What’s more important right now for the embattled labor movement, politics or organizing? At the spring meeting of the AFL-CIO executive council in Las Vegas, debate over this long-standing strategic conundrum took center stage, where it will remain until the federation’s potentially tumultuous July convention. But posing the question this way oversimplifies undercurrents of the conflict that are rooted in… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (40)Page 1 of 1 pagesWill somebody please inject into the debate on re-constituting labor’s bargaining and political clout just the possiblity of a THIRD WAY—legislation to either criminalize union busting (violates a fundamental economic right) or mandate elections or even mandate unions.
Just get some prolabor law department to begin STUDYING how such a law would be written—just theoretically, that’s all—and watch the effect on resistance to minimum wage legislation, etc.
Even if we get a solid Democratic Congress next time—which we may plausibly get as Bush scares enough red-staters back into the fold (hey; I am a cultural conservative) LEGISLATION may be the only way to realize labors goals against modern management.
Posted by Denis Drew on Mar 24, 2005 at 11:07 AM >>>>>>>>>>>Will somebody please inject into the debate on re-constituting labor’s bargaining and political clout just the possiblity of a THIRD WAY—legislation to either criminalize union busting (violates a fundamental economic right) or mandate elections or even mandate unions.<<<<<<<<
I think one of the reasons they don’t discuss this is because it’s not feasible now or in the near future.
Posted by Tom Finley Jr on Mar 24, 2005 at 11:14 AM I might become instantly feasible if everybody liked the idea—but for anybody to like it you have to talk it up.
One of the best advantages of using legislation to organize is that it could give everybody real hope again—because it presents a real mechanism that could actually succeed. You will never convince most beaten down American workers—including me!—that organizing the old fashioned way will ever result in happy days coming here again. Right now they cannot think of any alternative (forget exactly where I came across it).
Incidentally, Australian unions are down from 40% to 20% in 25 years—so legislation may eventually come to the rescue of labor there to—and eventually maybe everywhere. Hey; at one point, 1929, America realized it had to rein in the stock market to keep the big fish from eating the little fish everyday.
Almost 3 straight decades of stagnant wages (since 1973—the fatal year) while average income in American grew 70% should prove the need to balance the power of labor v. ownership.
Posted by Denis Drew on Mar 24, 2005 at 12:13 PM Denis:
What happened in 1973 (the fatal year)?
>>>>>>>>>>>.Hey; at one point, 1929, America realized it had to rein in the stock market to keep the big fish from eating the little fish everyday.<<<<<<<<<
Do you really think that explains the stock market crash?
Posted by Tom Finley Jr on Mar 24, 2005 at 12:31 PM Labor unions are destined to become a foot note in American history. It is difficult to sustain such a flawed system that stifles productivity, rewards counterproductive behavior and is constantly riddled with scandal. No person in their right mind would start a business they hope would be successful by unionizing their work force. It would in fact ensure failure. I lost a good job in Michigan years ago for that very reason. Guys were working 3 to 4 hours per 8 hour shift. It took almost a day and 7 different forklift operators to move a box of parts from the loading dock to our line. New workers were threatened to slow down…and I can go on and on. The end result was we all lost our jobs. Hundreds of fine American companies have died the same way for the same reasons. We speak endlessly about how evil the employers are while trying to hide the other side of the story in a closet.
Posted by Bill Martin on Mar 24, 2005 at 1:48 PM Tom,
In 1973 hourly wages stopped keeping up with productivity gains. As a matter of fact, from 1973 to 1995 bottom 50 percentile wages actually dropped about 50 cents an hour—even though overall income grew 35%. Productivity grew about half its previous rate during this period—no politicians fault; it waits on maturing technologies.From 1995 to 2000, the dot.com boom combined with rebounding productivity to make a super tight labor market—hourly wages kept about 80% pace with productivity for those years. Post 2000 hourly wages now keep about one-third pace as productivity stays high.
*******************************
The 1929 crash resulted from extreme pump-and-dump abuses in my reading of the book “Wall Street: a History, by Charles R. Geisst—a Manhattan College professor (it is in the Bronx); a business oriented, Catholic school. In any case, heavy regulation of the equities market began after the crash.The labor market needs legislation to keep the big fish from eating the little fish too. Why stick to old laws that protecting organizing when they no longer work? Organization should be a free market right—its a free market for labor too, isn’t it? Anyone who intimidates that right should be in jail if you ask me.
Posted by Denis Drew on Mar 24, 2005 at 2:38 PM Bill,
All I can tell you is that when labor gets the power it has to have the responsibility to go with it. If labor doesn’t, it will put itself out of business right along with the company like you say.That doesn’t mean American workers are all children and should not be trusted with the power to bargain collectively. When I was in Teamsters 804 as a furniture stockman, we were strictly self-starters, organizing the whole job—we said supervisors were just to coordinate between sections.
What it boils down to is the need for checks and balances—just like in political life. Neither side is holy—both are out for themselves—but you need fairly balanced bargaining power between labor and management or else labor is going to get roasted as it has been getting roasted for 3 decades now.
