Trade Unions today...Postitive or negative things?

[Palingenisis]

Most of my experiance of Trade Unions has been negative so there is a possiblity that I have allowed that to distort my objectivity on this question. Where I live (the "Free State" or the 26 counties of Ireland not under direct British occupation) the mainstream Unions have been part of so-called "Social Parternership" for as long as I can remember with the State and Employers though after the crash this has weakened. Effectively than their role was the same as that of the official Trade Unions in fascist Italy or under State-Capitalism. I find it impossible to see them as organs of working class independence. Also they are completely focused on the "labour aristocracy" and ignore the bulk of the class having it seems no interest in "organizing" us no mind defending migrant and "illegals" who are often horribly exploited. They seem to exist to smooth over the relationship between the Labour aristocracy (who arent going to be at forefront of a revolution anyways) and Capital ignoring the interests of the working class as whole both locally and more importantly globally.

The Independent Workers' Union however does seem to be both internationalist and pro-working class however the Trots and official left in general continue to fetishize and romanticize SIPTU and the others, almost like a mirror image of Left Communist dogmatism.

[Communist]

To Worker Struggles, from Theory.

Moved.

.

[tellyontellyon]

Read : "What is to be done."
By V.I. Lenin.

[Palingenisis]

Read : "What is to be done."
By V.I. Lenin.


Uh okay fair enough...But Im trying to discuss the Free State now and western Europe in General and not the 1910s...Things change...

[Absolut]

I think that the mainstream, reformist unions are beyond salvaging, and any attempt to try to turn them around is pretty much useless and wont result in anything but exhausted communists. That doesnt mean that unions and the idea of a union is useless. I think we should support any independent unions, that try to actually represent their members and puts forth a more radical (revolutionary would be to stretch it too far, I think, at least today) program. I think it would serve us much better, and I think its far more productive to try to present an alternative to the social democratic unions, than to try and change them.

[tellyontellyon]

The trade unions, such as they are, are still at base, working class movements. The problem is the right-wing bureaucrats at the top... and a lack of political consciousness among the rank and file.

Unions can and have been reclaimed by the working class base. To abandon the struggle in the trade unions and just start another trade union is to abandon the working class.
It is better to engage with the trade unions, go to meetings, become shop stewards and gradually build consciousness and trust. Ordinary working class people, by and large, don't realise what a shower of shit many of the trade union leaders are.. and even fewer know much about real revolutionary socialism.

E.g. in the U.K. raising the question of what exactly trade unions get out of paying millions to the UK labour party is striking a chord with many workers.... but this takes time and hard work... Though the labile economic times are helping workers to open their eyes to what is going on.

Simply starting a new union, waving a flag and shouting 'join the revolution' isn't going to work. Much better to go to the picket lines and build up a relationship with the workers, get to understand their needs and worries, and gradually engage with them and connect their problems with the general problems of capitalism and the need for a wider political movement and socialist solutions.

[Bitter Ashes]

Grassroots organising within the unions could pay off bigtime. Yes, politically and on a larger scale with industrial relations they're complete sell outs, but that's only because they've got a top down leadership, just like with a buisness.

However, there is the oportunity for reform there because there's a critical difference to most organisations. Union are not financed by the bourgeois, but directly from the working class. With suffiecent organising within the unions, the leadership would have to start working for its members, or step down and become synicalated because it won't get money from anything other than happy members. Sure, the leaders always get thier back handers from employers, but the employers only keep paying if dont think that the rank and file are obediant to the leadership selling them out.

So, that's the option open to workers. Join an existing syndicalated union liek the Wobblies, or FAU, or CNT, etc, or push for radical reforms within the union with the rank and file. There's pros and cons to both.

If you really want to do something for the union members then show the rank and file that there is alternatives and get them to do something. Don't accept that crappy compromise of "electing new leaders" because we've been there a thousand times and been betrayed a thousand and one times. One thing is for certain here, just like with a lot of other things, sitting on your arse and thinking that all you need to do is cast your vote at the ballot box is only going to give a green light to the establishment that you agree with the current way of doing things.

Agitate - Show the rank and file that they're bieng sold out
Educate - Teach the rank and file that there are alternatives to bieng sold out that doesnt put them at the mercy of employers
Organise - Get the rank and file together to start putting pressure on thier leaders to either change, or leave the union to the rank and file.

[Leo]

The Independent Workers' Union however does seem to be both internationalist and pro-working class however the Trots and official left in general continue to fetishize and romanticize SIPTU and the others, almost like a mirror image of Left Communist dogmatism.

Well, I don't know much about the IWU, although according to wiki they have 1,000 members while the ICTU has 600,000. If this group is "red" as you are speaking, its not really a trade-union in any meaningful sense, one would have to say. Are the numbers accurate? How influential is the IWU? How many shops and all do they have? Are they engaged in any actual bargaining? Looking at their website, my first impression is that they are more of a vaguely leftist NGO rather than an actual trade-union, having "organizing protests" as its main activity.

[The Grey Blur]

Man I genuinely recommend you read some "trot" literature on the trade unions, and the work the socialist party has done within and without them. As rotten as the bureaucracy can be, they are still organs of working class organisation - only the anarchists and ultra-left think you can create some untarnished independent union which will magically attract all the workers. There is a dialectical relationship (not one of linear cause-and-effect) between the rank-and-file and the leaders of the union movements. As the workers become more radicalised, the leaders are pushed to the left, and a radical leadership can re-enforce the confidence of the rank-and-file. What socialists push for in the unions is for democratisation (electable not appointed reps, right to recall, etc), to push for better organisation/militancy, to push for a repeal of the anti-union laws. In fact with regards to immigrant workers the SP did some sterling work with Turkish immigrant construction workers a while back (GAMA was it?), they even made a brief film on it that is worth checking out.

I can tell you as someone coming from Belfast that I was originally in your position, I greatly sympathised with and to an extent romanticised the armed struggle, but the more I learned and read the more I realised the correctness of a Marxist viewpoint. The armed struggle was an understandable reaction of the catholic working class to the abuses of imperialism, SF/IRSP had and still do have good members and I'll argue with any sectarian trotskyist who says differently, but you won't ever solve anything, you won't ever have a clear outlook until you adopt a scientific outlook - the working classes, whether protestant or catholic are the only truly revolutionary class in Ireland and in society in general. Not a self-appointed armed group nor some phantasmagorical pure & revolutionary trade union. The class struggle is at first always a demand for bread, it's through practice and action (as well as objective conditions) that the working classes realise its revolutionary role and the necessity for a fundamental break with capitalism. Social partnership is discredited, the only difference is whether you make this point within a union with a fighting example or from the outside lecturing in.

And yeah, as was suggested above, read some Lenin or Trotsky or even Marx (or even Connolly or Larkin!) ("the communist does not set up its own organisations outside of the mass organs of the working class"). That stuff will only be irrelevant when capitalism is finished, til then it's timeless. Anyway I'm quite tired and I may contradict myself at points, not to mention that emphasising genuine marxism seems to be a bit of a lost cause on revleft at times, but I hope you take something from my post and if you want send me a PM and we can discuss it further.

[chimx]

I'm a member of the united union of roofers, waterproofers, and allied workers. My experience with that union has been entirely positive. Participation in committees is completely voluntary and open to the entire body. This past year I took an active role in contract negotiations and the raising of dues. It's extremely democratic and very participatory. The biggest road block we have to deal with is getting our members actively involved with the union. They have culturally become institutionalized, and I am not really sure the best way of battling that kind of apathy towards collective bargaining.

On the other hand my girlfriend is a union RN, member of the SEIU, and has had horrible luck with that union. It is significantly less participatory than my construction union, and seems to be organized in a more top-down manner. But to say that they are "negative" is still pretty silly. We have better wages and better benefits because of our ability to collectively bargain, even in such an organization.

[Palingenisis]

Well, I don't know much about the IWU, although according to wiki they have 1,000 members while the ICTU has 600,000. If this group is "red" as you are speaking, its not really a trade-union in any meaningful sense, one would have to say. Are the numbers accurate? How influential is the IWU? How many shops and all do they have? Are they engaged in any actual bargaining? Looking at their website, my first impression is that they are more of a vaguely leftist NGO rather than an actual trade-union, having "organizing protests" as its main activity.

Most of their activity seems to be helping people bring law suits for mistreatment, unfair dismissal, etc using the current regulations that bosses' ofthen ignore. They do seem small but you have start somewhere. Eirigi misses the point that majior Trade Unions in Ireland are completely uninterested in organizing private sector and especially low paid workers. There is no point in saying Lenin or whoever said such and such therefore it must be right , using Marxist texts as born agains use the Bible. Conditions here are very different to those of late 19 th and early 20 the century Russia.

[RED DAVE]

I have been a member of five different unions and been involved in rank-and-file work in three of them. My experience is that there is no substitute for rank and file organizing. Even during the most fallow periods of the Left in the US, in the 80s and 90s, those working class groups that were established in the 70s, like TDU in the Teamsters Union, were able to stay active and relevant.

An anarchist position of trying to build simon-pure unions like the IWW or trying to build "revolutionary" unions as alternatives, is futile. Yes, I know that union work is often boring and unglamorous. (Is there anything more tedious than, after work, having to sit through a treasurer's report?) But remember, that unions are the only line of defense of the working class against capitalism. Even during a revolutionary period, the unions, captured by the rank and file, will play a major role.

Let me illustrate my point about trade union functioning.

In the early 60s, in New York, there was a major organizing drive by a left-wing (former Communist) led union, Local 1199, to organize the workers in the charity hospitals. In a city as large as New York, these hospitals are huge, with thousands of workers, the work is industrially organized and many, if not a majority, of the workers were minorities and women. This drive was considered so important that the Central Labor Council of the City, then under white, male, Catholic leadership, made an alliance with the Civil Rights Movement (including some very young socialists, who were given union membership) to win the struggle. I can vividly remember Saturdays, in the spring and early summer of '62, when mass picketing took place by dozens of unions at the gates of one of the main targets, a hospital in the ghetto in Brooklyn. Comrades, if you have never seen a mass labor demonstration and experienced the power of the united working class, you ain't lived! Hopefully, you will, soon.

Another example, less dramatic. In 1976, I attended, as a delegate from the New York local, the biannual convention of the National Association of Letter Carriers in Houston. At the beginning of the convention, which lasted about a week, the delegates, were given a book of the resolutions that were up for consideration, plus resolutions could be introduced, easily, from the floor. At one point the union president, a conservative chap from the Midwest, said, casually, from the podium, but with obvious pride, that the Letter Carriers' convention, at which over 5000 delegates were conducting business, was the largest democratic body in the world.

'Nuff said.

RED DAVE

[chimx]

@red dave: what in your experience is the best way to battle the institutionalization of trade unions and increase membership involvement.

[The Grey Blur]

Most of their activity seems to be helping people bring law suits for mistreatment, unfair dismissal, etc using the current regulations that bosses' ofthen ignore. They do seem small but you have start somewhere. Eirigi misses the point that majior Trade Unions in Ireland are completely uninterested in organizing private sector and especially low paid workers. There is no point in saying Lenin or whoever said such and such therefore it must be right , using Marxist texts as born agains use the Bible. Conditions here are very different to those of late 19 th and early 20 the century Russia.
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/77562 - read this, it's about GAMA and the work the SP did with SIPTU to organise the Turkish workers who were being super-exploited.

If you read anything by the SP or any serious left group in Ireland within the unions they call for a push to organise private sector workers, casual workers etc - the bureaucracy doesn't want this for obvious reasons and that's why it is resisted not because unions in Ireland are inherently flawed. And to refer to a 'labour aristocracy' is a very dangerous term - especially if used in some quasi-Maoist sense that writes off the western working class. Who exactly are the labour aristocracy in your view? The traditional labour aristocracy in the western world in terms of skilled engineers etc is actually being eroded, and if you mean middle-to-low civil servants then you're siding with the right-wing papers who attacked public service 'fat cat' workers who went on strike. It is in all workers interest to push for greater organisation of private workers, the main weakness of the recent strikes was the lack of any real mobilisation of the private sector which the SP and other left groups would openly acknowledge.

Lenin etc aren't a "bible", marxism isn't a religion. But I recommend you read them since the very questions you're asking (are the unions actually of any use? labour aristocracy etc) are dealt with a long time ago. It's a bit weak to say Marx or Lenin aren't relevant when we've just experienced one of the most massive capitalist crisis in its history which can only be genuinely explained with a marxist outlook. Essentially I disagree with your signature "the ideas of republican socialism are interchangeable with ideologies such as marxism", marxism isn't an ideology it's a scientific understanding of society, any 'socialism' without marxism is sentimentality or utopianism.

[RED DAVE]

@red dave: what in your experience is the best way to battle the institutionalization of trade unions and increase membership involvement.Building a rank and file movement that fights for a progressive program inside the union and for union democracy.

The various publications of Labor Notes (http://www.labornotes.org/) are a good place to start.

RED DAVE

[chimx]

My union is extremely democratic. The program of the locals is as progressive as those involved with the union want to make it. The biggest barrier I see to organizing though is that unions have become as institutionalized as the ballot box. Almost all of my union brothers view "paying their dues" as a replacement for involvement. At the same time the non-union sectors continue to grow. We need the membership to take a pro-active role in their unions, work to organize shops, attend rallies, etc., but instead I always essentially hear, "i paid my dues, i've done my duty".

I don't know if it is apathy or cynicism, but it makes union organization extremely difficult.

[RED DAVE]

My union is extremely democratic. The program of the locals is as progressive as those involved with the union want to make it. The biggest barrier I see to organizing though is that unions have become as institutionalized as the ballot box. Almost all of my union brothers view "paying their dues" as a replacement for involvement. At the same time the non-union sectors continue to grow. We need the membership to take a pro-active role in their unions, work to organize shops, attend rallies, etc., but instead I always essentially hear, "i paid my dues, i've done my duty".

I don't know if it is apathy or cynicism, but it makes union organization extremely difficult.It's apathy, cynicism and host of other "reasons." And it is "extremely difficult" and time consuming. However, it's the fundamental work that Marxists have to do. If you and your comrades and brothers and sisters have a consistent history of militancy, when the larger class struggle begins to heat up, you be recognized and organizing will become easier.

RED DAVE

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Trade Unions are not in their members hands which of course is terrible but we cannot discount them as places to conduct organisation and struggles because of this. Unions are working class organisations no matter how reformist they are. Agitating inside of these unions is essential to our struggle and the creation of future revolutionary organs in a time of higher class consciousness.

[Madvillainy]

Unions against the working class:

http://www.en.internationalism.org/pamphlets/unions_intro1976.htm

[RED DAVE]

Unions against the working class:

http://www.en.internationalism.org/pamphlets/unions_intro1976.htmDo you support the political thrust of this document?

RED DAVE

[Palingenisis]

Do you support the political thrust of this document?

RED DAVE

Me? No...I think Left-Communists are far to over idealistic and purist but at the same time I dont think that their ideas just come out of thin air and its worth examing their arguments. I think the Trotskyite ideas about Unions and Social-Democratic parties is also idealistic.

[Madvillainy]

Do you support the political thrust of this document?

RED DAVE

Yes sir. I believe all unions have been integrated into the capitalist state, making it impossible for them to defend the working class and also making it impossible for us to work through them.

[chimx]

do you know that through personal experience or because you read a book once?

[Madvillainy]

Well I suppose I could say my anti-union sentiments were brought about by my own personal experience with unions, but what ultimately shaped my views on the union question was the experience of the working class, which has seen the unions become part of the state and saboteurs of the class struggle.

[Palingenisis]

do you know that through personal experience or because you read a book once?

It fits in with my personal experiance of Trade Unions; Eirigi makes a big deal about an acception as if it proves a rule, however the fact that people made such a big deal about what Trade Unions are supposed to be doing by their very nature according to the Trots and other liberals really says something. What he points to of course happened despite and not because of the current structures of Trade Unions in the 26 counties. You can say go to where the workers are...But his group was part of a party that supported a vicious Imperialist war in my country which tells me all I need to know about his "Marxism"...Also one of their leaders offered to tout on the television on those involved in defending fellow proles from the police during the "Poll Tax" riots...Its important I think to look at who is saying something and not just what they are saying.

[RED DAVE]

Well I suppose I could say my anti-union sentiments were brought about by my own personal experience with unions, but what ultimately shaped my views on the union question was the experience of the working class, which has seen the unions become part of the state and saboteurs of the class struggle.Several important points here.

(1) Most of us have had negative experiences with unions; however, not all have become "anti-union." Frustration, sadness, rage, etc., are all part of the experience of being inside the working class, in the unions, especially over the past 30 years. But to turn anti-union to me is bizarre. My personal experience has been all the negativity I mentioned above, plus a real notion of the strength of workers when organized.

(2) Now, if you're talking about the experience of the working class as a class, that's another story. Here, the experience has been mixed to terrible. The leadership of the unions has been worth shit for decades, but unions themselves, yes it is possible to detach unions from their leadership, remain the only organization capable of fighting for the working class. Unless, of course, you believe what the ICC link tells us: that union victories are some kind of con game.

(3) There is no evidence that unions are integrated into the ruling class structure, that they are part of the state. There is no doubt as to the reactionary nature of the current working class leadership, but that's not what the pamphlet is talking about: it's addressing unions per se.

Much more to say about this crucial issue. I will insist, and demonstrate, that to abandon the struggle in the unions and the struggle to transform the unions is an extremely unfortunate form of ultra-leftism. There are also serious distortions of fact concerning the history of unions in the ICC link.

RED DAVE

[Palingenisis]

(3) There is no evidence that unions are integrated into the ruling class structure, that they are part of the state. There is no doubt as to the reactionary nature of the current working class leadership, but that's not what the pamphlet is talking about: it's addressing unions per se.

Much more to say about this crucial issue. I will insist, and demonstrate, that to abandon the struggle in the unions and the struggle to transform the unions is an extremely unfortunate form of ultra-leftism. There are also serious distortions of fact concerning the history of unions in the ICC link.

RED DAVE

Though it is near to collasping there is evidence of trade unions in the 26 counties being such.

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

[RED DAVE]

Though it is near to collasping there is evidence of trade unions in the 26 counties being such.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_PartnershipComrade, you are confusing a form of class collaboration, with integration into the state. Please note that the link you've provided states that the agreement is "voluntary."

Even if it weren't, it would be an indication the state using the unions not the unions being part of the state. Think of the difference between the agreements in the link and a ministry of labor. The unions do not have to be part of thse agreements. A ministry cannot leave the state of which it is a part.

RED DAVE

[Palingenisis]

Comrade, you are confusing a form of class collaboration, with integration into the state. Please note that the link you've provided states that the agreement is "voluntary."

Even if it weren't, it would be an indication the state using the unions not the unions being part of the state. Think of the difference between the agreements in the link and a ministry of labor. The unions do not have to be part of thse agreements. A ministry cannot leave the state of which it is a part.

RED DAVE

Okay...But the fact is they were working together very closely and happily over saw a situation which has been a disaster for the working class. I am not coming from a idealogical position that "trade unions are anti-working class" and trying to make the facts support that...I am talking about the reality of a situation in one country. Okay they didnt have to be part of that agreement the fact is that they happily were and behaved as if they were officially and totally a part of the state.This has to be taken on board.

[Lyev]

The following is probably only applicable to the UK, but can we use this thread as an opportunity to go through the present anti-trade union laws. However, these things might be similar or loosely applicable to other countries. in answer to the OP, I think these laws might make trade union activity null and void in certain cases. Have any UK comrades come across these, or been inhibited by these?


The 1980 Employment Act

Abolished trade union recognition rights and restricted picket line numbers to only six.
Made solidarity action illegal.
Severely restricted the closed shop, which now had to be approved by 85% of the workforce.

The 1982 Employment Act


Introduced an extremely limited notion of a 'trade dispute' which when coupled with the 1980 Act, outlawed most forms of solidarity action including international solidarity with workers who are employed by the same multinational companies - one of many precursors to the rapid progress of globalised capital that we are witness to today.
Limited the definition of a legal strike whereby workers could only take action against their immediate employer. A strike had to be wholly related to pay and conditions, dismissals, redundancies, sackings, disciplinaries or union membership. Workers could not strike for political reasons.
Made trade unions legally liable to pay disabling damages from strikes. Fines of up to £250,000 could be charged. If fines were not paid, the union's entire funds could be sequestrated.

The 1984 Trade Union Act


Made it illegal to strike without a ballot and ordered unions to instruct their members that they are breaking their contract of employment if they vote in favour of strike action.
Imposed on unions a ten-yearly ballot to decide whether to have a political fund ie. whether union money could be spent on political campaigning and affiliation

The 1988 Employment Act


Imposed postal ballots - as against workplace or branch meetings - to decide on union executive elections or decisions on political funds (even though workplace ballots get a higher rate of participation).
Made it illegal for unions to expel or discipline members who refuse to participate in industrial action after a legal ballot.

The 1989 Employment Act


Restricted time off for trade union reps.
Introduced a pre-hearing assessment for industrial tribunals to scrutinise the validity of any applicant's case.

The 1990 Employment Act


Made pre-entry closed shops illegal, resulting in a gradual erosion of trade union membership.
Held trade unions financially responsible for walk-outs and unofficial action unless they publicly disowned a dispute.
Allowed the sacking of stewards and key union members involved in unofficial action.
Made all secondary action illegal.

The 1993 Employment Act


Introduced a minimum six-week delay between the decision to ballot and the date of any industrial action.
Required that members give written confirmation that they want their union dues automatically deducted from their wage packets.
Gave people the right to sue unions if industrial action 'damages' them.
Abolished wages councils which previously had afforded some protection to workers in some sectors.

