The years of denial are over. For several decades, as union membership declined as a share of the workforce, top union leaders refused to acknowledge the problem. Now, every labor leader, from AFL-CIO President John Sweeney down, agrees that rebuilding labor’s numbers will require unions to devote more resources to organizing. But the same leaders also agree that increasing membership… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (15)Page 1 of 1 pagesOne of the things Union needs to do is recognize that full time workers are rapidly becoming a minority. They need to look at labor issues as representing all workers. Their power is in the number of workers they represent and the ability to get those workers involved in political campaigns like they used to neighbor to neighbor and door to door. I am retired but my family is struggling. The younger ones are feed up with the opportunities in today’s labor market. These are the ones to reach.
Posted by judith a wills on Jan 16, 2004 at 11:23 PM In a post-industrial, “ficitious capital” type of society, who might benefit from organizational ideas rooted in the beginning of the 20th Century, which is what “unions” signify to me?
I am a scientific professional; I never had a union job in my life. Professional work attached to government contract stipulations is sometimes defined by union-like guidelines. But “unions” usually call to mind factory work and trade work. Most of this type of work is destined to be located outside the United States.
Creative people in the USA usually trend towards either an independent niche of professional acumen in the corporate world, or towards small business ownership in the trades/services. In either case “unions” don’t enter into the picture.
Is there some lumpen rank and file of laborers out there to form into unions? Maybe Mexican immigrants; in which case you might consider working with President Bush, who needs these people to revitalize the GOP. Sure, there are unskilled workers at places like Wal-Mart, who may need class action legal representation. Are you a lawyer?
If you really want to advance your organizational ideas to improve the lot of laborers, then go to Latin America and Asia. That is where industry relocated.
AA
Posted by Alex Ashley on Jan 18, 2004 at 8:28 PM AA, what’re you talking about? We’re not going to have a society here in the U.S. comprised soley of professionals and small business owners. We’re always going to need so called “unskilled labor” as well as more skilled traded labor. Who do you think is going to work the registers, stock the shelves, serve you fast food, pave your streets, build your homes, watch your kids, take care of you when you’re old? Robots?
Of course, unions are not the only and sometimes not the most effective way to ensure that these laborers get their fair compensation. That’s why we need to enact things like living wage laws and universal health insurance untied to place of employment.
But anyway, you do lead me to an important point. The American organized labor movement needs to internationalize its organizing and unification efforts. Cheap labor costs and sketchy international “free trade” agreements are making it horrible for workers in the US and abroad. There needs to be an organized labor Peace Corps type program where they send organizers to the countries where they’re needed (e.g. Mexico, China, etc.).
Posted by Phil on Jan 18, 2004 at 11:26 PM Phil,
You wrote:ìWe’re not going to have a society here in the U.S. comprised soley of professionals and small business owners. We’re always going to need so called “unskilled labor” as well as more skilled traded labor. Who do you think is going to work the registers, stock the shelves, serve you fast food, pave your streets, build your homes, watch your kids, take care of you when you’re old? Robots?î
Letís break down your occupation references:
Cashiers, shelf stockers, and fast food servers probably could be replaced by robots pretty easily. These positions, at large outlets, are not going to last long into the future. At small businesses they will last a bit longer.
Now, street paving, home building and day care can easily be associated with professional people and small businesses. We donít need to think of lumpen groups in need of ìorganization.î Fair treatment of employees will be addressed in the courts.
You wrote:
ìCheap labor costs and sketchy international “free trade” agreements are making it horrible for workers in the US and abroad.î
So, what do you think of Patrick J. Buchanan?
You wrote:
ìThere needs to be an organized labor Peace Corps type program where they send organizers to the countries where they’re needed (e.g. Mexico, China, etc.).î
China is on an epic roll. A foreign intrusion into Chinese internal affairs would end in a hostile rebuff. Your ìcorpsî could not compete with the rhetoric of Han nationalism. In Latin America you would face overwhelming corruption and give up in disgust.
Remember, you are now situated in the milieu of postmodernity; join the other metamorphosed Marxists in ethical aporia.
AA
Posted by alex ashley on Jan 19, 2004 at 11:41 AM It is possible to have internal and industrial democracy together. Shop floor workers’ councils can elect the higher officials on to a central council. The central council can gather the information from all the councils and issue decisions on action for the councils. The central council would have an overview of what is happening at grassroots. The first step to this democracy is to organise workers into the councils by arguing for a more democratic union that gets it’s members’ views heard.
Posted by Doug on Jan 19, 2004 at 1:21 PM Phil is correct. Workers organizing at every place of employment is our best chance of getting better wages, health care, and virtually any other reforms of capitalism which one can name.
The idea that “Fair treatment of employees will be addressed in the courts,” would be laughable if it weren’t such a frequent and convenient lie propagated by the corporate ruling class in general. As we know, money dominates litigation, and the bosses will always have more of that than workers under capitalism. Sitting around for years waiting for (at best) chancy compensation through the courts is definitely not the best strategy for workers. Organizing to fight for fair treatment at the workplace is. Labor organizing and progressive social movements are the only way that workers have ever made gains historically.
The academic myth that we now live in a “post-industrial” world or society is really no more than ideological cover for giving up class struggle. Furthermore, it is beside the point, as the best hope for white collar workers also lies in organization and solidarity with workers locally and internationally. It is only to workers’ detriment to deny class struggle, as employers are well aware of this dynamic and engage in union busting, ideological indoctrination (with media and intellectual support), and other forms of class war very consciously and with great determination. Why? One word: profit.
