Building a Pan-Left Pro-Labor Demand for the U.S.

[Victus Mortuum]

I feel that, given the recent increase in strike and protest activity in the U.S., we on the left should have a basic immediate Pro-Labor demand to free workers to unionize and strike (as legislation now strongly inhibits such). I would like to propose some basic ideas for such a comprehensive demand that I feel we should work toward formalizing and trying to get supported by all of the major socialist organizations and unions to get more attention/support from the working class.

Some of the basic aspects of such a demand should - in my mind - include:


Freedom of Assembly and Association and Unionization and Strike for Workers (public and private) and the Military

Free from Anti-Employment Reprisals for Unionizing or Striking

Free from Police Interference as Agent Provocateurs or in any way trying to suppress any strikes or enforcing lockouts etc.

Freedom to unionize by first majority card-check/vote

Free to strike regardless of the presence or absence of formal unionization in each workplace

Freedom for local workplaces to strike without approval of central union leadership

Freedom to strike in solidarity with other workplaces struggles

Freedom to turn workplace into a union shop by first and single majority vote and national abolition of all so-called "Right-to-Work" legislation


Thoughts on how to better express these or express them more concisely or other things to add or things to subtract. Or thoughts on how this is a good or bad idea?

Edit:

I figure I should give credit here to DNZ, as many posters here may not realize that this draws largely on one of his developed programmatic demands.

[Smoochy The Rhino]

I feel that, given the recent increase in strike and protest activity in the U.S., we on the left should have a basic immediate Pro-Labor demand to free workers to unionize and strike (as legislation now strongly inhibits such).

These strikes are a minor labor/left wing movement within a much larger movement, and you need to remember that. For the last two, two and half years there has been a massive right wing movement against various perceptions (perceptions, notice that) of far leftdom/socialism. Trying to organize a large scale labor/left wing movement within a massive right wing movement taking place across basically the whole country is going to either backfire horribly, or be a neutered wonder until the general population is upset with the right again.

Actually, that's not a bad idea. Start organizing now, and start significant agitation in 2012, when Obama loses the Presidency (Smoochy says that President who tries to change everything without a '9/11' event will not be able to get reelected).

[Die Neue Zeit]

A lot of that, comrade, is my stuff. Demand #5 should be placed further down precisely because it's directional / genuinely transitional. ;)

What about the wholesale absorption of all private-sector collective bargaining representation into free and universal 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? Demand #4 would be made obsolete except in the public sector and where the private-sector worker grassroots "represent" themselves instead of having negotiators on their behalf.

OTOH, I'm skeptical about the last demand on closed shops. It's a mixed precedent, because closed-shop-ism is so related to anti-immigrant sentiment. France, BTW, has "right to work" and even a smaller unionized labour force, but there's more public support for unions.

[Victus Mortuum]

A lot of that, comrade, is my stuff. Demand #5 should be placed further down precisely because it's directional / genuinely transitional. ;)

That's actually where I drew the basic idea for this from. I think given the particular type of agitation that is happening right now this would be a particularly well-focused demand.


What about the wholesale absorption of all private-sector collective bargaining representation into free and universal 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? Demand #4 would be made obsolete except in the public sector and where the private-sector worker grassroots "represent" themselves instead of having negotiators on their behalf.

Until now, I really had a problem with this idea (imagining state-run class-harmony bodies that are state-funded). But, I think the idea would actually be great if you tweak it a little. How about state-paid but worker-assembly run collective negotiations for both public and private sectors?


OTOH, I'm skeptical about the last demand on closed shops. It's a mixed precedent, because closed-shop-ism is so related to anti-immigrant sentiment. France, BTW, has "right to work" and even a smaller unionized labour force, but there's more public support for unions.

There's a difference between a closed shop and a union shop.

Closed shop = must be in the union to get hired
Union shop = once hired must either join union or pay equal fees covering bargaining costs (as non-members still get union benefits).

"Right-to-Work" allows conservative workers to mooch off the active workers.

Edit:

Also, can we as a community (or at least anyone who's interested in this idea) consider working on a formal draft that clearly explains these demands?

[Die Neue Zeit]

That's actually where I drew the basic idea for this from. I think given the particular type of agitation that is happening right now this would be a particularly well-focused demand.

Crap, I forgot all about Krichevskii and agitation.


Until now, I really had a problem with this idea (imagining state-run class-harmony bodies that are state-funded). But, I think the idea would actually be great if you tweak it a little. How about state-paid but worker-assembly run collective negotiations for both public and private sectors?

You should post a Theory thread or Worker Struggles thread on this paragraph.

Anyway, there would still be a problem if the private-sector side has "representation." The insertion of the "average skilled workers wage" is a means of avoiding the "state run class harmony bodies" stuff. Imagine if the independent government agencies folks cave in to employer pressure and also face pay cuts. :lol:

The reason I ask you to post a new thread is because I think it could work for the public-sector side, especially given this Learning thread:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/labour-market-populismi-t150361/index.html

It's not Minsky, but it could be a key component.


There's a difference between a closed shop and a union shop.

Closed shop = must be in the union to get hired
Union shop = once hired must either join union or pay equal fees covering bargaining costs (as non-members still get union benefits).