A quick question, in this context, what exactly does "solidarity" mean? By the way, here's the original source: http://www.workersliberty.org/node/2229

[The Grey Blur]

It fits in with my personal experiance of Trade Unions; Eirigi makes a big deal about an acception as if it proves a rule, however the fact that people made such a big deal about what Trade Unions are supposed to be doing by their very nature according to the Trots and other liberals really says something. What he points to of course happened despite and not because of the current structures of Trade Unions in the 26 counties. You can say go to where the workers are...But his group was part of a party that supported a vicious Imperialist war in my country which tells me all I need to know about his "Marxism"...Also one of their leaders offered to tout on the television on those involved in defending fellow proles from the police during the "Poll Tax" riots...Its important I think to look at who is saying something and not just what they are saying.
Jesus boy you are a mad sectarian. I'm not a member of the Irish SP, I disagree with elements of their approach to the armed struggle (though I fundamentally agree that individual terrorism isn't a useful tactic) and other issues. Luckily not all IRSM folk are as sectarian as you...read Gerry Ruddy's recent stuff on marxist.com and then tell me trots are idealistic etcetc. The outlook of the serious elements of the IRSM (ie those who don't just exist in cyberspace) contradict your own ultra-left line. I'll recommend for the last time you read some Lenin or Marx or Connolly and educate yourself, you'll learn nothing on revleft.

http://www.marxist.com/ireland-red-plough-editorial-8-march.htm

The question of trade unions is a fundamental one for marxists, you're the one with an idealistic view if you fail to recognise the inner contradictions involved in unions (the objective conditions, the strength of the left within them, inner democracy) and how that affects how marxists orientate towards and work within them. So I offer you a fair example of the bourgeois unions being pushed to defend migrant workers and you dismiss it as an 'exception' and the work of a sect. I'm sure you think the Russian, German and Spanish revolutions were an 'exception' then too. If only a few lads with balaclavas and AK-47s could take the place of the organised working class eh? :rolleyes:

[Palingenisis]

Im sympathtic to the IRSP but not a member...what do you mean by sectarian? My family is protestant mostly if that means anything (which I dont think it should)...

[The Grey Blur]

Okay...But the fact is they were working together very closely and happily over saw a situation which has been a disaster for the working class. I am not coming from a idealogical position that "trade unions are anti-working class" and trying to make the facts support that...I am talking about the reality of a situation in one country. Okay they didnt have to be part of that agreement the fact is that they happily were and behaved as if they were officially and totally a part of the state.This has to be taken on board.
You seem to have difficulty reconciling the idea that the bureaucrats and union fatcats =/= the rank and file. All around the world the right-wing at the head of the unions reconciled to capitalism during the boom years, the point is that now they are being pushed to the left again by a mobilisation of the rank&file and rising militancy. The statements of Irish union leaders during the recent strike wave, calls of union leaders in the US for a 'revolution' are a perfect example of this. Unions are fundamentally organs of the working class, they are the weapon of the working class, armed struggle or an ultra-left tiny union can never replace the power of the organised working class. There is a dialectical relationship between objective conditions, the rank & file and the union leadership...everything is a process and nothing is set in stone, the idea of 'social partnership' is discredited as workers see that the effects of the crisis are not shared as between 'partners'.

This isn't something new either - look at the Social Democrats in Europe pre and during WW1 - heads of massive working-class parties they reconciled to capitalism and supported the war! One of the most disgusting political crimes ever committed. The degeneration of the leadership, reformist tendencies whether in the parties or unions of the working class isn't something new and terrifying or unique to Ireland. Read up on your history, it's the fundamental outlook of the priveliged caste of worker's leaders who dispense of a revolutionary marxist perspective...Marx even described it in his own time when the working class was still relatively young. The problem is whether to debate with reformists and class-collaborationists in front of the mass of the working class or from outside the unions shouting in.


what do you mean by sectarian?I don't mean religious sects, I mean political sects. The sort of people who attack a political organisations' supposed failings rather than debate the issue at hand...especially when the person they're debating isn't even a member of the group you attack.

[Palingenisis]

. I'm sure you think the Russian, German and Spanish revolutions were an 'exception' then too. If only a few lads with balaclavas and AK-47s could take the place of the organised working class eh? :rolleyes:

The left Communist critque of Trade-Unions came out of the German revolution/civil-war which is the reason it should not dismissed be lightly...Id dont agree with them but at the same time I can understand where they are coming from. What happened in Spain illustrates the limits of sydnicalism if nothing does, however that is a very complex issue...Your last commrent is just cheap thrills...I never said that....But whatever...

[The Grey Blur]

Im sympathtic to the IRSP but not a member...what do you mean by sectarian? My family is protestant mostly if that means anything (which I dont think it should)...


The left Communist critque of Trade-Unions came out of the German revolution/civil-war which is the reason it should not dismissed be lightly...Id dont agree with them but at the same time I can understand where they are coming from. What happened in Spain illustrates the limits of sydnicalism if nothing does, however that is a very complex issue...Your last commrent is just cheap thrills...I never said that....But whatever...
I was emphasising that things like the GAMA organisation of workers are smaller parts of a constant struggle to propagate the class struggle and win workers to socialism, a struggle which finally culminates in events like Germany, Russia, Spain. It's the ideas of Leon Trotsky, of Marx etc; you won't achieve anything by shouting about revolution outside the unions, you win workers to a socialist perspective by showing leadership within their mass organisations (parties or unions).

I apologise for the last comment, but I've met enough cyber-dwelling folk with a hard-on for the Irish armed struggle that one ends up quite defensive...

[Bitter Ashes]

The 1980 Employment Act

Abolished trade union recognition rights and restricted picket line numbers to only six.
Made solidarity action illegal.
Severely restricted the closed shop, which now had to be approved by 85% of the workforce.

The 1982 Employment Act


Introduced an extremely limited notion of a 'trade dispute' which when coupled with the 1980 Act, outlawed most forms of solidarity action including international solidarity with workers who are employed by the same multinational companies - one of many precursors to the rapid progress of globalised capital that we are witness to today.
Limited the definition of a legal strike whereby workers could only take action against their immediate employer. A strike had to be wholly related to pay and conditions, dismissals, redundancies, sackings, disciplinaries or union membership. Workers could not strike for political reasons.
Made trade unions legally liable to pay disabling damages from strikes. Fines of up to £250,000 could be charged. If fines were not paid, the union's entire funds could be sequestrated.

The 1984 Trade Union Act


Made it illegal to strike without a ballot and ordered unions to instruct their members that they are breaking their contract of employment if they vote in favour of strike action.
Imposed on unions a ten-yearly ballot to decide whether to have a political fund ie. whether union money could be spent on political campaigning and affiliation

The 1988 Employment Act


Imposed postal ballots - as against workplace or branch meetings - to decide on union executive elections or decisions on political funds (even though workplace ballots get a higher rate of participation).
Made it illegal for unions to expel or discipline members who refuse to participate in industrial action after a legal ballot.

The 1989 Employment Act


Restricted time off for trade union reps.
Introduced a pre-hearing assessment for industrial tribunals to scrutinise the validity of any applicant's case.

The 1990 Employment Act


Made pre-entry closed shops illegal, resulting in a gradual erosion of trade union membership.
Held trade unions financially responsible for walk-outs and unofficial action unless they publicly disowned a dispute.
Allowed the sacking of stewards and key union members involved in unofficial action.
Made all secondary action illegal.

The 1993 Employment Act


Introduced a minimum six-week delay between the decision to ballot and the date of any industrial action.
Required that members give written confirmation that they want their union dues automatically deducted from their wage packets.
Gave people the right to sue unions if industrial action 'damages' them.
Abolished wages councils which previously had afforded some protection to workers in some sectors.


God. It's heartbreaking to see it all there in one place. I dont think I can tell you all exactly how I feel to read all that, as it's somewhere below depressed. :(

[RED DAVE]

Comrade, you are confusing a form of class collaboration, with integration into the state. Please note that the link you've provided states that the agreement is "voluntary." Even if it weren't, it would be an indication the state using the unions not the unions being part of the state. Think of the difference between the agreements in the link and a ministry of labor. The unions do not have to be part of thse agreements. A ministry cannot leave the state of which it is a part.
But the fact is they were working together very closely and happily over saw a situation which has been a disaster for the working class. I am not coming from a idealogical position that "trade unions are anti-working class" and trying to make the facts support that...I am talking about the reality of a situation in one country. Okay they didnt have to be part of that agreement the fact is that they happily were and behaved as if they were officially and totally a part of the state.You're right that this is a disaster for the working class, but it is not the same as the unions being structurally part of the state. When this occurs, when the unions are integrated into the state as actual state structures, you get fascism, which we are a long way from.

Class collaboration, disgusting as it is, is not the same as being part of the state. The link posted above, in all its cocksuredness, is erroneous in this regard. The list of antilabor moves by the British state should be enough to tell you that the unions are no way part of the central core.

RED DAVE

[Stranger Than Paradise]

what exactly does "solidarity" mean?

Do you mean solidarity strikes? If so this made it illegal for workers from other industries/workplaces to strike in support of the initial striking workers.

On the topic of Unions being anti-working class. Coming from a UK perspective, it is true that the Union bureaucracy is in control of our unions and they are reformist and collaborationist in nature. This is no reason to be anti-union however, the state of our unions is a reflection of a level of low class consciousness in our society. Revolutionaries must use these working class organisations to agitiate towards a class conscious working class. Only when we have reached can our unions become an expression of our interests. In the mean time we must use our time and participate in these unions.

[Palingenisis]

On the topic of Unions being anti-working class. Coming from a UK perspective, it is true that the Union bureaucracy is in control of our unions and they are reformist and collaborationist in nature. This is no reason to be anti-union however, the state of our unions is a reflection of a level of low class consciousness in our society.

I have no problemn with Trade Unions being reformist because that is what they are by their very nature, they seek to reform the conditions under which working class people find themselves under capitalism rather seek the political conquest of power.Some ultra-leftists might reject them for that very reason but I dont...Its when they cease to be geniunely reformist and no longer act in the interests of the workers that I have problemns with them. Also another thing to think about is that they are "nationalist" in an actual "negative" sense in that they often see their role as looking after their members in one particular nation rather than for the class as a whole internationally.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I have no problemn with Trade Unions being reformist because that is what they are by their very nature, they seek to reform the conditions under which working class people find themselves under capitalism rather seek the political conquest of power.Some ultra-leftists might reject them for that very reason but I dont...Its when they cease to be geniunely reformist and no longer act in the interests of the workers that I have problemns with them. Also another thing to think about is that they are "nationalist" in an actual "negative" sense in that they often see their role as looking after their members in one particular nation rather than for the class as a whole internationally.

I agree. That doesn't mean that we should abandon the strategy of working within trade unions and using unionism as a basis towards organising our class and expropriating the means of production.

[Forward Union]

Yes sir. I believe all unions have been integrated into the capitalist state, making it impossible for them to defend the working class and also making it impossible for us to work through them.


From the Constitution of the RMT, the fastest growin Union in Britain;


4. The objects of the Union shall be:

(a) to secure the complete organisation of all workers employed by any board, company or authority in connection with rail, sea and other transport and ancillary undertakings, and offshore energy.
(b) to work for the supersession of the capitalist system by a socialistic order of society;
(c) the promotion of equality for all including through
http://www.rmt.org.uk/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeId=92915


The RMT are one of the largest, and most powerful anti-capitalist bodies in western Europe. I think ignoring their existence or calling them part of the state apparatus is at best over-simplistic and at worst politically suicidal.

(http://www.rmt.org.uk/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeId=92915)

[chimx]

Its when they cease to be geniunely reformist and no longer act in the interests of the workers

When does that happen.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Private-Sector Collective Bargaining Representation as a Free Legal Service

"Free administration of justice and free legal assistance. Administration of the law by judges elected by the people. Appeal in criminal cases. Compensation for individuals unjustly accused, imprisoned, or sentenced. Abolition of capital punishment." (Eduard Bernstein)

In the late 19th-century and early 20th-century, trade unions were in fact alliances of employed workers and otherwise (unemployed workers, retired workers, and so on), provided social services, showed a lot less hesitance towards calling strikes, and sometimes posed political questions. Out of these came the One Big Union and Socialist Industrial Union concepts, neither of which united workers on merely a sectional basis.

Contrast the above to a modern, "yellow" tred-iunion, which caters only to its particular section of the working class (such as public-sector workers), doesn't provide social services (except perhaps entertainment for the tred-iunionisty who control the union bureaucracy), pays lip service to the very concept of strikes to the point of signing no-strike deals, never poses political questions (as demonstrated clearly by United Steelworkers of America's approach to workers' cooperatives), and even organizes sometimes on the basis of craft and not trade (as is the case in the airline industry). As mentioned earlier, the modern tred-iunion also does not perform the functions of "workers' statistical commissions" to audit the business figures of employers.

All in all, what is to be learned from these trends is that the collective bargaining function itself, except perhaps where there are no union representatives, goes against politico-ideological independence for the working class. Amongst the various forms of dispute resolution in civil law - negotiation, mediation, arbitration, and litigation - tred-iunion careerists perform not just negotiation on the formal behalf of employees, but also (and in practice) mediation between employers and employees. The old Western European corporatist model best exemplifies this, whereby representatives of government, businesses, and unions met together on a regular basis and jointly determined economic policy.

Looming over this lesson and the trends is the difficulty of mobilizing clerical workers (who are mistaken for the entire "service worker" population, which includes professional workers). While the comprehensive reform outlined in the previous section – for living wages, non-deflationary cost-of-living adjustments based on reliable inflation figures, and similar application towards unemployment insurance and voluntary workface benefits – would indeed render collective bargaining for those wage increases for mere cost-of-living adjustments practically obsolete, the overall problem of collective bargaining representation would still remain, such as in the obvious topics of working conditions and wage increases well above mere cost-of-living adjustments.

The immediate solution once more lies in the Erfurt Program, this time in its demand for free legal assistance. However, what should be pursued here is the wholesale absorption of all private-sector collective bargaining representation into free legal services by independent government agencies acting in good faith (and subjecting their employees to full-time compensation being at or slightly lower than the median equivalent for professional and other skilled workers). Significant parts of the administrative apparatus required for the complete provision of labour dispute resolution by such agencies and their plethora of lawyers are already in place in developed capitalist countries, and happen to be called "labour courts" or "labour relations boards." Public-sector collective bargaining is not addressed, given the sensitivity of public-sector workers towards their government employers.

It should be noted that the collective bargaining function as a whole is different from the strike function, the latter of which should naturally remain the function of whatever unions remain, including "red" unions. In terms of facilitating the issuance of intermediate or threshold demands, there would be emancipatory demands later on pertaining to potential restrictions on the activities of these unions, which should be able to perform all the class solidarity and statistical functions mentioned earlier.

In terms of this reform enabling the basic principles to be "kept consciously in view," politico-ideological independence for the working class, as well as exposition of the bourgeois-capitalist nature of the modern state (hence the cynicism behind "acting in good faith") and other aspects of class strugglism, is upheld by this radical departure from traditional views on collective bargaining. This demand illustrates the false nature of the alleged dichotomy between building union-based labour parties on the one hand - a notoriously strong phenomenon on the British left-of-Labour scene, such as the left-nationalist No2EU project - and building cross-class, left-populist parties such as Respect on the other; neither option has the potential to mobilize private-sector clerical workers like this demand does.

Furthermore, this absorption, if not enacted by the bourgeoisie due to class-strugglist pressure from the workers, would have to be enacted by the latter during the early transitional period - before dissolving the businesses of the former. Meanwhile, any "workers' statistical commission" functions arising from this reform could in fact play an important control function for social labour in this period.



REFERENCES:



Programme of the Social-Democratic Party of Germany (Erfurt Programme) by Karl Kautsky and Eduard Bernstein [http://www.marxists.org/history/international/social-democracy/1891/erfurt-program.htm]

On Trade Unions [http://www.revleft.com/vb/trade-unions-t116838/index.html]

Steelworkers Form Collaboration with MONDRAGON, the World's Largest Worker-Owned Cooperative by the United Steelworkers of America [http://www.usw.org/media_center/releases_advisories?id=0234]

No to coalition with "son of No2EU" by Mike Macnair [http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/794/nocoalition.php]

[redasheville]

I am part of a militant rank and file caucus in my union (local educators union). I have first hand experience of the power that rank and file militants can have in class struggles workers in this city face. Not just in challenging the bureaucracy (really, we are challenging a conservative, relatively speaking, elected leadership), but also mobilizing literally thousands of union members, students and parents to walk out of schools on March 4th. It was the most significant mobilization of working class people I have ever witnessed, with the exception of May Day 2006.

[redasheville]

Also, radicals who argue that we should not work in trade unions are hopelessly sectarian and are essentially leaving workers to reformist/conservative union leaderships. I can't think of a more insane blunder. The question is HOW we relate to workers in unions, not whether or not we should participate in them (unless you're a dogmatic lunatic).

[Devrim]

I haven't had time to join this discussion, but I am going to try to catch up on some of the main points slowly.


The RMT are one of the largest, and most powerful anti-capitalist bodies in western Europe. I think ignoring their existence or calling them part of the state apparatus is at best over-simplistic and at worst politically suicidal.

I think believing that the RMT is an anti-capitalist organisation is seriously deluded.

The same line of thinking would lead you to believe that the Labour party was a socialist organisation until it dropped Clause 4 in 1995.


To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.

So the Labour party was then a socialist organisation when in supported the Falklands war in 1982, or when in introduced wage restraints in 1979 to mention only a couple of events in recent memory.

The same logic would also imply accepting the Soviet Union under Stalin as socialist.

Devrim

[black magick hustla]

i barely know about unions and my experience with them is entirely intellectual and/or through my dad. it seems to me its more or less like getting insurance though. i wont opine further because i feel like i am pontificating

[Devrim]

You're right that this is a disaster for the working class, but it is not the same as the unions being structurally part of the state. When this occurs, when the unions are integrated into the state as actual state structures, you get fascism, which we are a long way from.

I think there is a basic error here. Fascism does integrate unions into the state. However, it is not the only system that does so. Unions in Stalinist Russia, and the Soviet block after WWII were completely integrated into the state. Were these countries fascist? Was Iran fascist after 1979? I could go on.

I think the weakness lies in both the characterisation of fascism and Cliff's analysis of state capitalism. State capitalism was not a system which was set up in the Soviet Union, but an international tendency within capitalism, which included countries as diverse as the Soviet Union, Mussolini's Italy, and Roosevelt's USA. The incorporation of unions into the state was a party of this process.

In some countries it developed to a greater extent than others, but the fact that unions are integrated into the state does not mean that the state is fascist.

Of course that doesn't show that unions are integrated into the state, but it does demonstrate the fallacy of this argument.

Devrim

[Forward Union]

I think believing that the RMT is an anti-capitalist organisation is seriously deluded.

The same line of thinking would lead you to believe that the Labour party was a socialist organisation until it dropped Clause 4 in 1995.

I don't think it is at all. Firstly, most of the Leadership are confirmed Communists. Whilst I know personally that there are Anarchists in regional organising positions in the RMT, as well as a smorgasbord of other Socialists in various positions throughout the organisation. The membership is generally class conciouss, and the union promotes this. Not to mention it's political support for Cuba.

It has done more damage to capitalism in Britain this Century than any Anarchist or Left communist group could dream of. It is one of the most militant unions, regularly balloting for strike, breaking the law by flypicketing (amongst other things) and even at one point demanding papers for illegal immigrants. It regularly breaks trade union law to win disputes, not just for it's own members, but in solidarity with other unions.

It's position in the TUC is one of standing on thin ice, and it will either leave, or be expelled in the next couple of years. So it is hardly comparable to the Labour party, which wouldn't have challenged big bussiness before or since 1995



So the Labour party was then a socialist organisation when in supported the Falklands war in 1982, or when in introduced wage restraints in 1979 to mention only a couple of events in recent memory.Officially yes, but I don't think you could attribute any of the above qualities to Old Labour.

[Palingenisis]

What position does the ICC take towards anarcho-syndicalist unions?

[Leo]

We think that it is impossible to have an anarchist (or revolutionary) trade-union in periods which aren't revolutionary in the current epoch of capitalism. Thus the "anarcho-syndicalist" or the "revolutionary-syndicalist" organization, in order to even slightly remain "anarchist" or "revolutionary" has to be so small that it can't be considered a union in any meaningful sense, that it is more a political group than anything else - or be completely identical to other trade-unions if it is to be big. As for revolutionary periods, the anarchist or revolutionary trade-union is not the adequate form of organization capable of taking on the revolutionary task, a form of organization which great weaknesses which potentially can lead such organizations into betrayal (as it did with the CNT when it joined the bourgeois government in the Spanish war).

[RED DAVE]

i barely know about unions and my experience with them is entirely intellectual and/or through my dad. it seems to me its more or less like getting insurance though. i wont opine further because i feel like i am pontificatingIt is nothing like getting insurance. That is the business union concept, which is the belief system of much of the trade union leadership.

RED DAVE

[Palingenisis]

We think that it is impossible to have an anarchist (or revolutionary) trade-union in periods which aren't revolutionary in the current epoch of capitalism. Thus the "anarcho-syndicalist" or the "revolutionary-syndicalist" organization, in order to even slightly remain "anarchist" or "revolutionary" has to be so small that it can't be considered a union in any meaningful sense, that it is more a political group than anything else - or be completely identical to other trade-unions if it is to be big.

