On Trade Unions

[Die Neue Zeit]

In the late 19th-century and early 20th-century, trade unions were in fact alliances of the employed and unemployed (not to be confused with the lumpen), provided social services, showed a lot less hesitance towards calling strikes, and sometimes posed political questions.

Out of all these came the "One Big Union" and "socialist industrial union" concepts (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=2109), which didn't unite workers on merely a sectional basis.

Today, a tred-iunion (I'm using Russian here to describe "yellow" unions, "business unions," etc.) caters only to its particular section of the working class, doesn't provide social services (except perhaps entertainment for bureaucrats :rolleyes: ), pays lip service to the very concept of strikes (signing no-strike deals, for example), never poses political questions, and even organizes sometimes on the basis of craft and not trade.

Heck, a tred-iunion doesn't perform the functions of "workers' statistical commissions (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/05/parti-ouvrier.htm)" to check on the business figures of the capitalists.

Back in the 1920s, Trotsky had a very interesting proposal to save the Russian economy (including the enhancement of the statistical function): incorporate the unions into the state structure (similar to what Chavez is trying to do right now in Venezuela). In Germany, the ultra-left KAPD stated that "the unions are thus, alongside the bourgeois substructure, one of the principal pillars of the capitalist state." A generalization would be wrong, of course, since proper trade unions should remain independent of the bourgeois state.

However, in today's context, since a modern tred-iunion resorts to negotiation and mediation (between the bosses and the union rank-and-file, not "on behalf of the employees"), should that kind of organization be incorporated into the bourgeois state apparatus and compliment, say, labour courts?

Basically, this means that collective bargaining should become a bourgeois state function, a "free" legal service.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I'm not quite sure what you are arguing, but in the US, the state often comes in during mediation to do "fact finding" reports that can somewhat help unions by fact-checking management's claims about their profits and so on. It's really not that helpful because, of course, the government is not a neutral party and effectively they drag out the mediation process, convince labor leaders not to strike and while negotiations go on for months, workers get impatient, demoralized and would rather just settle then go on strike if the government mediation doesn't find in their favor.

Are you saying that because trade unions are so bad these days that they might as well become part of the government outright? Well I think that is an impressionistic view of unions and why they become conservative. Unions are a defensive working class organization and are only really militant at the top when they are pressured from their membership. This could be rank and file militancy or it could be radicalization outside the union as well - if the working class as a whole is on the offensive, even the defensive organizations have to move forward just to keep up and remain relevant.

When the working class as a while is in retreat - as it has been, the defensive organizations get even more defensive and are willing to hold onto whatever they can even if it means putting their members in a weaker position.

The CIO in the US was formed not because some union leaders just decided to do this, but because of general radicalization in society and 3 major general strikes and lots of wildcat strikes by non-unionized industrial workers.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Are you saying that because trade unions are so bad these days that they might as well become part of the government outright? Well I think that is an impressionistic view of unions and why they become conservative.

Not at all. If you'll note the functions of a real trade union, they are:

1) Symbolizing alliances of the employed and unemployed (again, not to be confused with the lumpen);
2) Providing social services apart from those provided by the welfare state;
3) Calling strikes when needed; and
4) Being "workers' statistical commissions" (although not historically part of trade unionism, Marx and Guesde called for this to be part of trade union functions, per my link above).

Just the collective bargaining function should become a bourgeois state function, like legal services for defendants in a criminal case or for opponents in a civil case.

[pastradamus]

This is a very very interesting concept. I don't agree totally with the OP (that is to say the involvement in planning a capitalist state apparatus but its not that big a deal) but Its an Idea which got me thinking. For all those who cant seem to get what Jacob is trying to say here than I hope It doesn't bother him If I try and explain it my own way- of course from my own understanding.

Many unions don't work Independently of their members - That is to say the dont sit down and ask each and every member of what course of action to take, they dont respect individual wishes and rather support an overall ballot of the whole union - Failing to take into account the social needs of each and every worker (a guy with a large family needs this to be addressed and I like the way jacob also hit upon the social aspect of things as well as the unemployed). These are the bourgeois and reactionary unions which he referred to as being "yellow" unions. These are the guys that sit down and work WITH the government and the capitalists (we see this in Ireland with ICTU reactionaries hammering out deals with the Irish business and employers confederations as well as the government) as opposed to against it in order to reach a "compromise deal" which in my own opinion is a complete slap in the face to workers on an Independent basis. Jacob believes in actually absorbing these reactionary entities into to state which serves to smash them up. Making the collective bargaining function as part of the state, if one opposes it than they can go on strike - whilst Independent unions don't remain as part of the state simply because they are independent - which still remain unconnected and serve as an option to people.

