Rampant anti-Unionism in America....

[RadioRaheem84]

1.) Unions are corrupt; harass people to join, extorting dues, etc.

2.) Unions are infiltrated by mobsters

3.) Unions kill jobs and businesses

4.) Unions monopolize labor

5.) Unions use violence and intimidate workers

OK, how can we combat these assertions? Number three is really the one that I care about most since it seems like the most legitimate concern. If the workers ask for too much or take too much money out of a business, won't that kill it?

[cyu]

Watch this documentary online: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-take/ where they maintained (and increased) productivity after liberating their companies.

You might also want to check out Mondragon: http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/23059

"Started in 1956 with five workers in a small shop making kerosene stoves, MCC today has over 100,000 worker-owners in some 260 enterprises in 40 countries. Annual sales are pegged at more than 16 billion Euros with a wide range of products--high tech machine tools, motor buses, household appliances and a chain of supermarkets. MCC also maintains its own banks, health clinics, welfare system, schools and the 4000 student Mondragon University--all worker-owned coops.

"Under Spanish law, because the MCC worker-owners are not technically wage-labor, but get their income from a share of the profits, they are excluded from much of the country's social welfare safety net pertaining to workers. MCC responded by organizing and funding it's own 'second degree' cooperatives--health care clinics, retirement plans, schools and other social services, all cooperatively owned with their own worker assemblies."

...or the Histadrut:

"Founded in 1920 by two socialist parties whose total membership did not exceed a few thousand in order to stimulate and undertake the kind of activities described, this organization grew in the course of the next generation to the point where its affiliated enterprises accounted in the 1950s for nearly one-fourth of gross national product of Israel and employed the same proportion of the labor force, its trade unions affiliated 90 percent of the workers by hand and by brain, and its health insurance service embraced two-thirds of the total population. So powerful did this Workers Society become that some of its leaders claimed for it parity with or even priority over the state."

This isn't to say I think either Mondragon or the Histadrut are perfect, just as I wouldn't say any democracies are perfect. That's why people argue about policies in democracies after all.

[Jimmie Higgins]

As far as number 3: this is one you hear a lot and one that the bosses use to try and get workers to think that business interests are in the worker's interests. Another way to put it is does non-unionization create jobs or keep businesses from going under? Of course not. Business destroys more jobs and more individual businesses than unions ever have. A fighting union, on the other hand, can protect jobs and prevent wage cuts - in theory.

On of the reasons anti-union propaganda is more or less effective in the US right now (and connected to your question about what we can do about it) is because of the ineffectiveness of the top-down business-unionism model accepted by all major unions. This means that instead of fighting for the interests of the rank and file workers they are often accepting concessions in order to help the company and therefore the workers. If the union is apologetic about worker demands, then the idea that unions actually do hurt business gains currency in the rest of society.

If unions are seen to actually fight for and in the interest of the rank and file, then a lot of these anti-union ideas that are pushed constantly from the media (local media tends to be really horrible in reporting local strikes) and politicians and of course business will become less important.

The only time local media (and politicians to a certain extent) are fair about strikes is if public sentiment is really pro-worker. One thing in addition to more rank-and-file democracy in unions that I think would help is reintegrating unions with working class communities. In the past union halls were actually in working class areas and did things for neighborhoods. Now union halls are nondescript offices in commercial or warehouse districts - at least where I live. It goes hand in hand with the business-union approach. Another problem is relying on low-paid college interns for organizing rather than the rank and file. In the bay area a lot of unions are kind in indistinguishable from NGOs and have envents during the day that are aimed at the media, not rallying general working class support (everyone's at work!) for the union workers.

[RadioRaheem84]

If the union is apologetic about worker demands, then the idea that unions actually do hurt business gains currency in the rest of society.

But the media is saying that the unions are unapologetic about workers demands and that these demands are costing the companies money, therefore perpetuating their departure.

[RadioRaheem84]

The Mondragon and the Histadrut unions seem like a great idea. Why haven't the unions in the US done something like this?

[the last donut of the night]

Are there any unions that are more democratic, such as the IWW?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Are there any unions that are more democratic, such as the IWW?There's the IWW! They've done great work organizing Starbucks workers and I think it's a real way to go right now with the trade union movement going so far off the rails. Some left-wing pressure could help reform movements within the main unions and help show that it's possible to organize service workers.

Unfortunately groups like the IWW are kind of marginal and have lost their industrial sections for the most part.