I agree with about the inadaquecies of syndicalism as a revolutionary tactic....Doesnt Spain still have a large anarcho-syndicalist union though? Is it really completely indentical to SIPTU or the TUC? Trade Unions are by their nature reformist but I dont think that makes them necessarily counter-revolutionary or pro-capitalist if they are geniunely enabling workers to protect their living standards, etc from Capital.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

Currently, in Belgium at least, the Trade Unions have massively radicalized when comparing it with others.
There was a time when the christian trade union was merely an organ of paternalism, and when in the "Socialist" trade union, which was aligned with the social-democratic party, it was a disgrace to be a Communist.

However, things have changed radically. Currently, the Trade Unions are in most cases really protecting the interests of the People.
The Socialist trade union, ABVV, has developped a campaign which uses the concept of health warnings on tobacco products to expose the character of capitalism.
"Capitalism will seriously damage your health"
The former christian union and Socialist unions have no real ideological difference anymore, and are all cooperating for the best interests of the Proletariat.

I believe the situation in Belgium, and probably in most of Western Europe is as one of my Party Comrades claimed:
"Currently the Trade Unions are the vanguard of the Proletariat. The Party should be it and will become just that, but for now, it's still the Trade Unions"

[Leo]

I agree with about the inadaquecies of syndicalism as a revolutionary tactic....Doesnt Spain still have a large anarcho-syndicalist union though? Is it really completely indentical to SIPTU or the TUC? Trade Unions are by their nature reformist but I dont think that makes them necessarily counter-revolutionary or pro-capitalist if they are geniunely enabling workers to protect their living standards, etc from Capital.

I think it is the CGT you are talking about. They have around 60,000 members - while small compared to the two other trade-unions in Spain, they are big enough to be considered a trade-union. The original CNT, which as far as I am aware of has no more than a few thousand (their biggest one being the Union of the Retired), considers them reformist. The CNT is certainly not in any place to be considered a trade-union at the moment I think, but could be classified as a decently sized political group. While I admit I don't know much about the CGT, from what I've read on them, it seems that they are pretty similar to leftist unions we have here in Turkey which are, basically not all that different from the other trade-unions.

The issue, I don't think, is about whether individual trade-unionists are evil or not - shop stewards, for one, are in most cases more workers than they are trade-unionists, and I am sure even at the upper-middle levels of the trade-union bureaucracies, it is possible that there are people who are actually well-intending. The point is about the historical role and function of the trade-unions, that they are, as structures now integrated into the bourgeois states, not capable of defending workers' living standards, that they their function under the bourgeois order is to sabotage the workers struggles. This is what makes the trade-unions counter-revolutionary on a structural level.

[chimx]

The issue, I don't think, is about whether individual trade-unionists are evil or not - shop stewards, for one, are in most cases more workers than they are trade-unionists, and I am sure even at the upper-middle levels of the trade-union bureaucracies, it is possible that there are people who are actually well-intending. The point is about the historical role and function of the trade-unions, that they are, as structures now integrated into the bourgeois states, not capable of defending workers' living standards, that they their function under the bourgeois order is to sabotage the workers struggles. This is what makes the trade-unions counter-revolutionary on a structural level.

I don't think that this is true from my experience at all. My wages and benefits vastly increased because I joined a union. Union wages determine "prevailing wages", which by definition (in the US) indicates better pay than non-union labor -- unless you mean something else by "living standards".

And that really is the bottom line. You talk about how unions are only positive forces during revolutionary periods, but that position strikes me as one of privilege. Working families are struggling to get by as it is, and I don't have the luxury of waiting for history and waiting for class struggle to come to a head. There have been a lot of hard battles we as a labor movement have fought, even in the past 10 years, and many of which we have had to compromise on. But in the end we came out better than if we had not tried to collectively bargain at all.

I have never heard from you or other left communists what working families are supposed to do in between periods of revolutionary fervor--to better their lives, the lives of their loved ones, and the lives of their peers.

[Leo]

I don't think that this is true from my experience at all.

And how many times did you go on strike since you joined?


Union wages determine "prevailing wages", which by definition (in the US) indicates better pay than non-union labor

Yes, I am aware that situations like that are the case in some countries - and there is no reason one shouldn't be in the union if one will individually get better paid by being officially in the trade-union. Yet this is an individual benefit, and doesn't mean that the trade-union is capable of defending the workers' interests collectively, when attacked, for example when the crisis is eating up workers' wages.


And that really is the bottom line. You talk about how unions are only positive forces during revolutionary periods

No I don't - I was talking about anarcho-syndicalist and "revolutionary syndicalist" organizations, and saying that it is possible for such organizations to be real unions and even slightly anarchist or revolutionary is periods of revolutionary struggles - otherwise they can't be a union or they can't be considered in any way revolutionary. Even then, such organizations are inadequate, and their weaknesses in may lead them into open betrayal. This is far from saying that "anarcho-syndicalist" or "revolutionary-syndicalist" unions are positive forces during revolutionary periods.


but that position strikes me as one of privilege

Of what exactly?


Working families are struggling to get by as it is, and I don't have the luxury of waiting for history and waiting for class struggle to come to a head.

But then again, there is not much else to do than to struggle. You can look for a better job, or try to find a way to increase your pay, but thats it. And it doesn't really work all the time, because at the end of the day if you get fired and can't get any work, that's how you end up. No one has the "luxury of waiting for history and waiting for class struggle to come to a head". Its more that people have no choice but to struggle, in order to get by.


I have never heard from you or other left communists what working families are supposed to do in between periods of revolutionary fervor--to better their lives, the lives of their loved ones, and the lives of their peers.

Struggle.

[chimx]

And how many times did you go on strike since you joined?

I haven't, but our local did have a strike for better wages a couple of years before I joined. This past contract there were threats of striking, but the members ultimately decided to go with what we were able to win in negotiations, which turned out to be the biggest pay raise of any roofing local in the US that year (or so I was told): about $6 in raises over 3 years to all members.


Yes, I am aware that situations like that are the case in some countries - and there is no reason one shouldn't be in the union if one will individually get better paid by being officially in the trade-union. Yet this is an individual benefit, and doesn't mean that the trade-union is capable of defending the workers' interests collectively, when attacked, for example when the crisis is eating up workers' wages.


We don't collectively bargain as individuals. We come together as a group and make demands for the same pay raises and benefits. How is this only an individual benefit rather than a collective benefit? When there has been a crisis in the past, we collectively come together and strike until our demands are heard. We honor the strikes of workers in other trades and halt work on projects that are being picketed. How is this not a collective activity, working in the interest of our peers?


Struggle

That is not a satisfactory answer. Without unions, prevailing wages would cease to exist. Non-union companies would cease to offer benefits as a means to deter unionization. The quality of life of working families would quite simply drop dramatically. We as working people already struggle. We struggle to pay our mortgages, struggle to pay our bills, struggle to feed our families. If you take away our ability to collectively demand better compensation for the labor we provide, then you are turning our struggle into financial suffocation and defeat.

[black magick hustla]

And that really is the bottom line. You talk about how unions are only positive forces during revolutionary periods, but that position strikes me as one of privilege

this is not true. ive met plenty of anti-union communists who have shit-jobs and/or came into such position after being unionized.

[chimx]

I don't doubt there are plenty of people fed up with their unions. It can be frustrating. A lot of the times it seems like pushing a boulder up a cliff. But union labor in a lot of trades determines prevailing wage for jobs that fall under the Davis Bacon Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis%E2%80%93Bacon_Act). Abandoning union labor means abandoning living wages. To do so for ideological reasons is a luxury most working families don't have.

[black magick hustla]

. To do so for ideological reasons is a luxury most working families don't have.

Nobody is calling to abandon the unions though. In the same sense nobody calls to abandon your insurance or your social security. The point is that they are integrated to the state. I mean its cool you are unionized but the point is whether to treat them as this revolutionary things or not

[chimx]

1) In the United States they are not integrated into the state, and quite often the state enacts legislation to make union participation and organization difficult (e.g.: right to work laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law)). At most they are a lobby group.

2) Of course they are not revolutionary things. Working class Americans aren't in a revolutionary state. Like I said, a union is only as strong as its membership. And as the current organ for labor's voice in the work place and in the state, what social institution do you think most likely to become revolutionized by it's membership?

[black magick hustla]

1) In the United States they are not integrated into the state, and quite often the state enacts legislation to make union participation and organization difficult (e.g.: right to work laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law)). At most they are a lobby group.


Of course they are integrated to the state. They bankroll the democrats and are an appendage of the democratic party. The state is not a monolithic apparatus. there are different factions within it.



2) Of course they are not revolutionary things. Working class Americans aren't in a revolutionary state. Like I said, a union is only as strong as its membership. And as the current organ for labor's voice in the work place and in the state, what social institution do you think most likely to become revolutionized by it's membership?I think the point is not that unions are necessarily strong, but that its membership are militant. I think the criticism of unions is not so much the act of collective bargaining but the massive organizations that more or less integrate themselves to capital.

[black magick hustla]

I think the most important point is not so much if you are in a union but is it worth it to try to "revolutionize" them or rather explicitly reject that form. i am not going to drop my health insurance even if i wouldnt mind in a better future that those institutions get burnt to the ground and the owners of them hung from the highest trees

[syndicat]

The left-communist view is overly simplistic. The ICC in particular have a weird ideology that somehow there was one unique magical moment when capitalism moved from being "progressive" to being "in decay". There is in fact no way to even know this.

Unionism is an inherently conflicted phenomenon. There are two souls or tendencies to unionism. There is on the one hand a tendency for people highly active over time to become paid officers, negotiating contracts and grievances with employers. In the USA this began around the beginning of the 20th century. This happened because elected delegates (shop stewards) were often anarchists or socialists and would get fired. But beause of their knowledge and commitment to workers, the other workers wanted to keep them as delegates, and so they started paying them. This was the origin of the business agent system.

Once you have a paid hierarchy developing and controlling negotiations, you have a group whose interests begin to diverge from the rank and file. In the AFL there developed a practice where the leaders would keep what they learned...speaking abilities, tricks to get concessions, how to organize, connections to managers and lawyers etc....to themselves. By not training or sharing knowledge with the rank and file, but doing little favors for this and that person...winning a grievance, getting someone a job...they would build up a circle of cronies who were dependent on them. This is what Bob Fitch calls the "fiefdom syndrome." And it's a political machine used by AFL officials to stay in office.

By now there are over 10,000 officials in the USA who make more than $100,000 a year. This group have great control, particularly at the level of national unions or large local unions, and have very separate conditions of life from the rank and file. Their control over the unions is a reason unionism has been disappearing in the USA.

But here we come to one of the differences between the USA and Europe. In USA the working class was never strong enough to force on the employers the vast corporatist social democratic welfare states and works councils systems. The American employers are arrogant and intransigent. They see no need anymore for labor bureaucrat "mediators" to keep a lid on worker dissidence. And, on the other hand, the labor bureaucracy is unwilling or unable to mount a real class fight, because this would involve mass actions risky to the unions, and mass involvement would lead to control taken out of the hands of the bureaucracy.

Okay, I said unionism has "two souls". I've described the tendency for a paid bureaucracy to develop as a mediator between capital and labor, and its interests lie with restraining militancy and demands, to stay within the confines of the system. But there is also a grassroots, democratic "soul" to unionism, of autonmous, collective self-activity by workers. This can also take various organizational forms. A good example would be the independent shop stewards movements at times in the past in UK (World War 1 and again the '60s), factory committee movement in Russia in 1917.

In the context of the USA, the "new unionism" of the period between 1909 and early '20s would be a form of this, where organizations were formed that were controlled by rank and file shop stewards and worker self-activity, such as IWW, the railroad shop craft stewards councils, the first Auto Workers Union, or again in the '30s the community assembly based Independent Union of All Workers, and other independent radical unions.

From the '70s on the Leninist left pursued a policy of "boring from within", of trying to change leadership thru oppositional slates. And they could change maybe the veneer of union politics, such as greater opposition to US foreign policy or changing the stance on immigrant rights, but couldn't change how unions operate...their existence as a bureaucratic structure, a service apparatus, apart from the rank and file.

But there are examples of more worker controlled forms of solidarity unionism, or grassroots unionism. And this is the form of the second grassroots "soul" of unionism in the USA. UE often works this way, and the Starbucks Workers Union is another example.

Many local unions in the USA are reasonably democratic and I can see a point to oppositional activity within them, if this is aimed at changing how unionism works, not just changing the faces in top offices. but it's not likely that the AFL-CIO or the national union apparatus will become an effective fighting force, or a revolutionary mass movement.

But i think the grassroots "soul" of unionism can become the basis of a revolutionary mass movement. If the working class is to liberate itself, it must create its own movement through which it develops the necessary consciousness over time, through struggle, and it needs its own mass movement that it controls in order to have the organizational means to liberate itself. It sure ain't going to happen through a political party.

It's also necessary to keep in mind that the legal framework for unionism is different in the USA than in Europe. in two ways. first there is no space for competing unions in the same workplace or occupational group. once a union gains recognition from an employer, it has a legal monopoly. secondly, US labor law provides, in a situation where no union contract exists, that workers have a basic right to "concerted activity." This is independent of any requirement of it occuring through a legally recognized union. Even an ad hoc collective action is legally protected, such as stopping work and collectively going to talk to the supervisor. This right to "concerted activity" is not well protected...the only hassle for an employer who violates it is that someone fired this way can force being rehired and paid back wages. But this does happen. And it is used by some grassroots unions to maintain themselves without being legally recognized unions or having labor contracts that limit their action through no strike clauses and the like.

the reason that there are two "souls" to unionism is that there are two contending forces, capital and labor. workers can develop social power -- a counter-power to capital -- through collective action and self-organization. the other operative power is that of the employers, forcing workers to compromiise. but the relative strengths of these forces are fluid and can change.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Great post Syndicat. The only way we can win back the soul of unionism is to agitate within the confines of our current union framework and claim back rank and file control.

[Devrim]

The left-communist view is overly simplistic. The ICC in particular have a weird ideology that somehow there was one unique magical moment when capitalism moved from being "progressive" to being "in decay". There is in fact no way to even know this.

This is not really what we say at all. Syndicat is referring to the first point in the ICC's basic positions, which says:


Since the First World War, capitalism has been a decadent social system. It has twice plunged humanity into a barbaric cycle of crisis, world war, reconstruction and new crisis. In the 1980s, it entered into the final phase of this decadence, the phase of decomposition. There is only one alternative offered by this irreversible historical decline: socialism or barbarism, world communist revolution or the destruction of humanity.

What we say is that the the opening of the First World war demonstrates that capitalism had become a decadent social system. This may seem like a weird ideology to you, but it was a position defended by the Third International, and the millions of workers who belonged to it. We don't say that capitalism became decadent on the 28th July 1914 when the war started but that by this point it was a decadent system. You are right. There is no way to know when capitalism became a decadent social system. All we say is that it happened before the start of World War One, and that the war demonstrated that it had become so.

Devrim

[pastradamus]

Well, I don't know much about the IWU, although according to wiki they have 1,000 members while the ICTU has 600,000.

First Up, the IWU has much much more than 1000 members. That article has not been updated in some time. I'd estimate that the IWU have near abouts 3000 members in the Munster region and more than that throughout Ireland (both north and south). ICTU is an umbrella organisation. Comprising of multiple revisionist trade unions. It sits down with IBEC (irish business and employers confederation),the government and barters out deals - which most of the time are accepted by the fat cats running the individual unions - without a vote for the average member. This process in Ireland is known as "social partnership". The IWU's Initial formation was in protest to this process.



If this group is "red" as you are speaking, its not really a trade-union in any meaningful sense, one would have to say.

It is a very meaningful trade union as its basically the only one who properly defends its workers. I worked as a shop steward and representive for the IWU's securities section and we had 35 labour court appearences against various security firms in one month. This is unheard of in any other union. Unlike the Social partners -We do not collude with the company, against the worker.


Are the numbers accurate?

No


How influential is the IWU?

The IWU is the fastest growing trade union in the country. It numbers have increased dramatically in many service area's over the last year. A massive amount of Taxi's in cork have joined the IWU in the last year. Our Health workers section membership has quadroupled in the last year and our other sections are still going strong (stonemasons section, cleaners, home-helps workers and security guards to name but a few).


How many shops and all do they have?
The IWU does run "shops" per se. But rather any single worker can become an IWU member regardless of Industry. He/she will recieve full representation.Again, We do not collude. Our members join us out of their own free will as opposed to groups like SIPTU (tick this box if you wish to be an employee of company x and join SIPTU). The IWU had Volunteers and not conscripts.


Are they engaged in any actual bargaining?
We dont bargain with the Employer. Thats what makes the union unique in this country. If we can build an acceptable case against the employer, with the member's support - then we attack.



Looking at their website, my first impression is that they are more of a vaguely leftist NGO rather than an actual trade-union, having "organizing protests" as its main activity.

No, The IWU is first and foremost an organised Political and Leftist Trade Union who uphold the Idea's of Marx, Connolly and Larkin. Though protests are organised it is in the Interest of the Workers that these protests are held. There is no real left wing organisation in Ireland who speak out against the IWU and what they stand for - Though these groups are extremely critical of orgs like ICTU. Many of our members are also members of the Socialist Party, SWP, IRSP, CPI and many others.

[chimx]

The IWU does run "shops" per se. But rather any single worker can become an IWU member regardless of Industry. He/she will recieve full representation.Again, We do not collude. Our members join us out of their own free will as opposed to groups like SIPTU (tick this box if you wish to be an employee of company x and join SIPTU). The IWU had Volunteers and not conscripts.

Generally for the government to recognize a unions authority at a particular place of work, a majority of the workforce has to belong to a union. I believe that is what he is asking about--how many work places are you legally able to represent.

[Devrim]

I haven't really had time and there are a lot of things I still want to comment on on this thread, and I think the main issue is important and needs to be addressed. I just want to quickly comment on this one.


most of the Leadership [of the RMT]are confirmed Communists.

I don't know much about the leadership of the RMT, but if we are talking about Bob Crowe, ex-CPGB, and ex-CPB, these are the sort of 'communists' who sabotaged workers struggles throughout the 1970 and 80s in the UK. If you still associate with any anarchists ask those who are old enough to remember the Wapping strike about Michael Hicks and Bill Freeman.


Whilst I know personally that there are Anarchists in regional organising positions in the RMT

I'd ask what sort of anarchists are union full timers?


Not to mention it's political support for Cuba.

And you think that makes it socialist nowadays?


breaking the law by flypicketing (amongst other things)

When has the RMT (as an organisation as opposed to its members unofficially)organised secondary picketing?


So it is hardly comparable to the Labour party, which wouldn't have challenged big bussiness before or since 1995

My point was that having a clause in the constitution, which mentions socialism doesn't make an organisation socialist.

Devrim

[Forward Union]

I don't know much about the leadership of the RMT, but if we are talking about Bob Crowe, ex-CPGB, and ex-CPB, these are the sort of 'communists' who sabotaged workers struggles throughout the 1970 and 80s in the UK. If you still associate with any anarchists ask those who are old enough to remember the Wapping strike about Michael Hicks and Bill Freeman.

You don't need to lecture me on the cons of the British CPs. The case in point is that they are still anti-capitalist, and that such extremists can only get elected to the head of a union which has a radical membership and policy framework. Bob Crowe could not have become general secretary of Unison for a reason.


I'd ask what sort of anarchists are union full timers?Well you can make these pot shot criticisms at their integrity, but it's avoiding the point that the RMT has confessed Anarchists in elected positions in an openly Anti-capitalist union. While this ought not be over fetishised (and there are many cautions and criticisms to be made of the RMT) we have to admit that it is a point of interest, no?


And you think that makes it socialist nowadays?Oh just stop it. That pretty much places it on the far left by anyones standards, despite it being a monumentally stupid position to have.


My point was that having a clause in the constitution, which mentions socialism doesn't make an organisation socialist.With all your criticisms of the RMT aside, would you still maintain that it is not a socialist organisation? In the same strand, I have numerous criticisms of the ICC, but still acknowledge it as a communist organisation. The difference is that the RMT has over a million members concentrated in key industries in the UK, dismissing this fact is a bad idea strategically.

[Devrim]

You don't need to lecture me on the cons of the British CPs. The case in point is that they are still anti-capitalist,

I don't think that they were. In your analysis (I think) the CPs were socialist, but authoritarian. In ours they were anti-working class bourgeois parties. That doesn't mean that there weren't many workers who considered themselves to be socialists in them. However, you have to look at their objective role.


and that such extremists can only get elected to the head of a union which has a radical membership and policy framework. Bob Crowe could not have become general secretary of Unison for a reason.

It isn't that difficult to get elected head of a union if you want to. Most workers who are members of unions don't even bother to vote in leadership elections. When Bob Crowe was elected General Secretary in 2002, he got 12,051, with the next two candidates getting 4,512, and 1,997. The RMT, not UNISON as you state, had over 85,000 members at the time, which means he got elected on just under 15% of the vote, and probably only about 30% of the membership voted. So much for a radical membership.


Well you can make these pot shot criticisms at their integrity, but it's avoiding the point that the RMT has confessed Anarchists in elected positions in an openly Anti-capitalist union. While this ought not be over fetishised (and there are many cautions and criticisms to be made of the RMT) we have to admit that it is a point of interest, no?

I presume a 'regional organiser' is either a full-time union paid position. I think, though I am not sure, that both of the major anarchist organisations in the UK, AF and SolFed, have a position against people being union full-timers. I can remember people in DAM (now SolFed) being NUR shop stewards, but not full-timers. So I ask again, what sort of anarchists are they?