Posted by Denis Drew on Mar 24, 2005 at 2:45 PM Sad day in America when a union member would vote for a Republican no wonder us union workers our getting kicked in the head by these rightwingnuts!
Union forever! Solidarity forever! I will vote for a Repuk when hell freezes over!
Posted by Russell Ford on Mar 24, 2005 at 2:54 PM Denis:
I see now what happened in 1973.
You said
>>>>>>Almost 3 straight decades of stagnant wages (since 1973—the fatal year) while average income in American grew 70% should prove the need to balance the power of labor v. ownership.<<<<<<<
Did something come unbalanced in the power relationship of labor v ownership during the time leading up to 1973? What was it? Could it be that wages stagnated for some other reason? And if so, why not address that other reason rather than change labor law?
Posted by Tom Finley Jr on Mar 24, 2005 at 3:03 PM All I can guess is that as long as productivity was hot for the decades after WWII there was enough to go around for everyone—but when the goodies stopped piling up the pressure on labor was on.
Another thing: after 16 years of the “great compression” of the depression and WWII, society was sort of equalized out. By 1973 the post-war winners and losers had sorted themselves out and the winners were in a position to put the screws once again. I was born in 1944 so while I hardly studied this era I did live through it so I have some feel of it.
Biggest problem to me is that our American history of the “sefl-reliant individual”, our pioneer spirit. We arrive here as entrepenures not labor organizers—all big shots. On top of that this outlook actually worked for 28 years after WWII. Just a historical accident that we don’t automatically think union.
European workers in the 1800s on the other hands were not much better off than black slaves over here—at their worst off anyway—so over there the outlook is all heavy victimhood (accounting for their far left bias). Again, sort of by historical accident they are heavy union over there.
Going to be hard to get the majority to wake up over here. It’s not an ideology thing—more like pressure mechanics—squeeze a toothpaste tube at the bottom and it all comes out the top. Just got to learn to squeeze back in the free market. Legislation seems to me the only painless—maybe the only way—to get there from here.
What it all boils down to—I am going on too long—is that if you don’t squeeze hard in a free market place, you should EXPECT to get squeezed dry—a free market is supposed to work that was automatically, right?
Posted by Denis Drew on Mar 24, 2005 at 3:37 PM Labor leaders just as liberals everywhere can’t see the forest for the trees.
It’s not about growing or influence. Those things are can’t happen as long as the “image” and the “perceived truth” re: Unions in the general populace is so wrong.
Union’s image as an ally to the worker has been destroyed. Emergency Attn. should be paid to fighting the big lie that is told over and over about what a union means.
Ask a typical non-union worker what a union can do for him/her and you’ll get something like “nothing, all they want is a piece of my paycheck to pay the union mafia bosses high salaries.”
This is just one of a flood of negative comments such a question would illicit from the very people who would be most helped by a union. It’s no surprise that the typical Wal-Mart worker is anti-union. Why would she want to give money to such parasites? When money is so tight.
Unions also need to tend to their “mind of their base.” Making a person a union member doesn’t make them a buddy or naturally understanding.
Especially when that person is besieged with vicious negative anti-union propaganda. Unions need show in clear 10point terms what unions do to improve people’s lives, and back it upwith 10 more points showing what unions have done historically to make America great.
Only when the big lie is countered can Unions hope to exercise the influence they should have. Until then the vast majority of Americans see Unions as Mafia controlled thugs just trying to get some of their cash for nothing. Because that big lie is so widely accepted, Unions have a bleak future, especially since Union leaders don’t even see it as a problem that needs to be addressed.
Posted by John Morales on Mar 25, 2005 at 7:44 AM I find it amazing that no one is talking about whether the organizing everyone is talking about is GOOD organizing or not. Remember the Watsonville strawberry workers organizing battle? Or “Operation Dixie” three decades ago? Millions of dollars, tens of thousands of labor union members donating millions of hours—and all wasted, because unions didn’t follow even the most basic precepts of organizing: face-to-face contact, constant assessments of each potential member, avoiding third-partying of the union, education and inoculation, comprehensive campaigns involving the local community.
No one—not even Andy Stern—is arguing that the money that reform plans will return to unions should come with strings attached. Strings that will force union at the national, state and local levels to spend this money on GOOD organizing, not the half-assed organizing that has passed for growing the union in the past three decades.
Lastly, a quick look at organizing wins vs. union density shows that even in areas where union density is high...well, sometimes there’s organizing, sometimes there’s not. Even if we only look at big organizing wins, where huge units were organized—once more, density is sometimes high, sometimes medium, sometimes low.
Why?
Because ALL union density is astonishingly low today. Even in the “blue states” like New York, California, Massachusetts, Michigan, Wisconsin, etc., where union density hovers in the 15 percent to 25 percent range, union density is so low as to no matter.
What matters in almost all these cases is that unions engaged in GOOD organizing. They understood and rigorously implemented the fundamental precepts of good organizing.
