’s general secretary, accepts that any union would lose money trying to organise seasonal workers, but says that is the case with many campaigns that unions undertake.

He said larger unions, like Unite, have the resources to invest in organising seasonal workers, and have often spent millions in disputes that, even when victorious, did not result in a financial benefit to the organisation.

Last year, Unite spent more than £2m on strike pay for 500 workers at the food manufacturer Oscar Mayer. After more than 200 days of industrial action, they won a collective bargaining agreement and other benefits for employees.

“Why is there a different standard applied to farm workers than we might in other groups of workers?” Elia said.

A spokesperson for Unite said the union was proud of its work supporting migrant workers in the food sector, including at Oscar Meyer, where they made up the majority of the workforce.

“Where we have the opportunity to support migrant worker members, Unite will never shirk its commitment to totally back its members…although grassroots organisation is always vital,” they said.

Since people on the seasonal worker visa can stay in the UK for at most six-months “there is no way of preserving the workers’ membership or developing activist structures,” the spokesperson said.

They added that due to these barriers Unite was “looking at alternative methods of recruitment and support” for seasonal workers, but could not provide further details.

Unions in other countries have found ways of supporting migrant workers on similar visa programmes. In Canada, a major union has support centres across the country that serve both unionised and non-unionised workers. Meanwhile, in Germany, temporary migrant workers can get flexible union memberships, and a support network does outreach on farms during harvest season.

Elia believes it is possible for British unions to organise migrant workers effectively, but it would require a process of trial and error. He pointed to other groups of workers previously considered “unorganisable”, like outsourced cleaners and Amazon warehouse workers, who have mounted unionisation campaigns, including with large unions.

He believes the union movement has an obligation to organise those workers.

“Wherever you’ve got such extreme levels of exploitation taking place…it’s an indictment of the union movement that [it] persists,” he said.

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2025/11 ... rkers.html
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 14788
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America (UE) Them and Us :

Post by blindpig » Fri Nov 21, 2025 3:00 pm

Image
Members of the League for the Fourth International join in solidarity at an ILA picket line in Port Newark, New Jersey, during the union’s three-day strike in October 2024.

Dockworkers Have the Power to Stop Imperialist War Cargo and Win Union Control of Technology—Use It!
By Jack Heyman (Posted Nov 18, 2025)

Originally published: The Internationalist (more by The Internationalist)

US president Donald Trump rumbles fatuously on as his phony “peace” plan for Gaza unravels, the US/NATO war against Russia sinks ever deeper in the mud of Ukraine, and his bunker-buster blow failed to put a dent in Iran’s nuclear program. In the United States he has sent federal agents in military gear to grab immigrants off the streets in one city after another: Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., Portland, and soon New York. Now he has sent 10,000 US troops, a fleet of stealth fighter-bombers and a naval armada to attack Venezuela. His economic war on China blows hot and cold, and now there are joint preparations with Israel for another attack on Iran. The world becomes increasingly destabilized and distraught.

But Trump has also met resistance. Port workers from Morocco to France, Italy and Greece have refused to handle war cargo for Israel’s genocidal war against Palestinians. Italian dockers’ action touched off two mass strikes, on September 22 and October 3, after Israeli commandos seized the Global Sumud Flotilla to Gaza. Ports were shut down by dockworkers, trains stopped by rail workers, stations occupied by protesters, and major highways blocked; a million people demonstrated for Gaza in Rome and other cities. The fascist-led Meloni government called the walkouts “illegal,” but was powerless to stop them.

On September 26–27, dockworkers in the port of Genoa, Italy held a conference of European and Mediterranean port unions on the slogan, “Dockers Do Not Work for War.” The conference issued a document looking to “an internationally coordinated strike in the near future” against shipping war materiel to Israel or elsewhere. At a public meeting the next day, I brought greetings from International Longshore and Warehouse Workers Local 10 on the US West Coast. I emphasized the need to “defy the union bureaucracies to take the action that’s necessary to stop military cargo,” to “hot cargo” (refuse to handle) goods for imperialist/Zionist wars.

As the Italian strikes show, dockworkers have the power to spearhead major class battles. What’s needed is a fighting leadership and a class-struggle program to point the way.

The Fight Against Job-Killing Automation
Now, in the wake of these powerful actions by Mediterranean-area port workers, the East Coast US International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) and the International Dockworkers Council (IDC) are holding a conference in Lisbon, Portugal on November 4–5 to address the issue of automation. Their call is for “People Over Profits.” Of course, under capitalism profits are the sine qua non, key to making the wheels of commerce and industry turn.

Defending jobs against the ravages caused by speed-up, wage-gouging, and “labor-saving” technology is of critical importance for the organized working class. That can only be achieved by bringing the workers’ power to bear, centrally through strike action to shut down production in the ports, backed up by working-class mobilization in the streets. But neither job action at the point of production on the docks nor capitalism were mentioned in the conference call.