Oh just stop it. That pretty much places it on the far left by anyones standards, despite it being a monumentally stupid position to have.

Unions adopt positions at conferences that have nothing to do with the ideas of the majority of workers in them. Within the UK union that I was a member of for the longest, the UCW (now CWU), we were considered a pretty militant branch. We were certainly involved in a lot of strike action when I worked there in the 1980s. That said at the yearly branch AGM's when these sort of things were voted on, our branch generally struggled to get a quorum of 7 (out of 118 workers). Passing motions at union conferences has very little to do with the class struggle. Yes, they can pass a motion in support of Cuba. What of it?


With all your criticisms of the RMT aside, would you still maintain that it is not a socialist organisation? In the same strand, I have numerous criticisms of the ICC, but still acknowledge it as a communist organisation. The difference is that the RMT has over a million members concentrated in key industries in the UK, dismissing this fact is a bad idea strategically.

No, I don't think it is a socialist organisation at all.

I also noticed that you didn't answer this question:


When has the RMT (as an organisation as opposed to its members unofficially)organised secondary picketing?

I do notice though that they have just called of a strike because the courts said they couldn't have one.

Devrim

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Devrim, I agree with you that it is not a Socialist organisation. I don't admire Bob Crow or think he is revolutionary because I think you have to be pretty naive to think full time union officials can be loyal to our class. Nevertheless the RMT does state in it's constitution that it stands for a socialist re-ordering of society and has left wing leaders, within the context of a lack of rank and file grassroots control of unions I think you're getting nowhere by just ignoring the RMT.

[Forward Union]

It isn't that difficult to get elected head of a union if you want to. Most workers who are members of unions don't even bother to vote in leadership elections. When Bob Crowe was elected General Secretary in 2002, he got 12,051, with the next two candidates getting 4,512, and 1,997. The RMT, not UNISON as you state, had over 85,000 members at the time, which means he got elected on just under 15% of the vote, and probably only about 30% of the membership voted. So much for a radical membership.

This fact is fairly irrelevant without knowing how many people normally vote in union elections. Perhaps it's far more than the average UK union (which it probably is). However, the fact still stands that a self admitted communist managed to win an election in a mainstream union, and, as you clearly show; by a long way. Off the back of apathy perhaps but still an exception to the rule.




I presume a 'regional organiser' is either a full-time union paid position. I think, though I am not sure, that both of the major anarchist organisations in the UK, AF and SolFed, have a position against people being union full-timers. I can remember people in DAM (now SolFed) being NUR shop stewards, but not full-timers. So I ask again, what sort of anarchists are they?The role and nature of the "organiser" changes from place to place, but yes, often refers to paid staff (though the person I am thinking of is not full time), I know of a couple of Anarcho-Syndicalists who have official positions in the RMT, one of whom I think you know personally.


Unions adopt positions at conferences that have nothing to do with the ideas of the majority of workers in them. Within the UK union that I was a member of for the longest, the UCW (now CWU), we were considered a pretty militant branch. We were certainly involved in a lot of strike action when I worked there in the 1980s. That said at the yearly branch AGM's when these sort of things were voted on, our branch generally struggled to get a quorum of 7 (out of 118 workers). Passing motions at union conferences has very little to do with the class struggle. Yes, they can pass a motion in support of Cuba. What of it?Is it common for Western Trade unions to adopt positions in support of Cuba?


No, I don't think it is a socialist organisation at all.But this isn't surprising coming from the Ultra-off-the-map-Left, is it. You are mandated by your ideology not to recognise any union as being revolutionary (and therefore presumably socialist), so to win this debate with you I must not only fulfill the usual criteria but critique the entire left communist position, which isn't worth the time of day. The discerning amongst us ougt to have already made up their mind on this issue.




I do notice though that they have just called of a strike because the courts said they couldn't have one.You think they should break the law and loose all their finances or what?. What are you implying?.

[Forward Union]

Devrim, I agree with you that it is not a Socialist organisation. I don't admire Bob Crow or think he is revolutionary because I think you have to be pretty naive to think full time union officials can be loyal to our class.

You have to seperate Bob Crowe from the phenomena of the RMT. If it wasn't him it'd be someone like him.


Nevertheless the RMT does state in it's constitution that it stands for a socialist re-ordering of society and has left wing leaders, within the context of a lack of rank and file grassroots control of unions I think you're getting nowhere by just ignoring the RMT.

Exactly. I would not say that it was a revolutionary organisation per se (I don't think there are any in Britain at the moment), but it certainly has a key role within the class struggle at this point in time.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Exactly. I would not say that it was a revolutionary organisation per se (I don't think there are any in Britain at the moment), but it certainly has a key role within the class struggle at this point in time.

Definitely, I don't see exactly what Devrim is driving at because no one is claiming it to be something it isn't. The RMT is what it is, a reformist union which claims to be anti-capitalist. Within the context of our current time I think it is important.

[Devrim]

Devrim, I agree with you that it is not a Socialist organisation. I don't admire Bob Crow or think he is revolutionary because I think you have to be pretty naive to think full time union officials can be loyal to our class. Nevertheless the RMT does state in it's constitution that it stands for a socialist re-ordering of society and has left wing leaders, within the context of a lack of rank and file grassroots control of unions I think you're getting nowhere by just ignoring the RMT.


Definitely, I don't see exactly what Devrim is driving at because no one is claiming it to be something it isn't. The RMT is what it is, a reformist union which claims to be anti-capitalist. Within the context of our current time I think it is important.

I think that people are suggesting that it is something that it isn't:


The RMT are one of the largest, and most powerful anti-capitalist bodies in western Europe.

I don't see what it states in its constitution as having much to do with anything, and I don't think I ignore it. I think I just have more idea about what its role actually is than somebody who thinks that it is anti-capitalist.

Devrim

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I don't see what it states in its constitution as having much to do with anything, and I don't think I ignore it. I think I just have more idea about what its role actually is than somebody who thinks that it is anti-capitalist.

Devrim

What is its role in your opinion? I don't think we will differ much nor would anyone.

[Devrim]

This fact is fairly irrelevant without knowing how many people normally vote in union elections.

I don't think that it is 'fairly irrelevant'. I think it speaks volumes about the nature of the unions today. It says that basically workers aren't particularly interested in who runs them.


Perhaps it's far more than the average UK union (which it probably is).

It maybe. It may be less. I don't see why you say probably. If it is more than the average it paints an even more clear picture. Less than 30% of workers care who leads their union enough to fill-out a form that they are given.


Compare participation in leadership elections to participation in strike ballots. I think it says something very clear.


However, the fact still stands that a self admitted communist managed to win an election in a mainstream union, and, as you clearly show by a long way. Off the back of apathy perhaps but still an exception to the rule.

It is not that rare. What about Billy Hayes from the CWU, for example? Here in Turkey we have unions that call themselves revolutionary, we hear union speakers calling for the end of capitalism etc, and still they sabotage strikes and act against the working class. Only this week the leaders of a Turkish union were being protected from their own members by 15,000 riot police here in Ankara.


The role and nature of the "organiser" changes from place to place, but yes, often refers to paid staff (though the person I am thinking of is not full time), I know of a couple of Anarcho-Syndicalists who have official positions in the RMT, one of whom I think you know personally.

Maybe I misunderstood what you were saying, in which case I apologise. However, I think there is a point that is valid here. I don't think that lay union officials (including those on 100% facility time) are necessarily anti-working class. I don't think that it is possible in any way to be a revolutionary and a union employed official. I asked what sort of anarchists because I believe (am am not certain. I know that DAM used to) SolFed does not allow full time officials to be members. I imagine I know at least a couple of anarchists who are RMT officials (it is a long time ago-they may have retired or changed jobs), but nobody who is a union employee.


Is it common for Western Trade unions to adopt positions in support of Cuba?

I don't really care. I don't think that union positions tend to mean much. They are generally things that get passed by political activists who get themselves elected in branches where nobody bothers to vote.


But this isn't surprising coming from the Ultra-off-the-map-Left, is it. You are mandated by your ideology not to recognise any union as being revolutionary (and therefore presumably socialist), so to win this debate with you I must not only fulfill the usual criteria but critique the entire left communist position, which isn't worth the time of day. The discerning amongst us ougt to have already made up their mind on this issue.

I agree. I don't think anybody here accept you thinks that the RMT is anti-capitalist.


You think they should break the law and loose all their finances or what?. What are you implying?.

I'm not implying anything. I am asking you to answer this question relating to your earlier claim:


When has the RMT (as an organisation as opposed to its members unofficially)organised secondary picketing?

Devrim

[Comrade_Scott]

Most of my experiance of Trade Unions has been negative so there is a possiblity that I have allowed that to distort my objectivity on this question. Where I live (the "Free State" or the 26 counties of Ireland not under direct British occupation) the mainstream Unions have been part of so-called "Social Parternership" for as long as I can remember with the State and Employers though after the crash this has weakened. Effectively than their role was the same as that of the official Trade Unions in fascist Italy or under State-Capitalism. I find it impossible to see them as organs of working class independence. Also they are completely focused on the "labour aristocracy" and ignore the bulk of the class having it seems no interest in "organizing" us no mind defending migrant and "illegals" who are often horribly exploited. They seem to exist to smooth over the relationship between the Labour aristocracy (who arent going to be at forefront of a revolution anyways) and Capital ignoring the interests of the working class as whole both locally and more importantly globally.


The Independent Workers' Union however does seem to be both internationalist and pro-working class however the Trots and official left in general continue to fetishize and romanticize SIPTU and the others, almost like a mirror image of Left Communist dogmatism.

so true. unions here (jamaica) are shadows of there former selves. unions set up by bustamante after the riots in the 30's were there not only to secure more money but to ensure that the worker was respected and given benefits (housing education for family etc) now all they care about (not just bustamantes, as manleys stinks t high hell too) is getting more members, filling coffers and demanding pay that any rational thinking human would say is impossible in our economic climate a opposed to demanding better workplace treatment while benefits fought for (housing health etc) are discarded because union leaders cant feel that or take that unlike dues. in short unions were good, served an excellent purpose and may do so again but right now they are useless toothless husks of what they used to be and serve no real purpose (in jamaica anyway)

[Bilan]

For anyone thinking that mentioning socialism in a constitution means anything at at all, I insist you take a look at the ALP's constitution:



Objectives
2 The Australian Labor Party is a democratic socialist party and has the objective of the democratic socialisation of industry, production, distribution and exchange, to the extent necessary to eliminate exploitation and other anti-social features in these fields.

commitment to and participation in the international democratic socialist movement as represented by the Socialist International;

recognition of the right of citizens to work for progressive changes consistent with the broad principles of democratic socialism.

Australian Labor Party Constitution
(http://www.alp.org.au/sites/default/files/downloads/national_constitution_of_the_alp.pdf)
I suggest thinking again.

I think the ICC pamphlet, Unions Against the Working Class, illustrates quite well what the role of unions is:

(In) the factories and in the face of explosions of class struggle(...), the unions are (...) indispensable to the capitalist state. Immersed within the revolutionary class they are the best placed to defuse, demoralise, and divide any revolutionary tendency in the class. In countries where an old trade unionist tradition exists, they have become experts in these matters.


source (http://en.internationalism.org/pamphlets/unions_chapter_03.htm).
And really, I think this has been confirmed by the nature of unions in the past 20 or 30 years.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

The ICC pamphlet describes unions as if they have a fixed position and role. I see them as having an altering position and role which changes as a reflection of class consciousness and militancy.

From Strategy and Struggle: Anarcho Syndicalism in the 21st Cenutry Link (http://libcom.org/library/strategy-struggle-anarcho-syndicalism-21st-century)

Mass, permanent organisations are by definition de-linked from the levels of militancy of their members and class struggle more broadly. Therefore, they are not expressions of the self-organisation of workers sought by anarcho-syndicalists, but for the representation of workers as workers. We therefore recognise that neither trade unions or so-called mass workers’ parties are revolutionary organisations. In the case of trade unions, their structural role as representatives of labour power within capitalism compels them to offer disciplined workforces to the employers.

If they cannot offer the promise of industrial peace, they are in no position to negotiate. Such social partnership is inherent to the idea of mass, permanent workers representation, de-linked from class struggle. Furthermore, they divide up the class by trade and in addition to their structural limitations are bound by a host of laws just to make sure they fulfil this function, such as restrictions on secondary action and the notice needed for industrial action, all on pain of the sequestration of funds and imprisonment of officials.

If levels of militancy are low, trade unions work hand-in-hand with management to impose cuts and restructuring. If levels of struggle are higher, they will posture more militantly and operate as a limited expression of that struggle in order to appear to workers to really 'represent' their interests, calling tokenistic one-day strikes and suchlike. There are numerous recent examples. As and when such struggles begin to take on a self-organised character and go beyond the institutional and legal limits of the trade union form - by the development of mass meetings, wildcat action, flying pickets etc – two things can happen. The trade union will either come into conflict with the workers (as in the isolation of the Liverpool postal wildcat during the national strikes of 200723), or effectively cease to exist as a permanent organisation as it is superseded by the structures of mass meetings and the like, which as expressions of the level of militancy represent a non-permanent, potentially revolutionary supersession of the mass/permanent trade union form.

Consequently, we hold that not only are permanent mass organisations not revolutionary, but that in the final analysis they are counter-revolutionary institutions (note, we are not saying trade unionists are counter-revolutionary, the institutions are). The counter-revolutionary nature of trade unions does not arise from bad leadership, bureaucratisation and a lack of internal democracy, rather the leadership, bureaucratisation and lack of internal democracy arise from the logic of permanent mass organisations representing workers as workers. As revolutionary forms are necessarily the expression of class struggle and so necessarily non-permanent, the de-linking of form from content represents a counter-revolutionary inertia.

Of course it does not follow that we reject membership or activity within the trade unions, as their ultimately counter-revolutionary nature does not mean revolution would break out tomorrow if they suddenly ceased to be. Rather, the unions only act as a brake on struggles when they develop a degree of self-organisation in contradiction to the permanent form. Until that point, they do act as a limited expression of struggles precisely to secure their role as representatives. Consequently as workers we think it makes sense to be union members in workplaces where a trade union is recognised.

I think this goes a long way in describing the position of those who have defended the RMT in this thread.

[Forward Union]

It maybe. It may be less. I don't see why you say probably. If it is more than the average it paints an even more clear picture. Less than 30% of workers care who leads their union enough to fill-out a form that they are given.

I say probably because the RMT has a far more active and militant membership, more support for strike action and larger demonstration participation etc. It would be logical to assume that they also have higher participation in regard to internal democracy. Though as you correctly point out,(assuming it's true) this is more of a bad reflection on the state of unions in general than an appraisal of the RMT. This said, voter participation in many of the left wing groups I have been in has been comparably bad...


Compare participation in leadership elections to participation in strike ballots. I think it says something very clear.It certainly does, and I think I draw the same conclusions.


It is not that rare. What about Billy Hayes from the CWU, for example? Here in Turkey we have unions that call themselves revolutionary, we hear union speakers calling for the end of capitalism etc, and still they sabotage strikes and act against the working class. Only this week the leaders of a Turkish union were being protected from their own members by 15,000 riot police here in Ankara....Right but what is this example illustrating? I mean, I fully acknowledge the need for strong rank and file self organisation. I don't think Unions should have leadership positions of the current sort, and fully accept that even the most sincere union boss will be forced to capitulate in quite an embarrassing manner due to the nature of his/her position as a mediator. I am after all a supporter of the NSSN, and member of the IWW.

[Devrim]

I say probably because the RMT has a far more active and militant membership, more support for strike action and larger demonstration participation etc.

You often talk about this with the RMT. However, the UK sector by half with the highest level of strikes is not one covered by the RMT. I think that I would be right in saying that in every year since 1988, so for nearly a quarter of a century now, the highest number of days lost to industrial action has been in the Royal Mail. In many years more than the rest of the economy put together.


In 2007, 60% of days lost in the whole UK economy through industrial action were accounted for by the Royal Mail

Yet what has been consistently the most militant sector of the UK workforce are not in what could be called a 'militant union' in anyway. I think that says something about the relationship between so-called 'militant unions', and actual militant action by workers.

Devrim

[Forward Union]

You often talk about this with the RMT. However, the UK sector by half with the highest level of strikes is not one covered by the RMT. I think that I would be right in saying that in every year since 1988, so for nearly a quarter of a century now, the highest number of days lost to industrial action has been in the Royal Mail. In many years more than the rest of the economy put together.

Perhaps, and the CWU is another interesting Union, though it is not an Industrial Union like the RMT, and does not have a campaign against current Trade Union Regulation, involving in, and bolstering the NSSN and other grassroots initiatives, nor does it commit to the overthrow of Capitalism, though It did consider cutting the lick with labour last year.

The point again is not to apologise for any mistakes they made, to glorify or exemplify these Unions (particularly the RMT) but to recognise them as significant forces in the Workers struggle


Yet what has been consistently the most militant sector of the UK workforce are not in what could be called a 'militant union' in anyway. I think that says something about the relationship between so-called 'militant unions', and actual militant action by workers.

For sure, the Union structures are terrible, and the workers are far more radical than their Unions permit.

[pastradamus]

Generally for the government to recognize a unions authority at a particular place of work, a majority of the workforce has to belong to a union. I believe that is what he is asking about--how many work places are you legally able to represent.

We are able to represent any amount of work places. We have both the capacity to do so and also the legal right to do so. The union can summon the employer to the labour court without having a general majority. Though a general majority in a certain place of work is of course desirable.

[Devrim]

Perhaps, and the CWU is another interesting Union, though it is not an Industrial Union like the RMT,

I think that the think about Industrial unions is a complete read herring today. In the early years of the working class movement with the predominance of craft unions there was a real point to it. It has disappeared now though. I am just about old enough to remember the last of the craft unions. I don't think there are any left today in the UK though at all. The CWU covers the entire company. What would it matter if it covered a few private couriers too. It is not as if they would launch illegal secondary action anyway.


and does not have a campaign against current Trade Union Regulation, involving in, and bolstering the NSSN and other grassroots initiatives, nor does it commit to the overthrow of Capitalism, though It did consider cutting the lick with labour last year.

The RMT's 'commitment to the overthrow of capitalism' isn't worth the paper it is written on. It is just an empty clause in the constitution.


For sure, the Union structures are terrible, and the workers are far more radical than their Unions permit.

Not always, No. It is wrong to see the working class as straining at the leash and only being held back by the unions.

Devrim

[soyonstout]

(3) There is no evidence that unions are integrated into the ruling class structure, that they are part of the state. There is no doubt as to the reactionary nature of the current working class leadership, but that's not what the pamphlet is talking about: it's addressing unions per se.

Much more to say about this crucial issue. I will insist, and demonstrate, that to abandon the struggle in the unions and the struggle to transform the unions is an extremely unfortunate form of ultra-leftism. There are also serious distortions of fact concerning the history of unions in the ICC link.


I'm jumping into this thread late, but I wonder how many on here have read Leon Trotsky's Trade Unions in the Epoch of Imperialist Decay (marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1940/xx/tu.htm)


There is one common feature in the development, or more correctly the degeneration, of modern trade union organizations in the entire world: it is their drawing closely to and growing together with the state power. This process is equally characteristic of the neutral, the Social-Democratic, the Communist and “anarchist” trade unions. This fact alone shows that the tendency towards “growing together” is intrinsic not in this or that doctrine as such but derives from social conditions common for all unions.

Monopoly capitalism does not rest on competition and free private initiative but on centralized command. The capitalist cliques at the head of mighty trusts, syndicates, banking consortiums, etcetera, view economic life from the very same heights as does state power; and they require at every step the collaboration of the latter. In their turn the trade unions in the most important branches of industry find themselves deprived of the possibility of profiting by the competition between the different enterprises. They have to confront a centralized capitalist adversary, intimately bound up with state power. Hence flows the need of the trade unions – insofar as they remain on reformist positions, ie., on positions of adapting themselves to private property – to adapt themselves to the capitalist state and to contend for its cooperation. ...The labor bureaucrats do their level best in words and deeds to demonstrate to the “democratic” state how reliable and indispensable they are in peace-time and especially in time of war. By transforming the trade unions into organs of the state, fascism invents nothing new; it merely draws to their ultimate conclusion the tendencies inherent in imperialism.

...

In other words, the trade unions in the present epoch cannot simply be the organs of democracy as they were in the epoch of free capitalism and they cannot any longer remain politically neutral, that is, limit themselves to serving the daily needs of the working class. They cannot any longer be anarchistic, i.e. ignore the decisive influence of the state on the life of peoples and classes. They can no longer be reformist, because the objective conditions leave no room for any serious and lasting reforms. The trade unions of our time can either serve as secondary instruments of imperialist capitalism for the subordination and disciplining of workers and for obstructing the revolution, or, on the contrary, the trade unions can become the instruments of the revolutionary movement of the proletariat.
* * *

The neutrality of the trade unions is completely and irretrievably a thing of the past, gone together with the free bourgeois democracy.


...In the United States the trade union movement has passed through the most stormy history in recent years. The rise of the CIO is incontrovertible evidence of the revolutionary tendencies within the working masses. Indicative and noteworthy in the highest degree, however, is the fact that the new “leftist” trade union organization was no sooner founded than it fell into the steel embrace of the imperialist state. The struggle among the tops between the old federation and the new is reducible in large measure to the struggle for the sympathy and support of Roosevelt and his cabinet.