I'm also an advocate of Industrial Unionizing as opposed to the craft unionizing concept. Craft Unionizing breaks up the unity of the working peoples in a unions based on job description, rather than uniting the different skilled workers (Take the workers in the modern hospital ie Nurse, Cleaner, Paramedic) under the title of "Health section" and instead creating a divide by creating a separate Nurses union, Paramedics union, cleaners union etc..

Also, one blunt statement - The UNEMPLOYED SHOULD BE ALWAYS CONSIDERED WHEN A UNION IS CREATED. ITS ABOUT CLASS AS WELL AS MEMBERSHIP.

[chimx]

lol what?


Just the collective bargaining function should become a bourgeois state function, like legal services for defendants in a criminal case or for opponents in a civil case.

Workers in trade unions often negotiate for themselves. I recently participated in contract negotiations between my union and our contractors. Any member was free to participate in the negotiations. Afterward we reported to the general membership what we were able to get out of the contractors and left it to the general membership to decide whether to accept it or to strike. Why in the world would I want to turn that function over to bureaucrat who is not from our rank-and-file?


1) Symbolizing alliances of the employed and unemployed;
2) Providing social services apart from those provided by the welfare state;
3) Calling strikes when needed

1) If we are talking the unemployed of a particular trade, then sure. a union brother/sister is one regardless if they are employed or not. I could give a shit about some squatter or hobo if that's what you're talking about

2) What specifically do you mean? Unions provide strike funds to compensate workers on strike since we are unable to collect unemployment insurance at that time.

3) We the membership vote to strike or not, not our elected officials, nor our international.

[chimx]

Also, you live in the pacific northwest. Are you keeping current on how the bourgeois state already does participate in collective bargaining?

Judge orders striking Kent teachers back to work (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009803485_apwateachercontracts5thldwritethru.html )

[pastradamus]

lol what?



Workers in trade unions often negotiate for themselves. I recently participated in contract negotiations between my union and our contractors. Any member was free to participate in the negotiations. Afterward we reported to the general membership what we were able to get out of the contractors and left it to the general membership to decide whether to accept it or to strike. Why in the world would I want to turn that function over to bureaucrat who is not from our rank-and-file?

Well thats good that your own union does that. But many dont. It was never a real choice for workers to actually turn over to a bureaucrat in the first place really. Capitalist members who become the cream of the union can rise to the top and neglect the worker with this bureaucracy.



1) If we are talking the unemployed of a particular trade, then sure. a union brother/sister is one regardless if they are employed or not. I could give a shit about some squatter or hobo if that's what you're talking about


Oh well yes. Of course we are not talking about those lumpen members. But the genuinely umemployed former workers. But id also like to say I believe retired workers should be involved with unions on a level.



2) What specifically do you mean? Unions provide strike funds to compensate workers on strike since we are unable to collect unemployment insurance at that time.


Not all unions do. Thats where the issue is.


3) We the membership vote to strike or not, not our elected officials, nor our international.

But what about each and every member's feelings on strike? On Demands? On Conditions? On Pay? etc etc. Surely a majority of voters shouldn't be allowed to overrule this?

[chimx]

Well thats good that your own union does that. But many dont. It was never a real choice for workers to actually turn over to a bureaucrat in the first place really. Capitalist members who become the cream of the union can rise to the top and neglect the worker with this bureaucracy.

Union locals work on their own contracts, and most often, especially in the construction industry, local leaders are workers who just took on the job. Some are then picked up by the union on a national level, but I think you are confused as to who does the actual bargaining and work. The national/international union is bureaucratic in a sense, but it acts more as a lobbying agent for national causes, but they don't tend to meddle with the affairs of local unions and our contracts unless they're fucking up somehow.

The exception being the recent SEIU (et al) organizing push that seeks to hire professionals to lead unions rather than the workers.


But id also like to say I believe retired workers should be involved with unions on a level.

Retired members often stay involved, especially on the onset of retirement. I see retired workers at union meetings regularly


Not all unions do. Thats where the issue is.

What union doesn't offer strike pay?


But what about each and every member's feelings on strike? On Demands? On Conditions? On Pay? etc etc. Surely a majority of voters shouldn't be allowed to overrule this?

It's called democracy. We publicly discuss each contract proposal, with every member having the chance to voice his/her opinion, and then we vote on it.

[pastradamus]

Union locals work on their own contracts, and most often, especially in the construction industry, local leaders are workers who just took on the job. Some are then picked up by the union on a national level, but I think you are confused as to who does the actual bargaining and work. The national/international union is bureaucratic in a sense, but it acts more as a lobbying agent for national causes, but they don't tend to meddle with the affairs of local unions and our contracts unless they're fucking up somehow.