Since 1975, there has been roughly a four-fold increase in seaborne trade worldwide, measured in tonnage—from 3 billion metric tons to 12.6 billion tons.[1] But over the same time period since the mid-1970s, when containerization really kicked in, there has been a nearly twenty-fold increase in global seaborne container trade, from 5 million TEUs (twenty-foot equivalent units) to 190 million TEUs.[2] Yet the number of dockworkers has fallen sharply, in the United States cut in half, from over 100,000 in 1975 to barely 50,000 last year. In Europe, the decline has been even greater, by two-thirds to three-quarters, with the number of dockworkers down from 300,000–400,000 to less than 100,000 today. The numbers are a little fuzzy, but the trend is clear.

Booming trade with China sustained the port workforce, but a number of ports around the world are already operating with remote-controlled cranes and other digital machinery. The maritime industry is being greatly transformed with the introduction of heavy container-lifting machines and computerized cargo tracking devices. This advanced automation portends a radical reduction in jobs unless dockworkers can coordinate actions internationally to gain control over the introduction of new technology. They have the power to do that, because they are at the nexus of global trade.

In today’s fight against the loss of jobs due to capitalist automation, dockworkers cannot take a Luddite position of simply opposing all technology. In the early 1800s, the Luddites tried to smash equipment that was being introduced in the textile industry as the bosses slashed jobs. Karl Marx wrote eloquently in the Communist Manifesto about how capitalism enslaved workers to giant machines, driving down wages and throwing many into unemployment as the productive forces grew enormously. He also insisted that technology must benefit the working class and society at large, not the capitalist class. While in its “brutal, capitalistic form … the worker exists for the process of production,” he wrote in Capital, under a “collective working group,” modern technology can be “a source of humane development,” of “production for the worker.”

How is that to come about? On the docks we can start with the establishment of union safety committees that can shut down production where there are unsafe conditions, whether due to machinery, speed, toxic fumes or chemicals, or whatever. Longshoring is an exhausting and dangerous job. Dockworkers must insist that their right to protect their lives and their fellow workers’ lives, is non-negotiable, not up to some foreman or hot-shot, cost-cutting, time-and-motion “expert.”

Second, we can demand sharply shortened worktime with no loss in pay. Union militants in the past have demanded 30 hours work for 40 hours pay. Nowadays some skilled dockworkers in West Coast U.S. ports are already working four-hour shifts for eight-hours pay, the equivalent of 20 hours work for 40 hours pay in a five-day workweek. Or, since stevedoring is an around-the-clock operation, instead of three eight-hour working shifts, why not demand four shifts of six hours each for four days a week? In this way, the development of technology can improve workers’ lives and create more jobs, rather than throwing “surplus” workers onto the scrap heap.

But so long as the bosses are in control and the drive for profits is in command, they will find ways to screw the workers they exploit. That’s why it is above all necessary to fight for union control of technology, that the workers have to sign off on any new machinery or procedures.[3] Pie in the sky? Not if solidarity is the driving force and dockers are organized internationally, ready to strike and support each other for these demands.

It can be done. It’ll mean a serious fight with the global maritime capitalists. The coordinated “hot cargo” actions against arms to Israel by Mediterranean dockworkers and the massive strikes in Italy in defiance of its fascist-led government show the potential for the power of unified working-class action against imperialist war, but also against capitalist exploitation. Dock unions can bring masses into the streets by making the fight against the ravages of capitalist automation a fight for jobs for all.

What’s the Track Record of the ILA and the IDC?
A key question for dockworkers is the history of the two labor organizations that are calling this “Anti-Automation Conference.” Unions can be an agency for social progress if there is a class struggle leadership, but beware if the leadership is in partnership with the employers and their governments.

On the US waterfront, during the three-day East Coast dock strike last year, ILA president Harold Daggett proclaimed his outfit the “I Love America” union and ordered longshore workers to continue to work military cargo. Then, not long after the election, he and his son Dennis, ILA executive vice president and head of the International Dockworkers Council, flew to Mar-a-Lago for a photo op with Donald Trump. The president-elect reciprocated with a posting on his social media lamenting the harm caused by automation and saying “foreign companies should hire … American workers instead of laying them off,” ending with a call to “put AMERICA FIRST!”

The ILA America-Firsters credited Trump with securing their “greatest contract” ever, boasting that it blocked “fully automated” port technology, namely any equipment that is “devoid of human interaction,” and that if the union and employers don’t agree on new technology it would go to arbitration. But arbiters typically rule in the “public interest” (that is, the interest of capital), and the big business press crowed that the agreement allowed continued expansion of semi-automation in all ILA ports. Although the maritime bosses’ cartel, USMX, agreed to add one job per semi-automated crane, a maintenance worker, that doesn’t begin to compensate for the number of jobs lost.

