Unionism in the United States

[Victus Mortuum]

What are the largest contributing factors to the continuing decline in union membership in the United States? Do you distinguish between 'yellow' and 'red' unions? If so, what do you specifically use to distinguish these two types of unions? If you are convinced there is a distinction, why the prevalence of 'yellow' unions (assuming you believe they are more prevalent if you believe they exist)?

Is it the fault of workers and of the radical left? What's the problem and the solution?

This is more to understand the different perspectives out there. I know what I think, but what do you think?

[StalinFanboy]

I believe one of the largest causes of a decline in union membership in the US is quite simply that there is a significantly smaller number of industrial proletariat in the US compared to the early and mid 1900s when union membership and militancy were at their highest.

Another contributing factor is the integration of unions into the capitalist system. All of the major union bosses make extremely good money off of union dues and other things and have no interest, politically or materially, in a communist revolution.

[William Howe]

I think it has to do with working conditions. Though still not the best, working conditions have expenentially improved since the 19th century. When thousands of people were dying in mines and factories in the 1800s, militancy was high and reforms demanded. But now that said reforms have been enacted and industry is much safer, there's not really much need for Unions unless workers' rights become infringed.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

The sword has become the shield.

There are several factors.
We must first remember that the height of union membership was in 1955, as the AFL and CIO were merging together. Once the AFL-CIO emerged, the fierce, competitive union organizing between the two federations suddenly disappeared. There was plenty more of this to happen...

Once the first severe recession in decades proved Keynesian economics weren't bulletproof, the employer offensive took off. Jimmy Carter helped start this process with the state, and Reagan-Bush pushed it to the max: Reagan dealt an incredibly decisive blow to the PATCO strikers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Controllers_Organization_ %281968%29#August_1981_strike). More major labor battles were to be lost...

A new economic outlook, a new atmosphere, and a more-than-willing-to-flee union movement helped show the downfall of the mainstream labor movement. Plus, infamous unions like the International Brotherhood of Teamsters would vote en mass for reactionary candidates like Reagan and Bush, which would hurt them even more, because they felt betrayed by the Democratic candidates and administrations. Voting for presidents who, right when entering office, destroy an entire union, definitely weakens the labor movement. Even a (hugely conservative) Democratic president helped destroy a lot of unionized jobs by pushing for NAFTA.

The union movement become more and more bureaucratic, thus when major battles like PATCO and P-9 happened, they really hadn't a clue what to do. Major unions and federations become blood-sucking vampires, caring more about their dues and to save what they have rather than to wage new wars.

As I said before, the sword has become the shield.

But this is only a response to your "What are the largest contributing factors to the continuing decline in union membership in the United States?" Even the normal working-class joe can see these overbloated, reactionary unions aren't doing anything for them now. They've become too entrenched in the system; class collaboration.
I'm not currently touching the topics of red unions, radical left connection to unions, etc.
Plus, all the unions/federations I mentioned are reactionary and not supportive of socialism anyway.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

I think it has to do with working conditions. Though still not the best, working conditions have expenentially improved since the 19th century. When thousands of people were dying in mines and factories in the 1800s, militancy was high and reforms demanded. But now that said reforms have been enacted and industry is much safer, there's not really much need for Unions unless workers' rights become infringed.
Is this a joke? There are so many labor violations. I think conditions are pretty bad right now. Just because people aren't dying in large groups at their work-sites doesn't mean they're being exploited and ripped off.

[William Howe]

Is this a joke? There are so many labor violations. I think conditions are pretty bad right now. Just because people aren't dying in large groups at their work-sites doesn't mean they're being exploited and ripped off.

Are people dying by the droves in the US from disease and industrial accidents in factories any more? No.

Though workers are being exploited, "getting 50 cents less than what I earned on my paycheck" isn't worth a Union protest. If you can point out some of these 'major violations', show them to me.

[graymouser]

Well, a lot of manufacturing has been restructured so as to avoid union labor - either streamlined, or the production process broken up so that it can be moved to new non-union plants in the US or elsewhere. I mean, the needle trades used to be a powerhouse with UNITE but it's simply been devastated in the last couple of decades, thousands of garment factories are no longer there. Other examples are different; for instance in auto there are still many manufacturing jobs but the Japanese and other foreign firms have made end-runs around the concept by having non-union plants in the South and elsewhere. Some of it is simply the shifting character of work, more people work in jobs that aren't unionized to start with, whether that's Wal-Mart or working as an office stiff somewhere.

There's also the failure of unionism to be relevant. After the abortive labor struggles in the '80s, union bureaucracies have been allowing large levels of cutbacks. As someone I know put it, you don't need a union to give concessions to the boss! Unionism grew in the '30s because the CIO unions were seen as winning concrete gains for their workers. Nowadays unions from the UAW on down are more involved in negotiating successively worse contracts than the last one. We'll need a sea change to happen before people see unions as worth joining again; they will need to be forcing actual improvements in living conditions. Also, some people who get into unions find them totally bureaucratized (SEIU and UFCW are the worst at this) and are turned off by the whole prospect.