The type of union Im talking about is a trade union which works both capitalistically and with an Umbrella group of other unions in order to form a bloc which totally loses sense of the Independent workers demands. This is common place in the EU and across many regions of the world. Thats to say the bourgeois union. ANY union that acts burecratically is an ultimetly flawed union In my opinion.


The exception being the recent SEIU (et al) organizing push that seeks to hire professionals to lead unions rather than the workers.

Thats a very capitalist concept that im not entirely familiar with.




Retired members often stay involved, especially on the onset of retirement. I see retired workers at union meetings regularly

Thats an extremely good sign of your personal union if there is a stong retired workers presence. Im simply stating that this is the manner in which all unions should behave,




What union doesn't offer strike pay?

The biggest union in Ireland, SIPTU has rarely offered this and when they do its a joke and an insult to people who have paid dues for years. Mandate, probably the second biggest in my area has offered this once, as far as I know ...



It's called democracy. We publicly discuss each contract proposal, with every member having the chance to voice his/her opinion, and then we vote on it.

Does this "democracy" consider the social needs of each and every worker? Its a very elitist and limited version of Democracy if you ask me.

[chimx]

Does this "democracy" consider the social needs of each and every worker?

In what sense? union members form a committee themselves to negotiate their contracts. They bring to the general membership what concessions they were able to get from employers. The general membership decides to approve it, vote it down and continue negotiations, or to go on strike. What social needs are you worried about.

[New Tet]

In the late 19th-century and early 20th-century, trade unions were in fact alliances of the employed and unemployed (not to be confused with the lumpen), provided social services, showed a lot less hesitance towards calling strikes, and sometimes posed political questions.

Out of all these came the "One Big Union" and "socialist industrial union" concepts (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=2109), which didn't unite workers on merely a sectional basis.

Today, a tred-iunion (I'm using Russian here to describe "yellow" unions, "business unions," etc.) caters only to its particular section of the working class, doesn't provide social services (except perhaps entertainment for bureaucrats :rolleyes: ), pays lip service to the very concept of strikes (signing no-strike deals, for example), never poses political questions, and even organizes sometimes on the basis of craft and not trade.[...].

How much influence did the American Mafia have in the evolution of trades unionism?

How much of this question has been pondered from the working class perspective?

I guess what I'm asking is "how much scholarly work is out there offering a Marxian analysis of organized crimes' influence on the formation of Trades Unions? (assuming that the Mafia is substantially different than the organized crime of capitalism in general.)

[Die Neue Zeit]

Unfortunately, I don't have a clue (so most likely, not much scholarly work would be my guess). The American mafia surely affected the evolution of American trade unionism, but I'm not sure about its global reach in the 50s and 60s.

My impression was that it was a criminal Bonaparte, sometimes busting union activity, sometimes protecting it from the cops, depending on who offered more.

[Asoka89]

Jobs with Justice and programs like it are sort of like a return to the city central ideal of the 19th century.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Care to elaborate on Jobs with Justice and its relation to my suggestion above?

[MarxSchmarx]

However, in today's context, since a modern tred-iunion resorts to negotiation and mediation (between the bosses and the union rank-and-file, not "on behalf of the employees"), should that kind of organization be incorporated into the bourgeois state apparatus and compliment, say, labour courts?

Basically, this means that collective bargaining should become a bourgeois state function, a "free" legal service. To some extent the infrastructure for this already exists. Most developed countries have some sort of labor relations commission that formally adjudicates and in some cases (Japan and the US, surprisingly enough) is, at least legally, essentially charged with promoting unionization and union interests.

I suppose your suggestion is to expand the services of the bourgeois state and these commissions further to engage in actual collective bargaining. This is an interesting idea, but my main criticism is that just like the commissions above have been hijacked in country after country by the corporate handmaidens, I doubt very seriously that such a state entity could operate in good faith. The bourgeois state by definition serves the class interest of the bourgeoisie, and I just do not see how far such a government collective bargainer would be willling to go. The precedents and track record in this area are pretty abysmal.

Having said that, perhaps under a syndicalist regime or a worker's state, but before the capitalists and their businesses are dissolved, such an arrangement could be made to work.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Back in the 1920s, Trotsky had a very interesting proposal to save the Russian economy (including the enhancement of the statistical function): incorporate the unions into the state structure.

Interesting in what way?


In Germany, the ultra-left KAPD stated that "the unions are thus, alongside the bourgeois substructure, one of the principal pillars of the capitalist state." A generalization would be wrong, of course, since proper trade unions should remain independent of the bourgeois state.

Should is different to are. The KAPD are here stating a fact.


