A question about unions

[ed miliband]

I was talking to an "anarcho"-capitalist who told me that unions were fine by him, to which I responded with a hypothetical situation whereby a group of 5,000 unionised workers took part in a strike, and whether this would be allowed in an "anarcho"-capitalist society. He responded that my question was wrong because I'm suggesting unionised workers would work for a "private business without a union". He then asked if "union pay" was so much better, why would workers not work at another place that recognizes unions?


Now, as I'm fairly new to the politics of unions, I'm unsure who is more confused about trade unions, me or him? I assumed that workers joined unions because of issues in the work place, not because their is some magical tribe of unionised workers who can go and get paid by a union or whatever. Perhaps this is a cultural thing? I'm in the UK and he is in the US? I know Maggie made closed shops illegal, but what about in the US? My dad joined a union because of issues at a particular workplace (to do hours of work, etc) and there was a general drive in the place to get more members of the work force to be part of the union (for obvious reasons); the workers joined a union because they felt that they had to, not because they were a static block of already unionised workers (...if this makes sense?).


So some general guidance is needed in this area I guess. Cheers in advance.

[syndicat]

That other workplace that is unionized may not have job openings. This person sounds like they have a very naive notion that you can just readily flit from job to job as you please. Besides, the point to unionization is to fight against domination and exploitation in THAT workplace.

It doesn't sound like he's thinking of people being employees of the union.

[(A)narcho-Matt]

He sounds very naive about unions, but also he is an "anarcho"-cap... Just explain that workers usually join unions, and organise because of issues in the workplace and that pay disputes are not the only form of dispute unions deal with. But even in un unionised workplaces workers can still organise.

[blake 3:17]

Now, as I'm fairly new to the politics of unions, I'm unsure who is more confused about trade unions, me or him?


Sounds like you both are.

Anarchocapitalists would be happy to hire strikebreakers, who'd just smash unions and kill, torture and disappear union activists. If a capitalist happens to be relatively benevolent (eg George Soros), they're still a capitalist and their basic interest in reproducing relations of exploitation and oppression.

As syndicat says there may be no openings in unionized workplaces -- does that mean the workers shouldn't unionize? Or that they wouldn't? The process of unionization isn't usually an easy one.


the workers joined a union because they felt that they had to, not because they were a static block of already unionised workers (...if this makes sense?).


Makes sense. Static membership breeds resignation, entitlement, and cynicism.

I've been a member of several unions. My worst experience was with the most powerful -- they'd been coasting on a very bureaucratic labour-management peace for a long time, with certain bargaining units treated very very well by management and other units (part timers especially) treated like junk by both management and the offcial union leadership. The part timers had significantly less rights as employees and members -- much lower wages, no benefits, no job security at all. The only thing we had in the collective agreement was the right to be paid. Full timers were also eligible for union book offs. For part timers, union work is on our dime and our time. Great eh?

Some on this board are pretty cynical about official unions. I think that's a mistake. For all their problems, unions are the best basic defense mechanism for workers.

[Tatarin]

Also, it should not be forgotten that unions is actively worked against in politics, so when a "perfect anarcho-cap society" is established, there wouldn't be any unions. On the other hand, the world would look much more desperate at that situation, so they can go ahead and celebrate their anarcho-cap system for 1 hour before people change it.

[AntiFASH]

Anarchocapitalists would be happy to hire strikebreakers, who'd just smash unions and kill, torture and disappear union activists.

This is pretty much it. My understanding of "anarcho"-capitalist doctrine is that they want the abolition of any type of regulation. The anarcho-capitalist would hold that the NLRB, OSHA, and Weingarten are negative because they are 'artificial' regulators of 'free' markets. Granted I'm kinda new at this, please correct me if I'm wrong.

Now, trust me, politics and unions are the very definition of clusterfuck. Often as not, some of the heavy hitters in the AFL-CIO will pay lip service to progressive/socialist goals and programs. But, these guys will change their tune in a heartbeat. This is partly because the AFL-CIO is as much a part of the bureaucratic mess governing labor policy, if they lose their bureaucracy, they lose their purpose.



I've been a member of several unions. My worst experience was with the most powerful -- they'd been coasting on a very bureaucratic labour-management peace for a long time, with certain bargaining units treated very very well by management and other units (part timers especially) treated like junk by both management and the offcial union leadership..

I've experienced this too. Often as not, the major players in a given labor scene are there to enforce their own conservative policies. These guys could give a fuck about workplace democracy, they're just trying to keep their little rackets. Seniority complicates this big time. Teamsters are famous for these pay-to-play schemes.

Workers try to join unions for a whole host of issues. Most of the time, workers will only try to unionize because of extremely egregious offenses by the management. We're talking institutionalized sexual harassment, blatant disregard for safe workplaces, refusal to pay minimum wage, etc. Organizing your workplace is a MAJOR PAIN, the NLRB sucks as a mediator. They are so damn bureaucratic that it could take years for your claims to make it up to arbitration. Then when you finally get your day, you'll probably get cut down on some technicality. Labor law is so fucking impotent in the U.S. at least. I'm sure that you guys in the U.K. have been taking it in the eye ever since Margie Thatcher.

If I were you, I'd mention to this joker that his Ayn Rand fantasy can't include unions because the very nature of capitalism requires that you have a politically and economically powerless underclass. A union represents the concerted effort of the underclass to end the economic injustices that must exist to keep them in their place. If workers in his little jerk-off world were to organize, he'd have to slaughter them to stay competitive.


On a side note, anarcho-capitalists would probably love to see a resurgence in eugenics theory. At least they'd have a 'scientific' justification for their bigoted practices.