Here’s something to consider: It’s a concrete possibility we will wake up one morning and there won’t be a single American labor union left. For 30 straight years, American organized labor has been hemorrhaging members, power and influence. [Fifty years ago, 35 percent of workers belonged to unions, today just 12 percent do (and only 9 percent in the private… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (40)Page 1 of 1 pagesNot a bad overview of the politics of reforming the movement, but I take issue with the statement that for “30 straight years, American organized labor has been hemorrhaging members, power and influence. [Fifty years ago, 35 percent of workers belonged to unions, today just 12 percent do (and only 9 percent in the public sector).]” This statistic is often bandied around by conservative columnists (see Robert Novak’s recent column), but to see it placed in this context in In These Times is unfortunate. While the proportion of unionized employees in the American labor force has dramatically dropped over the years, I think the actual number of unionized employees has remained fairly constant over the years. To say that unions are hemorraghing members is misleading.
Posted by Teague paterson on Jan 21, 2005 at 1:24 PM thanks for a very thoughtful and thorough piece. my only quibbles are with your sidebar, “What does the AFL-CIO do, anyway?”
1. it is a sexist-tinged mistake to credit only sweeney and former Steve as responsible for the afl-cio’s political success. while sweeney obviously set the table and steve did a lot of good work, the aflcio political really came into its own just in this past election with karen ackerman as the political director (she was also stev’s deputy director for many, many years, the proverbial “workhorse behind the showhorse)
2. to cite homeland security as the watershed lobbying activity for the aflcio is myopic. the aflcio has a large lobbying department led by bill samuel that has led huge battles to protect social security, medicare and medicaid ... to defeat welfare-to-work ... to overcome the DOL slashes in overtime pay ... to get full-funding for education and infrastructure ..... to oppose free trade, MFN for China, NAFTA .....bad judicial nominations .... and on and on. We haven’t always been successful, especially under Bush, but anybody on the Hill will tell you it has been Labor on the Bridge that has prevented a total wipeout.
on organizing, you neglect the founding of our new community-based affiliate, Working America, which now has a membership approaching 1 million and was hugely effective during the 2004 campaign, and just for accuracy sake, the Organizing Institute was founded three years before Sweeney took office.
a footnote, while union density under sweeney has indeed continued to decline, we’ve averaged 500,000 new members per year for the last few years, as opposed to ZIP under the last few years of the Kirkland regime.
thanks for listening!
Posted by ray abernathy on Jan 21, 2005 at 1:32 PM As a Union Member for almost 35 years it is with deep regret that I have witnessed the downward spiral of the union membership and union democracy. The lack of trust the membership feels toward the Internationals is not only appalling but understandable. As the Internationals support political candidates that endorse free trade agreements, that move high paying jobs out of the country for union and non-union workers alike, it would make a reasonable person to assume that their actions are expedient. In other words, create a climate of low paying jobs where it would be easier to organize more workers to increase revenues to subsidize their exhorbitant salaries. Since most elections for President of International Unions are by delegates, the chance for change is non-existant. It is the opinion of this writer that election laws must be changed to allow for a popular vote. Since this would not be done willingly, I advise any Union member to write to their Federal Senator and Congressperson requesting changes in the labor laws to address this issue. A letter to Director Elaine Chao would also suffice. Thank you. Ryan Compton
Posted by Ryan Compton on Jan 21, 2005 at 2:22 PM Liberals like everything else they touch have destroyed American unions. As soon as we learn to distance ourselves from these odious liberals and their silly dogma the better we will be as a country. Liberals or progressives or whatever they are calling themselves this week taint everything they touch with their stupid little politically correct ideas and facism.
Posted by redstate2 on Jan 21, 2005 at 3:00 PM Check your figures, Ray…
Increased MEMBERSHIP, maybe
Look at percentages, however (from afl-cio website)
Percentage of Workers Who Belong to Unions, 1995-2002 Membership as a Percentage of Payrolls 14.9% down to 13.2%
Posted by Jeff Ballinger on Jan 21, 2005 at 7:49 PM The Labor unions are obsolete organs of struggle. In fact their role has been transformed into that of de facto “labor relations” branches of corporate America. In a global economy the AFL-CIO , a national organization, is impotent. It is no wonder that provincial attitudes prevail in strike movements.
