Trade Unionism and Cuba

[Bud Struggle]

Isn't there something wrong with a country that doesn't permit the IWW or any other union to operate except the one "owned" by the state? At least Capitalists allow unions to exist.

From the International Conferderation of Free Trade Unions:

There was no change in Cuba as the government continued its persecution of independent trade unionists. The long promised reform of the island’s labour legislation has still not materialised.

The legislation

No freedom of association

The Cuban authorities only recognise a single national trade union centre, the Confederación de Trabajadores Cubanos (CTC), heavily controlled by the State and the Communist Party which appoints its leaders. Membership is compulsory for all workers. Before a worker can be hired they have to sign a contract in which they promise to support the Communist Party and all it represents. The government explicitly prohibits independent trade unions.

No collective bargaining

Collective bargaining does not exist. The State controls the employment market and decides on pay and working conditions in the state sector. In the private sector, the 1995 Foreign Investment Law requires foreign investors to contract workers through state employment agencies. The investors pay the agencies in dollars, but the agencies pay the workers the equivalent figure in pesos, pocketing up to 95% of their salaries. Workers have to undergo a political investigation by the State before they can be hired.

The right to strike is not authorised by law and is totally non-existent.

http://www.icftu.org/displaydocument.asp?Index=991215640&Language=EN

[ls]

Regardless of what trade unions are like in Cuba, the ICFTU probably oppresses workers far more than any state-run Cuban trade union could, it's worth bearing that in mind before you spout your crap.

In general, trade unions except for syndicalist ones are always against the interests of workers and even the syndicalist ones have a tendency to easily degenerate into anti-worker organisations, so your post fails for multiple reasons. :cool:

[Bud Struggle]

Regardless of what trade unions are like in Cuba, the ICFTU probably oppresses workers far more than any state-run Cuban trade union could, it's worth bearing that in mind before you spout your crap.

In general, trade unions except for syndicalist ones are always against the interests of workers and even the syndicalist ones have a tendency to easily degenerate into anti-worker organisations, so your post fails for multiple reasons. :cool:

Oh. So only certain unions are "worthy."

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_YntY1kyKo4o/SoyswanbudI/AAAAAAAAIy4/eCpjH1Wj62M/s320/notworthy.jpg



The rest we fight! :cursing:

[ls]

Yep, though in certain conditions it's better to be unionised with fairly anti-worker official trade unions than to not be unionised at all, nonetheless it's always important that workers fight their own battles and self-organise (even if that means going directly against, as well as fighting a union). I'm sure you want workers to blindly put their faith in and be servants to the unions and employers in equal measure, but fortunately a lot of workers are smarter than that. ;)

[Bud Struggle]

So, can the IWW organize in Cuba?

[ls]

Dunno, I'm no expert on Cuba; but I know that American communists in the USA faced militiamen with guns pointed at their faces when they tried to organise the IWW in the 1900s:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9D0DE2DF1F39EF3ABC4E51DFB6678389 639EDE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_union_busting_in_the_United_States etc etc.

[Bud Struggle]

Dunno, I'm no expert on Cuba; but I know that American communists in the USA faced militiamen with guns pointed at their faces when they tried to organise the IWW in the 1900s:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9D0DE2DF1F39EF3ABC4E51DFB6678389 639EDE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_union_busting_in_the_United_States etc etc.

Thanks for the ride with Mr. Peabody on the WayBack Machine but here's what's going on in Cuba today:

Despite disclaimers in international forums, the Cuban Government explicitly prohibits independent unions and agricultural cooperatives and none are recognized. Workers who attempt to engage in non-governmental union activities face government harassment and persecution. Workers can and have lost their jobs for their political beliefs, including their refusal to join the official union. Several small, independent labor organizations have been formed but function without legal recognition and are unable to represent workers effectively. The government actively harasses these organizations. The International Labor Organization (ILO) has highlighted violations in the area of employment practices and labor relations. In particular, the ILO's Committee of Experts on the Applications of Conventions and Recommendations and the International Society for Human Rights have documented violations with regard to Convention III concerning Discrimination in respect to Employment and Occupation, Convention No. 87 concerning Freedom to form Labor Organizations, and Convention No. 98 related to the right to unionize and engage in collective bargaining.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/cuba/4889.htm

[ls]

I wouldn't particularly trust that, it's bound to be full or pro-Western crap, globalsecurity is altogether and the western hemisphere affairs thing there just sounds.. completely biased, so erm, no thanks.

