Unions "inefficient"?

[Robocommie]

Recently an old friend/acquiantance, a truck driver, responded to my defense of labor organizing and unions by saying that he recently delivered goods to a union shop, a Chrysler plant, and that it took nine hours of arguing and bickering between three different unions to figure out whose job it was to unload his truck. He also muttered something about the unions strangling American railroads.

The thing is, this is a common accusation. A lot of anti-union libertarians and conservatives say that unions are inefficient because of this kind of thing, and I'm often left without a proper response.

[Nolan]

Well in cases like yours, the problem is that instead of working together to best represent workers as a whole, unions sometimes tend to bicker. I've heard about shit like this from union workers before.

Also bring up that without unions, there would be no proper "middle class" in western society today as we know it. The Gini would likely be much higher than it already is.

[redSHARP]

the US unions are sometimes taken over by union bosses and this leads to corruption and decay. however, these unions are rare.

Ask your friend if he supports child labor, low pay, terrible work conditions. how about maternity leave? pensions? does he enjoy seeing his kids in college and having good food and medical benefits? he just needs to be reminded of the benefits of unions in order to balance out some petty inconvenience over some boxes.

[syndicat]

American unions have often been turned into bureaucratic shells, protection agencies, not vehicles of solidarity. but a union doesn't have to be this way.

[Spanishleft]

No need to respond to such capitalist-enduced thinking. Unions might not be most efficient but for very different reasons than speeding up work process. Unions, in the way they exist currently, trick workers into thinking a big organization is actually fighting capitalism, while in fact, the union bosses negotiating with the capitalists for a few % wage increase do support that system, instead of fighting it. We all need to realize that communism is not born out of a three day strike and a 5 % wage increase, this is the capitalists throwing pennies to keep their oppressive system!

[Red Saxon]

I'm going to generalize and say that most unions are in fact tools against the worker. When I worked at Krogers for two weeks (I brought this up before) the Union actually took half my paycheck in fees (before taxes, of course I still had taxes taken out for the whole thing). Half of my paycheck for what? Worker solidarity? Hell no. It was so some bureaucrat in Columbus could eat Lobster at the expense of the workers.

My parents, who work for Schneider Electric as machine part buyers, constantly complain of Union workers who are fired because they show up late or constantly don't work. They are pissed because the Union always forces the employers to higher the person back with threat of lawsuit. Should that worker be protected by the Union when he himself wasn't fulfilling his end of the contractual deal? No. Any socialist would agree that the worker was simply lazy and taking advantage of the system.

[Madvillainy]

the unions are a dead end for the working class. in some cases they do offer some small degree of protection but they are in no way revolutionary nor can the destructive role they play change. No matter how many leftists tell you otherwise.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

the unions are a dead end for the working class. in some cases they do offer some small degree of protection but they are in no way revolutionary nor can the destructive role they play change. No matter how many leftists tell you otherwise.

This is simply not true. The progress that has been made through workers unions are important, to say they are destructive is not true. Child labour, women's rights, working conditions have all been defeated or improved through unions.

I don't understand how they cannot be revolutionary when unions have been at the forefront of many struggles.

The stance that because unions are hijacked by bureaucrats and work in collaboration with the capitalist class is very simplistic and disregards the relationship of unions with the level of radical worker opposition.

[Zanthorus]

Child labour, women's rights, working conditions have all been defeated or improved through unions.

But those are all moves towards making exploitation within capitalism more tolerable. No-one was denying that unions can act as a counterbalance. What was denied was the revolutionary nature of unions.


I don't understand how they cannot be revolutionary when unions have been at the forefront of many struggles.

Social-democratic parties have also been involved in many kinds of struggle. The ability of an instution to alleviate the position of workers within capitalism says nothing about it's ability to overthrow capitalism. Since unions exist to mediate between capitalists and workers on a day to day basis their internal logic is inherently anti-revolutionary.

[danyboy27]

Union are unefficient, the way they are right now.

an union itself could be a good thing if their long term objective would be to take control of a workplace rather than just sucking more money.

where i live, big union became nothing more nothing less than a coponent of capitalism, they own shares, propreties, loan money to banks.

even their basic democratic structure slowly disapeared with time.

[Jimmie Higgins]

This is simply not true. The progress that has been made through workers unions are important, to say they are destructive is not true. Child labour, women's rights, working conditions have all been defeated or improved through unions.

I don't understand how they cannot be revolutionary when unions have been at the forefront of many struggles.

The stance that because unions are hijacked by bureaucrats and work in collaboration with the capitalist class is very simplistic and disregards the relationship of unions with the level of radical worker opposition.

I agree somewhat, but unions are not radical or revolutionary organizations (except for syndicalist unions obviously). But trade-unions aren't inherently "anti-worker" either (except for boss unions or state unions), they are defensive organizations. This means they are politically limited even under the best situations, but they still play an important role in the class struggle.