[the last donut of the night]

There's the IWW! They've done great work organizing Starbucks workers and I think it's a real way to go right now with the trade union movement going so far off the rails. Some left-wing pressure could help reform movements within the main unions and help show that it's possible to organize service workers.

Unfortunately groups like the IWW are kind of marginal and have lost their industrial sections for the most part.

True. However, if they can start with Starbucks workers, why not auto workers?

Sure, it'll be hard, but then again, half the fun is getting there!

[Jimmie Higgins]

True. However, if they can start with Starbucks workers, why not auto workers?

Sure, it'll be hard, but then again, half the fun is getting there!

It wasn't a comment on the potential - just a statement of where the IWW is at organizationally right now.

However I dodn't think that the IWW would be able to organize in the already unionized sections of the industry at this point because the mainstream trade-unions pretty much have a lock on it. It may be possible for them to organize at nonunion auto companies or in "right-to-work" states.

I think a much more likely situation in the near-term might be that rank and file militants in the big unions are inspired by victories by radical or anarcho-syndicalist unions and are able to organize from within for more democracy and rank and file power or wildcat strikes and so on.

[RED DAVE]

3.) Unions kill jobs and businesses

...

OK, how can we combat these assertions? Number three is really the one that I care about most since it seems like the most legitimate concern. If the workers ask for too much or take too much money out of a business, won't that kill it?(1) Open the books. Let's see what profits any individual business is making. How much money goes to managerial salaries? How big is the stock divident.

(2) Why do people refer to a decent wage and benefits as "kill[ing] jobs and business"? Do you expect working people to work for substandard wages and benefits or under substandard conditions?

(3) If a business can't provided a decent standard of living, and management can't make a profit, and it's essential to the economy, then capitalism itself has failed, and the firm needs to be nationalized under workers control, not allowed to lay people off, move to another country or shut down.

RED DAVE

[Os Cangaceiros]

What's interesting is that when polls are done that state the question, "Do you feel that workers should have a more active say/involvement in the workplace", the majority of Americans answer in the affirmative.

The hostility to unions didn't come out of nowhere, either...a lot of people have been screwed over by the "labor aristocracy" in the United States, and that has colored their viewpoint on unions.

[cyu]

the media is saying that the unions are unapologetic about workers demands and that these demands are costing the companies money, therefore perpetuating their departure.


See article on capital flight here: http://www.infoshop.org/rants/yu1.html



Why haven't the unions in the US done something like this?


They are going in that direction as we speak. That article (http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/23059) was precisely about United Steelworkers entering into a partnership with Mondragon to do the same thing in the US and Canada.

[RED DAVE]

The hostility to unions didn't come out of nowhere, either...a lot of people have been screwed over by the "labor aristocracy" in the United States, and that has colored their viewpoint on unions.What, precisely, do you mean by that, considering the US labor has been in retreat for about 30 years?

RED DAVE

[Os Cangaceiros]

What I mean by that is that the AFL-CIO and other such unions epitomize being the "lieutenants of capital".

[RED DAVE]

What I mean by that is that the AFL-CIO and other such unions epitomize being the "lieutenants of capital".Fair enough, but that's not what you said originally.

I don't think that the term "labor aristocracy" and that wonderful old term, "labor lieutenants of capitalism," are quite the same. This latter term is pretty accurate to describe the present-day labor leadership. The former term, which to my mind has been used to describe high-paid members of the working class in the major industrial countries, in scarcely applicable anymore.

RED DAVE

[RHIZOMES]

3.) Unions kill jobs and businesses

That's the thing about class struggle - it happens because the proletariat and the bourgeoisie have fundamentally different interests collectively as a class. It is in a worker's interest for wages to be higher so they can have a decent living, and it's in the bosses interest to keep wages as low as possible so they can maximize profit. In our capitalist society, the latter have all the power due to owning all the capital. One of the only ways the workers have at their disposal for some semblance of an equal footing is through standing together and forming/joining unions.

[CommunistWaffle]

Unions are good for us workers though!

[blake 3:17]

OK, how can we combat these assertions? Number three is really the one that I care about most since it seems like the most legitimate concern. If the workers ask for too much or take too much money out of a business, won't that kill it

This is part of a really really really long debate about socialism and unions. We're not going to solve it in the next twenty years. It hasn't been figured out since either socialist parties or trade unions have been formed. Unions are the primary vehicle for working class people to fight against the ruling class, but they ain't it all.