It's not un-fixable. But it will take a groundswell, and the bureaucracy will always be dragged along by the rank and file and not vice versa.

[RED DAVE]

I know what I think, but what do you think?Why don't you give us your opinions since you started the thread? Tht strikes me as the proper way to begin a discussion.

RED DAVE

[Die Neue Zeit]

What are the largest contributing factors to the continuing decline in union membership in the United States? Do you distinguish between 'yellow' and 'red' unions? If so, what do you specifically use to distinguish these two types of unions? If you are convinced there is a distinction, why the prevalence of 'yellow' unions (assuming you believe they are more prevalent if you believe they exist)?

Is it the fault of workers and of the radical left? What's the problem and the solution?

This is more to understand the different perspectives out there. I know what I think, but what do you think?

Cmoney said that one of the credibility problems of yellow unionism historically was its smooching with the mafia. Depending on the mafia's mood, they acted in concert with the capitalists or with the unions.

It's harder to organize in growing sections within the private sector than within the public sector, as noted in posts above.

[syndicat]

as far as the origins of mafia influence in American unions, an excellent souruce is "Dynamite". the author points out that the resort to force by small AFL unions in the early 1900s followed from their AFL ideology and practice. that is, they were conservative organizations that had no commitment to broad working class solidarity or a mass movement. AFL leaders saw that as at best "unrealistic". Nor did they aim at getting rid of capitalism, which they accepted. but their small craft unions had little leverage, often. so this tempted them to use force, such as the ironworkers union bombing campaign that led to the famous McNamara trial in 1911. after that AFL officials "subcontracted" their violence to gangs. but then the gangs saw the value of controlling the union, using its dues and pension funds as a cash cow, and seized control of some unions.

but this phenonemon is far less than it was once upon a time.

the bureaucratization of the unions from the 1940s on is a major reason for their decline. the unions were only imposed on the employers in the '30s and '40s through a massive working class uprising...general strikes, over 500 workplace occupations, etc. In the '30s there were more than 10,000 revolutionaries of various sorts who existed in workplaces, an outgrowth of the previous era of radicalization in 1900-1920. this included wobblies, Communists, SPers, and members of other socialist groups (American Workers Party, Communist League, Proletarian Party).

But these revolutionary groups failed to coalesce a radical, worker controlled labor federation, and allowed labor bureaucrats of the Hillman, Lewis, MacDonald variety to impose their bureaucratic constitutions. During World War 2 the Communists supported the no-strike deal which undermined their support among the more militant sections of workers. After 1935 the Communists really didn't do much in the way of mass socialist education as they were aligned with the Democrats, as part of the Popular Front. These various factors set the stage for the pushing out of the radical left from union influence after World War 2, during the Cold War.

There was a general decline in real social power of the working class, which rests on active involvement and direct worker control over struggles and a willingness to fight. The unions became bureaucratic service agencies, not combat organizations. Thus the unions were vulnerable when the plutocracy began their counter-offensive against the working class in the late '70s, early '80s. The capitalists had been willing to put up with the various concessions to the working class they'd made from the '30s thru '60s until the '70s, when there was a sharp drop in profits and increasing competition for international markets, with the rebuilding of Japan and Germany, and newly industrializing countries growing, like Taiwan and South Korea.

so a massive capitalist counter-offensive combined with weak, bureaucratic unions, with no ideology that would serve as a basis of a class fight....this is the main cause of the problem.

the moving of manufacturing to 3rd world countries is part of the capitaliist offensive, but has become more pronounced only since the socalled free trade pacts were implemented in the '90s...NAFTA, WTO. this greased the skids for job outsourcing.

but relocation of manufacturing to other countries can't account for the decline of the unions by itself. that's because manufacturing only accounts for a minority of working class jobs. the working class are a majority of the population and you have huge numbers of working class jobs in retail, health care, public utilities, transportation, construction, mining, agriculture.

the emergence of the sophisticated billion dollar anti union consultants industry is a measure of corporate determination to avoid unions.

so the answer is, it's a combination of weakness of the unions and the employers offensive.

[Victus Mortuum]

I’m going to be picking apart what you guys said because I really want to get to the greasy details of all of this:


I believe one of the largest causes of a decline in union membership in the US is quite simply that there is a significantly smaller number of industrial proletariat in the US compared to the early and mid 1900s when union membership and militancy were at their highest.

Industrial? How are you defining industry? If anything the number of industrial proletarians (which is redundant) has increased.


Another contributing factor is the integration of unions into the capitalist system. All of the major union bosses make extremely good money off of union dues and other things and have no interest, politically or materially, in a communist revolution.

Those “union bosses” (national union representatives) are elected by the workers who are members. The bosses make good money and are non-radical because the workers who elect them are content with that. Would you agree? Is that our fault on the radical left for letting the education of the working (including middle income) class fall so far?