Currently unions are in terrible shape organizationally, politically, and tactically so it's easy to write them off, but this has not (and I suspect) will not always be the case. In order to radicals to win workers over to a revolutionary view, I think, it's important to take a nuanced position of the mainstream unions so that our perspective won't be easily negated if (when) either reform movements gain ground inside the official unions or the bureaucracy shifts strongly leftward to try and keep themselves at the head of any rank and file militancy (as the CIO is the most famous example - and also an example of writing off unions could undermine our arguments if there is a labor upsurge).

In the case of Robocommie's anecdote, I'd just argue that unions are not the cause of inefficiency and that the free market can be just a bureaucratic and inefficient as any union. You can use any number of examples from top-heavy management structures to the "efficiency" of BP's oil clean-up efforts.

Finally, there's a reason why it's good to have a freekin' job description with detailed rules about what workers are expected and allowed to do. People fought for that because without that you have to do whatever the boss tells you from cleaning the toilets to moving hazardous materials. Look at what Wal-mart does to its workers... people making starting service wages are expected to go above and beyond (to even put in over-time without pay) and do tasks that manager usually do. It's like that at my job where I was promised but never given a job duties description. In the 3 years I've been here, the new workers do probably twice as much as I had to do when I first started. We used to have two people on each shift and now one person has to do that.

So are the official unions perfect? - Far from it. Are they currently undemocratic and top-down? Yes. Do rank and file workers occasionally take a union regulation too far? Sure, but what's the alternative - the boss taking the lack of these rule too far! And I'd rather err on the side of over-protection of our rights.

[KurtFF8]

My problem with this idea of "are unions good or bad" is not only that it is too simplistic, but it leads to some odd conclusions. Everywhere from the full defense of all unions, no matter what (which as we can see in many cases, can be problematic: see the WVA textbook wars), to the idea that "the union 'form' needs to be rethought and we need something new"

Both approaches ignore the complexity of the role of unions in class struggle, much like what Jimmie has pointed out above.

[Madvillainy]

to the idea that "the union 'form' needs to be rethought and we need something new"


Just to clarify, I don't think anyone who views the unions as anti-working class are calling for 'something new', as you put it. Most of us would put forward the idea that the working class has to struggle outside and against the unions. take poland '81 for example, where the workers broke away from the stranglehold of the unions and held mass meetings, general assemblies and elected their own delegates... and in the end the unions took control of the movement and fucked the workers over.

I think its quite obvious which side unions are on, history proves they act as the police of the workforce. Spain in '36, France '68, Italy '69, Poland '81, the miners strike in britain... and the list goes on.

i think a lot of talk from leftists about re-conquering the unions and what not is down to nostalgia for the old days of 'radical' trade unionism, but what we as communists should be doing is drawing lessons from the relationship of the unions with the working class over the last 100 years or so. And we should be asking ourselves some serious questions, are the unions working class organisations or are they in fact a vital part of the capitalist state? can they be 're-conquered' by the class or are the increase in wild cat strikes etc an indication of the only way workers can struggle under capitalism today?

[Stranger Than Paradise]

But those are all moves towards making exploitation within capitalism more tolerable. No-one was denying that unions can act as a counterbalance. What was denied was the revolutionary nature of unions.

No that was one point they made, when I said this I was replying to someone who said "the sooner the working class ditches unions the better" and I was pointing out that unions have won a lot of battles and progress.


Social-democratic parties have also been involved in many kinds of struggle. The ability of an instution to alleviate the position of workers within capitalism says nothing about it's ability to overthrow capitalism. Since unions exist to mediate between capitalists and workers on a day to day basis their internal logic is inherently anti-revolutionary.

You are right to identify unions as working to mediate between capitalists and workers. That is true of the current situation and I do not see such organisations as revolutionary myself. Nonetheless it is within a revolutionary trade union, which is based on workers self management, that I believe will be the forefront of struggle. This sort of organisation doesn't exist in our situation as it is an expression of a potentially revolutionary situation and doesn't exist before or after said situation. To associate this form of revolutionary trade union with others is not correct.


I agree somewhat, but unions are not radical or revolutionary organizations (except for syndicalist unions obviously). But trade-unions aren't inherently "anti-worker" either (except for boss unions or state unions), they are defensive organizations. This means they are politically limited even under the best situations, but they still play an important role in the class struggle.

Yes I outlined that I agree with this paragraph above, trade unions work to form disciplined work forces and collaborate with the capitalist class, I don't believe these organisations will ever be revolutionary (although it is possible), these are permanent organisations doomed to be less radical. Agitiating inside them is how we must further the class struggle I believe however, using the current trade unionism helps us.

[Zanthorus]

No that was one point they made, when I said this I was replying to someone who said "the sooner the working class ditches unions the better" and I was pointing out that unions have won a lot of battles and progress.

Well in the past the unions were organisations created by and for workers to defend their own rights. A lot's changed in the intervening years though. I'm not even that sure that workers are better off with the unions than without them at the moment. You don't need a union to go on strike (And in fact a lot of the time the unions are the ones trying to put off the strike).


revolutionary trade union

I think that's basically a contradiction in terms. The role of a union is to broker deals with the capitalists. This is as true of non-heirarchical worker managed unions as it is of unions full to the brim with beuracrats.