Good organzing is not sexy. It’s not a 10-point plan you can form a coalition around. It’s organizational work, not political work. It takes constant training, constant oversight, constant diligence. Grandstanding at the AFL-CIO executive council or an international union convention doesn’t get you there. But that’s what the union movement needs. There was a time, a few short five years ago, when this was the mantra of the labor movement. But it’s hard to do good organizing, and it’s not sexy. So the labor movement abandoned that mantra in favor of NUP and other reform proposals.
Posted by Tim1965 on Mar 25, 2005 at 8:29 AM Dennis:
I appreciate your comments. It is very rare to have productive dialogue with a pro union guy. Most are like our friend Russell Ford. He is more inline with my experience. I’m glad to hear of the experiences you had as a furniture stockman but have never experienced such myself. In the union environments I’ve personally encountered there has been anything but motivated productive workers. More troubling is the hostile working environment. There is always this us against them attitude that permeates the whole place.
Here is the problem I see with collective bargaining being sustainable. If unionizing a company made it more competitive and profitable in a free market, companies would be rushing to unionize. Companies are not doing this. It is exactly the opposite. You can force it in court action and you can legislate it, but you can’t grow it in the free market. It must be forced against the nature of free markets.
I don’t mean to belittle anyone who is working for a living, but if you must pay someone $20 for a job 100 other people would do for $15, you are not going to be competitive. If you must hire 2 people to produce the same work someone is getting done with 1, you are not going to be competitive. Over time you will loose your customers and eventually the business.
Posted by Bill Martin on Mar 25, 2005 at 8:38 AM >>>>>>>>>>>Because ALL union density is astonishingly low today. Even in the “blue states” like New York, California, Massachusetts, Michigan, Wisconsin, etc., where union density hovers in the 15 percent to 25 percent range, union density is so low as to no matter.<<<<<<<<<<
Have any of you considered that possibility that low and falling union membership is because workers just aren’t as disgruntled and mistreated as they once were? That perhaps more people are doing better in the labor market without unions, so the number of people that unions appeal to is down?
Posted by Tom Finley Jr on Mar 25, 2005 at 10:10 AM Tom gets my vote for most insightful analysis of the day.
Posted by Bill Martin on Mar 25, 2005 at 10:37 AM Growth or Clout?
How to achieve both!
As a union member for over 30 years and a current member of the U.F.C.W.U./I.C.W.U. it has become obvious to me the reasons for declining membership.
1. Lack of democracy. U.F.C.W.U. bylaws give the President of the Local virtually unfettered authority to change work rules, attendance requirements and issues involving health and safety. Although the grievance procedure is normally a way to fight back, the President of the local has the right to table any grievance has they see fit. Companies have full knowledge of union bylaws and use this to their advantage. With a wink and a nod from the President of the Local, companies can do as they wish. Before the forced merger with the U.F.C.W.U. the Chemical Workers Union (at least the local that I belonged to) had Bargaining Committee individuals who ran their own departments. This created a check and balance system that no longer is in place.
2. Campaign contributions. International Unions have monetarily supported political candidates that have openly supported free trade agreements that have cost thousands if not millions of good jobs. Many democrats that received these funds to not have a voting record that is friendly to the membership. This was the case in Indiana (my home state) where my congressman Byron Hill, was defeated by a republican partially due to the fact that he supported these agreements. The argument that these agreements would allow workers from other countries to by our products and create more jobs for Americans is no more than a ruse to allow companies to exploit the people of poor countries and to circumvent environmental issues.
3. Election procedures. In most Internationals the President is elected by delegate voting. Each local has a certain amount of delegates that are controlled by the President of the Local. The rank and file member has no voting rights to elect the President of the International. This results in a self-serving attitude where change is non-existent.
Remedies
1. Hold the President of Local Unions accountable for the actions or inaction. Change the bylaw structure where the Executive Boards and Chief Stewards have more authority. Make it mandatory that the International President must answer all appeals in a timely manner.
2. Withhold any campaign funds to politicians that will not openly appose free trade agreements. Look to third party candidates or create a party that will strive to defend the American worker.
3. Eliminate the delegate voting and replace it with the popular vote.Working Americans no longer believe that their troubles can be solved by self-serving union leadership. As a member who has held several positions within the Union other workers approach me for my opinion if they should organize. Under the current structure of the Internationals I cannot give them an endorsement. The American workforce no longer trusts the Unions and for good reason. In order for the Union movement to achieve growth it must first make changes within itself. In order for the Union movement to develop clout it must openly be critical of the party that claims to represent the worker. That would be the Democrat party.
There must be more democracy within the Unions. There must also be a political movement that will demonstrate to the worker that Unions are more interested in helping the worker than their own self-interests. If this should not happen soon it is my opinion that you will see a revolt with the membership where demonstrations are around the union hall instead of the factory. Ryan Compton
Posted by Ryan Compton on Mar 25, 2005 at 11:44 AM >>>>>>>>>>a ruse to allow companies to exploit the people of poor countries<<<<<<<<
Yes, exploit them by offering them better paying jobs than they would otherwise have. If only everyone could be so exploited.