...Democratic unions in the old sense of the term, bodies where in the framework of one and the same mass organization different tendencies struggled more or less freely, can no longer exist. Just as it is impossible to bring back the bourgeois-democratic state, so it is impossible to bring back the old workers’ democracy. The fate of the one reflects the fate of the other. As a matter of fact, the independence of trade unions in the class sense, in their relations to the bourgeois state can, in the present conditions, be assured only by a completely revolutionary leadership, that is, the leadership of the Fourth International. This leadership, naturally, must and can be rational and assure the unions the maximum of democracy conceivable under the present concrete conditions. But without the political leadership of the Fourth International the independence of the trade unions is impossible.


Apologies for the long quote--but I think this is actually one of the best texts on Trade Unions in some way (and I'm an ICC sympathizer, not a Trotskyist), although I think the recommendations derived from Trotsky's analysis are wrong. But there is a crucial question in this:


If in 1940--70 years ago, Trotsky said that the unions had been characterized in the age of imperialism mainly by their growing together with the state, and said that "without the political leadership of the Fourth International the independence of the trade unions is impossible," what has happened in the last 70 years? Have Trotskyists been able to take over the leadership of a significant number of unions without becoming democratic party supporters and abandoning the Trotskyism? Would it take more than 70 years for the unions to lose their independence from the state without the political leadership of the Fourth International?


Trotsky certainly doesn't have to right about everything even for Trotskyists, just as I don't think Marx was right about everything--but I think this article shows something that is lacking in the leftist approach to the unions: a recognition of the reality of state capitalism, a recognition of the bankruptcy of reformism, and a proviso to all union activity that the whole point of it is to argue against any and all collusion with the state in any way. This is not dissimilar from the position that many of the Italian Left Communists had until the 2nd World War, and after having been thrown out of unions so much for actually espousing independence from the state, more reflection about whether or not the unions were "recapturable" led them to see that in fact they are not.


As legal, permanent, mass organizations recognized by the state, unions can't condone secondary action, let alone foment it, they can't condone politicization of the struggle. Mass assemblies where everyone makes decisions together, elects a daily revocable strike committee, and sends delegations to other workplaces to get other people out or in the struggle somehow is what workers need to win when they are fighting a company with loans from huge banks whose ex managers run the state. Back when each company competed and the state didn't act as the national capitalist, workers in one company could withdraw their labor and outlast their boss, because his competitors would be a threat. This situation of free competition is gone and with it, the efficacy of a compartmentalized struggle against one compartment of capitalism--moreover, the unions have sought a place in the management of economic agreements, the platforms of bourgeois parties, and are recognized by the state as the keepers of industrial peace.



A CIO contract is adequate protection against sit-downs, tie-downs, or any other kind of strike.

[RED DAVE]

As legal, permanent, mass organizations recognized by the state, unions can't condone secondary action, let alone foment it, they can't condone politicization of the struggle. Mass assemblies where everyone makes decisions together, elects a daily revocable strike committee, and sends delegations to other workplaces to get other people out or in the struggle somehow is what workers need to win when they are fighting a company with loans from huge banks whose ex managers run the state. Back when each company competed and the state didn't act as the national capitalist, workers in one company could withdraw their labor and outlast their boss, because his competitors would be a threat. This situation of free competition is gone and with it, the efficacy of a compartmentalized struggle against one compartment of capitalism--moreover, the unions have sought a place in the management of economic agreements, the platforms of bourgeois parties, and are recognized by the state as the keepers of industrial peace.So, given your position, what do you advocate, concretely, now, for comrades in unions?

RED DAVE

[syndicat]

I've been a member of six unions since the '60s. three of these were independents, one was an AFT local and another was GCIU (printers union). one of the independents was a pathetic company union...i got fired when a number of us took a job action outside the union. another independent (which I helped to create) was a totally grassroots organization with no paid officials or staff, run by assemblies and a shop stewards council.

i can't speak about unions in other countries, but in the USA it's important to distinguish between the national unions -- which are called "internationals" in the USA due to sections in Canada and Puerto Rico -- and the local unions. there are over 20,000 local unions in the USA. Local unions vary tremendously in their character. i know some that are run democratically without paid officers, or where the officers do not have a large salary and which have a fairly combative stance. but there are also large amalgamated locals that are totally staff driven monstrosities.

the unions tend to be totally in the pocket of the Democratic party, especially the national unions, and put millions to elect capitalist politicians who do us no good at all. Being tied to the Dems tends to limit the aspirations and ideology of the unions to what is acceptable to mainstream capitalist society.

since World War 1 the Leninist left in the USA has pursued William Z Foster's "boring from within" strategy to try to change the unions. thousands of radicals went into the unions back in the '70s with this aim. some are still around. they've influenced the politics of the unions to a minimal degree -- more criticism of U.S. foreign policy, getting the unions to back immigrant rights (tho the union bureaucrats also have a self-interest in doing so since immigrant workers are among the most likely to support unions). but the structure of the unions and how they function hasn't been changed at all.

this miserable performance for the left comes about from viewing the problem as "bad leadership" rather than the structure and character of the unions. now what we've seen in recent years is the old bureaucratic business unionism becoming even more top down and corporatist with good examples being the way SEIU and the Carpenters have engaged in forced mergers of locals into gigantic bureaucratic entities, without vote of the members and against their will. a "local" union that stretches over an entire state or several states is not an organizatation that can be controlled by its members. to oppose the bureaucrats would require networking over a very large area, where the average worker doesn't have contacts. it's a bureaucrat entrenchment device.

meanwhile now the unions have shrunk to only 6 percent of workers in the private sector. they don't have a clue as to how to turn this around. turning it around requires mobilization and participation by members, developing a program and strategy of struggle, of bringing back the strike and other forms of mass militancy, which the bureaucrats are scared of, partly because they have no role in them. bureaucratic unionism is based on the idea that somehow the employers need the bureaucrats as "partners"...but the intransigent American capitalists don't see any use for the union bureaucrats.

what's required is the development of independent worker organization, apart from the bureaucracy. this can take the form of rank and file associations in situations where the bureaucratic unions still exist and these can try to change, not just who is in office but how the union is run, and also where feasible the building of independent worker-self-managed unions that base themselves on class solidarity, member control and involvement, and direct self-activity on the job. the Starbucks Workers Union and various parts of UE are examples of trying to do this.

"workers centers" are a type of organization that has grown up in recent years in the USA, especially among immigrants, but these also vary considerably in charactere. some are bureaucratic nonrofits, others are grassroots organizations. some are mere appendages of unions.

this type of organization can be built in a grassroots way, and perhaps evolve into something like a community union.

but what is completely unlikely is taking over and changing the top-down hierarchies of the "international" unions. this isn't going to happen. eventually a new grassroots, anti-capitalist labor federation, based on worker run locals, needs to come into being.

i think it's a mistake to pose the problem of structure of unions as class versus craft. the CIO gave as much autonomy to the "industrial" unions (really AFL style bureaucratic fiefdoms) as AFL did to craft unions. the problem is lack of class solidarity, lack of any attempt at class coordintion or of seeing the fight as a class fight, on the part of the leadership. so there is no class unionism, and it is class unionism that is required.

[RED DAVE]

I've been a member of six unions since the '60s. three of these were independents, one was an AFT local and another was GCIU (printers union). one of the independents was a pathetic company union...i got fired when a number of us took a job action outside the union. another independent (which I helped to create) was a totally grassroots organization with no paid officials or staff, run by assemblies and a shop stewards council.Thanx for your militant work and belief in the working class.


i can't speak about unions in other countries, but in the USA it's important to distinguish between the national unions -- which are called "internationals" in the USA due to sections in Canada and Puerto Rico -- and the local unions. there are over 20,000 local unions in the USA. Local unions vary tremendously in their character. i know some that are run democratically without paid officers, or where the officers do not have a large salary and which have a fairly combative stance. but there are also large amalgamated locals that are totally staff driven monstrosities.This is true but within the past few months, rank and file victories have taken place in exactly these monster locals in California.


the unions tend to be totally in the pocket of the Democratic party, especially the national unions, and put millions to elect capitalist politicians who do us no good at all. Being tied to the Dems tends to limit the aspirations and ideology of the unions to what is acceptable to mainstream capitalist society.It's all part and parcel of the philosophy of business unionism.


since World War 1 the Leninist left in the USA has pursued William Z Foster's "boring from within" strategy to try to change the unions.This strategy was developed after the failure of the IWW.

There's a lot of important history, involving the Trade Union Unity League and the Trade Union Educational League, the concept of "dual unionism" and the Communist and Socialist parties and even nascent Trotskyism to consider during this period.


thousands of radicals went into the unions back in the '70s with this aim. some are still around. they've influenced the politics of the unions to a minimal degree -- more criticism of U.S. foreign policy, getting the unions to back immigrant rights (tho the union bureaucrats also have a self-interest in doing so since immigrant workers are among the most likely to support unions). but the structure of the unions and how they function hasn't been changed at all.Largely true but has to be seen in the context of the world-wide capitalist offensive, which was particularly effective in the US.

However, the ones who are "still around" have produced some important victories very recently, especially the recent reform victories in California. It remains to be seen over the next few years how much structural change, in terms of union democracy, will be accomplished.


this miserable performance for the left comes about from viewing the problem as "bad leadership" rather than the structure and character of the unions.I don't think that's quite true. My own opinion is that the notion, stemming from the Trotskyists, that what we were facing starting in the 1940s was a crisis of proletarian leadership which could be "remedied" by revolutionary leadership, neglected the fact that this crisis of proletarian leadership is a crisis of working class as a whole. (This notion needs to be expanded on.)


now what we've seen in recent years is the old bureaucratic business unionism becoming even more top down and corporatist with good examples being the way SEIU and the Carpenters have engaged in forced mergers of locals into gigantic bureaucratic entities, without vote of the members and against their will. a "local" union that stretches over an entire state or several states is not an organizatation that can be controlled by its members. to oppose the bureaucrats would require networking over a very large area, where the average worker doesn't have contacts. it's a bureaucrat entrenchment device.Well, again, it's precisely in the "gigantic bureaucratic entities" where important victories have been won within the past few months!


meanwhile now the unions have shrunk to only 6 percent of workers in the private sector. they don't have a clue as to how to turn this around. turning it around requires mobilization and participation by members, developing a program and strategy of struggle, of bringing back the strike and other forms of mass militancy, which the bureaucrats are scared of, partly because they have no role in them. bureaucratic unionism is based on the idea that somehow the employers need the bureaucrats as "partners"...but the intransigent American capitalists don't see any use for the union bureaucrats.All true.


what's required is the development of independent worker organization, apart from the bureaucracy. this can take the form of rank and file associations in situations where the bureaucratic unions still exist and these can try to change, not just who is in office but how the union is run[/quot]This is exactly, in my opinion, where the struggle is taking place right now, building on previous struggles.

[QUOTE=syndicat;1737669]and also where feasible the building of independent worker-self-managed unions that base themselves on class solidarity, member control and involvement, and direct self-activity on the job. the Starbucks Workers Union and various parts of UE are examples of trying to do this.All well and good where it can be done. However: (1) as far as I know the Starbucks people have achieved no success. They've been working in New York for years and have not gotten a single contract. (2) UE has always been an unusually democratic and left-leaning union. (Lots of history there.)


"workers centers" are a type of organization that has grown up in recent years in the USA, especially among immigrants, but these also vary considerably in charactere. some are bureaucratic nonrofits, others are grassroots organizations. some are mere appendages of unions.Could we get some more info on this.


this type of organization can be built in a grassroots way, and perhaps evolve into something like a community union.I am dubious about any unions that are not workplace oriented. When there is no central workplace, such as in various form of casual or repair or construction work, I think hiring halls and similar places need to be established.


but what is completely unlikely is taking over and changing the top-down hierarchies of the "international" unions. this isn't going to happen. eventually a new grassroots, anti-capitalist labor federation, based on worker run locals, needs to come into being.You are being far too rigid about this. In my experience (also in six different unions), the likelihood of rank-and-file reform victories, at this time, is much higher than establishing new unions from below.


i think it's a mistake to pose the problem of structure of unions as class versus craft. the CIO gave as much autonomy to the "industrial" unions (really AFL style bureaucratic fiefdoms) as AFL did to craft unions. the problem is lack of class solidarity, lack of any attempt at class coordintion or of seeing the fight as a class fight, on the part of the leadership. so there is no class unionism, and it is class unionism that is required.Solidarity forever!

RED DAVE

[syndicat]

This is true but within the past few months, rank and file victories have taken place in exactly these monster locals in California.

if you're talking about SEIU 1021, I'm sceptical (I live in San Francisco). there have been countless "reform slates" elected since the '60s in AFL-CIO unions and very often these turn out not so different from their predecessors, such as the case or Roger Tousaint in the TWU in New York City and many other examples.

the key thing is grassroots worker organization independent of the bureaucracy. getting people to put all their faith in "better leaders" tends to undermine that.

me:
since World War 1 the Leninist left in the USA has pursued William Z Foster's "boring from within" strategy to try to change the unions.

This strategy was developed after the failure of the IWW.


Not really. Foster first developed his ideas in 1912-14 in the Syndicalist League, which was prior to some of the IWW's greatest mass struggles. The IWW continued as a significant union with some tens of thousands of members into the '20s.

In the early '30s there was a significant opportunity to develop a radical grassroots labor federation independent of the AFL, due to the emergence of large numbers of federal locals in 1934, and independents like the Independent Union of All Workers (initiated by IWWs at Hormel).

But the CP and Trots preferred to support the hierarchical takeover attempt by the Hillman-Lewis wing of the AFL, with top down structured CIO constitutions and practices brought from the AFL. took them awhile to totally tame the unions tho, and the various attacks on radicals in '40s further consolidated the conservative business union bureaucracy.

The working class does face a crisis, but it's also a crisis of organization and direction.


However: (1) as far as I know the Starbucks people have achieved no success.

this would be if you accept the bureaucratic business union concept of success which means getting a contract and setting up the dues flow to support the paid hierarchy. SWU has built an organization of 300 to 400 workers at Starbucks and has gained numerous concessions. It is practicing "minority unionism" and in this respect is similar to some sections of the UE, such as local 170 in North Carolina.

re community unions, Independent Union of All Workers in the '30s was based on branches that tried to organize all the workers in a town. so each branch was a community union. Their strategy was to first organize the largest workplaces, usually meat packing plants, then use the force of numbers of those workers to support workers in a weaker position, such as retail store workers.

that was broken up when the CP and Farmer Labor Party manipulated the IUAW into the CIO, which quickly kicked out all nonmeatpacking workers, due to "jurisdictional" divisions (shades of AFL) and assigned the remnants to the United Packinghouse Workers. To its credit, the UPW was one of the most radical and democratic unions in CIO, and took up racism not only in plants but in the community...continuing the IUAW's radical legacy.

in re workers centers: examples of grassroots ones are the Centro Obrero de Detroit, Lansing Workers Center, and Worker Defense Project in Austin,TX, a group of 200 Mexican immigrant construction workers and the Coalition of Immokalee Workers, a community based center of about 2,500 farm worker members. Basically a kind of community union in Immokalee. they also run a consumer coop and a low power radio station.

the main danger for worker centers is following the nonprofit model and becoming dependent on grant funding and not the dues of members.

[syndicat]

Mass, permanent organisations are by definition de-linked from the levels of militancy of their members and class struggle more broadly. Therefore, they are not expressions of the self-organisation of workers sought by anarcho-syndicalists, but for the representation of workers as workers. We therefore recognise that neither trade unions or so-called mass workers’ parties are revolutionary organisations. In the case of trade unions, their structural role as representatives of labour power within capitalism compels them to offer disciplined workforces to the employers.



well, Workers Solidarity Alliance is anarcho-syndicalist but we disagree with this viewpoint. From out point of view, this abandons revolutionary syndicalism for a kind of council communist view.

In the USA "permanent" organizations only get "delinked" from the militancy of their members when they have forced union membership, no-strike contracts, and control by paid hierarchies who are not there on the shopfloor. It's not the existence of an ongoing organization in itself that is the problem.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Did I already post here my thoughts on eliminating business unionism through "the wholesale absorption of all private-sector collective bargaining representation into free legal services by independent government agencies acting in good faith and subjecting their employees to full-time compensation being at or slightly lower than the median equivalent for professional and other skilled workers"? This would free up more militant unions to pursue other activities.

[Devrim]

In the USA "permanent" organizations only get "delinked" from the militancy of their members when they have forced union membership, no-strike contracts, and control by paid hierarchies who are not there on the shopfloor. It's not the existence of an ongoing organization in itself that is the problem.

But that is what happens to permanent mass economic organisations outside of periods of heightened class struggle. Even the IWW has some no-strike clauses.

Devrim

[RebelDog]

private-sector collective bargaining representation into free legal services by independent government agencies acting in good faith

Thats a very interesting idea, and as a worker, I hope to god it never happens.

[RED DAVE]

I just want to say that syndicat's important post # 92 requires a thoughtful response with some research on my part. I will reply to it ASAP.

RED DAVE

[Stranger Than Paradise]

But that is what happens to permanent mass economic organisations outside of periods of heightened class struggle. Even the IWW has some no-strike clauses.

Devrim

That is true, i myself think the organisation needs to form out of the period of class struggle and within a time like now propaganda groups work towards the revolutionary union and work within our current union structures.

[syndicat]

But that is what happens to permanent mass economic organisations outside of periods of heightened class struggle. Even the IWW has some no-strike clauses.


Not necessarily. The IWW has contracts at only a tiny number of highly marginal nonprofit entities with few workers, so that is not a relevant example. The only real union they have is the Starbucks Workers Union (over 300 members), which has no contract, and gains concessions only thru direct worker self-activity. There is also an even larger union, Carolina Automotive, Aerospace and Machine Workers, in North Carolina (an affiliate of UE) that operates on the same basis. It has no contract, is a "non-majority union" that operates on the basis of activity of the workers.

[zimmerwald1915]

if you're talking about SEIU 1021, I'm sceptical (I live in San Francisco). there have been countless "reform slates" elected since the '60s in AFL-CIO unions and very often these turn out not so different from their predecessors, such as the case or Roger Tousaint in the TWU in New York City and many other examples.

Continue to be sceptical. The last Local 1199 (eastern seaboard, from Florida to Baltimore to NYC) election saw the outgoing Executive's proposed slate go totally unopposed, with very little discussion among the membership.

[soyonstout]

So, given your position, what do you advocate, concretely, now, for comrades in unions?

RED DAVE

Basically just advocate workers making decisions themselves and always broadening the struggle to include other workers in the region, especially in other unions/companies/industries, pointing out that the union can't do this, so we have to do it ourselves. It's not what people want to hear when not in the heat of struggle, because they want their leaders to fix their problems for them, but people don't want to overthrow capitalism either most of the time, yet that doesn't make it any less necessary.

I myself am in a union--and what I've tried to do (although I work in one of the least militant offices of workers that union represents, is to talk with people before/after union meetings, talk with coworkers about what would really push back the bosses: joint struggle in different sectors/categories throughout our region. Some say its a pipe-dream but one thing I suggested recently was just independently organizing a group of us to go to other picket lines in area independently, not as union people but just as other workers and to talk about our experiences. This is all somewhat new as I've only been at this stuff for about a year and a half. Another thing is to talk to your coworkers about having an independent meeting about how to fight back and how to spread the struggle. Basically you just stress the need for solidarity and self-organization--point out that the union can't spread the struggle and point out the antidemocratic nature of them etc and try to get people to organize something on their own. It can start small--protest during a long lunch, meeting outside the workplace during a long lunch, or getting people who work with you to go around to other workers who are dealing with potential attacks/contract fights or whathaveyou and invite them to come discuss together how to move forward. The ultimate goal of course is for a class movement of all workers with organs specific to the struggle (mass assemblies open to all that make decisions and execute them, daily elected and daily revocable strike committees) running the struggle

I my town there's been two strikes this year and many many many union rallies at which each other union tells its members to come and support but each strike happens at a different time and when the strikes actually happen there's almost no support, unless its a "union-busting" issue. I wrote a little one page thing about "how come we go to each others rallies and talk about solidarity and then deal with our own contracts/demands/fights at completely different times all alone except for a few extra bodies on the line?"

It's not easy to do especially if there's little militancy in your area or a long tradition of letting politicians, union leaders, etc. "solve" problems for you. It's also not easy to do alone, but I think fundamentally it goes with something that Herman Gorter once said about what he would always say to himself "you shall ever act in such a way that the class consciousness of the workers shall be roused and strengthened" which is a central point for me in the union question.


Apologies in advance for any typos or anything. I haven't had much time to look at RevLeft this week.

[RED DAVE]

This is true but within the past few months, rank and file victories have taken place in exactly these monster locals in California.
if you're talking about SEIU 1021, I'm sceptical (I live in San Francisco). there have been countless "reform slates" elected since the '60s in AFL-CIO unions and very often these turn out not so different from their predecessors, such as the case or Roger Tousaint in the TWU in New York City and many other examples.True to a certain extent, but if you want to balance that against a few hundred workers at Starbucks, I think that, objectively, the reform victory counts for a hell of a lot more towards building a radical labor movement. We shall see.


the key thing is grassroots worker organization independent of the bureaucracy. getting people to put all their faith in "better leaders" tends to undermine that.Frankly, I am dubious about this in the long-term. Sooner or alter, rank-and-file groups, grassroots worker organizatins, etc., which I have been a part of, as they gain strength, tend to take on, of necessity, official tasks, such as working on grievances, etc. The next logical step, on the shopfloor level, challenging steward elections, etc. I’ve been there, done that, and it’s a highly effective way of organizing. During the last wave of labor militancy, in the 1970s, I was involved in the kind of work in the Letter Carriers Union. Had the wave of militancy not receded, myself an other socialiss were well on the way to building an organization like TDU in post office.