I think it has to do with working conditions. Though still not the best, working conditions have expenentially improved since the 19th century. When thousands of people were dying in mines and factories in the 1800s, militancy was high and reforms demanded. But now that said reforms have been enacted and industry is much safer, there's not really much need for Unions unless workers' rights become infringed.

Your assertion is fallacious because union membership continued to rise in the U.S. until the mid 1950s when about 40% of Americans were unionized. After that, membership was on a continuous decline. Are you saying that worker conditions maxed out then and have maintained a steady high level since then that continues to discourage worker membership?


There are several factors.
We must first remember that the height of union membership was in 1955, as the AFL and CIO were merging together. Once the AFL-CIO emerged, the fierce, competitive union organizing between the two federations suddenly disappeared. There was plenty more of this to happen...

So you are proposing a sort of economic argument? You are saying that, effectively, the market of unions became monopolized and that this monopolization of the industry caused the union to not need to look for new customers because workers either had to buy from it or from no one? I think that the prevalence of several other unions right now seems to weaken your point as union membership is still in steady decline.


Once the first severe recession in decades proved Keynesian economics weren't bulletproof, the employer offensive took off. Jimmy Carter helped start this process with the state, and Reagan-Bush pushed it to the max: Reagan dealt an incredibly decisive blow to the PATCO strikers. More major labor battles were to be lost...

So here you are specifically referring to the increased use of the state to combat strikers and union protests? That would, in my mind, be very agitative, bring attention to unions, and thus tend to increase membership – not the reverse. Can you explain why that would cause a decline in membership?


A new economic outlook, a new atmosphere, and a more-than-willing-to-flee union movement helped show the downfall of the mainstream labor movement.

You should expand on what you said here, I’m not sure what you mean.


Plus, infamous unions like the International Brotherhood of Teamsters would vote en mass for reactionary candidates like Reagan and Bush, which would hurt them even more, because they felt betrayed by the Democratic candidates and administrations. Voting for presidents who, right when entering office, destroy an entire union, definitely weakens the labor movement. Even a (hugely conservative) Democratic president helped destroy a lot of unionized jobs by pushing for NAFTA.

Ha. Yeah. Promoting an anti-union candidate is certainly a way to de-legitimize yourself. But wouldn’t that just drive workers back to more ‘liberal’ candidate unions? Why did workers choose to drop out of unions completely rather than just change alignment? (I’ll reserve responding on Free Trade and its effects on unionism for now.)


The union movement become more and more bureaucratic, thus when major battles like PATCO and P-9 happened, they really hadn't a clue what to do. Major unions and federations become blood-sucking vampires, caring more about their dues and to save what they have rather than to wage new wars.

How do you distinguish a bureaucratic union from a non-bureaucratic union? Is a ‘bureaucratic union’ just one whose policies you disagree with? (I’m not being accusatory, it’s just that the word bureaucracy gets thrown around a lot.) What caused them to change into blood-sucking vampires?


But this is only a response to your "What are the largest contributing factors to the continuing decline in union membership in the United States?" Even the normal working-class joe can see these overbloated, reactionary unions aren't doing anything for them now. They've become too entrenched in the system; class collaboration.

Then what do you say about the 11 million workers in AFL-CIO alone? Obviously they believe their union is doing something for them...


Well, a lot of manufacturing has been restructured so as to avoid union labor - either streamlined, or the production process broken up so that it can be moved to new non-union plants in the US or elsewhere.

What do you mean by avoid union labor and streamlined? How did this de-unionize Americans? Wouldn’t people just start new unions at new workplaces?


I mean, the needle trades used to be a powerhouse with UNITE but it's simply been devastated in the last couple of decades, thousands of garment factories are no longer there. Other examples are different; for instance in auto there are still many manufacturing jobs but the Japanese and other foreign firms have made end-runs around the concept by having non-union plants in the South and elsewhere. Some of it is simply the shifting character of work, more people work in jobs that aren't unionized to start with, whether that's Wal-Mart or working as an office stiff somewhere.

Right, but these people are the children and grandchildren of people who were in unions and were pro-union. And corporations trying to physically push people out of unions wouldn’t make them not want to join unions. I guess I just don’t understand how that’s an explanation for why pro-union sentiment is so low.


There's also the failure of unionism to be relevant. After the abortive labor struggles in the '80s, union bureaucracies have been allowing large levels of cutbacks. As someone I know put it, you don't need a union to give concessions to the boss! Unionism grew in the '30s because the CIO unions were seen as winning concrete gains for their workers. Nowadays unions from the UAW on down are more involved in negotiating successively worse contracts than the last one. We'll need a sea change to happen before people see unions as worth joining again; they will need to be forcing actual improvements in living conditions. Also, some people who get into unions find them totally bureaucratized (SEIU and UFCW are the worst at this) and are turned off by the whole prospect.

The most common worker anti-union sentiment I have heard is “they were necessary back then, but we don’t need them anymore”. So you think a lot of the reason for this and your friends sentiment is that unions have been to...friendly with employers? What caused them to become friendly with the employers? Why did the workers let that happen?