Posted by Tom Finley Jr on Mar 25, 2005 at 12:21 PM Is anyone else out there dismayed at the number of unions run by Yale educated people (99% white males) many of whom have never actually been a rank-and-file member? I know in the HERE union the vast majority of locals are run by individuals sent in by the international w/no connection whatsoever to the rank-and-file. If any of the large companies that unions struggle against- Walmart or Cintas or whatever- had the upper management diversity of labor unions- the unions would use that against them in their research based attacks. The homogeneity is disgraceful to the labor movement and i believe one of the most significant factors that labor must overcome to truly empower the members of the union, so its just not another plantation. (pumping out dues so Mr. Yale Grad can make $200K a year and have two homes- while the workers still struggle even w/union wages). Anyone else agree?
Posted by Ernest Brown on Mar 25, 2005 at 2:11 PM I agree with Mr. Brown. Unions have been overrun by individuals with self-serving interests. Unless the rank and file mobilize to force political changes in labor laws the situation will continue to decline. ryan compton
Posted by ryan compton on Mar 25, 2005 at 2:46 PM Tom,
That’s the reason the Teamsters are still around. Labor unions like businesses weed them selves out by natural selection if they don’t measure up.>>>I don’t mean to belittle anyone who is working for a living, but if you must pay someone $20 for a job 100 other people would do for $15, you are not going to be competitive. .... Over time you will loose your customers and eventually the business.<<
True—which means it is in the interest of labor to get everybody else organized too. To take the converse: if the company you own is unionized (Safeway) you’d better pray the competition is too (WalMart?)
In 1968—when average income in America was only 50% of what it is now—McDonalds charged 25% in order to pay 75% more (fed min wage $9/hr., inflation adusted). How did Ronald stay in business? Everybody else had to pay $9/hr. too.
Which gets us back to the OVERALL question of whether labor OVERALL wants too much from business OVERALL.
If all bosses have to pay all workers $5 more an hour—the free market just makes fewer Cadillacs and more Chevies (it can also mean inflation if productivity of the whole economy does not keep up with raises—inflation can also be used legitimately to transfer income from one group to another if one has had the upper hand for too long).
To me it is better for labor to squeeze investment until it wont invest any more and then back off its demands—than for investment to squeeze labor into subsistence (worst part of the history of mankind). Why?; because investment wont invest unless it will do pretty well—meaning under that formula everyone is sure to be happy (according to me; of course I’m labor so I might have a slight prejudice).
Funny thing: the business guy in the middle—the McDonalds store owner—probably wont do any better or worse whether the minimum wage is $5 or $12. He squeezes but gets squeezed in turn. The money from the people he squeezes (because he has to squeeze or die) goes to the folks who don’t really get squeezed: CEOs, ballplayers, TV anchors. That’s not theory; that’s sad fact until American labor gets it bargaining act together and joins the squeezing game at full pressure.
Posted by Denis Drew on Mar 25, 2005 at 4:04 PM The debate, growth or clout, to organize or pass laws on the political front, I had to quit reading the responses. They were depressing mostly sounded defeated. I could neither see nor hear inspiration.
At least one of the responses should have started out with “The working class and the capitalist class have absolutely nothing in common.” Where is the dream of the future when workers will rule the world? Unions for the most part have blocked this dream, not the membership but the leadership.
The unions for the most part have followed the nightmares of the bosses. The unions have mimicked the capitalist and supported their wars and their racism. Where is the antiwar movement in the leadership of the unions? Construction unions for the longest time kept their membership white and male with the possible exception of the laborers. Caesar Chavez only wanted “legal workers”
Unions were strongest when they had a dream of the future (an egalitarian world) Communists and radicals were responsible for spreading this dream.
The downhill slide started with the Joseph McCarthy era when all the communist and radicals were purged from the unions and it continued when Ronald Reagan purged all the workers from the unions. The AFL-CIA was whistling “Dixie”. We are now stuck with a weak and demoralized “union movement”.If we choose to bring back the dreams of the future we will have to forget the “union movement” and build a working class movement.
A working class movement that says “The working class and the ruling class have absolutely nothing in common” The workers who produce all value will work only for the needs of the international working class.
Let us again embrace the communists and the radicals and strive for an egalitarian future.
Posted by Harold Bell on Mar 25, 2005 at 7:34 PM Harold,
Unions do just fine—fat leadership or not—as long as their are enough of them—like in Europe. You can be as left-wing as you want and your standard of living will still go downhill w/o unions—like in Australia where unions have dropped from 40% of the workforce to 20% in the last 25 years.In my opinion, the only way to save unions in Australia or ever establish enough of them here is by some kind of legal mandate—easy (relatively) and permanent.
Workers can rule any country they can legally mandate enough unions in. :-)
Posted by Denis Drew on Mar 25, 2005 at 8:02 PM Harold,
The communist movement you so warmly embrace will give you exactly what you despise. An elite and wealthy ruling class and a poverty level working class. Look at South Korea, China or Cuba. Wake up and smell the imported coffee.