For the best coverage of union news in the US see http://labornotes.org/ Their site is great and provides real organizing tools for working people, both in unions and not in unions.

The only really sane Left strategies for working in the union movement have been combinations of rank-and-file (grass roots, really representing the members) and social (class wide, anti-poverty, political opposition to war/imperialism, pro-women anti-racist) unionism.

It's really hard to do it all at the same time.

[syndicat]

1.) Unions are corrupt; harass people to join, extorting dues, etc.

2.) Unions are infiltrated by mobsters

3.) Unions kill jobs and businesses

4.) Unions monopolize labor

5.) Unions use violence and intimidate workers


In regard to 3, it's true of course that if workers are successful in gaining better conditions, protections against unsafe conditions, better pay and benefits, these things come out of profits. But profits are not in the interests of workers. The more profits companies have, the more money they have to hire managers to control people, change technology to reduce jobs and increase the pace of work, hire anti-union consultants, or move the jobs elsewhere.

If this is about the threat of moving elsewhere, which employers nowadays often use against unionization, this really only applies to the manufacturing sector...and only 12 percent of jobs in USA are there. And often the manufacturing that remains does so because it has various kinds of advantages here, such as being close to certain markets.

Most work is in landlocked industries where you have to do the work locally...utilities, transportation, retail, services.

In regard to 1 and 5, these are rather outdated images of unions. The AFL-CIO or CtW business unions are quite bureaucratic, and workers are often not really in control of them, but that's a different story.

However, in regard to working class anti-unionism...which is the anti-unionism we need to be more concerned about...it is often based on bad past experiences with unions, or images of things like violence by mobbed up unions. The effective counter to this is the development of unions that are controlled by workers, and clearly democratic and accountable.

There was a survey that reached the conclusion that workers who have never been members of unions are more likely to favor unions than workers who have been members of unions. This is part of the bad effect of the narrow bureaucratic business unionism that is so dominant.

[Antiks72]

As far as number 3: this is one you hear a lot and one that the bosses use to try and get workers to think that business interests are in the worker's interests. Another way to put it is does non-unionization create jobs or keep businesses from going under? Of course not. Business destroys more jobs and more individual businesses than unions ever have. A fighting union, on the other hand, can protect jobs and prevent wage cuts - in theory.

On of the reasons anti-union propaganda is more or less effective in the US right now (and connected to your question about what we can do about it) is because of the ineffectiveness of the top-down business-unionism model accepted by all major unions. This means that instead of fighting for the interests of the rank and file workers they are often accepting concessions in order to help the company and therefore the workers. If the union is apologetic about worker demands, then the idea that unions actually do hurt business gains currency in the rest of society.

If unions are seen to actually fight for and in the interest of the rank and file, then a lot of these anti-union ideas that are pushed constantly from the media (local media tends to be really horrible in reporting local strikes) and politicians and of course business will become less important.

The only time local media (and politicians to a certain extent) are fair about strikes is if public sentiment is really pro-worker. One thing in addition to more rank-and-file democracy in unions that I think would help is reintegrating unions with working class communities. In the past union halls were actually in working class areas and did things for neighborhoods. Now union halls are nondescript offices in commercial or warehouse districts - at least where I live. It goes hand in hand with the business-union approach. Another problem is relying on low-paid college interns for organizing rather than the rank and file. In the bay area a lot of unions are kind in indistinguishable from NGOs and have envents during the day that are aimed at the media, not rallying general working class support (everyone's at work!) for the union workers.

The union bashing started in the Reagan era, and has continued on from there. The working class has been propagandized continuously since then from bourgeois scum like Rush Limbaugh. Three hours a day, five days a week. During the nineties and on into this decade, conservative propaganda has multiplied on radio and on TV with the likes of Beck, Savage, and others.

I really think the current crises can and should be exploited. The working class must be awakened to the real class struggle that exists in the United States. Nothing is going to change as long as they lay down and take it.

[Patchd]

The union bashing started in the Reagan era, and has continued on from there. The working class has been propagandized continuously since then from bourgeois scum like Rush Limbaugh.
I was under the impression that unions had been opposed and 'bashed' since the very concept appeared.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

I was under the impression that unions had been opposed and 'bashed' since the very concept appeared.

But it really picked up in the USA under Regan as it did in the UK under Thatcher.