It's not un-fixable. But it will take a groundswell, and the bureaucracy will always be dragged along by the rank and file and not vice versa.

What do you mean when you say bureaucracy regarding unions and their leadership? How can regular worker organization overcome this?


Why don't you give us your opinions since you started the thread? Tht strikes me as the proper way to begin a discussion.

Because I’m not wanting people to respond to and criticize my limited thoughts on the subject. I’m wanting to learn what others think and try to critically build new information from their independent thoughts.


Cmoney said that one of the credibility problems of yellow unionism historically was its smooching with the mafia. Depending on the mafia's mood, they acted in concert with the capitalists or with the unions.

It's harder to organize in growing sections within the private sector than within the public sector, as noted in posts above.

What makes a union yellow as opposed to red? Was the mafia really a major player in unionism? At what time in U.S. history? And I don’t remember seeing much above on the ease of organizing between private and public sector unions. Why would you say that distinction exists?


as far as the origins of mafia influence in American unions, an excellent souruce is "Dynamite". the author points out that the resort to force by small AFL unions in the early 1900s followed from their AFL ideology and practice. that is, they were conservative organizations that had no commitment to broad working class solidarity or a mass movement. AFL leaders saw that as at best "unrealistic". Nor did they aim at getting rid of capitalism, which they accepted. but their small craft unions had little leverage, often. so this tempted them to use force, such as the ironworkers union bombing campaign that led to the famous McNamara trial in 1911. after that AFL officials "subcontracted" their violence to gangs. but then the gangs saw the value of controlling the union, using its dues and pension funds as a cash cow, and seized control of some unions.

but this phenonemon is far less than it was once upon a time.

This doesn’t seem to have diminished union membership, though. Membership in unions continues to increase until the 1950s, so the old mafia can’t be the problem, can it?


the bureaucratization of the unions from the 1940s on is a major reason for their decline. the unions were only imposed on the employers in the '30s and '40s through a massive working class uprising...general strikes, over 500 workplace occupations, etc. In the '30s there were more than 10,000 revolutionaries of various sorts who existed in workplaces, an outgrowth of the previous era of radicalization in 1900-1920. this included wobblies, Communists, SPers, and members of other socialist groups (American Workers Party, Communist League, Proletarian Party).

So bureaucracy is a big part of the problem? What do you mean by bureaucracy, and how has it caused such massive dissent from unionization even today?


But these revolutionary groups failed to coalesce a radical, worker controlled labor federation, and allowed labor bureaucrats of the Hillman, Lewis, MacDonald variety to impose their bureaucratic constitutions. During World War 2 the Communists supported the no-strike deal which undermined their support among the more militant sections of workers. After 1935 the Communists really didn't do much in the way of mass socialist education as they were aligned with the Democrats, as part of the Popular Front. These various factors set the stage for the pushing out of the radical left from union influence after World War 2, during the Cold War.

So lack of education (specifically socialist education) is another big part of the problem? The workers don’t have any radical positions because they haven’t been radicalized, you could say. They haven’t even thought about questioning a dictatorial economic system because they haven’t been pushed by socialists to ask those questions? Is that what you are saying? How does this relate to the bureaucratic structure of the union that you asserted?


There was a general decline in real social power of the working class, which rests on active involvement and direct worker control over struggles and a willingness to fight. The unions became bureaucratic service agencies, not combat organizations. Thus the unions were vulnerable when the plutocracy began their counter-offensive against the working class in the late '70s, early '80s. The capitalists had been willing to put up with the various concessions to the working class they'd made from the '30s thru '60s until the '70s, when there was a sharp drop in profits and increasing competition for international markets, with the rebuilding of Japan and Germany, and newly industrializing countries growing, like Taiwan and South Korea.

so a massive capitalist counter-offensive combined with weak, bureaucratic unions, with no ideology that would serve as a basis of a class fight....this is the main cause of the problem.

What specifically do you mean when you are referring to the capitalist offensive, other than Free Trade and outsourcing?


the moving of manufacturing to 3rd world countries is part of the capitaliist offensive, but has become more pronounced only since the socalled free trade pacts were implemented in the '90s...NAFTA, WTO. this greased the skids for job outsourcing.

I’ll again pass for now regarding my thoughts on free trade and its relation to unionism.


but relocation of manufacturing to other countries can't account for the decline of the unions by itself. that's because manufacturing only accounts for a minority of working class jobs. the working class are a majority of the population and you have huge numbers of working class jobs in retail, health care, public utilities, transportation, construction, mining, agriculture.

Agreed. It’s not just that union membership dropped, but that union disapproval has increased.


the emergence of the sophisticated billion dollar anti union consultants industry is a measure of corporate determination to avoid unions.

I think this, a re-education effort of sorts by capitalists may be part of the reason for union disapproval.