Workers have achieved much greater gains in the past 40 years all over the world with organizations like strike committees and workers’ councils. These are directly controlled by the workers themselves who choose delegates from among themselves to represent them. The delegates are not professionals and their positions are revocable at all times. The negotiations with the bosses are open and the voting among the workers is done by raising hands not by ballots. Strike committees and workers’ councils have always functioned outside union control. They have a natural tendency to spread beyond the immediately affected workers and to encourage solidarity among workers. Historically as in the 1917-1923 period and in the late 70’s, they have been able to spread almost effortlessly across national borders.
Unions are to be rejected. They once played a progressive role but today they have become organs for the suppression of the class struggle. Their decline is good news for the working class worldwide.
Posted by rojito on Jan 21, 2005 at 8:19 PM My dad was a union man and my husband is a union man. It’s the only way hourly workers have a way to bargin with their employers. If it wasn’t for unions, the people who aren’t union members wouldn’t have as good a standard of living as they enjoy. The definition for the word union means a coming together of people to make something better in their lives. So the people who belong to the union are the union. No new laws or striking old laws should be done by anyone except the members of the union. The unions have been in existence far longer then 30 years. It’s the people who make the unions, if they do not stand together in their individual union for something, it is not a good union.
Posted by Pat Grzybowski on Jan 21, 2005 at 11:45 PM Nice timing to have Google ads for the article entitled “The Fight for Our Future—In These Times” for anti union scumbag lawyer advisor websites.
Posted by Charles Feinstein on Jan 22, 2005 at 1:43 PM Christopher Hayes mars an otherwise useful summary of the current debate in the AFL-CIO by concluding that the point is not keeping the AFL-CIO together. This is a naieve and dangerous sentiment. It echoes the threat made by the SEIU to withdraw from the federation if Andy Stern did not get his way in the current debate - an odd sentiment considering he is at the same time arguing for more centralization in organized labor. Opening the door to such centrifugal forces threatens one of the core strengths of American labor - which with 13 million members remains the largest best organized independent isntitution in American political life and thus, by definition, a crucial force for strengthening democracy in an era of global multinational capital and unprecedented exercise of state military power.
Posted by Steve Diamond on Jan 22, 2005 at 3:37 PM Hello all,
Explain to me what the SEIU is. I feel bad that my ignorance is showing.
I’ve lived around men all my life who belonged or belongs to Unions having to do with the Trades. You know like carpenters, painters, electricians, plumbers etc. I can tell you if they have trouble with management, they stick together until management meets them half way.
I lived in Milpitas, Calif. in the early 60’s when Ford went on strike. I was a waitress where alot of these guys assembled in the mornings before going to the picket lines. There were a couple of deaths while that was going on I’m sorry to say. But when someone tried to cross the picket line, they were forcefully stopped. That’s what unions are for, to get the attention of management and make them understand they mean buisness. If unions didn’t do this do you think they would have decent wages or benefits?
Posted by Pat Grzybowski on Jan 22, 2005 at 6:11 PM Pat, SEIU is the Service Employees International Union which represents a wide range of public and private sector workers. They began as the union for janitors in the large apartment buildings in big cities like New York and San Francisco. As that membership began to decline they moved into other areas. They represent a large number of health care workers in California for example and the big union that represents state employees became one of their large locals a few years ago (that was one of my former unions when I was an employee of the University of California). The head of SEIU is Andy Stern who has kick started, for better or worse, this debate about the AFL-CIO structure. I certainly agree with your sentiment about the purpose of labor unions, but some people feel that the movement has lost its way as membership has declined. You might know about the crushing of the UAW local at Fremont GM in the late 80s - a classic example of how multinational businesses are able to respond to union militancy.
Posted by Steve Diamond on Jan 22, 2005 at 6:19 PM Seems to me that Union management’s single biggest failing is to resolve its own conflicts of interest.
Restructuring is just a smoke and mirrors game that won’t change anything. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Why are so afraid of accepting pay by piecework in the construction trades and insist on hourly rates of pay? Because union dues are predicated on hourly pay. Why not instead, accept the piecework, or any other formula put forth by management and negotiate higher rates per piece?
We are not failing and hemorrhaging members for any other reason than corporate America has convinced workers Union management takes from workers more than it earns for workers.
In other words, Union management needs to get out of internal politcs and do the freakin’ job we hired you to do.