Drew, you can mandate anything you want. If US companies can’t be successful manufacturing in the USA they will continue to move off shore. No one is pulling for the resurgence of US labor unions more than China
Posted by Bill Martin on Mar 26, 2005 at 6:10 AM Martin,
If you have enough unions you not only have the economic power to bargain on an equal basis with ownership—you also have the POLITICAL power to put and end to out sourcing at some point when it becomes intolerable.For instance, at the point that McDonalds starts out sourcing their drive through order-taking to folks in Bangladesh instead of to folks in lower (as in federal) minimum wage states—legislation can step in and say: Enough! Can’t have foreign born workers who came here to work for sub-standard wages being put out of work by foreign workers getting paid SUB-sub-standard wages. :-)
But you have to have enough unions first for the majority to rule - like they used to; what is radical is the current situation.
Posted by Denis Drew on Mar 26, 2005 at 8:46 AM As a member of AFTRA, SAG, and Actors Equity since 1974, I have kept my dues up-to-date for a combined total of 112 years. I still work in all three unions, and support a family of four, but the escalating requirements to qualify for health benefits mean that even though I’m still working, I don’t qualify in two out of my three unions, and none of my family does. There’s no more dental, higher co-pays and deductibles, and in short a greatly diminished return for my dues and deductions. I have served on the Chicago boards of AFTRA and SAG, and have spent hundreds of hours on the picket line as a strike captain.
To me, the problem is larger than what happens inside the unions. The problem is the “L Curve"--the massive concentration of this nation’s wealth into the hands of a very few people. Visit http://www.lcurve.org to get a clear picture of this imbalance, a situation where the vast majority can’t afford to buy the stuff that union people (or anyone else) have to sell. Until we undo the tax cuts to the very wealthiest, there will be no economic freedom for the majority of Americans.
We need a massive housecleaning in Washington.
Posted by Richard Henzel on Mar 26, 2005 at 1:31 PM Boy, most of the souls here are lost, lost, LOST!
And the anti-union ones can just go… well, you know. What a demoralized bunch. Great leadership you all got there.Clearly there is no choice with the AFL-CIO anymore than having a split—and that will guarantee nothing, other than all-round weakness in the Movement, at least in the beginning. A leadership contemplating playing footsie with the enemy (i.e. capitulating *fully* to the Republicans eventually—the writing is on the wall) certainly is traitorous to the working-class and certainly should be immediately dispensed-with. But these fat cats have “tenure”, don’t they? So they’ll continue to drive the unions and the workers’ movement into the ground, because we can’t get rid of them soon enuff. Requiescat In Pacem, AFL-CIO…
And I don’t feel like saying even more that needs saying, because the tepid souls who tend to populate these spaces will likely have found plenty to object to already in what I’ve already said.
Posted by Comandante Gringo on Mar 26, 2005 at 5:10 PM After reading this for a few days, I can say the Republican/Big Business revolution is here to stay.
Because the people here seemed to be blinded by the light of their own righteousness. They won’t accept what they perceive to be beneath them.
To those with a good education and with a decent mind the idea that image could be the biggest and most crippling problem Unions could have is absurd.
Being educated, they know the roles unions played historically making this country great.
However take away the education and what you have left is the propaganda from the Republican big-lie machine.
Add to that absolutely NO counter propaganda from unions to keep the perspective balanced, and you get the situation we have today. The image of unions is in the toilet.
The ideas that come into the typical working class person re: unions is NOT pretty. Mafia probably comes to mind first. Outrageous union dues that get them nothing probably come in second. An unncessary meddler comes third.
The idea that unions help people is a dead forgotten concept for the vast majority of people who could benefit from being ina union.
So blinded by their righteousness are the posts here, they refuse to believe that being good and right means no one can be fooled as to the real intentions of unions.
So why on Earth would anyone think a massive non-stop pro-union marketing campaign would be necessary. GOOD THINGS SELL THEMSELVES. Yeah right.
If anyone cares to step beyond their pretentiousness, they’ll realize our world is full of crap and stupid ideas that are there solely because someone believed in it enough to market and sell it, and on the side forgetten in heaps like garbage are the great ideas, the fair concepts that people felt due to their inherent goodness would “sell themselves.”
Unions are a good thing, regardless of their weaknesses having a union helps the working man, but while this may be true. IT STILL NEEDS TO BE EXPLAINED MARKETED AND SOLD OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
To counter the lie-machine is just one reason. The other major reason is the working class and working poor that would benefit most from unions are in the spot they are in for reasons many “fair and just” people refuse to discuss because it is so “repugnant and judgmental.” People on the bottom the economic ladder are often also the LEAST INTELLIGENT.
The sad thing is all these people here are far above that, too far above it to understand what is necessary to communicat, how you MUST communicate with people on that level to experience success.
Leave the pretense of good intentions behind, forget the foolish faith in the idea that “good things” sell themselves. Get down and do what is beneath you. MARKET AND SELL ON THEIR LEVEL.
Unions need to learn from Republicans how to communicate with the people they are trying to reach. Republicans are the ones who are 10x more successful at commuinicating with Union’s natural base. The question must be asked why is that. I bet if someone ever does. Some of the answers will be what I stated above.