Finally, the malignment and abandonment of true Marxist ideas by unions and the working class generally is part of the reason that workers have been taking it on the chin from employers for the last 30 years.
Hopefully this and discussions like it can help the labor movement begin to build itself again.
Jeremy
Posted by Jeremy on Jan 19, 2004 at 10:09 PM ‘Our’ leaders have put us in a global market place of labor. Our one unifying bond is our citizenship. When the unions figure this out and they begin to represent AMERICANS, then they will begin to rebuild their membership. The UAW should be changed to Union Of AMERICAN Workers.
John Sweeney should be put out to pasture along with his philosphy of trying to unionize the world.
Posted by Vicky Davis on Jan 20, 2004 at 10:22 AM Man, some people just donít have a sense of logic (or they donít understand all the words theyíre using). You have to unionize the world if you care about American workers because of cheap labor costs abroad and the now global marketplace for labor. Put simply, unionizing workers abroad will make foreign labor more expensive. Of course, unionizing workers in L. America and Asia will be hard, but are American unions making any effort to help them organize?
This may be a job better suited for the US government, which has a lot of power at its disposal since all countries wants access to our markets. Instead of multinational corporations negotiating international ìfree tradeî agreements behind closed doors, the US can use its leverage to make bilateral trade agreements conditioned on human rights, labor rights, and environmental protections. Workers everywhere benefit. American labor stays more competitive (i.e. loses less jobs) and foreign labor benefits from higher wages and better working conditions. E.g. Did you know that, despite NAFTA, average real wages in Mexican manufacturing are lower than they were 10 years ago? And millions of Mexican farmers have been driven out of business by heavily subsidized US agri-business, the same agri-business destroying our small farms and wasting our water supplies out west. Weíre all in this together: the people vs. the corporate giants.
Posted by Phil on Jan 21, 2004 at 12:59 AM AA, looking at some US Census Bureau data(http://www.census.gov/epcd/susb/2001/us/US--.HTM), big business doesnít look like itís dying anytime soon. In 2001, 57.7 million people were employed by firms with 500 employees or more (compared to 53 million in 1998). Of those, 43.9 million were employed by firms with 2,500 employees or more (compared to 40 million in 1998). And of those, 31 million were employed by firms with 10,000 employees or more. Itís always been a trend for successful businesses to grow and conglomerate. I donít see that changing in the future, so unions will remain an effective way to achieve/maintain fair compensation.
And think of how ìbig boxî retail (walmart, home depot, etc.) is growing. Think of fast food. And whatever all the other major employers are. And there will always be government jobs too.
It wouldnít be irresponsible to address fair treatment of employees through the courts alone, especially if all these conservative appointments keep continuing. In order for unions to work, we need to protect and improve our labor laws by electing progressive candidates to our legislatures. And we need to make sure these laws are enforced by electing progressive executive leaders, starting with a new president.
Posted by Phil on Jan 21, 2004 at 1:01 AM To Phil,
You said you don’t think I understand the words I’m saying and that I’m lacking logic?
What is illogical is attempting to create a union movement in a country that is allowing an open-ended supply of cheap labor.
What is illogical is trying to unionize people who have lived their entire lives in abject poverty at subsistence levels. They are too grateful to even have a job.. let alone demand higher wages and benefits.
What is illogical is taking a position that says that an illegal alien has a right to a job in our country… when we have unemployed Americans that need the job.
Lets look at the problem logically. The labor movement in the U.S. is weak… too weak to have any impact in the U.S. let alone the world. The movement has to be rebuilt practically from the ground up.
As we transitioned from an industrial economy to an information economy, the strength of the unions diminished. That means that the potential for regaining strength in the labor movement means going after the people who were in the information economy.
You are not going to get a majority of people who were in the information economy (more highly educated people) when you support cheap labor - illegal aliens and foreign workers on visa.
Its really a no-brainer.
Posted by Vicky Davis on Jan 21, 2004 at 10:44 AM Vicky, you started your previous comment by mentioning the global labor market. Hence, I thought you were writing about cheap labor abroad. Now that I understand that you were referring to illegal aliens in the US, I don’t know if it’s such a no brainer. The unions aren’t supporting an open-ended supply of cheap labor. That labor is already here so they’re working to make it more expensive. The illegal status lets employers get away with exploiting the workers through lesser wages. Unionizing them and maybe even legalizing their status will raise the price of their labor. Would this increase the incentive for more illegal immigrants to flood into the country? Maybe. I don’t know enough about this topic yet to say.
Posted by Phil on Jan 21, 2004 at 12:59 PM The restructuring being explored in this article, sounds amazing like the structure of the Industrial Workers of the World. The IWW has geographically based branches for workers who haven’t a majority at their workplace or are currently unemployed. The IWW has internal industrial unions so workers in the same trade are connected and have the opportunity to share their unique working conditions, but organizing is for everyone at the worksite. Four different unions operating in one hospital or factory doesn’t do much to build solidarity. The IWW uses contracts when the workers at the site deem it necessary, but the emphasis is always on direct on the job action. A strong on site delegate/steward system is necessary for workers to be a part of the union. Dues check off is not allowed in the IWW. It’s time for one big union!
Posted by Julia Goode on Feb 7, 2004 at 11:04 AM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by David Moberg
- Let Them Eat Free Markets
How deregulation fuels the global food crisis - Our Imperfect Unions
- Dismantling the Myth of McCain
How the Republican senator's maverick image is a sham - Main Street Squeeze
- Winning the White Working Class
- The Healthcare Union War
Tensions between the California Nurses Association and SEIU escalate at the Labor Notes conference
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
© 2004 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