Posted by Brad Thrasher on Jan 23, 2005 at 11:44 AM Continued from above…
Where was the SEIU and other Unions attempting to organize self-represented workers when the IRS hosed tip earners in the 80’s and 90’s? Union management was hiding behind the lie that we couldn’t help non-members. No contract no representation is a legal fact but that doesn’t preclude us from offering advice and counsel where it is so sorely needed.
Sadly when union recruiters come a calling most self-represented’s see one more ho’ looking to stick a hand in their pocket.
Posted by Brad Thrasher on Jan 23, 2005 at 12:10 PM THIS HAS BEEN A GREAT DEBATE. MAYBE WE ALL CAN WORK TOGETHER TO FORCE REFORM IN THE UNION MOVEMENT IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE UNIONS MORE DEMOCRATIC, RESPONSIVE AND MEANINGFUL AGAIN. CHECK OUT THE WEBSIGHT AUD AND REAP. WORKING TOGETHER WE CAN TAKE OUR UNIONS BACK. THANX. RYAN COMPTON
Posted by Ryan Compton on Jan 23, 2005 at 4:21 PM Dear Ryan Compton,
Funny as it seems, today I received by e-mail letter from Working Families e-Activist
How can State and Local union movements be strengthened? What should their top priorities be? Should local labor councils be merged into larger regional councils?We need your opinions as part of the AFL-CIO’s dialog with union members and allies on how we can strengthen America’s union movement for the future. Please have your say by visiting:
htt://www.unionvoice.org/ct/llzTvyplguXz/Hundreds of you provided insightful helpful comments over the past several weeks to the first in a series of surveys at our Strengthening Our Union Movement for the Future
website. We just launched the second survey and hope you will give us the benefit of your thoughts. Go to the same website posted above.P.S. In the fight for working families, no voice is more important than yours. Please join this discussion by visiting our website now.
I sincerely wish you would print this for those involved in the dicussions on this web site and for anyone who was listening in. Thank You for giving us this time to present our thought on different topics.
Pat Grzybowski
Posted by Pat Grzybowski on Jan 24, 2005 at 1:05 PM The main issue here is that the labor movement in The U.S. represents civil and human rights for workers and communities, dignity at work and a fair pay. When workers through their hard work make coorporations be very succesful it is just right for this coorporations to give back some of the earnings to their employees and their communities after all this coorporations recived tax cuts and incentives from all the workers that pay taxes in the U.S. We the workers of this country must get together to fight coorporations that believed that workers are disposable items and that they are accountable to their workers,providing good pensions and retirement plans. Our civil and human rights go hand to hand with the rights at the work place, dignity and respect. A free society in our future will depend in the outcome or reshape of the labor movement of today’s debate.If we do not strenght the labor movement today, we must be willing to take the fight to our work place and to our communitie’s streets in the near future.
Posted by Roberto Alvarez on Jan 24, 2005 at 8:42 PM Brother Roberto,
In the United States there are no human rights. All of our rights are codified under the general headings of civil rights and economic rights. The human rights we sometimes believe we have is illustrated inspiringly by Robert F. Kennedy on March 18, 1968 at the University of Kansa, Kansas, Mi.:
“Too much and too long, we seem to have surrendered community excellence and community values in the mere accumulation of material things. Our gross national product ... if we should judge America by that - counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for those who break them. It counts the destruction of our redwoods and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl. It counts napalm and the cost of a nuclear warhead, and armored cars for police who fight riots in our streets. It counts Whitman’s rifle and Speck’s knife, and the television programs which glorify violence in order to sell toys to our children.
“Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages; the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage; neither our wisdom nor our learning; neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country; it measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile. And it tells us everything about America except why we are proud that we are Americans.”There are also millions of our brothers and sisters working in the tobacco industry, for petro-chemical companies and other polluters who’s quality of life is directly dependent upon that which you or I might abhor. You get OT when a cheerleader-brave like Bush asks Congress for $80bil more for Iraq.
So maybe what all Unions need to do is focus on fewer issues. Maybe Unions limit activity to our economic and civil rights in the workplace and lose the tree-huggers for peace and/or Snaple sniffin’ hillbilly herion snortin’ gay bashin’niger hatin’ right wing wackos.
Yes, engage in public advocacy or point of view promotion through politics but stick to the issues the entire membership will support. Those are quite simply economic and civil rights in the workplace.