[syndicat]

This doesn’t seem to have diminished union membership, though. Membership in unions continues to increase until the 1950s, so the old mafia can’t be the problem, can it?


the mafia may no longer be a real factor in control of many unions. but it contributed signficantly to working class anti-unionism. that is, opposition to unions by workers themselves. the conversion of unions from '40s on into bureaucratic service agencies that often suppress worker activity and have no vision of a better alternative to offer workers also contributes to working class anti-unionism. the various anti-union consultancies will play anti-union videos at captive audience meetings that emphasize mob conrtrol and violence against members. this may be a thing of the past, but it did happen, so it can still be used.


So bureaucracy is a big part of the problem? What do you mean by bureaucracy, and how has it caused such massive dissent from unionization even today?


we need to digtinguish national and local unions. the national union apparatus is only a bureaucracy whereas local unions also have union meetings and a more direct relation between the union and members sometimes. local unions vary a lot. some don't have paid officers.

but the bureaucracy are the paid hierarchy and paid staff. there are more than 10,000 union officials in the USA who make over $100,000 a year. these people do not share the conditions of the job or conditions of life of the members. in highly centralized unions like the UAW the national apparatus is a totally top down autocracy, in effect, tho it runs thru the motions of a controlled democracy at its conventions.

control over things like organizing campaigns, bargaining and grievances is taken out of the hands of workers and put into the hands of "professionals of representation." they may have gotten into that line of work originally out of a sincere desire to hellp co workers, but it becomes a career. their own power lies in concentraation of the expertise about what unions do in their hands...how to organize, labor law, dealing with employers, lobbying politicians and so on.

me:

But these revolutionary groups failed to coalesce a radical, worker controlled labor federation, and allowed labor bureaucrats of the Hillman, Lewis, MacDonald variety to impose their bureaucratic constitutions. During World War 2 the Communists supported the no-strike deal which undermined their support among the more militant sections of workers. After 1935 the Communists really didn't do much in the way of mass socialist education as they were aligned with the Democrats, as part of the Popular Front. These various factors set the stage for the pushing out of the radical left from union influence after World War 2, during the Cold War.

you:
So lack of education (specifically socialist education) is another big part of the problem? The workers don’t have any radical positions because they haven’t been radicalized, you could say. They haven’t even thought about questioning a dictatorial economic system because they haven’t been pushed by socialists to ask those questions? Is that what you are saying? How does this relate to the bureaucratic structure of the union that you asserted?


i would not phrase it that way because it plays into the hand of vanguardists who think they have all the wisdom and their job is to "teach" workers things and lead the movement.

i'm sure workers have "questioned" a dictatorial workplace order many times. but they may not see any alternative. seeing little oppositional activity around them, they may think "you can't fight city hall."

the development of class consciousness can't be reduced to supposed experts in radicalism "teaching" people. that's not the right way to look at it. it is more a proces of collective self-learning in which interactions with radicals plays a part.

EDIT: I wouldn't phrase things the way you did because it sort of suggests you think workers are dumb and don't know they are subject to a workplace dictatorship. you may not intend this interpretation, but it's best to avoid suggesting that.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

So you are proposing a sort of economic argument? You are saying that, effectively, the market of unions became monopolized and that this monopolization of the industry caused the union to not need to look for new customers because workers either had to buy from it or from no one? I think that the prevalence of several other unions right now seems to weaken your point as union membership is still in steady decline.
I was saying that one of the main initiatives the two federations had for trying to steal others members and gain new unions suddenly disappeared. The real decline of unionism didn't fully start until the 70s, but I think the merging of the AFL and the CIO was an important event that shouldn't be looked past as simply a merger.

So here you are specifically referring to the increased use of the state to combat strikers and union protests? That would, in my mind, be very agitative, bring attention to unions, and thus tend to increase membership – not the reverse. Can you explain why that would cause a decline in membership?
I agree. The use of the state in a nation-wide strike should of caused major backlash, but it didn't. The air-controllers eventually created another union in the later years with similar demands. However, I was pointing how, not necessarily that it was the direct cause of decline in member, but that it showed the ineffectiveness of the mainstream unions to handle such situations. The 80s and 90s were later filled with other examples, and when whole unions can become fired or downsized in an industry or company, then yes there's going to be a decline in numbers, as well as a decline in faith of the union leaders.