Wikipedia's bias is likely to be against communists, also it has citations if you check that link, furthermore the NY Times is indisputable as a source in the context in which I've quoted it.

[Bud Struggle]

I wouldn't particularly trust that, it's bound to be full or pro-Western crap, globalsecurity is altogether and the western hemisphere affairs thing there just sounds.. completely biased, so erm, no thanks.

Wikipedia's bias is likely to be against communists, also it has citations if you check that link, furthermore the NY Times is indisputable as a source in the context in which I've quoted it.

You have a point here and I'm not trying to be unfair. But it seems that if Unions aren't outlawed in Capitalist countries--why should they be outlawed in Socialist countries?

And I'm not discounting your quote of the NYTimes--it's just that it's 100 years old. Things in the US have changed.

[Bright Banana Beard]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity

This is an example when you let the trade union being independent, this is why trade union should be under the control of the Communist Party. The Solidarity get their fund via Catholic Church.

[RGacky3]

Regardless of what trade unions are like in Cuba, the ICFTU probably oppresses workers far more than any state-run Cuban trade union could, it's worth bearing that in mind before you spout your crap.

In general, trade unions except for syndicalist ones are always against the interests of workers and even the syndicalist ones have a tendency to easily degenerate into anti-worker organisations, so your post fails for multiple reasons. :cool:


No they don't, thats a vast over statement, many unions, even non-synidcalist ones, do very good things, and are generally democratic, the unions that become less democratic are the ones that become buisiness, the ideology or the unoin does'nt really matter so much, the amount of democracy does.


Isn't there something wrong with a country that doesn't permit the IWW or any other union to operate except the one "owned" by the state? At least Capitalists allow unions to exist.


Yes there is, I completely agree, however in practice, Cubas system is much better for workers than the Capitalist system, but I agree with you, its not real socialism.

BTW, Capitalists (in practice) no not allow unions to exist, or do their best to prevent them.

[Bud Struggle]

Yes there is, I completely agree, however in practice, Cubas system is much better for workers than the Capitalist system, In practice the system may be better but that's only because Fidel lets it be so. There is no real 'rights" for the worker. In Capitalist societies the workers and the unions have earned (through their own efforts) real, substantial rights codified in law.


BTW, Capitalists (in practice) no not allow unions to exist, or do their best to prevent them. True, Capitalists themselves try to prevent unions, but a Democratic society based on Capitalism has its largest percent of the population that are not practicing Capitalists themselves and they have won their rights and now enjoy them. Socialist society can't tolerate that sort of diversity.

[RGacky3]

In practice the system may be better but that's only because Fidel lets it be so. There is no real 'rights" for the worker. In Capitalist societies the workers and the unions have earned (through their own efforts) real, substantial rights codified in law.

Thats right, I compleatly agree with you, no thanks to Capitalist societies, all thanks to workers efforts.

Now as for Fidel I also agree with you, but the reason its like that is because the workers have (for the most part, and foolishly I would like to add) put their trust in Fidel, and for the most part, Fidel has turned out to be genuine in his goodwill, now, that could all change.


True, Capitalists themselves try to prevent unions, but a Democratic society based on Capitalism has its largest percent of the population that are not practicing Capitalists themselves and they have won their rights and now enjoy them. Socialist society can't tolerate that sort of diversity.

Its not a Democratic society, the United States, even amung Capitalist societies, is an extremely undemocratic society, if you don't think so, just look at public opinion vrs public policy, and then compare it to more social-democratic countries (where corporations have less power). Also as far as their rights, since the 90s those rights have been fading and fading away, as Capitalists have gotten more and more power and stripped them away from the workers.