Posted by Brad Thrasher on Jan 24, 2005 at 10:34 PM Just my observations and questions based on my personal experiences as the first college educated person in my family and as the son of a man that was (he’s retired) the bluest of blue collar workers (a longshoreman).
First, all the folks here stating that they are either union workers, spouses of union workers or children of union workers. How have you voted in the last 7 Presidential elections and myriad of Congressional and local elections? If you’ve voted Republican continue crying in your beer and thanks for playing. If you continue to allow the Republicans to wrap themselves in the flag and blind you with red white and blue rhetoric so that you vote against your economic interests, you will find yourself drifting further and further back down the economic food chain.
Second, if the unions themselves engage in the same type of internal power struggles that have undermined the Democratic Party itself, well...they still don’t “get it”. The fight is not between unions. The fight is labor versus management. Period.
Labor IS the Middle Class. Labor IS the Democratic Party. The Middle Class is the DEMOCRATIC Party.
The math isn’t difficult. The politics are NOT difficult. The results of continuing to vote against yourself ARE difficult.
Posted by Liberal AND Proud on Jan 26, 2005 at 9:43 AM Incase you haven’t noticed, it is time for a radical change in the labor movement. Merging a bunch of unions together is not going to solve the problem. The root of the problem is a few key areas:
1. Union presidents making more than workers.
2. Spending any money on politicans.
3. Focusing on NLRB radification as the only union representation model.
Here are the soloutions:
1) Term limits on union presidents, and they can’t make more than the median wage of the workers they represent. That will stop the carpet baggers from running for positions.2) Stop giving any money to politicians, and stop this get out the vote crap. If HALF the energy, time, and resources that were put into Kerry’s campaign were put into organizing workers, than we wouldn’t be in this catch 22. Stop wasting working people’s money!
3) There is muych more to unions than a stupid NLRB election. Using the way that that government set out for us will never work in the long term. Co-operating with the capitalists will never get us anywhere. WE HAVE NOTHING IN COMMON WITH THE BOSSES!!
It is these factors, and the unwillingness to adapt solutions above that have led me to join and become active in the IWW. This is a labor union that is interested in resisting the Bosses, and fighting, without cutting back room deals. It is democratic, and most of all, supports RADICAL change in our society, not just getting a few more dollars for workers.
If the union movement and its greedy union bosses like sweeney continue down the path that they are on, it will lead to their destruction.
It is time for radical change, and if they won’t read the writing on the wall, the militant workers and the democratic unions will sweep them aside after the bosses and the government finally break their backs.
Posted by Walt Weber on Jan 26, 2005 at 2:22 PM As a proud member of the newspaper guild, CWA and the aflcio, I really think we need to listen to hard to what stern is saying. It’s time for bold action, not just standing around and protecting our little corner of the union turf.
The only way to move forward is if we break down the walls and really get service sector workers organized. We need to look at the future, not the past.
Posted by Joel on Jan 26, 2005 at 2:59 PM In defense of the percieved “top down” methods of the new organizing being done by the SEIU: the transnational corporations that are causing the depletion of the good paying jobs can only be countered by a transnational organizing effort. This article failed to mention that the SEIU has done an amazing job of forming coalitions with unions in the UK and Australia to use their members to pressure their bosses to agree to card-check recognition for their American employees. This type of truly international union co-ordination isn’t possible in the short run if every step has to be approved by committee. In huge organizing campaigns, time is always on the side of the boss. Every moment we sit around and argue is time we gave the boss to organize his anti-campaign.
Posted by Jonathan Wright on Jan 26, 2005 at 5:59 PM Top down thinking is what got us into this mess, and more top down thinking is only going to make it worse. If you really believe that we need authoritarian organizing to fight authoritarian groups, they you are destined to fail.
We can’t build democracy without using democracy. In order to fight trans-national corporations, we do need an international strategy, however, we need to build it from the bottom up, never from the top down.
If you need any evidence of this fact, just look where we are today. The AFL broke with the radical unions as it was formed, and continued its path of top down concessionism right into the present day. Are you actually saying that they didn’t go far enough? They didn’t make things undemocratic enough to fight the corporations correctly?
As soon as a class of leaders begins to develop in an organization, they begin to look for ways to stay in power, and how they can exploit the situation, and they forget the regular people who got them there. If you need evidence of this, look at sweeney and his SEVEN figure salary, and tell me that he can relate to people working in a grocery store for 6.50 an hour.