[Patchd]

Of course, but we can't be under any illusions that just because a gov't isn't as right wing as it would be had the 'other party' got in, that unions will not be opposed, and the workers oppressed. It's this kind of thinking which keeps the idea that social democracy is a working class ideology in our own mind frame, when in fact we all know how reactionary it is.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

Of course, but we can't be under any illusions that just because a gov't isn't as right wing as it would be had the 'other party' got in, that unions will not be opposed, and the workers oppressed. It's this kind of thinking which keeps the idea that social democracy is a working class ideology in our own mind frame, when in fact we all know how reactionary it is.

We need wizards to make illusions.

[9]

^Yeah, the fight against unions certainly didn't start with Reagan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain)!

I've been trying to get my lab to vote to unionize for god-knows-how-long with no success thus far; the perception I encounter most frequently is #2 on the list - that the unions are run by mafia dons. :lol:
I really think "On The Waterfront"-style propaganda campaigns are, at this point, really very deeply-rooted in the psyche of a lot of Americans.

[Rusty Shackleford]

i had actually encountered #2 with my friend. he is a unionized laborer (i shouldnt give out information on what union right now) i think who said his union has ties with the mafia. my first reaction was to tell him to get the union to drop that. i dont know how serious he was. of course the problem with his union is it is undemocratic and he himself has no interest in radical labor unions. i had asked if i could attend a meeting to see how it was, but he said its shut to non-union people.



On of the reasons anti-union propaganda is more or less effective in the US right now (and connected to your question about what we can do about it) is because of the ineffectiveness of the top-down business-unionism model accepted by all major unions. This means that instead of fighting for the interests of the rank and file workers they are often accepting concessions in order to help the company and therefore the workers. If the union is apologetic about worker demands, then the idea that unions actually do hurt business gains currency in the rest of society.

would what i am describing fit with this description? i dont know how his union feels about the businesses that hired them or even the whole eployer-laborer relationship.

im going to go through the union's website and look more into it right now.

[Jimmie Higgins]

i had actually encountered #2 with my friend. he is a unionized laborer (i shouldnt give out information on what union right now) i think who said his union has ties with the mafia. my first reaction was to tell him to get the union to drop that. i dont know how serious he was. of course the problem with his union is it is undemocratic and he himself has no interest in radical labor unions. i had asked if i could attend a meeting to see how it was, but he said its shut to non-union people.



would what i am describing fit with this description? i dont know how his union feels about the businesses that hired them or even the whole eployer-laborer relationship.

im going to go through the union's website and look more into it right now.

Definitely the undemocratic and top-down aspects - probably the business-union model too, but for what you are saying, I can't say what their particular strategy and outlook is. Most major unions have adopted this approach though and it goes hand in hand with a top-down undemocratic organization since much of the time the union leaders need have to convince their membership to go along with shitty deals.

Maybe someone else knows more of the history, but from what older comrades have told me, the organized crime connection in some unions was often an attempt by the conservative sections of unions to counter the influence of the organized left.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Definitely the undemocratic and top-down aspects - probably the business-union model too, but for what you are saying, I can't say what their particular strategy and outlook is. Most major unions have adopted this approach though and it goes hand in hand with a top-down undemocratic organization since much of the time the union leaders need have to convince their membership to go along with shitty deals.

Maybe someone else knows more of the history, but from what older comrades have told me, the organized crime connection in some unions was often an attempt by the conservative sections of unions to counter the influence of the organized left.

so the union is run as a business in which the use of criminal elements act as goons? my friend spoke of blackballing in which if a union member did something against the wishes of the union they would be kept out of unionized jobs. that i can understand to a degree, but i see it as a very anti-worker and hypocritical action by the union.

[Uncle Ho]

Are there any unions that are more democratic, such as the IWW?

Yes, the UE, which is an independent electric worker's union who led the recent Republic windows and doors occupation.

That said, our best bet would be to reform the AFL-CIO, as they are by far the most powerful labor organization in this country.

[Red Saxon]

Everyone in my family except for me are conservative Republicans, and I've heard some things around the dinner table which make me sick.

For example, I've heard that Trade Unions only want to make it so the workers don't have to work but still get paid for doing nothing, which makes absolutely no sense at all.