A far as Socialist societies not tolerating diversity? What the hell are you talking about? What you mean to say is Dictatorial societies.

Also Cuba, is democratic in a sense, now then you could argue that its only democratic because Fidel allows it to be and thats a valid argument, but as far as actual community desicions, much more of them are actually made by the community.

But this is not at all proof that Capitalism is better than Socialism in any sense.

[The Idler]

Isn't there something wrong with a union that wants to introduce a free market with lower living standards and capital flight leading to a Polish unemployment rate of nearly 20%?

[syndicat]

In general, trade unions except for syndicalist ones are always against the interests of workers and even the syndicalist ones have a tendency to easily degenerate into anti-worker organisations

Talk about lying crap, this is such.

at the time of the revolution in Cuba, there were revolutionaries in a number of Cuba's unions, such as the Revolutionary Sugar Workers union, which was involved in the general strike that helped to bring down Batista. the Food Workers Union in Havana was predominantly anarcho-syndicalist, and the Transport Workers Union had Trotskyist leadership.

after the revolution the Cuban Workers Confederation was democratized. David Santiago, who had been head of the Revolutionary Sugar Workers, became the president of the newly re-organized CTC. he was part of the "humanist" tendency that was dominant in the unions at that time.

But Fidel & his entourage insisted on putting Communist Party people in official leadership of the union federation. Due to various disagreements he had with the Cuban Communists, David Santiago was given a very long prison sentence. The Trotskyists in the Transport Union were also thrown into prison. The anarcho-syndicalists in the food workers union fled to avoid the same fate.

you can read about this in Victor Alba's history of the labor movement in Latin America. (Victor Alba was a member of the POUM in Spain during the Spanish revolution and emigrated to Latin America after the fascists took over.)

There was no worker takeover of industry or workers' self-management instituted as part of the revolutionary process. Meanwhile, deals were worked out with some of the middle level officers of the old army, to preserve a conventional hierarchical army.

And so Cuba evolved into yet another dismal bureaucratic class dominated regime. but the Cuban leadership are more savvy than their counterparts in some of the other Communist governments. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, they developed new orientations in areas like organic agriculture, education and medical care, which have helped to sustain the acceptance of the system there.

The Cuban working class would need a revolution to throw off the current bureaucratic class regime, but nothing the USA does is likely to help this at all. The embargo only plays into the hands of the Communist leadership. It's an imperialist act on the part of the USA, which aims to dominate Cuba and re-vive capitalism there.

The problem with Bud's signature

The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." —Margaret Thatcher
is that the capitalists get all their money from the labor of the working class.

Of course, a lot of people make the mistake of supposing that "socialism" means "state control of the economy." But it doesn't mean that at all. States tend to work to the interests of the dominating classes. Workers would have to run things to have a more authentic socialism.

[Spartakiste]

In Cuba, there is no free union. The only one existing there is completely controlled by the State (the employer) and its only worry is to increase workers productivity.

Trust me, I know my share on the question...

[Green Dragon]

You have a point here and I'm not trying to be unfair. But it seems that if Unions aren't outlawed in Capitalist countries--why should they be outlawed in Socialist countries?

They aren't. As your note itself states, worker membership in a labor union is compulsory.

It should be borne in mind that a labor union in a capitalist community will function differently than a union in a socialist one. The former, it represents the workers against the owners. But in the latter, the workers ARE the owners. How could a union represent itself against itself (its also why strikes are illegal in socialist communities. It makes no sense to strike against yourself)? The role of the union takes on a different hue.

But as Gacky confirmed, the workers support Castro, so it is all very democratic and quite reasonable for a socialist community.

[scarletghoul]

Your problem is that you see trade unions only in the way they exist under capitalism. In a socialist country like Cuba, the unions have a lot of state power. So making sure that workers are all in this state union confederation is in fact a measure of safeguarding workers' power over the state, rather than the other way round. Its also why they dont do strikes and stuff; there is no need because they have the power to make decisions without having to strike to persuade some boss guy.