The truth is that he can’t. If you are saying that creating another class of rulers with more power is the answer, then I think you are sadly mistaken.
Posted by Walt Weber on Jan 26, 2005 at 9:32 PM It is interesting to me that a lot of “radical” talk is showing up in this discussion. Much of it seems to be along the lines of “blame the leadership” rhetoric. I think there are some valid criticisms to be made of labor leaders and I am a strong supporter of efforts to increase democratization of the labor movement. I also think the labor movement should consider indpendent political action. But just consider this recent statistic found in an opinion column in the Financial Times: “The share of US private employment in manufacturing has also shrunk from 22.4 per cent in early 1985 to 13 per cent recently.” The author of this report, economist Daid Hale, was concerned about another issue - the fact that no matter how far the value of the dollar falls (or the Chinese curency rises) we simply do not have enough manufacturing capacity in this country to make up for the trade deficit. But his numbers make another point relevant to this discussion: the decline in manufacturing jobs is mirrored, almost exactly, by the fall in union membership density in the American economy! This suggests that long term structural changes in the American economy are an important factor in explaining the decline of the labor movement. We need substantive discussion about the global environment we are operating in not just lobbing “radical” rhetoric against labor officials.
Posted by Steve Diamond on Jan 26, 2005 at 10:26 PM Hello Steve,
What has me nervous is the fact that we do not have industry in this country to speak of anylonger. All the big companies do is keep their corporate offices here. They are sitting in seventh heaven right now because they’re making their product at starvation wages and bringing it back over here tariff free and selling it at prices you would think union workers were making it for. What happens if these countries they are doing business with throw them out which they can do anytime they like. Our present government is not very good with diplomatic relations.
What happens if these countries like India who are doing alot of the outsorcing that involves our credit in this country kicks us out. They would have millions of credit card numbers to fool with anyway they wanted. I hope they aren’t stealing people’s identities as we speak. No one asked any of us if we wanted our privacy breached by a foriegn nation.We are not self supporting any longer people. No amount of union labor could get us on ur feet in time to save us. We can’t even heat our homes without a utility company unless you have a fireplace or pellet stove. We do not keep kerosene lanterns in the garage for any long term use do we. Now is the time for people to start making noise. One way to do this might be through union locals. If enough union locals at the grass root level would start yelling about the condition this country is in, non union workers would hear and start making noise too. It might be one way of getting manufacturing back in this country, and also out sorcing.
Go to this link and see what you can do.
http://www.aflcio.org/aboutaflcio/ourfuture/
Posted by Pat Grzybowski on Jan 27, 2005 at 3:29 AM Lack of industry does not mean lack of exploited workers.
Why have wages been stagnant for twenty years? Why is there a direct correlation between this stagnation and yet the number of employed stays essentially the same, despite the death of manufacturing.
Its because there is a whole host of NEW exploited workers out there, within those corporate offices that have been discussed.
Where is the 40 hour work week? GONE. Why are benefits being reduced or made more expensive? Is it doctors? NO. Its because more of the cost is being pushed onto workers, because they have no UNIFIED representation.
I’ll leave it to the more intelligent folk in here to figure out where I’m going with this.
Posted by Liberal AND Proud on Jan 27, 2005 at 8:57 AM Why don’t you go to the link I gave you and formally present your grievences.
Posted by Pat Grzybowski on Jan 27, 2005 at 9:41 AM Brother Liberal AND Proud,
Wages and employment “appear” to be stagnant since 1979 because the gubmint changed how employment and inflation are calculated.
Fact is, if since 1979 you are earning minimum wage or are among the bottom 90% of earned income households, our wages haven’t been stagnant but worse, our wages have declined. This is due to the ever-declining purchasing power of the dollar or inflation.
Finer minds than I, among them Bill Moyers, George Soros and Kevin Phillips(Note: Ironically it was Phillips who developed Richard Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” that gave rise to the Republican majority resulting in this 2nd Gilded Age in American history)have performed valuable, if somewhat apologetic service, in attempting to explain how we are being hosed.
Fact is our economic model is not sustainable. We will witness an economic meltdown or depression, sooner rather than later.
Issues creating the collapse are peak oil, Gingrich’s “Contract with America” that enabled “Enron” style accounting to permeate gubmint and markets and unsustainable leverage or debt or deficit financing. Gubmint refers to unsustainable leverage as unfunded mandates. The private sector identifies the same issue as unfunded liabilities.