You should expand on what you said here, I’m not sure what you mean.
A new economic outlook - neoliberalism was on the rise. The employers offensive took off: being more aggressive to unions, in such ways like cutting wages and benefits, outsourcing unionized industries, aggressive anti-union campaigning (see: Wal-Mart), and like I showed, the state being more than willing to side against unions than it did under the (Democratic) Roosevelt administration (not like he/they were perfect to certain strikes as well). This was a very different atmosphere than unions were use to. Now'a'days, a lot of people have to whisper the word "u-word" rather than proudly have discussion about it at work. Creating unions have become much harder, as well as more bureaucratic (see: NLRB)

Ha. Yeah. Promoting an anti-union candidate is certainly a way to de-legitimize yourself. But wouldn’t that just drive workers back to more ‘liberal’ candidate unions? Why did workers choose to drop out of unions completely rather than just change alignment? (I’ll reserve responding on Free Trade and its effects on unionism for now.)
1) I can't answer that part about the liberal-candidate unions. I think the best thing is to just study the history of the IBT. Most unions donate towards democratic-candidates (one AFL-CIO statistic shows 90% of their political donations go to Dem's), however, they don't really study the candidate. Despite how much people might despise Samuel Gompers (he was scum), he at least did something the AFL-CIO can't say they do now: he studied candidates before voicing his support. Now a days, Democrats are handed with easy labor's vote, in hope of a "lesser evil" even though a lot of democrats have been conservative towards union issues.
2) I don't think workers just "completely" dropped out of unions. What I was getting at was this: When I talk to co-workers at my job about a union, some of their responses are negative. I was told by one co-worker: "What can the union do here that they didn't do when the state had it?" (She works full-time for the roads department, and was generally disappointed when they had a union (UAW) because it barely set out to do what it promised). Sometimes, people have negative experiments when in a union (though usually most people, 75% or so statically, say they would like to be in a union). Some people don't just drop out of a union; the union disappears (the company got rid of it, either by de-unionizing or outsourcing the jobs) and rarely have another opportunity to join another.

How do you distinguish a bureaucratic union from a non-bureaucratic union? Is a ‘bureaucratic union’ just one whose policies you disagree with? (I’m not being accusatory, it’s just that the word bureaucracy gets thrown around a lot.) What caused them to change into blood-sucking vampires?
I think one of the best examples was Lane Kirkland, if I remember correctly. Sorry if I'm remembering the wrong name, but if I'm not: he became the president of the AFL-CIO from '79 to '95. However, this was a new kind of leader: he was never a rank-and-filer. He went to college, and climbed through the bureaucracy of the AFL-CIO to gain the presidency. He was never involved in a strike growing up, he never experienced the true union experience. And that's one of the problems: the union movement is lead by people who have no experience what-so-ever of what they're doing.
As far as what a bureaucratic union is, it's not a union's policies I disagree with, although they generally tend to. I would call that a moderate union, or a reactionary union, or something along those lines. A bureaucratic union is one where the union and leadership is filled who those who know nothing about the rank-and-file and filled with too many lackeys, etc.

Then what do you say about the 11 million workers in AFL-CIO alone? Obviously they believe their union is doing something for them...
I'm not saying all of the working-class or the members of the AFL-CIO don't believe in their unions. I point to my example I listed a few answers ago, about how people have become disillusioned with the leadership of many of the unions and federations the last few decades: how the leaders are more than willing to turn their back on the working-class.

[syndicat]

the offensive of the plutocracy/employers consists of several things:

1. they've funded a horde of think tanks who hire shills willing to produce reports backing their neo-liberal or right wing pseudo-libertarian agenda. they've used control over media, hiring and grooming politicians to spout the right line, funding PR and anti-union consulancies on a grand scale, and all justified in terms of the new ideology, replacing the old post World war 2 keynesian consensus.

2. an aggressive push to shift the tax burden onto the working and middle classes

3. aggressive opposition to unions, through union-busting, relocation of production away from unionized sites, financing the anti-union consultancy industry (mainly law firms & security firms), the whole corpus of ideas for reform of education thru firing of teachers, charter schools and "accountablity" thru mass testing are aimed at attacking teacher unions, which are among the largest public sector unions.

4. getting the federal state to craft so called "free trade" pacts that aren't about trade. they're about an international regime to protect capitalst investment and profits on a global scale, thus facilitating easier relocation of production sites.

5. attacks on the social wage, the forms of state benefit to the working class, which were the fruit of previous concessions won by the working class, current attack by Obama admin on social security & medicare follows along these lines.

[vDv]

I'm pretty tired right now but this isn't very hard to explain.

Put very simply the reason why union membership is falling is far more about why are people not joining unions than it is about the unions themselves.

Even just 30 years ago as you started to near the age of working you chose your career, a job you would learn and eventually master and you would stick with it and more likely than not your employer for a good length of time. In recent times this hasn't been the case, i believe the average is something like 15 jobs by the age of 35. Add to that the expansion of the Temporary Job market and Job Agencies and you end up with a terrible formula for the unions.

If the employer doesn't respect your rights or the law, then move on. Seems to be the general opinion these days as opposed to try and improve it by organising.

Might be a bit simple, but i think it really does come down to the fact that everyone is of the mindset that they're in a temporary place.

[vDv]

I'm pretty tired right now but this isn't very hard to explain.

Put very simply the reason why union membership is falling is far more about why are people not joining unions than it is about the unions themselves.

Even just 30 years ago as you started to near the age of working you chose your career, a job you would learn and eventually master and you would stick with it and more likely than not your employer for a good length of time. In recent times this hasn't been the case, i believe the average is something like 15 jobs by the age of 35. Add to that the expansion of the Temporary Job market and Job Agencies and you end up with a terrible formula for the unions.