And yeah independant unions obviously would be used as agents of counterrevolution and imperialism

[ls]

You have a point here and I'm not trying to be unfair. But it seems that if Unions aren't outlawed in Capitalist countries--why should they be outlawed in Socialist countries?

Like I say to syndicat, even in Lenin's time there were unions that attempted to purposefully support a counterrevolution, why shouldn't these be stopped from organising?


And I'm not discounting your quote of the NYTimes--it's just that it's 100 years old. Things in the US have changed.

Yes, the Norris-LaGuardia act got signed in, then it effectively got overruled by the Taft-Hartley act, I'm sure you know the implication involved because they benefit you as an employer.


TNo they don't, thats a vast over statement, many unions, even non-synidcalist ones, do very good things, and are generally democratic, the unions that become less democratic are the ones that become buisiness, the ideology or the unoin does'nt really matter so much, the amount of democracy does.

Nope, it's not an overstatement at all; are you one of these "anarchists" that regards the AFL-CIO and TUC (British AFL-CIO) as "democratic progressive socialist organisations"?

Seems like it, I think you're a bit of a sellout.


Talk about lying crap, this is such.

at the time of the revolution in Cuba, there were revolutionaries in a number of Cuba's unions, such as the Revolutionary Sugar Workers union, which was involved in the general strike that helped to bring down Batista. the Food Workers Union in Havana was predominantly anarcho-syndicalist, and the Transport Workers Union had Trotskyist leadership.

after the revolution the Cuban Workers Confederation was democratized. David Santiago, who had been head of the Revolutionary Sugar Workers, became the president of the newly re-organized CTC. he was part of the "humanist" tendency that was dominant in the unions at that time.

But Fidel & his entourage insisted on putting Communist Party people in official leadership of the union federation. Due to various disagreements he had with the Cuban Communists, David Santiago was given a very long prison sentence. The Trotskyists in the Transport Union were also thrown into prison. The anarcho-syndicalists in the food workers union fled to avoid the same fate.

Perhaps saying 'just syndicalist' was a bit misleading I'm not necessarily saying you're wrong about the 'Trotskyist union' that you talk about), but other than that there is nothing incorrect in my post to be honest.

Most unions are anti-worker, whether you have fallen for their illusion of 'democracy' or not, that goes for unions in every country, under every regime whether truly communist or not, even in Russia there were plenty of unions that were anti-worker and not at all 'democratic' in Lenin's time.

The fact that some anarchists "see the good side" of every union, labour organisation and stuff, no matter where they get their funding (in the case of Batay Ouvriye being funded by the AFL-CIO) or where their roots originate from, what policies they support being reactionary or if they have petit-bourgeois supporters - greatly surprises me and makes me wonder how these folks call themselves 'anarchists'..

[RGacky3]

Nope, it's not an overstatement at all; are you one of these "anarchists" that regards the AFL-CIO and TUC (British AFL-CIO) as "democratic progressive socialist organisations"?

Seems like it, I think you're a bit of a sellout.


I'm not saying they are, the are not socialist in the least, however, they have done positive things for workers they work for, things are not all black and white.

[los.barbaros.ganan]

Beside the union (I believe it's the CTRC but could be wrong), there are a lot of other massorganistions, like the FMC, the pioneros and of course the CDR's.

[Bud Struggle]

Your problem is that you see trade unions only in the way they exist under capitalism. In a socialist country like Cuba, the unions have a lot of state power. So making sure that workers are all in this state union confederation is in fact a measure of safeguarding workers' power over the state, rather than the other way round. Its also why they dont do strikes and stuff; there is no need because they have the power to make decisions without having to strike to persuade some boss guy.


Now if the Capitalists could learn to give this line to the Unions they would be all set. :D

[RGacky3]

If you could vote for the Capitalists, i.e. vote for your boss, yeah, there would be no need for unions, but that would be socialism.

[Glenn Beck]

Trade unions exist to mediate between workers and employers, they aren't a revolutionary agency in and of themselves and are only really relevant under a capitalist system with its separate class of owners. A syndicalist union is qualitatively different from a trade union insofar as the latter is an instrument of collective bargaining and the former is a framework for facilitating worker self-management.