However, in today's context, since a modern tred-iunion resorts to negotiation and mediation (between the bosses and the union rank-and-file, not "on behalf of the employees"), should that kind of organization be incorporated into the bourgeois state apparatus and compliment, say, labour courts?

To what end?

Besides, the integration of the unions into the mechanisms of the state is an already acomplished fact (as is noted by the KAPD above).

[Tower of Bebel]

I don't know what's interesting about Trotsky's plead for the integration of unions into the soviet state apparatus. He did so because the interests of the factory committees and the interests of the state were diverging. It would benifit the recovery of the state apparatus.

Jacob however wants to split up the unions into those who fight for needs and those who, through their integration, supply the workers (social security f.e.). This would make the yellow unions obsolete as unions while the "red" ones would be the only remaining unions. That's not exactly what happened back in the 1920's.

It's a questionable goal however.

[Enragé]

@chimx

for someone quoting durruti; anarcho-syndicalists oppose there being a strike fund, for who was to manage this fund? Bureaucrats. This makes anarcho-syndicalist strikes often the most virulent because they have to spread, get support from the population to win. A direct action way of striking.

As for the issue here it's an interesting idea indeed jacob brought up. Don't agree with him fully though, but gives for more thinking.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Having said that, perhaps under a syndicalist regime or a worker's state, but before the capitalists and their businesses are dissolved, such an arrangement could be made to work.


This would make the yellow unions obsolete as unions while the "red" ones would be the only remaining unions. That's not exactly what happened back in the 1920's.

It's a questionable goal however.


As for the issue here it's an interesting idea indeed jacob brought up. Don't agree with him fully though, but gives for more thinking.

Comrades, I must confess that you've affected where in my work this suggestion should be placed: miscellaneous questions.

Unlike all the other minimum demands raised, each of which is based explicitly on historical precedents and/or current struggles (like in Latin America), this particular demand is steeped in "schoolmastery" and has no precedent whatsoever. That "workers' statistical commissions" might emerge would only be a side effect.

It's also a good fit for miscellaneous material for this reason: The suggestion raised by MarxSchmarx is and isn't transitional/directional, namely because of potential fulfillment by the capitalist state, but also because of the extent of "operating in good faith" (good legal phrase, there ;) ). Placing it among other directional/"really transitional" demands might be deceptive in terms of it not being achievable under the most radically social-democratic form of bourgeois capitalism. [Just look at the "transitional" measures suggested in the Communist Manifesto.]

Would this demand make redundant JimmyJazz's "Legally considering all workplaces as being unionized for the purposes of collective bargaining and strikes, regardless of the presence or absence of formal unionization in each workplace" (a demand so far grouped with other directional demands)?

[chimx]

for someone quoting durruti; anarcho-syndicalists oppose there being a strike fund, for who was to manage this fund? Bureaucrats.

:lol::lol::laugh::laugh::laugh::lol::lol:

[Devrim]

What union doesn't offer strike pay?

I have been on strike over a dozen times and have never ever seen a penny of strike pay.

The worst case I remeber was going back to work after a three and a half week national strike, and on the following pay day finding that the union (UCW in the UK, now CWU) had had the dues deducted for the time we were on strike.

Devrim

[pastradamus]

I have been on strike over a dozen times and have never ever seen a penny of strike pay.

The worst case I remeber was going back to work after a three and a half week national strike, and on the following pay day finding that the union (UCW in the UK, now CWU) had had the dues deducted for the time we were on strike.

Devrim

Interesting, What profession are you in dev?

[Devrim]

Interesting, What profession are you in dev?

At the point I was refering to I was a postman. I did that for about five years. I spent most of my working life in construction. Nowadays I work for a subcontractor in the telecom sector.

Devrim

[pastradamus]

At the point I was refering to I was a postman. I did that for about five years. I spent most of my working life in construction. Nowadays I work for a subcontractor in the telecom sector.

Devrim

Ah right. Fair play then. As a turk and as a former construction worker I imagine you are all to familiar with those scumbags in Gama then.

[Devrim]

Ah right. Fair play then. As a turk and as a former construction worker I imagine you are all to familiar with those scumbags in Gama then.

Actually, I am not an ethnic Turk, but I have heard about that, yes.

Devrim

[chimx]

That's a burn they don't offer you picket pay. It is common for American unions to offer picket pay, and I'm fairly positive other countries see it fairly often. When my union was on strike in 2001 (before I was a member) they paid about $75,000 to members over the course of 6-8 weeks.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Only 75K?


Why in the world would I want to turn that function over to bureaucrat who is not from our rank-and-file?

But there are union bosses not from the rank-and-file.

[chimx]

Our union local is only 350 or so, and not everybody collects picket pay. Others work side jobs to make ends meet while we strike.