If the employer doesn't respect your rights or the law, then move on. Seems to be the general opinion these days as opposed to try and improve it by organising.

Might be a bit simple, but i think it really does come down to the fact that everyone is of the mindset that they're in a temporary place.

[Victus Mortuum]

the mafia may no longer be a real factor in control of many unions. but it contributed signficantly to working class anti-unionism. that is, opposition to unions by workers themselves. the conversion of unions from '40s on into bureaucratic service agencies that often suppress worker activity and have no vision of a better alternative to offer workers also contributes to working class anti-unionism. the various anti-union consultancies will play anti-union videos at captive audience meetings that emphasize mob conrtrol and violence against members. this may be a thing of the past, but it did happen, so it can still be used.

Okay, that makes sense. The past contributes to anti-union propaganda today.


we need to digtinguish national and local unions. the national union apparatus is only a bureaucracy whereas local unions also have union meetings and a more direct relation between the union and members sometimes. local unions vary a lot. some don't have paid officers.

Aren't national unions composed of local unions? I don't understand national union structure very well, so correct me if I'm wrong.


but the bureaucracy are the paid hierarchy and paid staff. there are more than 10,000 union officials in the USA who make over $100,000 a year. these people do not share the conditions of the job or conditions of life of the members. in highly centralized unions like the UAW the national apparatus is a totally top down autocracy, in effect, tho it runs thru the motions of a controlled democracy at its conventions.

So the structure of what you are calling 'bureaucratic' or 'national' unions inherently makes them undemocratic? What particularly would you say causes this? Would you say it's just a matter of the creation of a coordinator class (in the parecon sense) who are the only ones who have the know-how to run and direct the organization or also a matter of the leaders being bureaucratic sell-outs to capitalists somehow?

Also, how does this relate to your stance on the IWW? They aren't a local union, but a (hypothetically) global one.


control over things like organizing campaigns, bargaining and grievances is taken out of the hands of workers and put into the hands of "professionals of representation." they may have gotten into that line of work originally out of a sincere desire to hellp co workers, but it becomes a career. their own power lies in concentraation of the expertise about what unions do in their hands...how to organize, labor law, dealing with employers, lobbying politicians and so on.

Oh. That answers one of my above questions, haha. Coordinator class problem.


i would not phrase it that way because it plays into the hand of vanguardists who think they have all the wisdom and their job is to "teach" workers things and lead the movement.

i'm sure workers have "questioned" a dictatorial workplace order many times. but they may not see any alternative. seeing little oppositional activity around them, they may think "you can't fight city hall."

Right. I mean that there is an 'educated' section of the working class. That section which sees an alternative, a solution. It is their job to spread that awareness to other workers who can then join in the educative act. It is also the responsibility of these aware or 'educated' workers to agitate and organize themselves and others, no?


the development of class consciousness can't be reduced to supposed experts in radicalism "teaching" people. that's not the right way to look at it. it is more a proces of collective self-learning in which interactions with radicals plays a part.

EDIT: I wouldn't phrase things the way you did because it sort of suggests you think workers are dumb and don't know they are subject to a workplace dictatorship. you may not intend this interpretation, but it's best to avoid suggesting that.

Ah, okay. I see what why you think that.


I was saying that one of the main initiatives the two federations had for trying to steal others members and gain new unions suddenly disappeared. The real decline of unionism didn't fully start until the 70s, but I think the merging of the AFL and the CIO was an important event that shouldn't be looked past as simply a merger.

Yes, but more radical unions like the IWW were still competing with the AFL-CIO, right? Why did they too see massive declining numbers? Especially given their stance for workplace democracy rather than just better wages, benefits, and conditions.


I agree. The use of the state in a nation-wide strike should of caused major backlash, but it didn't. The air-controllers eventually created another union in the later years with similar demands. However, I was pointing how, not necessarily that it was the direct cause of decline in member, but that it showed the ineffectiveness of the mainstream unions to handle such situations. The 80s and 90s were later filled with other examples, and when whole unions can become fired or downsized in an industry or company, then yes there's going to be a decline in numbers, as well as a decline in faith of the union leaders.

A new economic outlook - neoliberalism was on the rise. The employers offensive took off: being more aggressive to unions, in such ways like cutting wages and benefits, outsourcing unionized industries, aggressive anti-union campaigning (see: Wal-Mart), and like I showed, the state being more than willing to side against unions than it did under the (Democratic) Roosevelt administration (not like he/they were perfect to certain strikes as well). This was a very different atmosphere than unions were use to. Now'a'days, a lot of people have to whisper the word "u-word" rather than proudly have discussion about it at work. Creating unions have become much harder, as well as more bureaucratic (see: NLRB)

Okay, so you think it's more of an issue that the bureaucratic, national unions continued to show their inability to make legitimate change, combined with the moderately accurate belief that the unions caused job outsourcing and unemployment (due to neo-liberal global and anti-labor policies) combined with anti-union propaganda?