Posted by John Morales on Mar 26, 2005 at 6:24 PM Just a thought-unions were the product of a social revolution brought about by the fear of the powerful that unless some slack was given to working people in the 1930s, there would be a much worse fate in store for them than unions.
In the US, unions have historically been quite conservative and have generally supported the staus quo in the US such as US foreign policy and the lack of universal health care in the states in contrast to the situation in europe and in Australia. The point is that unions don’t make a social revolution, it is social unrest that forces employers and the state to concede effective unions. The problem in the states as well as in Australia, is that a growing social crisis (export of jobs, upward transfer of wealth, and growing indebtebdness) has not yet produced the kind of ‘street heat’ that would concentrate the minds of the powerful.
Legislating union rights in the current circumstances is simply pie in the sky. What needs to happen is organising that doesn’t differentiate between politics and industrial demands. While ever we play politics as usual, we will continue to be screwed as usual. The distinction between political organising and industrial organising is a waste of time. There should be no distinction. Organising camapigns are slow and relentless and require thought, painstaking detail and a great deal of imagination and daring.
Instead of fighting each other, union leaders would do better to sit down and cooperate on a camapign to organise a group of workers and/or an indsutry cooperating together in a way which would ensure both political as well as industrial heat, on the streets, as well as in the workplace. The camapign should be planned as a drive to build an iconic contemporary notion of struggle around the issues that plague wokers everywhere, whether they are union members or not. The campaign should positively invite all workers to become involved as well as supporters like students and the like. The camapign should be self consciously about union unity, and the union leaders shold be seen to be cooperating and assisting. Unless you actually act like leaders, noone can take the idea of leadershiop seriously.
I wouldn’t presume to know what that industry or area would be in the US, but I do know this-if unions allow themselves to be engaged in turf wars over coverage, they will be destroyed-not by their opponents, but by their own wilful failure to concentrate on the real task at hand. That task is not organising as such (although that is the method)-the task is reempowerment, of working people, whether they are working or unemployed, ‘legal’ or ‘illegal’.
The methods are well known, the job is to go out and just do it-and leave turf wars behind where they belong. With only 9% of the private sector organised in the US I would assume there are plenty of workers and industries to go round. Wake up to yourselves!
Posted by Jane Doe on Mar 26, 2005 at 10:57 PM Some cogent points made above; but also points made that this is pretty much all wasted effort with the AFL-CIA crew.
Political struggle & organizing all rolled together indeed—but what we really need, and what these people will avoid at all costs discussing, let alone organizing, is social revolution. Taking it to our bourgeois enemy. Haha. Imagine the AFL-CIA ever coming around to that. They’re probably busy helping the CIA plan the overthrow of the Chávez government right now.
I’m putting my money elsewhere, thank-you-very-much. Get lost AFL-CIO.
Posted by Comandante Gringo on Mar 28, 2005 at 12:35 AM re Denis Drew’s comments, with good points from Jane Doe, Harold Bell, Comandante Gringo and Richard Henzel, the following is my perspective:
The title of this article is “on-the-mark” for giving the direction to a necessary discussion. This discussion, however, is not be confined simply to an “American” context. Union history, the principles behind the Union movement of justice, fairness and equity, as well as union’s dark side –mafioso behaviour, closed-door control by leaders, thinking which defaults to crony’ism, etc.-- have an understood importance internationally. It’s not that the world masses want/need/will support Teamsters or AFL-CIO, per se. But rather the reasons for/history of their emergence in America do find applicability around the world.
Fair pay and justice issues will find real traction as they are brought out for the world to hear. The legislative route is the strategic choice – laws, however tedious to make, are the foundation around which civilized structures can operate. To get there, however, one needs the tactical logistics of a movement – organizing, marketing and uniting around the ‘truth-value’ of the vision. A foundation of laws and legal tools to help the under-privileged workingperson gain from productive work, without sliding back into mnc-grafted thinking & perceiving is an on-going process.
This thinking-change could best be described as ‘paradigm-shifting’ or ‘thinking-out-of-the-box’ about survivability/sustainability in a beautiful/bountiful world. Given such a perspective, lifestyle in the international society could be on the cusp of true enlightenment if the movement forced the debate to use language appropriate to change. Let us as people who believe in the importance of fairness, set the terms of the debate by defining the environment.
First, the word ‘globalization’ and the many-mixed association allowing imperial corporate abuse of our commons needs a new vision. Our working-living context needs to be defined as our ‘integral commons’. Laws and the legal perameters giving individuals rights and responsibilities herein can then be openly debated before a global audience. For example, with the desirability of open money movement, the need for open labor-exchange and open-borders needs to be explored.
Second; having defined our ‘integral commons’ we are on the proper path for recognizing the role of ‘participation’ of all of us as true ‘stakeholders’ in our collective sustainability. Each individual is a part of the bio-dynamic building & restoring of a productive earth system or a perpetrator of its chemical, nuclear or petroleum-plastics degradation. Understanding each individual being a part of sustainable productive behaviour will give rise to the awareness that participation and worker ownership are the 21st century principles allowing humanity to re-chart our mutual life.