My prayer or hope is that the meltdown comes sooner rather than later, people unite in common cause as they did during the 1930’s and that we learn history so that the mistakes of the past are not re-repeated in the future; or, in the immortal words of Yogi Berra we arrive at “Deja vu all over again.”
I agree with Tom Brokaw. If you’re a boomer, our parents were the “Greatest Generation” for different reasons than winning WWll. It was the struggle for collective bargaining lead by our parent’s Unions that produced the Golden Age from 1955 through 1967.
If we so-called baby boomers are to be remembered as anything but the most spoiled, selfish and hedonistic generation we must do better. Ironically, in the immortal words of Ronald Reagan, “We can, afterall we’re Americans.”
The issue isn’t that we don’t get it. The challenge is we can’t sell it.
Posted by Brad Thrasher on Jan 27, 2005 at 11:04 AM Walt-
I don’t know where I said anything about equating the SEIU’s organizing with business unionism. In fact the strategies they are employing are wonderfully reminicent of old CIO style campaigns. Do yourself a favor and look up the Justice for Janitors campaign.
When you examine the history of American labor at the micro level you see decades of undercutting, poaching, ratting and picket crossing by competing unions. Where was the president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters when some of his members routinely crossed pickets my parents were walking? He was absent because the decision to turn scab was decided at the local level.
And to clarify, the SEIU’s aggressive organizing plans were decided by a vote of their executive committee, a democraticaly elected body chosen to represent the rank and file.
Posted by Jonathan Wright on Jan 27, 2005 at 11:39 AM Pat,
I think you are thinking in the right direction. One possibility is for union locals to expand their sense of social responsibility to include broader issues like health care, education, the environment, international human righs, U.S. foreign policy, etc. When I was a labor educator this was one approach I tried to take.
My point about the loss of industrial jobs is that it undermines the economic leverage of the labor movement - it does not mean, of course, as Brother Liberal AND Proud suggested, that there are no exploited workers. Of course there are - but can the workers of Wal Mart bring the economy to a halt the way that steel or auto workers once could? Of course not.
We can generate some gain in membership with “more” organizing as Stern and others argue but it is not likely to be terribly effective if the message we deliver is not broadened to attack the decline in living conditions here and abroad. That means more education, more discussion, more political action.
In the end I think it means that trade unions must be part of building a broader independent social and political movement.
Posted by Steve Diamond on Jan 27, 2005 at 1:14 PM PAT,
I TRIED TO LINK TO THE PAGE BUT IT WOULD NOT COME UP. ARE YOU SURE OF THE ADDRESS. THANX. RYAN COMPTON
Posted by Ryan Compton on Jan 27, 2005 at 3:27 PM Jonathan,
I am sorry if I misunderstood the point you were getting at, however, let me make a couple of things clear. Any top down organizing style, with decisions made by a select few is doomed to fail. Also, it is something I am not interested in, because it fails to advance the cause of workers control of their workplaces. Maybe somewhat democratized central structures could fight companies, but the SEIU is not interested in workers controlling the workplace. All they want is to fight the bosses a little bit better, while also keeping themselves as the ones running the show. They never talk about confronting the system of capitalism directly, and deposing of it in favor of workers democracy. All they want is capitalism with a better face on it. I don’t think a system this corrupt can be made fair. We must struggle against it, and make peoples lives better, but the long term vision is just not there.As far as unions scabbing on one another, I know my union history, and if you know yours the cause of this is clear: craft unionism. From the beginning it was the AFL and their craft unions that allowed people to be organized in a manner that would divide workers in the same shop against other workers in that shop, simply becuase they have different skill or skill levels.
This is why I believe in industrial unionism, an industry wide union what will organize all workers in all industries into one union. We don’t need 4 or 5 different unions in the same shop, all with contracts expiring at different times, sometimes crossing each other’s picket lines to make short term gains for themsleves. This is the type of foolishness that you described, and it is not neccessarily based on what level the decisions are made; it is based on the stupid do what’s good for me in the short term mentality that has ALWAY permeated the AFL.
What we do need is a militant union that will organize all workers, and use direct action in order to combat problems in workplaces. Only by organizing across industries into one union can we hope to advance the radical notion of economic democracy, and worker control of their workplace and their lives.
These reasons are why I beleive in anarcho-syndicalism, and not business unionism. This is why I am a memeber of the IWW and not the AFL, or the SEIU.