If you disparage TDU and its work, you are putting down the best that the Left has accomplished in the trade union movement in the last 30 years.


since World War 1 the Leninist left in the USA has pursued William Z Foster's "boring from within" strategy to try to change the unions.
This strategy was developed after the failure of the IWW
Not really. Foster first developed his ideas in 1912-14 in the Syndicalist League, which was prior to some of the IWW's greatest mass struggles. The IWW continued as a significant union with some tens of thousands of members into the '20s.Could you give me some links or references to the Syndicalist League. Also, I want to check out the Trade Union Educational League and the Trade Union Unity League. I haven’t read up on this stuff literally in 40 years.


In the early '30s there was a significant opportunity to develop a radical grassroots labor federation independent of the AFL, due to the emergence of large numbers of federal locals in 1934, and independents like the Independent Union of All Workers (initiated by IWWs at Hormel).

But the CP and Trots preferred to support the hierarchical takeover attempt by the Hillman-Lewis wing of the AFL, with top down structured CIO constitutions and practices brought from the AFL. took them awhile to totally tame the unions tho, and the various attacks on radicals in '40s further consolidated the conservative business union bureaucracy.I will have to look at all this, but what you are saying strikes me as (a) dubiously conspiratorial and (b) showing far too confident in anarchistic forms. If you are saying that a powerful federative alternative to the CIO was possible, you’re going to have to “prove it.”

I will admit that I am dubious about models of working class organizations, especially unions, that depend on continuous engagement in class struggle on a high level. The class war ebbs and flows. During an ebb, as we have seen over the past 30 years and more, noninstitutionalized labor organizations, had they been established in the 1970s, would have left the workers even more defenseless than they are.


The working class does face a crisis, but it's also a crisis of organization and direction.True. But I don’t think that crisis can be resolved by grassroots efforts outside of the labor movement. But please, prove me wrong with victories.

However: (1) as far as I know the Starbucks people have achieved no success.
this would be if you accept the bureaucratic business union concept of success which means getting a contract and setting up the dues flow to support the paid hierarchy.This response is spleen. I accept as success an enhancement of workers power over the long-term. I know what defeat is, especially of reform movements. I don’t think I have any illusions about the labor bureaucracy or the traps and trips of reform. But to counterpose, say, the Local 1021 victory with the IWW Starbucks effort is, with all due respect, something of a joke and a political illusion.

I am indirectly in touch with the Starbucks campaign here in New York through a staff member I know in the AFT. He says that the movement has virtually collapsed due to the loss of one its key personnel.

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

The group’s website doesn’t seem to show a whole lot of action.

http://www.starbucksunion.org/


SWU has built an organization of 300 to 400 workers at Starbucks and has gained numerous concessions. It is practicing "minority unionism" and in this respect is similar to some sections of the UE, such as local 170 in North Carolina.What are these concessions, and have they been able to make them stick? Could you give more details about the UE Local 170 organization?


re community unions, Independent Union of All Workers in the '30s was based on branches that tried to organize all the workers in a town. so each branch was a community union. Their strategy was to first organize the largest workplaces, usually meat packing plants, then use the force of numbers of those workers to support workers in a weaker position, such as retail store workers.

that was broken up when the CP and Farmer Labor Party manipulated the IUAW into the CIO, which quickly kicked out all nonmeatpacking workers, due to "jurisdictional" divisions (shades of AFL) and assigned the remnants to the United Packinghouse Workers. To its credit, the UPW was one of the most radical and democratic unions in CIO, and took up racism not only in plants but in the community...continuing the IUAW's radical legacy.Of course this kind of “cvommunity union” organizing can have an effect. However, please note that it begins with a victory is some large plant and fans out from there. Get the victory in a large plant and let’s talk.


in re workers centers: examples of grassroots ones are the Centro Obrero de Detroit, Lansing Workers Center, and Worker Defense Project in Austin,TX, a group of 200 Mexican immigrant construction workers and the Coalition of Immokalee Workers, a community based center of about 2,500 farm worker members. Basically a kind of community union in Immokalee. they also run a consumer coop and a low power radio station.

the main danger for worker centers is following the nonprofit model and becoming dependent on grant funding and not the dues of members.A worse danger is scabbing and the inability to control the flow of labor. This is what flattened the construction workers unions in New York.

Anyway, Comrade, let’s keep the dialog going. It’s a bit more relevant than much of what gets debated around here. I’m currently involved in an organizing drive, which I can’t reveal the details of for awhile, but once things start to happen, or they don’t, I’ll post about it.

RED DAVE

[RED DAVE]

Just to say that soyonstout's post 101 is important, and I'll respond ASAP.

RED DAVE

[redasheville]

if you're talking about SEIU 1021, I'm sceptical (I live in San Francisco). there have been countless "reform slates" elected since the '60s in AFL-CIO unions and very often these turn out not so different from their predecessors, such as the case or Roger Tousaint in the TWU in New York City and many other examples.

the key thing is grassroots worker organization independent of the bureaucracy. getting people to put all their faith in "better leaders" tends to undermine that.



*sigh*

The success or failure of rank and file slates absolutely depends on the level of rank and file militancy, and the mere election of a new leadership is no substitute for rank and file militancy. Duh. Let's move on.

First thing, the reform slate wasn't expecting to win. But they did. By a landslide. However, the former 1021 leadership (THAT WAS NOT EVEN ELECTED, BUT APPOINTED BY STERN) has done absolutely NOTHING to defend 1021's membership from impact of the budget cuts. After the election, the union office was more or less devoid of any sign that the budget cuts were even taking place. The new leadership is making the mobilization of its members its first task. To write this off as "same as the old boss" seems silly to me.

[syndicat]

The success or failure of rank and file slates absolutely depends on the level of rank and file militancy, and the mere election of a new leadership is no substitute for rank and file militancy. Duh. Let's move on.


You're being simplistic. How is this "rank and file militancy" going to be organized? What is the relationship of the business union bureaucracy to the low level of actual militancy? I suggest you think about these questions. For example, if negotiations are monopolized by paid officials and staff, what effect does this have on control over the relationship to the employer? If there is no on the job organization of the workers themselves, what is the effect of this on mobilization and self-activity of the members there?



First thing, the reform slate wasn't expecting to win. But they did. By a landslide. However, the former 1021 leadership (THAT WAS NOT EVEN ELECTED, BUT APPOINTED BY STERN) has done absolutely NOTHING to defend 1021's membership from impact of the budget cuts. After the election, the union office was more or less devoid of any sign that the budget cuts were even taking place. The new leadership is making the mobilization of its members its first task. To write this off as "same as the old boss" seems silly to me.

And here's another thing: There is a tendency for "rank and file mobilization" in a top-down way by the officials & staff of a union to be rather different than actual control of the union, because of the top down way it is organized. Do the members determine what is being mobilized around? Do members determine the aims and direction and if so how?

[redasheville]

You're being simplistic. How is this "rank and file militancy" going to be organized? What is the relationship of the business union bureaucracy to the low level of actual militancy? I suggest you think about these questions. For example, if negotiations are monopolized by paid officials and staff, what effect does this have on control over the relationship to the employer? If there is no on the job organization of the workers themselves, what is the effect of this on mobilization and self-activity of the members there?



And here's another thing: There is a tendency for "rank and file mobilization" in a top-down way by the officials & staff of a union to be rather different than actual control of the union, because of the top down way it is organized. Do the members determine what is being mobilized around? Do members determine the aims and direction and if so how?


Once again, you elevate (or is it the other way around?) everything to the point of complete abstraction. It's not up to me to generalize how rank and file militancy is organized. Those are questions that can only be posed in the concrete situation of any given individual union. Intellectual masturbation by radicals isn't going to organize anybody.

The reform leadership in 1021 organized to simply challenge hand picked bureaucrats, so they wouldn't go unopposed. It was also intended to create a debate in the local on how to fight the budget cuts. They didn't think they'd win. They ended up winning, and by a tremendous landslide. Now I know you dismiss elections, but the workers in 1021 clearly don't and gave their overwhelming support to their fellow workers ( some of whom have been organizing against the bureaucracy in the "local" and the "international" for years, including challenging SEIU's attacks on the militant, radical led, democratically organized FMPR). I can't speak for the workers in 1021, but something tells me that in the context of 1) overall lack of struggle and militancy in the labor movement as a whole 2) public sector unions being destroyed in the wake of budget cuts and 3) the local situation of a massive union local that has never had an election before, they actually DO look to their elected leadership to, well, lead them. The members of 1021 have brains and are not dupes.

You can dismiss all of that out of hand, as you no doubt will, because it doesn't fit your ideal of a perfect union model. It doesn't fit my idea of a perfect union model either, but it doesn't really matter what I think. The questions you posed to me are nice to think about and important, but are (as mentioned before) abstract. They are not the questions being posed in 1021. The questions posed to 1021 are how to fight pay cuts and layoffs. Now we can have a militant leadership elected by the overwhelming majority of members (i.e. the workers WANTED THEM TO BE IN CHARGE OF THE UNION), who have a perspective of mobilization against the cuts or we can have hand picked bureaucrats who have done nothing. The members of 1021 have chosen the latter, and I see that as a victory.

SEIU is a corrupt, top down, yellow, chauvinist union if there ever was one. Does anyone on the far left dispute this? The union has reached unprecedented heights of undemocratic business unionism. That doesn;t change the fact that they have 2 million workers in their ranks. Now radicals can sit around and debate what kind of union is the right kind of union (I think you and I would agree on 99.9% of the answer to this question) or they can try and figure out the best way to fight back against the assault on public sector workers. I know what I am going to chose....

[syndicat]

you're totally mistaken. it's not an "abstract" question at all. it's a very concrete question about how to organize, and about what revolutionaries should be doing. Should their focus be on capturing the union apparatus or on something else? If you've paid any attention at all, that's what I was talking about earlier on in this thread.

But rather than pay attention to what I actually said, you'd rather just pontificate. And then you accuse me of abstraction.

[redasheville]

you're totally mistaken. it's not an "abstract" question at all. it's a very concrete question about how to organize, and about what revolutionaries should be doing. Should their focus be on capturing the union apparatus or on something else? If you've paid any attention at all, that's what I was talking about earlier on in this thread.

But rather than pay attention to what I actually said, you'd rather just pontificate. And then you accuse me of abstraction.

See, it is not concrete when you aren't posing the questions in a way that takes into account the actual conditions! I am not responding to what you've said earlier in this thread. I am responding to your "skepticism" about the new leadership in 1021, and your dismissal (IMO) of it's importance.

EDIT: Oh and I'll just add one more thing - Your question "should their focus be on capturing the union apparatus or on something else" is indeed an important question, but again it only has an answer in relation to what tactically makes sense (maybe I am pontificating here, but I'd assume you and I would agree whether capturing union leadership is an effective STRATEGY) in a given context.

[syndicat]

Look, I have friends who are members and staff of 1021 and its predecessors. My scepticism isn't narrowly related to the replacement of the trustees...it's a good thing to replace the SEIU appointees with elected people. I was talking about more generally about the strategy of electing progressives or radicals to run the union apparatus as something to rely on. You need to keep the context in mind.

[redasheville]

Look, I have friends who are members and staff of 1021 and its predecessors. My scepticism isn't narrowly related to the replacement of the trustees...it's a good thing to replace the SEIU appointees with elected people. I was talking about more generally about the strategy of electing progressives or radicals to run the union apparatus as something to rely on. You need to keep the context in mind.

OK, that is clarifying. Thanks.

However, in the original context of what Red Dave posted (it seems to me, I don't speak for him obviously but we seem to see pretty eye to eye on these matters), he wasn't arguing that it was "something to rely on", or even a strategy to pursue. Moreover, what you stated seemed to me as fatalist (the same ol' "same as the old boss" analysis). Therefore, what you said appeared to me a generic dismissal of these kinds of victories, sorry if I read into it too much.

Point is, revolutionaries should relate to workers in a way that will advance the class struggle. Revolutionaries should aim to help put the most workers into motion around the strongest demands possible. What that looks like in practice varies greatly. In certain situations, capturing a union office might make sense. Otherwise, maybe not. Firm principles, flexible tactics. That is the essence of what it mean to be a revolutionary in the workers' movement, IMHO.

Bed time.

[syndicat]

True to a certain extent, but if you want to balance that against a few hundred workers at Starbucks, I think that, objectively, the reform victory counts for a hell of a lot more towards building a radical labor movement. We shall see.



I doubt it. I've seen too many "reform" efforts where the reformers ended up repeating the same sorts of things over time as the bureaucracy before them. What is needed is to get away from top-down, business unionism.

I agree that it is actual workers power that is sustained that is important. Where has this happened through simply changing who controls the apparatus of AFL-CIO unions? What about the fact that 10,000 officials make more than $100,000 a year? Do you see the implications of that?

In regard to TDU, my organization was supportive of that organization when it got going back in the '70s/"80s period. In some cases they have reformed bylaws of local unions...something I also advocate. And recently an insurgent group has taken over a Chicago local. But I'm waiting to see longterm effects of the worker-empowering kind that you mention. Their candidate for IBT prez advocated freezing Mexican truck drivers out of USA. Is that what we want to advocate? Where is worker solidarity in that?

in re Syndicalist League, there is the little pamphlet "Syndicalism" by Ford & Foster. Foster's history is discussed at length in the excellent series of papers collected by the old Sojourner Truth Organization in "Workplace Papers" but I'm not sure where this info would be easily accessible now.

in re IUAW I'm not saying it was a "conspiracy." What happened is that the Farmer-Labor Party governor, who was close to the CP and the AFL in Minnesota, ordered the IUAW to join the CIO or he would not call off the National Guard in a strike. At that time the main architect of the IUAW, Frank Ellis, a legendary IWW butcher, was in jail on trumped up charges and couldn't organize opposition. The CP certainly by the mid-'30s was angling for participation in the CIO bureaucracy that Hillman and Lewis set up. this was shown by the large numbers of CPers who were hired as staff by SWOC and other unions. The CP, or at least parts of it, had a permeatiionist strategy for influencing the bureaucracy, it seems, and this became more pronounced after the 1935 Popular Front turn. it wasn't a question of "conspiracy" but of the fact they had no principled opposition to a top down kind of unionism. individual Communists however did not all necessarily share this orientation. Some took the position that grassroots democracy was essential, for example, to defend against red-baiting.

the point is that neither the CP nor the Communist League (Trots) had any principled reason to support the IUAW's more grassroots brand of unionism, which had its origins in American syndicalism.

there was at that time also a large increase in the numbers of federal locals, like the local that was at the heart of the Toledo general strike, and various segments were breaking away from AFL, like the west coast longhoremen, who formed ILWU. there was the potential for a more grassroots radical labor federation at that time, but differences between different political tendencies on the Left as well as the opportunity posed by the Lewis-Hillman break pushed aside the opportunity for something not as top down as the old AFL. I would recommend in this regard reading Staughton Lynd's intro to "We Are All Leaders" a series of essays about that era. this anthology also has labor historian Pete Rachleff's excellent history of the IUAW.

in re the Starbucks Workers Union, there is a good interview with Erik Forman of the SWU on the socialistworker.org site, by Adam Turl. This talks about some of their victories which have included wage increases as well as particular grievances in particular stores.

the similar union in North Carolina has been discussed in Labor Notes, and there are two good articles about this on the Labor Notes website, including an interview with the union's president Dave Brown.

the bureaucratic business unions continue to shrink, now down to only 6 percent of the private sector. I'm highly sceptical of these organizations being able to turn things around. if you look over the history of the American labor movement, typically new qualitative advances involve new organizations emerging. this was true in the 1870s-80s with the Knights of Labor, IWPA, Chicago Labor Union etc, in the 1909-1920 period with the socalled "new unionism" (of which the IWW is the most spectacular example), the various new independents and then the CIO in the '30s.

things will not change thru efforts of staff driven organizations. the required changes are too drastic. what's needed is an exponential increase in the number of active workers involved, so that this can only come from people who are not officials and staff.

I'm in favor of what changes can be created in existing local unions. I think things are going to change, however, not solely thru that, but requires new mass organizations outside bureaucratic business unionism.

this can mean simply that we get people together who see the need for a more effective fight back, whether inside or outside a particular union, and develop organization and initiative from that. this may end up taking the form of grassroots unions that avoid things like no-strike contracts and full time paid officials, it may take the form of some kind of transformation of existing local unions, it may take the form of some kind of new hybrid community/workplace organization. I don't have a crystal ball. And I don't that, at this point, we're in a position to predict exactly what this form will take. But I am totally sceptical of the '70s style Leninist view that it is forboten to consider new grassroots unionist organization apart from the bureaucratic business unions.

[RED DAVE]

"Syndicalism" by Ford & Foster (http://www.archive.org/details/syndicalism)

RED DAVE

[RED DAVE]

True to a certain extent, but if you want to balance that against a few hundred workers at Starbucks, I think that, objectively, the reform victory counts for a hell of a lot more towards building a radical labor movement. We shall see.
I doubt it. I've seen too many "reform" efforts where the reformers ended up repeating the same sorts of things over time as the bureaucracy before them. What is needed is to get away from top-down, business unionism.There is no evidence that this can be done in any significant way in this period. And while it is true that many reform efforts have faltered, this is also a function of the period. We are slowly emerging from the most anti-labor time in US history since the 1920s. The fact that reform movements were able to survive at all is a miracle.


I agree that it is actual workers power that is sustained that is important. Where has this happened through simply changing who controls the apparatus of AFL-CIO unions? What about the fact that 10,000 officials make more than $100,000 a year? Do you see the implications of that?Every shitty piece of info about labor union "bosses" can be tripled, it wouldn't change the situation that millions of workers rely on unions to defend them and there is nothing else. To advocate the abandoning of struggle inside the unions at this time is foolish.


In regard to TDU, my organization was supportive of that organization when it got going back in the '70s/"80s period. In some cases they have reformed bylaws of local unions...something I also advocate. And recently an insurgent group has taken over a Chicago local. But I'm waiting to see longterm effects of the worker-empowering kind that you mention.And so am I; and they may not happen; and you may be right. But in the meantime, can you show me anything comparable to this under your strategy?


Their candidate for IBT prez advocated freezing Mexican truck drivers out of USA. Is that what we want to advocate? Where is worker solidarity in that?Sucks. Please provide details.


in re Syndicalist League, there is the little pamphlet "Syndicalism" by Ford & Foster. Foster's history is discussed at length in the excellent series of papers collected by the old Sojourner Truth Organization in "Workplace Papers" but I'm not sure where this info would be easily accessible now.See above. I found the pamphlet online.


in re IUAW I'm not saying it was a "conspiracy." What happened is that the Farmer-Labor Party governor, who was close to the CP and the AFL in Minnesota, ordered the IUAW to join the CIO or he would not call off the National Guard in a strike. At that time the main architect of the IUAW, Frank Ellis, a legendary IWW butcher, was in jail on trumped up charges and couldn't organize opposition. The CP certainly by the mid-'30s was angling for participation in the CIO bureaucracy that Hillman and Lewis set up. this was shown by the large numbers of CPers who were hired as staff by SWOC and other unions. The CP, or at least parts of it, had a permeatiionist strategy for influencing the bureaucracy, it seems, and this became more pronounced after the 1935 Popular Front turn. it wasn't a question of "conspiracy" but of the fact they had no principled opposition to a top down kind of unionism. individual Communists however did not all necessarily share this orientation. Some took the position that grassroots democracy was essential, for example, to defend against red-baiting.Two points here: (1) the corrupt attitude of the CPers doesn't justify a strategy of non-entry into the CIO nor does it prove that such a strategy was possible. (2) Many if not most CPers in SWOC and other places were organizers and hardly candidates for permanent bureaucracy.


the point is that neither the CP nor the Communist League (Trots) had any principled reason to support the IUAW's more grassroots brand of unionism, which had its origins in American syndicalism.In my opinion, there is good reason for what the CP and the Trots did. Syndicalism, and here we come right up against the conflict, is, in my opinion, a dead end. It's greatest period was over by the early 1920s, and it never made significant inroads into heavy industry, transport, etc.

I yield to no one in my love for the Wobs, but their day came and went. As far as i know, neither they nor any syndicalist movement has ever organized systematically in an advanced industrial country. The US is no exception to this.


there was at that time also a large increase in the numbers of federal locals, like the local that was at the heart of the Toledo general strike, and various segments were breaking away from AFL, like the west coast longhoremen, who formed ILWU. there was the potential for a more grassroots radical labor federation at that time, but differences between different political tendencies on the Left as well as the opportunity posed by the Lewis-Hillman break pushed aside the opportunity for something not as top down as the old AFL.