[the last donut of the night]

The union bashing started in the Reagan era, and has continued on from there. The working class has been propagandized continuously since then from bourgeois scum like Rush Limbaugh. Three hours a day, five days a week. During the nineties and on into this decade, conservative propaganda has multiplied on radio and on TV with the likes of Beck, Savage, and others.


I didn't start in the Reagan era -- it started when unions started.

[syndicat]

Things have changed significantly since the late '70s. Back in the '60s about a third of workers in USA belonged to unions, but now it's down to only 12 percent and only 7 percent in private sector. The rise of public sector unionism since the '60s has somewhat masked the collapse in the private sector.

Since the '70s the big companies have become more intransigent towards unions than before. It's only since then that the billion dollar anti-union consultancy industry has come into existence. These are law firms and others who advise companies to basically break the law because they can get away with it.

Union membership in USA today is less than it was in the early '30s before the huge growth during the working class rebellion of the '30s...when union membership in the USA quadrupled.

As unions became more conservative and bureaucratized after World War 2, they got into habits of working through partnerships with management. But now management is not interested in these partnerships. They don't need the union bureaucrats.

So the decline isn't just due to intensified management opposition, which is part of it, but also due to the inability of bureaucratic trade unions to deal effectively with this situation. This situation requires that the working class relearn how to build from the bottom up its own organization and engage in collective direct action.

I think trying to reform the AFL-CIO is hopeless...in regard to the national unions. Local unions that are more democratic can perhaps be changed.

But ultimately I think a new, grassroots, radical labor federation is needed.

In regard to the question about the origins of mob control of some unions, I would recommend reading "Dynamite" by Louis Adamic, which provides a plausible explanation. What he says is that the conservative craft unions had a tendency to violence against employers because of the weakness of craft unionism...as opposed to the mass unionism advocated by radicals such as the IWW. After the prosecution of the McNamara brothers, of the Iron Workers Union, in 1911 for bombings in a strike, union leaders started resorting to hiring gangs to do protection of strikers or to do "hits" against recalcitrant employers. Eventually the mobsters decided the unions could provide a lucrative source of funds to bankroll their businesses, such as pension funds. This occurred during the period of the '20s to '30s. Hoffa for example had recourse to the "services" of a notorious gang in Detroit to protect strikers against strike-breakers in trucking strikes in the '30s.

[Random Precision]

]...or the Histadrut:

"Founded in 1920 by two socialist parties whose total membership did not exceed a few thousand in order to stimulate and undertake the kind of activities described, this organization grew in the course of the next generation to the point where its affiliated enterprises accounted in the 1950s for nearly one-fourth of gross national product of Israel and employed the same proportion of the labor force, its trade unions affiliated 90 percent of the workers by hand and by brain, and its health insurance service embraced two-thirds of the total population. So powerful did this Workers Society become that some of its leaders claimed for it parity with or even priority over the state."

The Histadruth? Are you fucking serious? Yeah, it was socialist, organized all the workers, quite revolutionary except for um the vicious racism against Arabs :rolleyes:

[syndicat]

cyu's other example, Mondragon, isn't so great either. I'd read Sharryn Kasmir's "The Myth of Mondragon." She shows that in the Mondragon cooperatives the workers are subordinate to a hierarchy of managers and experts (engineers, financial planners). The worker social committees, which are supposed to deal with worker issues, aren't given enough time off from work or resources. Workers are prohibited from bringing in outside consultants to help them analyse management's plans presented at the annual assemblies.

[chimx]

1.) Unions are corrupt; harass people to join, extorting dues, etc.

I've never heard of a union "harassing" a person to join. Some unions engage in organizing campaigns by going door-to-door to talk to employees about the benefits of unionizing. The SEIU in the US is famous for that. I wouldn't doubt that some organizers have acted unprofessionally in the past. But I have a good friend who is does door-to-door organizing campaigns and that is definitely not a union policy. They always emphasize respect and professionalism.

As far as extorting dues, I don't follow. You join the organization and pay dues to maintain it. That's like saying paying home owners dues is extortion if you are a condo or town home owner.


2.) Unions are infiltrated by mobsters

Some unions at one time had mob connections. Those days are gone.


3.) Unions kill jobs and businesses

Unions will make it more difficult for an employer to financially compete with non-union employers if they are unwilling to make compromises on their own financial earnings.


4.) Unions monopolize labor

Ideally, yes. But that isn't the case. Unions only represent like, what? 15% of the US work force? And a very large portion of that isn't even in the private sector.