Trade unions are redundant under a worker's state because the workers have representation in their particular industries as well as the state that runs the overall economy. A syndicalist union like the IWW would probably be just as redundant in Cuba which has a more or less socialist economy which the workers would be better served agitating within for greater representation rather than building a parallel syndicalist structure while fighting off the existing system.

In practice the representation and level of input enjoyed by workers in Cuba is far less than ideal for various historical, economic and political reasons. Probably the biggest factor is that when you are running an economy as underdeveloped and marginalized as Cuba's you need to pinch pennies and micromanage efficiency no matter what your intentions, inevitably something has to give and its a precarious balance. This goes a long way towards explaining the situation but it doesn't necessarily excuse it; a compromise could probably be reached by doing more to bring workers on board in the managing of the economy and budget rather than keeping them out of the loop to wonder how many goodies the people who do the budget planning are stashing out of sight. Still, there's always going to be a gap between the immediate interests of workers and the need for economic development. This is a problem unique to developing socialist countries because unlike capitalist countries they actually prioritize the interests and well-being of workers, rather than being solely fixated on profitability. Given that I don't see how an advocate of capitalism could possibly claim the moral high ground on this issue with a straight face while Cuba's capitalist equivalents subject their populations to malnutrition, illiteracy, and preventable disease.

If you want to criticize worker's rights in Cuba criticize that the representative bodies like the CDRs and the National Assembly are not working as they should. It distorts more than it clarifies to talk about trade unions as if the political and economic structure of Cuba were analogous to any given capitalist country.

[Bud Struggle]

Trade unions exist to mediate between workers and employers, they aren't a revolutionary agency in and of themselves and are only really relevant under a capitalist system with its separate class of owners. A syndicalist union is qualitatively different from a trade union insofar as the latter is an instrument of collective bargaining and the former is a framework for facilitating worker self-management. Well a union was relevant in Socialist Poland enough to bring the government down--I consider that pretty revelant.


Trade unions are redundant under a worker's state because the workers have representation in their particular industries as well as the state that runs the overall economy. A syndicalist union like the IWW would probably be just as redundant in Cuba which has a more or less socialist economy which the workers would be better served agitating within for greater representation rather than building a parallel syndicalist structure while fighting off the existing system. That's like saying that because a counry has democratic representation in government a union isn't needed. From my time in the IWW I learned that's a union is immediate to the specific workplace not to (though not excluding) national politics. A union represents workers in their WORKPLACE. A government Socialist or otherwise represents them in the political sphere.


In practice the representation and level of input enjoyed by workers in Cuba is far less than ideal for various historical, economic and political reasons. Probably the biggest factor is that when you are running an economy as underdeveloped and marginalized as Cuba's you need to pinch pennies and micromanage efficiency no matter what your intentions, inevitably something has to give and its a precarious balance. So until Socialits run their economy as profitable as Capitalists their economies will be inefficient and not have good worker representation?


This goes a long way towards explaining the situation but it doesn't necessarily excuse it; a compromise could probably be reached by doing more to bring workers on board in the managing of the economy and budget rather than keeping them out of the loop to wonder how many goodies the people who do the budget planning are stashing out of sight. That's fair.


Still, there's always going to be a gap between the immediate interests of workers and the need for economic development. That's why you need unions.



This is a problem unique to developing socialist countries because unlike capitalist countries they actually prioritize the interests and well-being of workers, rather than being solely fixated on profitability. They SHOULD prioritize the interests and well-being of workers. It doesn't mean they always do and that's why you need unions.


Given that I don't see how an advocate of capitalism could possibly claim the moral high ground on this issue with a straight face while Cuba's capitalist equivalents subject their populations to malnutrition, illiteracy, and preventable disease. Each Capitalist "does Capitalism" differently.


If you want to criticize worker's rights in Cuba criticize that the representative bodies like the CDRs and the National Assembly are not working as they should. It distorts more than it clarifies to talk about trade unions as if the political and economic structure of Cuba were analogous to any given capitalist country. I agree they should be criticized too.