Like the stupidity for the present “war” and the suburban cultural context that makes military adventures/procurement/operations seemingly in the majority of Americans interest: to break this grip Americans need a new vision. This isn’t a unilateral activity. And the rest of the world is watching.
Posted by Paul L. Johnson on Mar 29, 2005 at 9:54 AM >>>The legislative route is the strategic choice – laws, however tedious to make, are the foundation around which civilized structures can operate. To get there, however, one needs the tactical logistics of a movement – organizing, marketing and uniting around the
‘truth-value’ of the vision. <<<Thank you; everybody here – and elsewhere – that I push the legislative approach on seems to think I expect Congress as constituted today to pass such laws. Of course, you have to go out and sell the idea – “organizing, marketing and uniting”. Even then we have wait on “the luck” – the right combination of circumstances which finally pushes us over the top.
The biggest attraction to the legislative approach for the average person cab be that it sounds like something that can actually work – not as impossibly difficult as organizing the whole country from scratch the old fashioned way.
The most plausible starting sales pitch would probably be to note the existence of laws that are supposed to empower people to unionize already – what we want IS SUPPOSED TO BE on the books – but no longer works. Who ever said current law intended an extreme set-up in which ownership has all the advantages and labor has to pay an extreme price to succeed?
Next we can point out that after 1929, America learned its lesson and began heavy regulation of the securities market so the big fish don’t eat the little fish so easily – this is good at easing the “conservative consciences” of many otherwise pro union folks who are hung up about “government intervention” in the free market” (I know – I am what today is called “culturally conservative”).
Then it is time to treat Americans to truly unheard of shockers of how far behind their pay checks truly are – from what level they might have reached. (Which I never heard of myself through 4 decades of paying close attention to every political issue – not until a few years ago – it is just not being reported by our best media folks – from Bill O’Reilly to Dan Rather – not one of whom, apparently, ever crack open a single book on the subject.)
My favorite untold tale: In the late 60’s (1968 to be exact) McDonalds charged it customers 25% more even though average income was 50% less back then. Ronald had no choice; he had to pay a 75% higher federal minimum wage ($9/hour) – so everybody could still afford a store bought sandwich in 1968.
Which undeniably describes a process of squeezing the little folks into a whole different (sub-American continent) way of life for the sake of paying ballplayers and CEOs and our favorite news anchors 20 times too much. There is no economic explanation for such a violent change of economic status – new tech, better management, etc. are supposed to raise everybody – other than a simple lack of bargaining power on the part of an American workforce that simply lacked a lot of interest in the subject (“self-reliance” psychology): the automatic operations of the free market took care of those who squeezed the unsqueezing.
CONTIUNED IMMEDIATELY BELOW (message too long for one block)
Posted by Denis Drew on Mar 29, 2005 at 1:56 PM CONTIUNED
Other tales are told above: the fact that most of the yearly income gains of families after 1973 (when hourly wages stopped keeping pace with productivity gains) were a result of more family members working more hours – while the incomes of the top 5%, especially the top 1%, took giant steps. That poverty has close to doubled since 1967 – if you use a normal inflation index to mark the poverty line instead of the government’s 50 year old, three-times-an-emergency-diet quackery. Tales that tell people – most for the first time ever – that this is not the America they thought we were living in.50% of people reportedly wish they had a union. Give them a way to get there that is actually gettable – without decades of all out organizing wars. Tell them how much worse off they are (relative to where they could be) than they even suspected (great surprise to supposedly-current-in-everything since I started reading “The Reporter” magazine in the early 60s, me). Goodbye Republicans.
Or should I say?: Goodbye Democrats who only help you a little while Republicans try to hurt you a lot. Hello Democrats that try help you a lot while Republicans try to help you a little. Welcome to a majority run country.
The big input that overseas labor can make on America is to tell people here story of just how much better people live in Europe (much shorter hours, much better pay and benefit packs – lots of young people are enviously aware already). The big favor America can do labor around the world (Russia, China) is to institutionalize unions as a way of life here.
The world likes to follow us: they followed us into the unfettered free market stupidity of the 90s (where the dot.com bubble happened to make it work for us for a while) – they will want to follow us into mandatory unionization: the ultimate goal for us and then for them to aim for.
Posted by Denis Drew on Mar 29, 2005 at 1:57 PM Hi Dennis,
Thanks for your comments. I welcome your understanding of the interdependence of working people in the US and in the rest of the world. It is great to see these understandings emerging in the US. You are right about the way in which working people in the US are being screwed and don’t even know it. Working people in the rest of the world are being told we all have to cop what you guys cop, in the interests of ‘best practice’. That is we are being told “its the US way or the highway” for working people every-where.What a lot of working people elsewhere don’t really know however, is the fine tradition of radical organising and militancy exhibited by US working people in their past struggles for recognition and power at work and in society. All we are told about the US is what the leaders of both the US and our countries want us to hear and know. Just a final point. My point about laws and organising is not that we shouldn’t strive to make laws work, or make the new laws that we need, rather that laws follow widespread mobilisation, not the other way round.