5.) Unions use violence and intimidate workers

See 1

[Antiks72]

I was under the impression that unions had been opposed and 'bashed' since the very concept appeared.

Yes, that is absolutely correct. During the early part of the last century, the struggle was in full swing.

[cyu]

cyu's other example, Mondragon, isn't so great either




The Histadruth? Are you fucking serious? Yeah, it was socialist, organized all the workers, quite revolutionary except for um the vicious racism against Arabs http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/smilies/001_rolleyes.gif

Yes, I'm well aware of the problems in both - I don't claim they are perfect, just as I don't claim any other democratic organizations / governments are perfect. There will be corrupting influences present in these structures. The thing is to fight them and figure out ways to prevent them - I certainly wouldn't call for replacing democracy with dictatorship. Even if they are bad now, that doesn't mean they were always bad.

Excerpts from http://home.comcast.net/~chtongyu/histadrut.html

1989, Howard M. Sachar:

it was not until 1959 that the Histadrut leadership finally chose to reinterpret their original ideological premises ("the Jewish Federation of Labor") and to admit Arabs to full membership...

[Ya'akov Talmon] wrote:

Better men than I have enlarged on the grim paradox that threatens the Zionist vision, the social and moral failure of that vision, which are to be expected from the transformation of the Jews into employers, managers and supervisors of Arab hewers of wood and drawers of water, and all of it plus the slogan of "Integration."... There is an inescapable process in a population that is divided into two peoples, one dominant, the other dominated. No! The State of Israel will not be such a monstrosity. It was not for this that we have prayed two thousand years.

Ben Aharon excoriated the shameful "protekzia" -- influence peddling -- that had developed among Labor officials, enabling them to acquire the most luxurious villas, drive the most costly automobiles, secure the choicest travel and expense-account opportunities... few of the top Labor officials could resist the temptation to live well on either party or government funds. What had happened, Ben-Aharon asked, to the exalted idealism of A. D. Gordon and Berl Katznelson, of David Ben-Gurion and Yitzchak Ben-Zvi? For his trouble, the secretary-general lost his position after the Histadrut election of September 11, 1973.

[Random Precision]

Racism was not just a "problem" in the Histadruth but the very reason for its existence. It was the primary organization that made the "conquest of labor" (Jewish land worked by Jewish laborers) a real possibility and then a success. In doing so they locked Arabs out of the Yishuv economy, and paved the way for 1948 and the ethnic cleansing. They only ever organized Arabs into subordinate, segregated groupings, refused to deal with Arab labor leaders on an equal footing and refused to carry out actions that would show solidarity between Arab and Jewish workers

It's amusing that you seem to think racism is only a "problem" in union structures like the Histadruth. But in its case we see a firmly counter-revolutionary, Jewish chauvinist organization that formed the backbone of a racist, imperialist settler state. There is absolutely nothing revolutionaries should be admiring in it

As for your quote, who cares? It just says that a Zionist union bureaucrat got disenchanted with the racism inherent in the project and was voted out for it. It's amusing that he appeals to the "exalted idealism" of Gordon, Katznelson, Ben Gurion as these were all figures who advocated the exclusion of Arabs from the Jewish economy which was the Histadruth's original goal. This guy just could not live with what that actually meant apparently

[Bitter Ashes]

True. However, if they can start with Starbucks workers, why not auto workers?

Sure, it'll be hard, but then again, half the fun is getting there!
Judie Bari tried that with logging companies in California. It's also a great example of where the violence really comes from. Her car was rammed by a multi-tonne logging truck with her and her child inside, writing it off and then later a pipebomb was placed underneath her driver's seat with a motion sensor attached.

It's also worth mentioning that the majority of workers in the North America and Europe are no longer in manufacturing, but instead in service industries, like Starbucks, so it makes sense to start there really. Times have changed since 1905.

The anti-union sentiment is very active in the UK too it's worth mentioning. A quick flick around the support pages for BA workers, postal workers, Leeds refuse collectors, etc gives you a real insight into how viciously some will pursue anti-union agendas.

Part of the blame has got to be the mass media for bieng more accessable than ever to spread pro-bourgeois propaganda and bombard us with it 24/7. The mainstream unions are not guilt free either and we're bieng tarred with the same brush, although ironicly, it's more of the feeling that unions dont go far enough over here that traditionally puts people off.