[Die Neue Zeit]

So what do personally think of my programmatic approach to collective bargaining, then? ;)


I think that's basically a contradiction in terms. The role of a union is to broker deals with the capitalists. This is as true of non-heirarchical worker managed unions as it is of unions full to the brim with beuracrats.

That's true if and only if collective bargaining is one of the union's functions. The other thing to note is that, without this function, the only contradiction in "revolutionary trade union" is the word "trade," since the union should organize beyond craft and trade/industry and towards a purely all-class basis.

[DaComm]

Recently an old friend/acquiantance, a truck driver, responded to my defense of labor organizing and unions by saying that he recently delivered goods to a union shop, a Chrysler plant, and that it took nine hours of arguing and bickering between three different unions to figure out whose job it was to unload his truck. He also muttered something about the unions strangling American railroads.

The thing is, this is a common accusation. A lot of anti-union libertarians and conservatives say that unions are inefficient because of this kind of thing, and I'm often left without a proper response.

I have a different reason for looking down upon Unions. Firstly and most predominantly, Unions are far from revolutionary, I mean, common demands are "Fair wage", and isn't such a term a contradiction since wage itself is plunder and cannot be fair? And yes, they do very much unite the workers, but under a common goal to achieve such as "fair wage"? Uniting people for the aspiration of achieving something that is inherently contradicting is not something I would get involved with. And lastly, what if the workers do get what they perceive to be "fair wage"? Then we go back to loving Capitalism and thinking it to be a reasonable system. Unions such as these simply cannot add to the revolutionary cause. Now then, if we had Unions that actually wanted realistic goals, well, that's a different story. But as it is, more often than not the Trade Union is not a progressive revolutionary method, better to stick with Vanguardism .

[KurtFF8]

The idea that unions cannot be revolutionary because they have to directly engage in class struggle (or at least things perceived as being a part of the class struggle) with things like wage disputes is to me quite an odd position.

Yes unions are not inherently revolutionary or even progressive, but there's a reason that the Left has always worked with them: they are an important kind of organization in real class struggle. In the US, the Communist Party early on even helped form many unions because they recognized that they are a weapon of the working class.

Even Lenin noted that unions aren't by themselves a revolutionary organ, and I'm not sure anyone else is arguing that either. But that dismissal of unions in place of a "new form" of organizing seems to lead to a dead end in my opinion (this is what Brian Green argues in this article (http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/llt/62/green.html) and while it's a good article for showing the history of and current dilemma of US trade unions, it's conclusion is a bit weak)

Also, abandoning "non-revolutionary unions" was one of the biggest blunders in the German Revolution that (it could be argued) lead to its failure.

Yes, unions are problematic, but we have to learn how to deal with them, not learn to not deal with them or dismiss them,

[stella2010]

Unions will need to come together more as the world becomes faster and BIGGER also as those elites in the upper echelons of society band together. Some say this can lead to rupture in our social condition. However, this and many would inherently agree, has already occurred through the capital of the few. The few that we the people have built up throughout history. In a world of capitalism, and a 7 billion populated world at that, Unions should really stick together, there's worse to come.

Those powers to be in the union have got a big rat, even my psychologist said that.

:cool:

keep your fingers on the trigger lads

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

Unions that are formed for the purpose of a single goal and then dissolved once that goal is accomplished seem to be the ones that follow there purpose. Long standing unions however seem to crash because the members choose to give power to a select few who then in (some cases) become disillusioned dictators of the unions... Now unions that stay truly democratic and avoid selecting rulers tend to stand much longer...

[stella2010]

Those unions that do become ineffectual or actually do disband. These Unions are SPECIFIC.

The idea that a union exists is that, no matter what; those involved agree to the purpose of a social conditioning with regards to their working lifestyles.

Corruption has ruined so much of this.

Lawyers Police and Drugs are at its heart.

The funny thing is that Australia IS becoming socialist wether we want to or not. It has to be done to compete with the NORTHERN HEMISPHERE.

One might like to take a fascist out for some fishing now.
These pricks have, and their racism has, added to the problem for the
workers of Australia.

SAY NO TO CORRUPTION

[The Red Next Door]

Capitalists or social democratic unions are and even probably some red ones. It all depends on the Union, When workers have problems like this, i think the best idea is to smash the bureaucracy and take over.

[stella2010]

About 500 utes and a heap of metal bits, spray paint,
wood logs and glass bottles should help smash it up. :thumbup1:

[chimx]

The thing is, this is a common accusation. A lot of anti-union libertarians and conservatives say that unions are inefficient because of this kind of thing, and I'm often left without a proper response.

It's a problem of trade unions vs. industrial unionism. a lot of trades have a lot of over lap, but with the rise of scab shops and weakening of unions, trades will fight each other more than their employers.

and sometimes that fighting is more regional/cultural. For example, from my understanding roofers and sheet metal workers despise eachother in the south west and will try to take each others work. Whereas here in the NW, we generally respect the scope of each others trade and it is less of an issue.