If we had the power to enforce existing laws (whatever their status in the US) then you wouldn’t be in the pickle you are in. It’s not a chicken and egg argument-Its about a proper analysis of the true basis of the power to compel others to do what you need them to do. In the case of US labor law, from my understanding and reading of your situation, you are in deep, and there is no easy ready made answer as to how to get out, except to fight, in the broadest terms possible, for the rights of working people to compel the society to work in their interests. How you do that is finally up to you, all I was trying to do was to share my analysis and understanding of how things work, in relation to laws and the power that working people get to exercise. My point is that social power precedes judicial activity, and until we reclaim the social power of working people, we will never be able to compel the powerful via judicial power.
Good luck brothers and sisters, your fight is our fight, our fight is your fight! I follow the progress of US working people’s struggle with interest and sympathy, and I will post where appropriate, news of what is happening to working people in Australia (or at least my take on it. Good Luck!
Posted by Jane Doe on Mar 29, 2005 at 9:46 PM Thanks Richard Henzel for giving us all the site http://www.lcurve.org abt wealth imbalance curve – look it up!
And thanks Denis Drew for fleshing out the income earning decrease from the US perspective.
What is painfully evident to those of us who have traveled the world by bicycle and bus is to see how value and income have been devalued by the monetarist currency arbitrage system leaving nothing for the worker out here in the periphery, while allowing the center/capital-ie.the US- to have its 5&10cent;bargains, now called the Dollar Shop. And how the “security” illusion that GE, MacDonald-Douglas (ie. suburban arms manufacturers) and the Pentagon sold the 3rd world was at the expense of infrastructure, proper waste treatment/disposal and education.
The dollar is way over-valued, at the expense of workers internationally. Americans were, at one time, good workers. But have taken to a coupon-clipper financial route to easy consumerist material gain, to their own cultural degradation and the world’s ecological destruction. Unfortunately union members have unthinkingly bought into the system as well.
Bazaar and shop floor hearsay states that Nixon supposedly told European and Wall Street money that if they gave him 1 generation of overdraft protection, he would get the commies out of SE Asia. It’s 2 generations on, and the bills are coming due. And the 4 billion world-worker majority is still on a 2 dollar-a-day diet: that doesn’t buy much food, not to mention art, music and proper books&education;.
<< input that overseas labor can make on America is to tell people here
story of just how much better people live in Europe (much shorter hours,
much better pay and benefit packs – lots of young people are enviously
aware already). >>
Yes, Denis, there is much other societies can teach America. We in the East can teach the West about time. But the world needs each other to work out a sustainable currency for valueing it (time) and our “integral commons” sustainability. Consumerist creature comfort materialism using non-renewable resources is a short-cut to ruin. All other empires have been at this very same stage: need we see a repeat?
Posted by Paul L. Johnson on Mar 30, 2005 at 12:40 AM I would like to recommend the article by D.MONROE from www.ohmynews.com about US JOB LOSSES.
Go to www.ohmynews.com , click on English and then select Reporter: Derek Monroe
GOOD READ!
Posted by kaori kato on Apr 1, 2005 at 3:02 PM Organizing and clout are both necessary. And both are all but useless as long as workers and the unions that represent them continue to support the anti-worker Democratic Party.
How about a simple principle—labor organizations will support ONLY candidates who vow to reverse anti-labor legislation like Taft-Hartley, and actively work to defeat any candidate who doesn’t.
Posted by nasrudin on Apr 5, 2005 at 9:35 AM You are very correct nasrudin. Unfortunately the International Unions are much to busy trying to be politically correct. We must also change the labor laws to force popular vote instead of delegate voting if any changes are made. ryan compton
Posted by ryan compton on Apr 5, 2005 at 12:54 PM Bill Martin’s comments on Unions are completely wrong. He has swallowed the Republican and Murdoch press propaganda hook, line and sinker. Unions ARE NOT incompatible with a competitive economy. Sweden has the world’s highest rate of Union membership, at 84%. The hourly productivity of workers is higher there than it is the USA. Blue collar and service industry employees also get better pay and conditions, like paid maternity leave and 5 weeks annual leave.
Working conditions in America are the worst in the Western world.
Posted by Steve Mann on Apr 12, 2005 at 8:11 AM Thank you Steve Mann for bringing out an historical example of where putting the parts of the productivity puzzle together with fairness and fellow-feeling does show the world that these basic rights have merit.
Posted by Paul L. Johnson on Apr 13, 2005 at 10:35 AM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by David Moberg
- Obama and the Union Vote
Polls suggest mandate for reform surpasses support for Obama - The View From Ohio
Will voters in the economically ravaged Buckeye State 'get over' race and support Obama? - Back for the Future
Progressives at the Democratic National Convention look to FDR as a model for an Obama presidency - Dixie Turning Blue
- Moving Obama Left
- Let Them Eat Free Markets
How deregulation fuels the global food crisis
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1972 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2005 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