[cyu]

It's amusing that you seem to think racism is only a "problem" in union structures like the Histadruth

So what about the "union structure" of the Histadrut itself do you feel is racist? How do you define union structure? I could also make the argument that the US Constitution was inherently racist since it allowed and protected slavery. However, slavery was eventually eliminated from that constitution. Do you believe racism is impossible to be eliminated from the "structure" of the Histadrut? If so, what aspects of the Histadrut makes this impossible?


It just says that a Zionist union bureaucrat got disenchanted with the racism inherent in the project and was voted out for it.

Uh, no - you misread that. There were two people. Talmon was the one opposed to racism. Ben Aharon was the one opposed to bureaucrats basically becoming the new capitalists. It was Ben Aharon that was voted out.

[Random Precision]

So what about the "union structure" of the Histadrut itself do you feel is racist? How do you define union structure?

It was founded to divide the Yishuv economy from Arab labor, it did not include Arabs as full members until the sixties, it currently is a vocal proponent of Zionism and Israeli imperialism like during Operation Cast Lead. If it will change in the way you are suggesting it will only be as a result of a sea change in the attitudes of Israeli workers, which would more likely than not make the Histadruth itself obsolete


I could also make the argument that the US Constitution was inherently racist since it allowed and protected slavery. However, slavery was eventually eliminated from that constitution. Do you believe racism is impossible to be eliminated from the "structure" of the Histadrut? If so, what aspects of the Histadrut makes this impossible?

The National Party in South Africa was the ruling party over apartheid, but after 1994 officially abandoned racism and later dissolved itself into the ANC. That doesn't mean that while it was ruling the country that revolutionaries blew soap bubbles about it abandoning its racism

[cyu]

If it will change in the way you are suggesting it will only be as a result of a sea change in the attitudes of Israeli workers, which would more likely than not make the Histadruth itself obsolete



Ah, but we're looking at different aspects of the Histadrut here.

You're looking at the aspect in which they didn't want Jews to only play the role of "capitalists" in an economy - so you see it in terms of race - and if everyone in that area became race-blind, its reason for existence would disappear.

On the other hand, I see it in economic terms - as in a union that controls its own businesses and provides health care for its members. If you look at only that part of its structure, it has nothing to do with race at all. You could take the same model and apply it anywhere else - even in a place where there are no Jews / Muslims / Arabs / whatever. Thus an organization with this structure could certainly exist in a race-blind society and it would definitely have a purpose: to provide for the well-being of its union members and to give them control of their own companies.

[Random Precision]

Ah, but we're looking at different aspects of the Histadrut here.

You're looking at the aspect in which they didn't want Jews to only play the role of "capitalists" in an economy - so you see it in terms of race - and if everyone in that area became race-blind, its reason for existence would disappear.

On the other hand, I see it in economic terms - as in a union that controls its own businesses and provides health care for its members. If you look at only that part of its structure, it has nothing to do with race at all. You could take the same model and apply it anywhere else - even in a place where there are no Jews / Muslims / Arabs / whatever. Thus an organization with this structure could certainly exist in a race-blind society and it would definitely have a purpose: to provide for the well-being of its union members and to give them control of their own companies.

You are being incredibly naive. The only reason the Histadruth is in a position to provide all these services, run its own businesses etc is because it played perhaps the most important role in the racist, colonial Zionist mission. It not only provided the basis to cut off Arabs from the Yishuv economy but formed the basis of the Haganah militias- which was transformed into the IDF in 1948, and was closely linked to the Labor Party which headed up every Israeli government until 1978.

You really cannot see the racist policies of the Histradruth in isolation from its economic structure, the one breeds the other, and you only do it at the risk of willfully ignoring reality

Also you praised the Histadruth for running its own businesses. Don't you think there is a contradiction here? How should we view a trade union which becomes a large employer

[cyu]

You really cannot see the racist policies of the Histradruth in isolation from its economic structure, the one breeds the other, and you only do it at the risk of willfully ignoring reality


So you think it would be impossible for a union in, say, Asia, Africa, or Latin America to own businesses and provide health care for their members? Even the United Steelworkers union wants to try this path in North America.


Don't you think there is a contradiction here? How should we view a trade union which becomes a large employer

If the heads of these companies are not democratically elected, then it's crap. If all these companies are democratically run, then it's basically a cooperative / anarcho-syndicalism.