Thanking Trump for his verbal support, the Daggetts driveled: “You have proven yourself to be one of the best friends of working men and women in the United States.” Yet Trump has now furloughed 750,000 federal workers and fired 300,000 outright. Some “friend of labor”! Meanwhile, global trade has been thrown into chaos by Trump’s imposing astronomically high tariffs seeking to reassert U.S. economic dominance. After he announced a 145 percent tariff on goods from for China last spring, longshore workers in Los Angeles and adjacent Long Beach, California, the two largest U.S. ports, experienced a 35 percent loss in work. One union official claims the job loss was closer to 50 percent.

Along with the job-killing U.S. president, the ILA and the IDC enlisted the pope in the fight against automation, seeking every manner of “support” except where it counts, dockworkers’ action on the waterfront. What does this portend for the upcoming ILA/IDC anti-automation conference in November?

A telling example of what’s in store at the Lisbon anti-automation conference comes from the IDC general assembly held in Charleston, South Carolina, this past June in conjunction with the twenty-fifth anniversary of the historic 2000 strike that stopped a scab operation at that port. It was also the twenty-fifth anniversary of the first action by the IDC, the campaign of international solidarity with the “Charleston Five” longshore workers who were jailed and then subjected to months-long house arrest on charges of violating the state’s anti-union “right-to-work” law. The Spanish affiliate of the IDC, La Coordinadora, refused to work the scab-loaded ship. The ILA leadership, however, refused to support the Charleston Five defense for over a year. For more on that sordid story, see the upcoming Internationalist article on the Charleston struggle.

On the opening day of the June celebration, with IDC dockworkers leaders from around the world present, Harold Daggett (who did not attend) sent out an explosive letter to Donald Trump that reverberated like a hand grenade amongst the attendees. The ILA president said he wanted to “personally thank you, congratulate you and commend you on your bold and courageous decision to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities. How proud we are as Americans to be led by you as our fearless Commander in Chief.” The grotesque letter went on:

The men and women of the ILA, who have proudly joined with our Armed Forces for over a century in the loading and unloading of military cargo as the “I Love America” longshore union, stand 100 percent behind you and support this military action against an enemy of the United States while defending Israel, one of our nation’s most faithful and supportive allies.

While class-conscious port workers have fought to stop military cargo for Israel’s genocidal war on the Palestinians, and for the US/Israeli war on Iran, the ILA chief wraps himself in the American flag to back those criminal wars. And now the ILA website sports a photo of Daggett Sr. and Brig. General Harrison Gilliam as the union’s “Military Advisor and Consultant,” to help the ILA bid for “new military contracts for stevedoring and related terminal services” at East and Gulf Coast ports. Will that be for the United States’ next unprovoked attack on Iran or Venezuela, or to keep arms flowing to the Zionist war machine despite Mediterranean dockers’ boycott actions?

The embarrassed IDC delegates cobbled together a pacifist statement (which is not on their website) calling for “no open ports for war.” The IDC statement is a fraud: U.S. ILA ports are always open for war. But the issue did not die. A few weeks later, Canadian ILA Local 273 (Saint John, New Brunswick) voted unanimously to denounce Daggett’s warmongering letter. Back in 2021, Dennis Daggett Jr., the IDC general coordinator, and IDF international labor coordinator Jordi Aragunde responded to a request from the Palestine unions to boycott military cargo to Israel with a statement condemning “the massacre of civilians and children in Palestine” and opposing “working ships that operate war merchandise.” But the ILA continued to ship war cargo daily. And in the last two years, the IDC hasn’t lifted a finger in solidarity with the people of Gaza against genocide.

For Dockworkers’ Unity in Militant Class Struggle
I have to say that my own union, the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) is no better on automation than the ILA. The latest contract, which came after working almost a year without a contract (abandoning the fundamental principle of “no contract, no work”), gave the Pacific Maritime Association (PMA) employers cartel a free rein on introducing job-slashing automation, as long they maintained a small number of maintenance workers and any computer operations would be by ILWU members. The only fully automated terminal in the United States is the Long Beach Container Terminal, under ILWU jurisdiction, with autonomous trucks and cranes.

This all goes back to the disastrous 1960 M&M (mechanization and modernization) contract signed by ILWU founder and longtime leader Harry Bridges, which opened the flood gates to containerization, with huge job losses in return for higher pay. (ILWU members still earn quite a bit more than ILA dock workers.) As for solidarity, when ILWU Local 10 in the Oakland-San Francisco Bay Area on May Day 2024 unanimously passed a resolution calling to refuse to handle military cargo to Israel, and to respect pro-Palestinian pickets, at the union convention in June the ILWU leadership lined up delegates from ports handling military cargo to vote it down.