Posted by Walt Weber on Jan 28, 2005 at 12:30 AM Hi Walt,
If you know your union history you should know you only have bad feelings in a craft union when you have to live in a right to work state where the law says you have to have an open shop. Union men do not like to work side by side with scabs. The reason being that when a union man has fought to get more money and benefits, sometimes having to actually go on strike to get it, the damned scabs get the benefits whether they fought for it or not. This should not happen, their should be a law that the scabs have to get their benefits by merit only. I bet they wouldn’t stay scabs for long.
Posted by Pat Grzybowski on Jan 28, 2005 at 6:31 AM Brother Walt,
I couldn’t agree with you more about the “polishing turds”, er labor movement, we have in this country. And I applaud any efforts by the Wobblies to organize anyone who wants to be organized.
The reason I continue to point to Stern’s plans is because I think on some level he is trying to lead to a type of “one big union.” Just look at the new uber-local created by the merger of locals 250 and 399. One local for health systems workers, one local for public sector, etc. But I do worry that these changes will occur in a top-down Soviet-style way…
And one question for you, as an anarcho-syndicalist, and me admittedly ignorant on the subject. When all the bosses are replaced by worker syndicates won’t the workers themselves become “bosses”, equally human and capable of abusing power and people just as easily as the bosses they overthrew? What is to stop hierarchies from developing?
“Who will watch the watchmen?”
Posted by Jonathan Wright on Jan 28, 2005 at 7:12 PM Jonathan,
While I agree that Stern is trying to make a one-big union in a lot of areas, you also hit the nail on the head, with the soviet style top down way that they changes will be implemented. Much like the Bolsheviks that argued that they need to have a strong central power in order to fight the capitalists, this is the theory behind Andy stern and his plans.Also, I appreciate your question about what will happen after the bosses are replaced. Well, first off, I believe that bosses in general would be replaced by workers councils, who would meet to make decisions on the shop floor. If you want to see this in action, check out what’s going on in Argentina right now, with the occupied factory movement. These are factories where workers have kicked out the bosses, and are now running them democratically, and splitting up the profits fairly.
Your question is, how, after this revolution happens, can we be sure that what we get won’t just turn into what we have now. I guess the first answer to this is going to be vigilance. I am sure that some day, we will win, and the capitalists will be defeated and replaced by an actual democratic system.
In order to keep from repeating the mistakes of the past, the price is ever vigilance. There will always be room for improvement, and there will always be a struggle. There will never be a day where we can just relax, and live in a utopia; that only happens in books and stories.
To me, I see it as the inherent difference between negotiating for a contract, and using direct action in the workplace to win concessions. The contract model of organizing uses the theory that we should act up, and confront the boss, etc in order to win their signature on a piece of paper, but once we have that paper, we go back to normal. We just relax and wait until the next time, three years later.
The direct action model of organizing says that we have to be ever vigilant and use small strikes, work stoppages, and confrontational tactics to win grievances, rather than trying to rely on the government and the contract enforcement. This active model of organizing is what I see as the only way to move on beyond the current system.
If you’re not familiar with anarcho-syndicalism, I would suggest reading Rudolph Rocker’s Pamphlet, anarcho-syndicalism. It is a bit old, but it does lay out the basic tenants for revolutionary unionism.
http://www.spunk.org/library/writers/rocker/sp001495/rocker_as1.htmlAlso, for more info about Argentina, check out http://www.workerswithoutbosses.net/ or the recent movie by Naomi Klein (which I have not seen yet) called The Take.
I hope to hear more opinions about organizing strategy, etc.
Walt Weber
Posted by Walt Weber on Jan 29, 2005 at 4:36 PM Some unions, non-profit organizations, churches, and American workers might be interested in joining the patriotic cause to save American jobs and return America to the great manufacturing country it once was.
visit www.thepatriot.stayusmade.com
Posted by Lynne Iwamoto on Jan 29, 2005 at 9:06 PM Here is the Link again, I just tried it and it works.
http://www.aflcio.org/aboutaflcio/ourfuture/
Posted by Pat Grzybowski on Jan 29, 2005 at 9:33 PM I am a college senior, and the son of a union postal worker. I look forward to a career in the labor movement, not sure in what capacity yet…
Anyway, how do all of you guys think the labor movement can speak to young college-age activists, like those of us in the anti-globalization, anti-sweatshop, women’s rights, and gay rights movements? I think the perception is that unions are headed by old, bourgeois white men (largely true) bossing around women and people of color. My personal feeling is that until the leadership reflects the rank-and-file, in terms of militancy and class consciousness, people my age won’t give a sh*t about the labor movement. How do any of these proposals speak to re-energizing the rank-and-file and/or bringing in new, smart, young, diverse activists?