[Random Precision]

So you think it would be impossible for a union in, say, Asia, Africa, or Latin America to own businesses and provide health care for their members? Even the United Steelworkers union wants to try this path in North America.

Sure it might be possible, but it has not happened. It might be possible for the Histadruth to abandon its vicious racism and pro-Zionism, but as revolutionaries we deal with the reality of how things are, we don't blow soap bubbles about what they might be like someday


If the heads of these companies are not democratically elected, then it's crap. If all these companies are democratically run, then it's basically a cooperative / anarcho-syndicalism.

I'm sure the leaders and membership of the Histadruth would be quite amused to be told they are anarchists

[syndicat]

So you think it would be impossible for a union in, say, Asia, Africa, or Latin America to own businesses and provide health care for their members? Even the United Steelworkers union wants to try this path in North America.

They are using the Mondragon model. These are hierarchically run cooperatives in which managers and engineers and financial experts are in control, not the workers. There is an annual assembly and the General Manager is elected, but workers have no way to challenge the plans presented by the engineers, analysts and managers at meetings, and they are forbidden from hiring outside consultants. The Mondragon coops are basically controlled by the bureaucratic or techno-managerial class, not the workers.

The USW is not proposing to have workers run the coops. They want management who they can negotiate with. What they are concerned about is that, because the employees (including managers) own it, the jobs can't be moved to some other country. People sort of own their jobs, as long as the business survives. But it's still a class dominated structure.


Quote:
Don't you think there is a contradiction here? How should we view a trade union which becomes a large employer

If the heads of these companies are not democratically elected, then it's crap. If all these companies are democratically run, then it's basically a cooperative / anarcho-syndicalism.

Anarcho-syndicalism is about class struggle, revolutionary unionism. It's not about forming cooperative businesses in a market economy. Anarcho-syndicalism does not propose a market economy, but an economy based on production for use and common ownership and accountability of production to society.

[cyu]

They are using the Mondragon model.


It's certainly similar to the Mondragon model - but who influenced whom, or if it went both ways, I don't know.



These are hierarchically run cooperatives in which managers and engineers and financial experts are in control, not the workers.


Even if these 2 examples have too much hierarchy and bureaucracy for anarchists, there's nothing saying that another organization needs to have an exact copy of their DNA or be doomed to fail. Political and economic evolution is all about taking the "genes" you like, throwing out the ones you don't, and replacing them with what you like better.



It's not about forming cooperative businesses in a market economy. Anarcho-syndicalism does not propose a market economy


Like it or not, cooperatives and what anarcho-syndicalists call for have many more similarities than they do with other companies and organizations. As for a market economy, I personally see no contradiction with either communism or anarchism - I see it as more of an orthogonal aspect of society - like English. Just as you can have an anarchist / communist society with or without English, the same could be said of a market. If that sounds impossible, take a look here: Equal Pay for Unequal Work (http://everything2.com/user/gate/writeups/equal+pay+for+unequal+work)

[syndicat]

It's certainly similar to the Mondragon model - but who influenced whom, or if it went both ways, I don't know.


Leo Girard, president of the United Steelworkers, has said they have entered into some agreement with Mondragon, and are using the Mondragon model. The management of the coops will have contracts with the union.

A more collectively run kind of cooperative is a more authentic form of self-management, if this is what you mean by "similarity" to anarcho-syndicalism. But what you miss is that anarcho-syndicalism is a strategy, of workers expropriating the capitalists as a class and building a self-managed economy. It's not about setting up cooperatives in the framework of the existing capitalist society.

[cyu]

anarcho-syndicalism is a strategy, of workers expropriating the capitalists as a class and building a self-managed economy. It's not about setting up cooperatives in the framework of the existing capitalist society.

Sure, I fully agree with that. I certainly don't believe the poor should be expected to "buy" companies from capitalists or take out loans from capitalist bankers in order to start cooperatives. From The World Bank is the opiate of the masses (http://everything2.com/title/the%20world%20bank%20is%20the%20opiate%20of%20the% 20masses):

According to this new process, the large land owners choose what land they would sell. The landless peasants have to borrow money from the World Bank, with market-type interest rates, and pay up-front for the land. Apparently, this would resolve land conflicts in Brazil: if farmers need land, they can just buy it!

...If the World Bank wants to help, it could provide resources for infrastructure--such as education, irrigation, health care projects, and credit for production--after the disappropriation process. Instead, the World Bank chose to put money into the large landowners' pockets.