And while the ILA sidles up to Republicans, from Reagan to Trump, the ILWU has sought to ingratiate itself with the Democrats. During the 2022–23 contract negotiations, ILWU president Willie Adams sat on the deck of the USS Iowa in San Diego together with the PMA boss to hear Democratic president Joe Biden, and agreed there to work without a contract in order to keep commerce moving. Adams kept running to the White House for photo ops with Biden, and credited the latter’s commerce secretary for negotiating the contract. He even got a former executive board member, Max Vekich, named as a Federal Maritime Commission member, who reportedly worked the halls at the 2024 ILWU convention that voted down our Gaza solidarity motion.

The history of maritime and waterfront union organizing, as in every other sector, is rife with class collaboration ad infinitum. Why? Because class betrayal is the common coin of the trade-union bureaucracy—“the labor lieutenants of the capitalist class,” in the memorable words of U.S. socialist Daniel De Leon. Theirs is a history of lies. They are the embodiment of the “labor aristocracy” (Lenin’s famous phrase), a privileged layer that sits atop the unions, whose job is to undermine class struggle at every step. It’s their raison d’être. There is a glaring need for dockworkers’ unity, but it must be unity in class struggle against the capitalist maritime bosses.

In 2022, nine European unions were expelled from the IDC over internal issues centering on the Daggett/Aragunde leadership. Several of them then joined together to form the European Dockworkers Council (EDC). Last year, in response to Israel’s genocide in Gaza, several of the longtime founding leaders of IDC unions were strongly in favor of unions acting to defend the Palestinians. On March 31, 2024, Björn Borg, former president of the Swedish Dockworkers Union, wrote:

The Israel attack on the Palestinian people is so terrible that I hardly can put words on what´s going on. I really hope for as many trade unions as possible will come together to take solidarity actions in support of the Palestinian people but I have very little hope for the IDC as well as ILWU and ILA.

And on May 5, 2024 Jimmy Donnovan, former president of the Maritime Union of Australia, wrote in a congratulatory email on the passage of the ILWU Local 10 resolution: “The IDC must support the Palestinians against the Israelis and blatant Zionism.” Both are no longer with us.

The IDC, as indicated, has refused to defend the Palestinians. And while the EDC has issued pacifist statements and some of its affiliates—including La Coordinadora in Spain, the French CGT in Fos-sur-Mer and the Swedish Dockworkers Union—have taken action, the Council as such has not yet launched a campaign to stop the flow of arms to Israel that has made the genocide in Gaza possible. To take forward the struggle for real, fighting labor solidarity, new organizational forms must be found.

In order to combat the consequences of a new wave of automation that threatens to decimate the already weakened numbers of the longshore unions, in the United States, there ought to be a single, militant dockworkers’ union encompassing all three coasts. That will not come about by combining the two sellout bureaucracies of the ILA and ILWU but only through building an opposition class-struggle leadership in a battle against their policies of class collaboration. In Europe and North Africa, the fight against job-killing automation must have the unions that have actually fought for workers solidarity with Gaza in the forefront.

And while reformist “labor parties” act, along with the labor bureaucracies, as a transmission belt for capitalist ideology within the working class, there is an urgent need to forge workers’ parties that challenge the rule of capital, through a fight for transitional demands such as that for union control of technology, and that champion the struggles of the oppressed, first and foremost today to liberate the Palestinian Arab and Hebrew-speaking working people and all the peoples of the Middle East from the yoke of Zionism, the domination of imperialism, the rule of monarchies and military dictatorships, and of all the capitalist rulers.

Will a fighting program emerge from the Lisbon conference for action on the docks to stop job-killing automation? Given the class-collaborationist pro-imperialist, warmongering ILA and IDC leadership, don’t bet on it. Those who seriously want to fight this threat to the very existence of the strongest sector of the workers’ movement must go beyond simple trade unionism and fight on behalf of the entire working class and all the oppressed. The first order of business of any conference to fight the maritime bosses who are a linchpin of imperialism must be to take a stand and stop the death cargo used to massacre the Palestinians, Iranians, and others.

Mobilize the power of a militant working class to link the struggle against the devastation of Zionist/imperialist war on Gaza and against the devastation of capitalist automation in the ports, fighting for jobs for all amid the ruins of decaying capitalism, and the masses will come out. Port workers have the power. Use it, or lose it!

Notes
[1] 1975: American Association of Port Authorities. 2024: Clarksons Research.

[2] See http://containerstatistics.com.

[3] See “ILWU: to Strike for Shorter Workweek, Union Control of Tech” (August 2022), Internationalist 67–68 (May–October 2022).

https://mronline.org/2025/11/18/dockwor ... gy-use-it/
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

Post Reply