I would recommend in this regard reading Staughton Lynd's intro to "We Are All Leaders" a series of essays about that era. this anthology also has labor historian Pete Rachleff's excellent history of the IUAW.All this may be so. However, this would have set the very small leftist organizations and a few unions against the nascent CIO. It may be that at the time this tactic was possible. However, the centralization took place.


in re the Starbucks Workers Union, there is a good interview with Erik Forman of the SWU on the socialistworker.org site, by Adam Turl. This talks about some of their victories which have included wage increases as well as particular grievances in particular stores.Problem is, from what I can tell online, even from the union's own website, they have lost steam. I have spoken to a staff member of Labor Notes, and to a staff member of the AFT who was supportive of the effort, and their organizing drive in New York, where there's an SB on every corner, is dead. It's important to note that the cause of this collapse, among other things, was the loss of one key person who, apparently, got burned out and left to become a lawyer. The fact that an effort such as this one could be dependent on the ongoing efforts of only a few individuals, and has won so few gains, shows, in my opinion, the incorrectness of this approach.


the similar union in North Carolina has been discussed in Labor Notes, and there are two good articles about this on the Labor Notes website, including an interview with the union's president Dave Brown.I'll check it out.


the bureaucratic business unions continue to shrink, now down to only 6 percent of the private sector. I'm highly sceptical of these organizations being able to turn things around. if you look over the history of the American labor movement, typically new qualitative advances involve new organizations emerging. this was true in the 1870s-80s with the Knights of Labor, IWPA, Chicago Labor Union etc, in the 1909-1920 period with the socalled "new unionism" (of which the IWW is the most spectacular example), the various new independents and then the CIO in the '30s.All true, however, you did leave out the organiztion that through the years had some of the greatest successes: the loathsome AFL and later the AFL-CIO.


things will not change thru efforts of staff driven organizations.That's true, but when such organizations are taken over by the rank-and-file, and the r&f retains its independence, that's when change can and will happen.

By the way, don't dismiss the organized civil service workers. New York State is 25% union because of them.


the required changes are too drastic. what's needed is an exponential increase in the number of active workers involved, so that this can only come from people who are not officials and staff.Couldn't agree with you more. The eifference between us comes over the issue of where the efforts of these workers should be pointed. One of the answers is, in my opinion, towards overthrowing the bureaucracy itself.


I'm in favor of what changes can be created in existing local unions. I think things are going to change, however, not solely thru that, but requires new mass organizations outside bureaucratic business unionism.Absolutely.


this can mean simply that we get people together who see the need for a more effective fight back, whether inside or outside a particular union, and develop organization and initiative from that. this may end up taking the form of grassroots unions that avoid things like no-strike contracts and full time paid officials, it may take the form of some kind of transformation of existing local unions, it may take the form of some kind of new hybrid community/workplace organization. I don't have a crystal ball. And I don't that, at this point, we're in a position to predict exactly what this form will take. But I am totally sceptical of the '70s style Leninist view that it is forboten to consider new grassroots unionist organization apart from the bureaucratic business unionsLet a thousand wild flowers bloom! :D

RED DAVE

[AK]

The Independent Workers' Union however does seem to be both internationalist and pro-working class however the Trots and official left in general continue to fetishize and romanticize SIPTU and the others, almost like a mirror image of Left Communist dogmatism.
Last I checked, Leftcoms opposed trade unions; seeing them as organisations that merely serve to support capitalism.

With the decadence of capitalism, the unions everywhere have been transformed into organs of capitalist order within the proletariat. The various forms of union organisation, whether ‘official’ or ‘rank and file’, serve only to discipline the working class and sabotage its struggles.
And that's pretty much the position I hold.

[RED DAVE]

With the decadence of capitalism, the unions everywhere have been transformed into organs of capitalist order within the proletariat. The various forms of union organisation, whether ‘official’ or ‘rank and file’, serve only to discipline the working class and sabotage its struggles.(emph. added)

This seems to ghave been written by someone who has never been in a union.

Whatever the flaws of unions, and having been in half a dozen of them, I know these flaws well, unions are, on a day-by-day basis, the only defense the average worker has in the present period. Even in areas where unions do not exist at present, unions provide a standard, however, weak, for how to improve things.

Just as a question, would anyone here, give the above ICC position, join in a management effort to destroy a union or advise workers not to join or organize one?

RED DAVE

[Devrim]

This seems to have been written by someone who has never been in a union.

Whatever the flaws of unions, and having been in half a dozen of them, I know these flaws well, unions are, on a day-by-day basis, the only defense the average worker has in the present period. Even in areas where unions do not exist at present, unions provide a standard, however, weak, for how to improve things.

I have been in more than half a dozen unions. I have also been on strike over a dozen times. No of them have ever been organised by the union. I have been sent back to work by union leaders often though. My experience is that unions do nothing to protect workers jobs and living conditions.


ust as a question, would anyone here, give the above ICC position, join in a management effort to destroy a union or advise workers not to join or organize one?

I would say that it is a false question. We don't say workers shouldn't join unions. Personally, I think that unions can defend workers on an individual basis, and would even advise people to join them, just as if you lived in an area with a lot of burglaries, I would advise you to have house insurance if you could afford to.

Nor do we advocate joining management in efforts to destroy them.

What we say is that workers can't use the unions as vehicles of struggle.

Devrim

[RED DAVE]

What we say is that workers can't use the unions as vehicles of struggle.In the US, at least, this is a suicidal attitude for a leftist. There are no other meaningful vehicles for working class struggle on the job. Unions are the best arena for recruiting workers to revolutionary activity. And they are the best place for revolutionaries not born in the working class to gain experience in class struggle.

Again, there may be other vehicles in other countries, but the US, union membership and/or union organizing is crucial.

RED DAVE

[syndicat]

My organization does not say we should ignore the struggle internal to the unions, so that is a strawman. But our view is that just electing a different slate of leaders is not going to change the labor movement. We believe that in the bureaucratic business unions it is necessary to organize independently of the bureaucracy, including the ability to take action.

To take an example, there is a social anarchist group in Miami (an ally of my group) that has a number of teachers and they were involved in the organizing of the recent wildcat strike there, which 30 percent of the teachers participated in, to protest a state law that would link teacher pay to test scores. They had to organize this outside the union because the do-nothing teachers union in Miami is notoriously ineffective and corrupt.


I yield to no one in my love for the Wobs, but their day came and went. As far as i know, neither they nor any syndicalist movement has ever organized systematically in an advanced industrial country. The US is no exception to this.

This is simply false. Catalonia underwent a vast urbanization and industrialization boom between the '10s and the '20s, based on the indigenous bourgeousie who go back to the late middle ages and fueled by the fact Spain was neutral in World War 1, and could trade with both sides. Northeast Spain in the '20s-'30s had a level of development comparable to France and other areas of western Europe.

But it was also the center of the greatest revolutionary syndicalist movement in the history of Europe...the CNT movement that was the main social force in the revolution in Spain the '30s...the only workers revolution to occur in an industrialized country.

The contemporary offshoots of that movement in Spain still operate as militant minorities in a number of industries. The CGT just carried out a strike on the state railway system in which there was a 30 percent reduction in train service admitted by management. The independent longshore union in Spain, organized by syndicalists, still gets 80 percent of the vote in the official elections to bargaining committees in Spain. (Social dem and Communist unions get the other 20 percent.) The union was based on autonomous locals run through worker assemblies and without paid officials except for the national coordinator. that union paralyzed the ports in Spain a few months back in a strike.

The SAC in Sweden also continues to be a mass syndicalist organization, with about 7,000 members.



Problem is, from what I can tell online, even from the union's own website, they have lost steam. I have spoken to a staff member of Labor Notes, and to a staff member of the AFT who was supportive of the effort, and their organizing drive in New York, where there's an SB on every corner, is dead. It's important to note that the cause of this collapse, among other things, was the loss of one key person who, apparently, got burned out and left to become a lawyer. The fact that an effort such as this one could be dependent on the ongoing efforts of only a few individuals, and has won so few gains, shows, in my opinion, the incorrectness of this approach.

If the organizing has subsided in NYC, that's because they didn't win over enough people to sustain it. But SWU exists in about six or seven cities. They just organized a Starbucks in Fort Worth, Texas.

me:

things will not change thru efforts of staff driven organizations.



That's true, but when such organizations are taken over by the rank-and-file, and the r&f retains its independence, that's when change can and will happen.

And when has this happened?

me:

the required changes are too drastic. what's needed is an exponential increase in the number of active workers involved, so that this can only come from people who are not officials and staff.


Couldn't agree with you more. The eifference between us comes over the issue of where the efforts of these workers should be pointed. One of the answers is, in my opinion, towards overthrowing the bureaucracy itself.


but how? I think it may be easier to create a new organization. Consider the problems of UHW in SEIU.



Two points here: (1) the corrupt attitude of the CPers doesn't justify a strategy of non-entry into the CIO nor does it prove that such a strategy was possible. (2) Many if not most CPers in SWOC and other places were organizers and hardly candidates for permanent bureaucracy.

But the CP's attittude, in SWOC and in some other cases, was to permeate and influence the bureaucracy. There were some cases where rank and file CPers did try to sustain rank and file democracy however. But the problem at the time of emergence of CIO is that they had no critique of the kind of topdown bureaucracy the Hillman-Lewis leadership brought from AFL to CIO. this would eventually let them consolidate a regime of routinized, centralized bargaining by the bureaucracy, which pushes workers out of the picture.



All tre, however, you did leave out the organiztion that through the years had some of the greatest successes: the loathsome AFL and later the AFL-CIO.

In the '30s-'40s era a lot of AFL's growth was by organizing the employers. In other words, the employers preferred the more conservattive AFL unions, and it was employer willingness to recognize them as a lesser evil that helped AFL to grow in that period. but this was parasitic on the rank and file upsurge of that era.



There is no evidence that this can be done in any significant way in this period. And while it is true that many reform efforts have faltered, this is also a function of the period. We are slowly emerging from the most anti-labor time in US history since the 1920s. The fact that reform movements were able to survive at all is a miracle.


if "this period" is by definition a period of apathy and passivity then neither strategy will work.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Thats a very interesting idea, and as a worker, I hope to god it never happens.

I think you've read it before, but the main beneficiaries are today's huge swaths of non-unionized workers, and the main losers are the collaborationist fat cats in the trade unions.

[syndicat]

Problem is, from what I can tell online, even from the union's own website, they have lost steam. I have spoken to a staff member of Labor Notes, and to a staff member of the AFT who was supportive of the effort, and their organizing drive in New York

Okay, I just heard back from an elected officer of Starbucks Workers Union. He says these rumors are false. The SWU campaign is very much alive in New York City. And Labor Notes is a biased source, to be frank. They're run by a political organization that has always been adamant about pursuing the "boring from within" approach.

[redasheville]

AHHHHH. I had a huge response written out but my stupid space age mouse moved me back in my browser window. I am going to reproduce what I posted in an abridged form.

@Syndicat:

Nobody here is arguing that winning union office will change things (thats not very radical is it?). So I think that you're propping up your own strawman. Getting voted into office, for people who accept a rank and file approach to union work, is a tactic not a strategy. Big difference.

However, I actually agree with you that we are at a critical juncture in the history of US labor, and that the hope for a revitalized union movement based on class struggle, democratic principles will come from new organizations. I argued that very point several weeks ago to poster Jimmie Higgins, a comrade of mine.

I also think it is right to point to the NUWH as an example of such a new organization. However, it is important to recognize that NUWH was only able to do what they have done because of the tradition of rank and file democracy and militancy in the old UHW, going back to the union's founding in the wake of the '34 strike. Given the weakness of the radical left, and our isolation from the working class as a whole I think it makes sense to form rank and file caucuses in existing unions, to bridge the gap between organized workers and revolutionary militants. This has the potential of building the militant, from below tradition that we need to build a new militant union movement. I don't think that this strategy is necessarily counterposed to things like the SWU (my organization has gone on record for supporting this effort, btw). Not saying that you are arguing that they are counterposed, I am just clarifying my position. But this is all like...my opinion, man. :)

[syndicat]

I also think it is right to point to the NUWH as an example of such a new organization. However, it is important to recognize that NUWH was only able to do what they have done because of the tradition of rank and file democracy and militancy in the old UHW, going back to the union's founding in the wake of the '34 strike.

not quite. in the early '90s Local 250 was a top-down, staff driven monstrosity. a member of my org was the shop steward for the clericals at St Luke's and had to organize a rank and file opposition group because it looked like Roselli's group were going to do a trade off to the private hospital firm that bought St Lukes, going along with a shutdown to improve the position of workers at the other hospitals. It was only due to growing rank and file opposition, I believe, that Roselli & co. changed direction. At that time 250 was a top down staff driven union, despite the fact that the leadership were the product of a "progressive" opposition slate.

However, NUHW people say that in the late '90s UHW changed the internal dynamics of the union by organizing shop stewards councils at the various facilities. And they say this is why there is now loyalty to that particular leadership. But I would say this only made UHW a more complicated and contradictory sort of union, tilting a bit more in the rank and file direction but still a bureaucratic business union.

this being the case I'm not prepared to become an uncritical cheerleader for NUHW.



Given the weakness of the radical left, and our isolation from the working class as a whole I think it makes sense to form rank and file caucuses in existing unions, to bridge the gap between organized workers and revolutionary militants. This has the potential of building the militant, from below tradition that we need to build a new militant union movement. I don't think that this strategy is necessarily counterposed to things like the SWU (my organization has gone on record for supporting this effort, btw). Not saying that you are arguing that they are counterposed, I am just clarifying my position. But this is all like...my opinion, man.

yes, I know about the SWU article. It quotes two members of my organization.

when WSA was founded in the early '80s unions hadn't shrunk so far and we had more members in the business unions. at that time we advocated a dual strategy of building rank and file organizations in AFL-CIO unions, and did build one in the New York City garment & textile unions, but our view was that they should retain independence from the bureaucracy, and support independent forms of worker self-activity where feasible.

our other direction was to support independent worker union organization. at that time we had members in meatpacking and we supported the NAMPU initiative of the former P-9 strikers. That didn't work because they should have made that break from UFCW before they were kicked out of the plant in Austin. but in general we support independent self-managed unions, grassroots worker centers, and rank and file organizations, but we want them to retain their independence of the business union bureaucracy. currently we're involved with another anarchist group in a new grassroots workers center in a midwest city for example.

it's true that a rank and file opposition in an existing union can become the basis of a new organization, and in that sense NUHW is relevant.

[Sheldon]

In the US, at least, this is a suicidal attitude for a leftist. There are no other meaningful vehicles for working class struggle on the job. Unions are the best arena for recruiting workers to revolutionary activity. And they are the best place for revolutionaries not born in the working class to gain experience in class struggle.

Again, there may be other vehicles in other countries, but the US, union membership and/or union organizing is crucial.

RED DAVE

I have been in workplaces where we struggled without the benefit of a union. These were high-risk, low-skill food service jobs too. Did we accomplish anything revolutionary? Probably not, but I know many of the people I fought with changed their understanding of precisely what it meant to struggle in a workplace. And I consider that seed of consciousness, reinforced by material improvements in the working condition, to be a success. This doesn't mean calling in the union bureaucracy to operate on our behalf, this means operating on our own behalf!

We managed to frighten management enough to give us our breaks (which they were denying us) and to cease their tactics of pitting the Latino workers against the American workers. All without a blessed union coming in to save us.

[syndicat]

Formal mass worker organization -- forms of unionism -- is the only way to develop the strength and consciousness of the class. That's because ongoing formal organization is needed to develop broader links and strength that is needed to be able to shut down production. The only real power of the working class is that we are needed for production to continue, so the capitalists can't make profits without us.

Nowadays unions are disappeared and strikes are rare. So in this environment alternative forms of worker organization have been developed such as worker centers. These can be useful in bringing public pressure to bear against the worst employer practices such as job theft.

But ultimately we have to rebuild a tradition of worker militancy and self-organization...and that is going to require ongoing formal worker organizations that workers control. I'm not talking about top down entities controlled by some fat cat "leader" making $150,000 a year or more. We need to develop a more authentic kind of worker organization based on shop floor presence, direct worker control, constant training and building of skills, and a willingness to stand up to employer tyranny.

[blake 3:17]

We need to develop a more authentic kind of worker organization based on shop floor presence, direct worker control, constant training and building of skills, and a willingness to stand up to employer tyranny.

And along side that build democratic community based organizations that are able to both work with official unions, their members and other working people. The ruling class has been very canny about trying to reduce unions to simply being contract negotiators. The struggle to break from that is both political and ideological.

[syndicat]

And along side that build democratic community based organizations that are able to both work with official unions, their members and other working people. The ruling class has been very canny about trying to reduce unions to simply being contract negotiators. The struggle to break from that is both political and ideological.

yes. and work to develop an alliance between the two. this is helpful to encouraging in a union organization a sense of being part of a working class social movement, a social justice movement, and not narrowly focused just on dealing with one's employer. worker struggles are strengthened to the extent workers can take the moral high ground and portray their struggle as a fight for justice. to put it another way, it's a question of unionism transcending narrow trade unionism to class unionism.

the tendency of the union bureaucracy has to been to focus on only narrow wage and benefit issues as management is more willing to deal on these, and cede all power over work to management, and encourage workers to look to voting for Democrats to deal with all the broader issues that face the working class. this is a highly disfunctional approach.

[RED DAVE]

Formal mass worker organization -- forms of unionism -- is the only way to develop the strength and consciousness of the class.Cool.


That's because ongoing formal organization is needed to develop broader links and strength that is needed to be able to shut down production.They are also needed to consolidate gains and, alas, to a certain degree, to carry through periods of lowered militancy and enhanced ruling class attack.


The only real power of the working class is that we are needed for production to continue, so the capitalists can't make profits without us.If anything, this statement needs to be strengthened. Without the working class, there is no production.


Nowadays unions are disappeared and strikes are rare.They haven't disappeared, but they are certainly radically weakened, especially in the US, heartland of capitalism. Strikes are also at a low ebb.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/wkstp.t01.htm

However, labor militancy, in the form of rank-and-file revolts within unions, is definitely increasing, as shown by the recent insurgent victory in the NUHW in California. Hopefully, these victories will soon be transformed into class-struggle militancy.


So in this environment alternative forms of worker organization have been developed such as worker centers.Can you give examples of successful worker centers. Frankly, in the absence of on-the-job struggles, I am dubious about community-based action.


These can be useful in bringing public pressure to bear against the worst employer practices such as job theft.Yeah, maybe, but I would like some examples that exist successfully without union support.


But ultimately we have to rebuild a tradition of worker militancy and self-organization...and that is going to require ongoing formal worker organizations that workers control.Yeah, but what you mean by that and what is generally meant by that are different. My belief is that you are putting forward such as the Starbucks work by the IWW as a model while I'm putting forward Teamsters for a Decent Union.


I'm not talking about top down entities controlled by some fat cat "leader" making $150,000 a year or more.Of course not.


We need to develop a more authentic kind of worker organization based on shop floor presence, direct worker control, constant training and building of skills, and a willingness to stand up to employer tyranny.Absolutely, but this doesn't mean bringing in a lot of baggage, such as the refusal to negotiate contracts and isolation from the rest of the labor movement.

I consider this dialog (which I unfortunately put aside temporarily) to be an important one on working class strategy in the current period.

RED DAVE

[syndicat]

Yeah, but what you mean by that and what is generally meant by that are different. My belief is that you are putting forward such as the Starbucks work by the IWW as a model while I'm putting forward Teamsters for a Decent Union.

you mean, Teamsters for a Democratic Union...whose candidate for IBT president said Mexican truck drivers should be banned from USA.

I think merely forming electoral caucuses to oust current leaders isn't an adequate strategy because it falsely assumes that "bad leadership" is the problem. it's not the problem. the problem lies in the the structure and mode of functioning and politics of the unions. very often leftists have run for office and won, and often they've ended up being little different than the people they replaced. consider the case of Roger Tousaint in the New York TWU.

the AFL-CIO unions are now down to only 6 to 7 percent of workers in the private sector and you're still harping on a boring from within approach? come on.

From the civil war through the 1930s whenever there have been major working class upsurges it has always found expression in new organizations emerging...KoL and independent Chicago Labor Union in 1880s, IWW and the various other "new unions" of the 1909-1920 period, the Independent Union of All Workers, various TUUL unions, and other independents n the early '30s. from 1933 to 1940 union membership quadrupled. no way you can get that kind of growth thru some "innovative" techniques of a top down staff-driven union.

a worker run union is not one where there are national trusteeship clauses that enable the head bureaucrats to oust elected local leaders...as Hoffa did recently to TDU slate in Chicago and as SEIU did in UHW. but all AFL-CIO unions have these clauses in their constitutions.

a worker run union is not one where there are no term limits on executive committee memgership and people can earn management-level salaries.

a worker run union is not a "service agency" where the shop steward's only role (if there is one) is to forward beefs to BAs or officers, and there is little to no shopfloor presence.

a worker run union needs to have autonomous sections in workplaces where the workers there have their own meetings and elect their own shop stewards committee, and this organization conducts campaigns in the workplace and deals with management, calling upon the assistance and solidarity of the larger union.

a worker-run union needs to recognize that there is a flat incompatibility of interests between employers and workers, and that it is necessary to avoid "partnership" schemes.

having an idea of self-managed socialism as the goal -- as for example the FAT in Mexico does -- helps to also support the commitment to rank and file self-management of the union and self-management of struggles. this means that the general meetings of workers who affected need to be the ultimate authority.

now, as to the Starbucks Workers Union. I'm not sure what part of their practice you are referring to. I'm not saying that a union should not try to gain the support of a majority of workers. It must do so if it is going to have the ability to strike. And ultimately workers must be prepared to do this....and they must be prepared even to violate the law in cases where their cause is just and the laws are not...as happened with the Republic Doors & Windows occupation.

I'm not opposed in principle to signing a contract with employers but I do believe that a contract with a no-strike clause (or equivalent such as binding arbitration) isn't worth having.

As to organizing strategies, my organization favors a multi-pronged approach, with different tactics to fit the circumstances. In situations where a bureaucratic business union is entrenched, we favor the development of a militant minority organization of active rank and file workers, not merely the people in one particular revolutionary group but having a militant but broader character -- a kind of intermediate level of organizaton between a large mass union and a political group.

We are willing support efforts to change existing unions to the extent this is feasible.