Posted by Joel on Feb 1, 2005 at 3:36 PM See Westfall Papers at
http://westfallmike.tripod.com
for some interesting information on blur collar America.
Jerry Reed
Posted by Jerry Reed on Apr 28, 2005 at 4:52 AM As a 36 year union member in the I.B.E.W. I am saddened to see the infighting going on. Why don’t they take a lesson from the federal sector and organize councils to act on behalf of the various unions working for one employer? It seemed to work at Long Beach Naval Shipyard, we had some very good contracts under the MTC local President, Frank Rodriguiz. Each union had their own area of operations but the contract was under the MTC, with each union steward enforcing the entire contract. Anyway, if it worked for the Metal Trades Department of the AFL-CIO it should work for the rest of the various areas.
Posted by Lindsay Bruce on Jun 13, 2005 at 6:57 PM I copied these excerpts for another journalist and thought I would also fire them off to you
The following are a few excerpts from my recent paper on national health insurance. http://michaelwestfall.tripod.com/id15.html“Auto workers are greedy, self centered, over paid, under worked and we shouldn’t give a damn about them! They need to be brought down to their knees to a level equal to the domestic auto makers exploited foreign workers who have been paid starvation wages and treated like slaves”!i
It is clear that corporate leaders have been allowed to reduce our domestic auto industry to its present state through a combination of deliberate corporate restructuring techniques including global sourcing and incredible mismanagement and do it without government or union leaders stepping in and sounding an alarm until now.
The U.A.W. has always been and remains the greatest force for representation that blue-collar autoworkers have.
To suggest that slicing the health care of America’s workers, retirees and their families will fix the problem in any way is insanity and it is a “lie”. It is not the answer and it won’t work.
Concessions” are the wrong path to take and would only temporarily hide the problem and then the companies would be back for more. Hard won benefits given back would be just a down payment on future concessions that would be permanent.
Walter Reuther said “ you can tell the quality of a union leadership by how well they take care of their retirees and we should “never” take a step backwards.
UAW President Gettelfinger will never be accused by anyone of being a Walter Reuther.
When Gettelfinger was sworn in as newly elected UAW president in 2002 he pounded the podium and told the delegates the UAW must not back down from those who stand in the way of improving the life of working Americans. The very next year in 2003 he forgot his own inaugural statement and betrayed UAW retirees by ignoring their need for pension increases and stood in the way of retirees keeping up with increasing prices. Gettelfinger fed the UAW retirees to the wolves.
Gettlefinger has gone on record that he is unwilling to have autoworkers and retirees pay more for their health costs. He must be “held accountable” to this and not be allowed to waffle.
It is crystal clear that that the solution is not at the “concession” table but on the legislative table. Lets take a lemon and turn it into lemonade. Let us take these terrible problems with auto and other domestic industries and exchange these problems for a comprehensive national health insurance for “all” our citizens.
Sincerely,
Michael Westfall
westfallmike@yahoo.com
http://michaelwestfall.tripod.com/id15.html
http://westfallmike.tripod.com/
http://michaelwestfall.tripod.com/index.html
Posted by Michael Westfall on Jun 16, 2005 at 6:48 AM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Christopher Hayes
- The New Road to Serfdom
Over the course of 500 pages in The Shock Doctrine, Naomi Klein documents the moments of chaos and disruption that allow a small coterie of experts to swoop in and administer what's invariably called "bitter medicine," "painful reforms" or "shock therapy" - Who’s Afraid of Democracy?
Believing that "people are rational as consumers and irrational as voters," many conservatives would favor free markets without democracy - What We Learn When We Learn Economics
Is a little economics a dangerous thing? - The Abramoff Babies
Like the "Watergate Babies" of 1974, the new Democratic Congress will have to pick between sustanative or procedural reforms. - The Good War on Terror
How the Greatest Generation helped pave the road to Baghdad - Economic Populism Proves Popular
To thwart legislation that put caps on payday lending rates, Republican lawmakers in Oregon had to pass it
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1968 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?
459 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