2) I don't think workers just "completely" dropped out of unions. What I was getting at was this: When I talk to co-workers at my job about a union, some of their responses are negative. I was told by one co-worker: "What can the union do here that they didn't do when the state had it?" (She works full-time for the roads department, and was generally disappointed when they had a union (UAW) because it barely set out to do what it promised). Sometimes, people have negative experiments when in a union (though usually most people, 75% or so statically, say they would like to be in a union). Some people don't just drop out of a union; the union disappears (the company got rid of it, either by de-unionizing or outsourcing the jobs) and rarely have another opportunity to join another.

Okay, so your experience with union-sentiment has been pretty positive (at least regarding their general purpose, if not particular experiences)? My experience has actually been surprisingly (to me) similar. I only recently started bringing up the idea of unions to people around me (fellow students and some co-workers) and it seems that the pro-union sentiment isn't missing. I'd be really interested in seeing the statistics on that, by the way. That'd be a good resource to have.


I think one of the best unions was Lane Kirkland, if I remember correctly. Sorry if I'm remembering the wrong name, but if I'm not: he became the president of the AFL-CIO from '79 to '95. However, this was a new kind of leader: he was never a rank-and-filer. He went to college, and climbed through the bureaucracy of the AFL-CIO to gain the presidency. He was never involved in a strike growing up, he never experienced the true union experience. And that's one of the problems: the union movement is lead by people who have no experience what-so-ever of what they're doing.
As far as what a bureaucratic union is, it's not a union's policies I disagree with, although they generally tend to. I would call that a moderate union, or a reactionary union, or something along those lines. A bureaucratic union is one where the union and leadership is filled who those who know nothing about the rank-and-file and filled with too many lackeys, etc.

I'm not saying all of the working-class or the members of the AFL-CIO don't believe in their unions. I point to my example I listed a few answers ago, about how people have become disillusioned with the leadership of many of the unions and federations the last few decades: how the leaders are more than willing to turn their back on the working-class.

Okay, so you see the problem as one of the Coordinator class as well (in the parecon sense)? This seems to be a major stressing point among the far left lately. Anti-bureaucratic structures. Structures that prevent a coordinator class from developing (I've noticed this is a focus of the SDS, for example).

I think another big issue with union organizing is unemployment. Higher levels of unemployment tend to scare people from unions for the sake of their jobs. And national policies have certainly maintained higher than normal levels of unemployment and fought against any particularly low levels of unemployment (3-4% seems to be really great for union organizing, if statistics and history are any indicator). It's almost basic supply and demand. Low demand for labor means unemployment and low wages (and less unionizing) and high demand for labor means employment and high wages (with more unionizing).

Thanks for all your responses so far, everyone. So what unions exist right now that are not problem unions, in your opinion? Is there a way to urge an organization like the AFL-CIO to restructure? Do you think that unions are best/only means to a revolution? Why or why not?

[syndicat]

Aren't national unions composed of local unions? I don't understand national union structure very well, so correct me if I'm wrong.

the national or "international" union has an office and an executive committee, which consists of paid people, often making huge salaries, and they often have a large number of employees, such as international reps, organizers, accountants, lawyers etc. this paid apparatus is not immediately controllable by the rank and file. usually the national union has a convention and sometimes this is where the national officers are elected. in some cases they are directly elected, as presently in the Teamsters union (there is a contest right now between Hoffa and woman candidate backed by TDU).

but this national apparatus is separate from the local unions, which typically have regular meetings of the actual members. many local unions do not have paid officers. big local unions, however, often do have problems of bureaucratization like the national unions. that is, they will have paid local officers and a staff of employees, controlled by the officers.

but there are at times conflicts between the local unions and the international. in this conflict the internal politics of the national tends to be that the national officers can get away with things to the extent they have the support of enough of the regional or local leaders. national unions in the U.S. have clauses in the constitution that allow them to oust local officers and impose a dictatorship, called a trusteeship. sometimes this has been used to oust corrupt officers (as in HERE) but often it's used to oust more militant leadership (as in the case of the SEIU California hospital local and the Chicago Teamsters local recently).

historically the local unions came first, in the late 1800s. at that time the original AFL structure was based on local councils of local unions. but by the end of the 1800s the national unions were created and they came to dominate over time.

the process of bureaucratization goes back to the problem that individual organizers or delegates originally would learn a lot about organizing, labor law, how to deal with lawyers, public speaking, hot to win grievances etc etc. but they wouldn't train the other members in these things. so they'd monopolize key info, and this would make members dependent on them. they'd use their positions to do favors for members, win grievances, get them jobs, etc. and then they would develop a circle of cronies who would support them, vote for them, so it becomes a local political machine, a fiefdom, with a labor boss whose position is based on a relative monopolization of key information the union needs.

grassroots unionism needs to be based on constant training, and encouraging active participation and learning by workers, so that they are not dependent on some leader.