We also favor developing independent self-managed unions that are formed on the basis of class solidarity (not a narrow or racist organization). This could be the IWW in some contexts but doesn't have to be. Whether the IWW can rebuild itself into a mass union organization again isn't yet proven one way or the other.

Finally, we also support grassroots workers centers. Two examples are Seattle Solidarity Network and the Lansing Workers Center. We've also supported the struggles of the Coalition of Immokalee Workers and were active in 2002-2005 in the Taco Bell boycott, which was victorious. Their subsequent wins against McDonalds, Burger King and Bon Appetit show the potential of workers centers.

But this is a form of organization that seems to have the best fit to situations where there isn't yet enough worker support in the workplaces to develop an ongoing worker organization there...but the latter should be our goal. So, here again, workers centers, like rank and file groups, are a kind of transitional organization.

[Fietsketting]

.

Nowadays unions are disappeared and strikes are rare. So in this environment alternative forms of worker organization have been developed such as worker centers. These can be useful in bringing public pressure to bear against the worst employer practices such as job theft.
.

Worker Centers, can you describe there exact purpose and how there being run?

[syndicat]

Workers centers are all over the map in terms of how they are run. Some are top-down non-profits that are dependent on foundation grants. Even here some gains can be made. An example would be Make the Road by Walking in Bushwick (New York City), which has done campaigns against wage theft, unpaid overtime and the like. They have a worker action group (which my org has a person on) called Trabajadores en accion. in 2002-2005 my group worked with trabajadores en accion in carrying out the Taco Bell boycott in New York City.

At the opposite extreme are the grassroots workers centers, such as the Worker Defense Project in Austin, TX...an organization of 200 Mexican immigrant construction workers. Here they are dealing with unsafe conditions, nonpayment and other forms of wage theft.

Another example is Seattle Solidarity Network (http://seattlesolidarity.net/). this was begun originally by about 8 members of the local IWW branch but is now independent. They respond to beefs that tenants or workers bring to them. This could include wage theft, attempted eviction, failure to make repairs or failure to pay back deposits by landlords. They've won a number of victories.

The Lansing Workers Center is a project initiated by my group and another libertarian socialist group. It operates out of an existing neighborhood social center, which gives them free space. This is being organized as a mass membership organization, unlike Seattle Solidarity Network, which is a loose network, not (yet) a membership organization.

there are at least 200 workers centers in the USA. many of them exist in immigrant communities, such as Centro Obrero de Detroit (a fairly grassroots center). on the other hand, you have a center like Young Workers United in San Francisco, a group of about 200 workers in the restaurant industry (but they receive free space and some funding from HERE local 2). some centers have established links with AFL-CIO unions. Make the Road and a workers center in the Lower East Side both have relationships with the Retail and Department Store Union, and have brought workers to that union in at least two retail organizing campaigns.

in the campaign to organize the Foot Locker (chain of shoe stores), the lower east side center used its established network among queer youth of color and African immigrants to build the inshop organizing.

[M-26-7]

But remember, that unions are the only line of defense of the working class against capitalism.

What about strikes? Sit-ins? Slow-downs? Sabotage? Boycotts? And all other forms of nonviolent and violent direct action? To say nothing of, in times of revolutionary upheaval and a surge in workers' consciousness, spontaneously formed democratic bodies of workers' power such as workers' councils? I'm not necessarily making this post to condemn business unions (although I do), but rather to point out that the statement that they are "the only line of defense of the working class against capitalism" is very incorrect. The only line of defense of the working class against capitalism is their position within the process of production. Unions are only a part of that line of defense if and when they are genuinely democratic and allow workers to channel their power through collective decision making (not bureaucratic, "representative" decision making). And when unions on occasion actually turn workers against each other - as with the absolutely absurd SEIU vs. UNITE HERE fight - they can be downright reactionary and anti-working class organizations.


(1) Most of us have had negative experiences with unions; however, not all have become "anti-union." Frustration, sadness, rage, etc., are all part of the experience of being inside the working class, in the unions, especially over the past 30 years. But to turn anti-union to me is bizarre. My personal experience has been all the negativity I mentioned above, plus a real notion of the strength of workers when organized.

(2) Now, if you're talking about the experience of the working class as a class, that's another story. Here, the experience has been mixed to terrible. The leadership of the unions has been worth shit for decades, but unions themselves, yes it is possible to detach unions from their leadership, remain the only organization capable of fighting for the working class. Unless, of course, you believe what the ICC link tells us: that union victories are some kind of con game.

(3) There is no evidence that unions are integrated into the ruling class structure, that they are part of the state. There is no doubt as to the reactionary nature of the current working class leadership, but that's not what the pamphlet is talking about: it's addressing unions per se.

To me, this is no different than the people who constantly insist that the Democratic Party is on the verge of a grassroots renewal, that the Party itself isn't bad (only its leadership is), that it is the only option for leftists trying to seek real change, that it is a mistake to become "anti-Democratic Party" because of a few things you don't like about the current leadership, etc. I'm assuming that you aren't in favor of working within the Democratic Party, so if not, can you explain to me what the difference is between business unions and the Democratic Party? Personally, I see none. I'd rather work with a small but class-conscious group of community activists, than with a giant business union, spending my time stapling together signs with slogans handed down from the leadership whom I will never even see or meet.

By the way, I should add that I appreciate your apparent years of work done with unions and the dedication to the working class that that activity shows (even if I can't quite understand why you'd have spent all that time and energy on business unions).

[syndicat]

the bureaucratic business unions are not comparable to the Democratic Party. The Dems are directly controlled by the capitalists. They fund the party, many capitalists or professionals and managers allied to them, run for office. few working class people do. Dems are not a disciplined political party so there is no real way for ordinary people to insert themselves to control it. this makes it easier for money power to work.

Unions are different due to the degree that workers have influence over them. Unionism is a contradictory phenomenon. At times worker insurgencies can shape how the union works, or take over a local union, or workers can create some sort of grassroots independent organization. we've certainly not seen a lot of this grassroots form of unionism in the USA in recent decades.

the more top-down, bureaucratic form of unionism has been the norm. this evolves where the union leadership become separate from people on the job, and the paid hierarchy develop their own interests, and to pursue these interests want to develop a "partnership" deal with the employers and encourage workers to vote to solve their problems. That's because negotiations with managers and lobbying politicians emphasizes the particular bureaucratic 'expertise" they build up.

so unionism has these two opposite tendencies...towards grassroots control in periods of insurgency, and towards bureaucratic entrenchment during periods of "normal" collective bargaining.

but the bureaucracy aren't capitalists and they don't defend the interests of capitalists in the direct way the Dems do. they defend capitalist interests only in situations where they have an established partnership arrangement and worker insurgency threatens to unravel it...in such cases they are liable to work to suppress the insurgency, but this is to protect their own interests, tho it does indirectly also protect capital.

[RED DAVE]

Sorry to take so long to respond to this.


the bureaucratic business unions are not comparable to the Democratic Party. The Dems are directly controlled by the capitalists. They fund the party, many capitalists or professionals and managers allied to them, run for office. few working class people do. Dems are not a disciplined political party so there is no real way for ordinary people to insert themselves to control it. this makes it easier for money power to work.Absolutely.


Unions are different due to the degree that workers have influence over them. Unionism is a contradictory phenomenon. At times worker insurgencies can shape how the union works, or take over a local unionCorrect, and the rank-and-file revolt within the labor movement is just beginning to gather momentum.


or workers can create some sort of grassroots independent organization.This is not clear. I don't think that at this early stage of an advancing class struggle, such organizations can have much effect, and they can be a diversion from other kinds of organizing efforts.


we've certainly not seen a lot of this grassroots form of unionism in the USA in recent decades.We certainly haven't, and, as I said above, it's not clear that this is a viable strategy.


the more top-down, bureaucratic form of unionism has been the norm.A common term for this is "business unionism."


this evolves where the union leadership become separate from people on the job, and the paid hierarchy develop their own interests, and to pursue these interests want to develop a "partnership" deal with the employers and encourage workers to vote to solve their problems. That's because negotiations with managers and lobbying politicians emphasizes the particular bureaucratic 'expertise" they build up.This is a start for a materialist analysis of the trade union bureacracy.


so unionism has these two opposite tendencies...towards grassroots control in periods of insurgency, and towards bureaucratic entrenchment during periods of "normal" collective bargaining.Most anarchists don't understand this from the "left," and social democrats don't understand this from the "right."


but the bureaucracy aren't capitalists and they don't defend the interests of capitalists in the direct way the Dems do. they defend capitalist interests only in situations where they have an established partnership arrangement and worker insurgency threatens to unravel it...in such cases they are liable to work to suppress the insurgency, but this is to protect their own interests, tho it does indirectly also protect capital.The truth is probably even more intricate and convoluted than this. A study of the roles of Sidney Hillman and John L. Lewis in the labor movement during the 30s and 40s reveals contradictions within contradictions, within contradictions.

RED DAVE

[syndicat]

me:


workers can create some sort of grassroots independent organization.

I should explain that this can take various forms. It can take the form of a self-managed mass organization (like the FAT in Mexico), or it can take the form of a "militant minority" organization of some sort. the latter seems more likely in the current period, with the traditions of militancy and self-organization having been destroyed in earlier decades.

but independent mass union organization that is controlled by workers, and stays independent of the Dems, has a class union orientation (e.g. anti-racist, anti-sexist) and at least some critique of the existing system should be our aim. And where I disagree with Red Dave and his tendency is that I think we have to be prepared to do this now where the opportunity arises. especially so given that AFL-CIO type unions only "represent" 7 percent of workers in the private sector. back in the '70s/'80s period "dual unionism" was a prohibited no-no among most Leninist groups (including IS) (and with the exception of STO). nowadays i notice that this has begun to change. a couple years ago I had an opportunity to talk to Diane Feeley (a member of Solidarity) who recently retired from American Axle in Hamtramk. She told me that she believed the auto industry could only be organized through a new union, using the sort of grassroots techniques of solidarity unionism.

if there is a sufficient preparation and consciousness, an emergence of a grassroots union could happen in the form of a radical breakaway. NUHW shows the feasibility of building a new union as a breakaway, but, given sal roselli's past history, i doubt that NUHW is going to be as worker controlled as we need to develop.

"militant minority" organization can take several forms. it can take the form of a rank and file organizaton independent of the union bureaucracy (in those situations where business unions still exist), that has a vision for a worker-controlled class unionism, and doesn't allow itself to be reduced to just an electoral caucus.

it can also take the form of "minority unionism" such as the Starbucks Workers Union or the Carolina Automotive and Machine Workers Union (a part of UE).

a grassroots workers center, such as the Seattle Solidarity Network (http://seattlesolidarity.net/), is another type of militant minority organization except that this organization needs to develop into a membership organization, not just a loose network.

[RED DAVE]

workers can create some sort of grassroots independent organization.
I should explain that this can take various forms.Let's see what these amount to.


It can take the form of a self-managed mass organization (like the FAT in Mexico)When you call the FAT (Frente Auténtico del Trabajo) "a self-managed mass organization," you are being extremely vague. According to the UE website:


The Authentic Workers' Front or Frente Auténtico del Trabajo (FAT) is an independent federation of labor unions, worker owned cooperatives, and farmworker and community organizations. A women’s network operates within all of the FAT's sectors and as part of the leadership.http://www.ueinternational.org/SolidarityWork/fat.html

This sounds to me like a good, fighting left-wing union, with some special organizational features. FAT is outside the official union structure of Mexico, but it engages in organizing drives and negotiates contracts. All power to it! To have co-ops and other organizations affiliated with a union is an iffy thing and should be considered on a case-by-case basis. In general, given the problems that already exist for unions in the US, I don't think it's a great idea. Women's networks, minority networks, oppressed peoples' networks within a union, including caucuses, are excellent.


or it can take the form of a "militant minority" organization of some sort. the latter seems more likely in the current period, with the traditions of militancy and self-organization having been destroyed in earlier decades.Again you are vague. What kind of organization are you talking about, specifically? This sounds like a rank-and-file caucus, which is a crucial organizational form in this period.


but independent mass union organization that is controlled by workers, and stays independent of the Dems, has a class union orientation (e.g. anti-racist, anti-sexist) and at least some critique of the existing system should be our aim.Absolutely.


And where I disagree with Red Dave and his tendency is that I think we have to be prepared to do this now where the opportunity arises.The disagreement comes, I think, in that we disagree as to where the opportunities are. I think, and I have evidence to demonstrate this, that the opportunities exist in and around the existing labor movement.


especially so given that AFL-CIO type unions only "represent" 7 percent of workers in the private sector.That figure is true, of course. However, I wonder why you are excluding the civil service unions, especially since much of the agitation and organizational work is going on now in and around these unions where the labor movement and the working class as a whole is strongest.


back in the '70s/'80s period "dual unionism" was a prohibited no-no among most Leninist groups (including IS) (and with the exception of STO).The only case I know of during that period, actually earlier, where dual unionism was an issue, was in New York where there was an independent, left-wing led caseworkers union that showed much promise of organizing within the civil service. The International Socialist tendency was in full support of this union and opposed the eventual reaffiliation back into AFSCME. We also were involved in organizing a community labor center in the Bronx (which was a dismal failure). Being opposed to dual unions in the 70s and 80s, when the labor movement was being battered, was a matter of assessing this tactic and understanding that it was not a good one in that period.


nowadays i notice that this has begun to change. a couple years ago I had an opportunity to talk to Diane Feeley (a member of Solidarity) who recently retired from American Axle in Hamtramk. She told me that she believed the auto industry could only be organized through a new union, using the sort of grassroots techniques of solidarity unionism.I would be interested in discussing this, of course. The UAW has committed sepuku numerous times. Only someone with a religious atttitude would preclude such a possibility. On the other hand, it would be foolish to abandon working within the UAW without a detailed and informed discussion.


if there is a sufficient preparation and consciousness, an emergence of a grassroots union could happen in the form of a radical breakaway.It could.


NUHW shows the feasibility of building a new union as a breakaway, but, given sal roselli's past history, i doubt that NUHW is going to be as worker controlled as we need to develop.No union will "be as worker controlled as we need to develop" in this period. And to think, based on the current consciousness, industrial strength and level of development of the working class right now we can vault over the union bureacracy (and management) is an illusion.


"militant minority" organization can take several forms. it can take the form of a rank and file organizaton independent of the union bureaucracy (in those situations where business unions still exist), that has a vision for a worker-controlled class unionism, and doesn't allow itself to be reduced to just an electoral caucus.Cool.


it can also take the form of "minority unionism" such as the Starbucks Workers Union or the Carolina Automotive and Machine Workers Union (a part of UE).Whoa! You are combining two very different organizations.

The CAMWU is a "nonmajority" union that has lost bargaining elections and is functioning as a union, as best it can, without a management recognition or a contract, but also as a member of the UE. It is wholly within the labor movement. It's problem is that it can't yet win a bargaining election or negotiate a contract. If it could do these things, it would be very happy. It is using this method of functioning, as a nonmajority union, as an organizing tool.

http://labornotes.org/node/1200

The SWU, affiliated with the IWW, is a different story. Basically, as I understand the current situation with their drive, they're stalled. I have had this from three independent sources, all of which is knowledgeable and two of which are/were highly disposed to the SWU. Take a look at their website, and you'll see that not much is happening.

http://www.starbucksunion.org/

One of the problems, as I understand it, is that the SWU does not sign contracts! In this day and age, that's ridiculous, and the failure of this campaign proves it. The fact that they have been involved with the NLRB to stop harassment of workers shows that their avoidance of contracts is foolish sectarianism.


a grassroots workers center, such as the Seattle Solidarity Network (http://seattlesolidarity.net/), is another type of militant minority organization except that this organization needs to develop into a membership organization, not just a loose network.Labor support groups are a fine thing. However, they need to be connected either to actual unions, rank-and-file groups or real membership drives or else they become community organizing drives. I believe that currently such drives, in the absence of union involvement, are a good way to burn people out with little or no results.

RED DAVE

[syndicat]

This sounds to me like a good, fighting left-wing union, with some special organizational features. FAT is outside the official union structure of Mexico, but it engages in organizing drives and negotiates contracts. All power to it! To have co-ops and other organizations affiliated with a union is an iffy thing and should be considered on a case-by-case basis. In general, given the problems that already exist for unions in the US, I don't think it's a great idea. Women's networks, minority networks, oppressed peoples' networks within a union, including caucuses, are excellent.


FAT advocates self-managed socialism. It advocates direct worker self-management of the union, is against "professionalization" of the union, that is, domination by paid people.

It's also a kind of social movement alliance, in that it has developed a women's movement (not just a "caucus" in the union). I think it's true that the union itself needs to be autonomous but I think it's equally important for it to be open to alliances with, and working in struggles with, social movement organizations, such as women's, environmental justice, housing, etc. This is part of adopting a class wide perspective.

I wasn't specifically talking about the coops but a unionized coop is okay as long as they don't take on too much "weight" in the organization. In the '30s, for example, there were some unionized coops in the CNT in Spain, such as a glass making coop in Mataro that was formed out of a strike.


The only case I know of during that period, actually earlier, where dual unionism was an issue, was in New York where there was an independent, left-wing led caseworkers union that showed much promise of organizing within the civil service. The International Socialist tendency was in full support of this union and opposed the eventual reaffiliation back into AFSCME. We also were involved in organizing a community labor center in the Bronx (which was a dismal failure).

well, glad to hear it. there was a similar grassroots independent social workers union in San Francisco in the early '70s.


On the other hand, it would be foolish to abandon working within the UAW without a detailed and informed discussion.


if you're referring to existing UAW organized workplaces, obviously. any such moves would have to be discussed and depend on the desires of the workers there. at present, however, only half of the auto workers in the USA are in the UAW.


No union will "be as worker controlled as we need to develop" in this period. And to think, based on the current consciousness, industrial strength and level of development of the working class right now we can vault over the union bureacracy (and management) is an illusion.


a self-fulfilling prophecy. and when will moves in an independent direction ever arrive if one's orientation is always to changing leadership or otherwise re-arranging the deckchairs? i mean, if you don't advocate it, it won't happen. this is why we advocate for independent self-managed unionism...even if there are not many chances to pursue this as yet.

for libertarian socialists this advocacy is critical because of its link to our conception of socialism as rooted in workers self-management of production and general social self-managment, which is prefigured in mass self-managed worker organizations.

but Marxist groups like Solidarity and ISO do not advocate workers self-management. For example, it's nowhere mentioned in Solidarity's 12-point political statement. but i can't see how workers can escape subordination to a dominating & exploiting class without workers self-management.

me:
"militant minority" organization can take several forms. it can take the form of a rank and file organizaton independent of the union bureaucracy (in those situations where business unions still exist), that has a vision for a worker-controlled class unionism, and doesn't allow itself to be reduced to just an electoral caucus.

well i'm glad you're cool with this. this is our main proposal in regard to places where the business unions exist, public or private sector.


The CAMWU is a "nonmajority" union that has lost bargaining elections and is functioning as a union, as best it can, without a management recognition or a contract, but also as a member of the UE. It is wholly within the labor movement. It's problem is that it can't yet win a bargaining election or negotiate a contract. If it could do these things, it would be very happy. It is using this method of functioning, as a nonmajority union, as an organizing tool.


The politics I think may be different but I don't think the methods are so different. SWU started out by trying to get NLRB elections, and decided on its current "minority union" route when the NLRB election route was blocked (when it tried to get an election for one store in Manhattan in 2006)...just as with CAMWU. CAMWU was initiated by Black Workers for Justice which I think comes out of the new communist movement of the '80s. on the other hand, the retail sector is a challenge because of turnover. in this context a minority union that is more like a "movement" may be the only thing feasible.


One of the problems, as I understand it, is that the SWU does not sign contracts! In this day and age, that's ridiculous, and the failure of this campaign proves it. The fact that they have been involved with the NLRB to stop harassment of workers shows that their avoidance of contracts is foolish sectarianism.


SWU has no such position against contracts. Just like CAMWU they've never been in any position to obtain one. What is your criterion for "failure"? I just recently talked with one of the elected officers, and he says the campaign in New York City, was still going on. You previously claimed that Dan Gross's leaving somehow killed it...as if it was one guy. SWU exists in something like five or six cities. SWU has an estimated 300 members, with about 50 actively involved in the organizing. They just recently gained an organized store in Fort Worth and they keep getting new groups. obviously it would be better if they had more members.

my own position is that contracts are okay as long as they don't have a "no strike" clause.


Labor support groups are a fine thing. However, they need to be connected either to actual unions, rank-and-file groups or real membership drives or else they become community organizing drives. I believe that currently such drives, in the absence of union involvement, are a good way to burn people out with little or no results.



SeaSol isn't a "labor support group." SeaSol is an activist network that uses solidarity actions in defense of workers and tenants. They work in a similar way to other workers' centers. What often happens is that one or a group of workers bring a beef to the workers center. Maybe this is wage theft, they weren't paid overtime, or the local minimum wage isn't being followed or whatever. The center then organizes things like pickets, or it advises the people of their rights and helps them to organize. Or in cases where a tenant hasn't been given back her security deposit, or the landlord won't fix a mold problem. This is the sort of thing SeaSol is involved in. I personally have told one of their organizers that it would be better to try to become a membership group rather than an activist network.

there is a video about what SeaSol does:

http://www.seasol.net/video

My political group is involved in another grassroots workers center in Lansing, Michigan. And this one is organized as a worker membership group. There are a number of grassroots workers centers that are organized as membership groups. Another example is the Worker Defense Project in Austin, Texas. this was formed by 200 Mexican immigrant construction workers.