Ah, thanks for the subtlety. Your last demand, then, should explicitly contrast union shops with closed shops. I see union shops as something akin to immigrants coming into the country, working, paying their taxes and such, and thus being morally eligible for government programs.


"Right-to-Work" allows conservative workers to mooch off the active workers.

Edit:

Also, can we as a community (or at least anyone who's interested in this idea) consider working on a formal draft that clearly explains these demands?

You can cut and paste from my work if you like, to get a head-start. That comparison re. union shops and tax-paying immigrants could be used, too. :)

[Victus Mortuum]

Okay, so based on what's been said so far, an updated set and order of potential demands:

Freedom of Assembly and Association and Unionization and Strike for Workers (public and private) and the Military:

1. Freedom to unionize by first majority card-check/vote and abolition of so-called “right-to-work” legislation
2. Free from anti-employment reprisals for unionizing or striking
3. Free from police and military interference as agent provocateurs or strike suppression etc.
4. Freedom to strike without approval of central union leadership
5. Freedom to strike in solidarity with other workplace’s struggles
6. Free to have participatory grassroots collective bargaining (by majority union vote) funded by the state*
7. Free to strike regardless of the presence or absence of formal unionization in each workplace

* ‘We shouldn’t have to pay to have a say’ is a potential slogan here to clarify as this is a demand many people may not have heard before

[Victus Mortuum]

These strikes are a minor labor/left wing movement within a much larger movement, and you need to remember that. For the last two, two and half years there has been a massive right wing movement against various perceptions (perceptions, notice that) of far leftdom/socialism. Trying to organize a large scale labor/left wing movement within a massive right wing movement taking place across basically the whole country is going to either backfire horribly, or be a neutered wonder until the general population is upset with the right again.

Massive? I think you give the corporate astroturf groups too much credit.


Actually, that's not a bad idea. Start organizing now, and start significant agitation in 2012, when Obama loses the Presidency (Smoochy says that President who tries to change everything without a '9/11' event will not be able to get reelected).

Obama hasn't changed anything at all...

[ckaihatsu]

There are only three things related to politics that I know for sure:

1. The Right to Complain about the Government and Politicians is the most fundamental of all rights.
2. If you do not know who is running for what, and what that job entails, and what that person stands for and has done, then you should not be allowed to vote.
3. If you are able to vote, but do not, you do not deserve the Right to Complain.

All else is transitory in space and time.


I have to respectfully take issue with your generalized take on politics here -- the voting / not voting part is certainly debatable in terms of what actions are most politically effective and also in terms of what actions are clearly publicly indicative of one's political intentions and overall political orientation.

Should the status-quo bourgeois-formalized action of *voting* be the definitive standard unit of formally recognized political action? If so then we should also acknowledge that it's currently done very mechanically by the populace, over personages and not issues, and rather furtively at that -- there are no Roman-Senate-like open-air forums in which daily life gives rise to a publicly worked-over consensus on a host of common matters. In such a situation of mass public role-playing into the formulation of societal policy the formal 'vote' would then be just a formality, once a strong, specific direction of implementation had been fully formed and backed by an obvious majority from the back-and-forth discussions and debates over many, many alternatives and options.

While I agree with the substance of your statement in post #2 I think that hinging political practice on the action of the vote in the here-and-now is problematic for all the same reasons that politics *as a whole* is problematic under bourgeois rule.

[bcbm]

begging our enemies to allow us the "right" to organize to fight them seems like kind of a bad plan

[Ravachol]

There I was, thinking social democracy died decades ago...

[Smoochy The Rhino]

Massive? I think you give the corporate astroturf groups too much credit.

It certainly looks massive from my end. I'm not allowed to post links or images, but there have been plenty of right wing protests with far more people showing up then to the teachers strikes in Wisconsin.


Obama hasn't changed anything at all...

To people with some understanding of system, no. To the mindless masses, yes. Repealing DADT, Wall Street Bailout*, 'Obamacare', being black, opening up negotiations with the Taliban in Afghanistan, withdrawing from Iraq, being a communist nazi baby eater**, and so on are all perfectly good reasons in the minds of the uneducated masses to hate Obama and not reelect him. Regardless, I have a pool going with some of my friends on how much of a difference in popular vote he will lose by. Want in?

* Yes, I know, he didn't start it
** I hope I don't have to explain the sarcasm in that comment.

And is this really the appropriate place to criticizes my signature Ckaihatsu?

[Red Bayonet]

We need 2,3,many Jimmy Hoffas!

[ckaihatsu]

And is this really the appropriate place to criticizes my signature Ckaihatsu?


*Yeah*! It was just sitting there, practically begging to be "hugged"...!

[Die Neue Zeit]

begging our enemies to allow us the "right" to organize to fight them seems like kind of a bad plan


There I was, thinking social democracy died decades ago...

Why can't you guys distinguish between a petition and a demand? :confused:

[NoOneIsIllegal]

To people with some understanding of system, no. To the mindless masses, yes. Repealing DADT, Wall Street Bailout*, 'Obamacare', being black, opening up negotiations with the Taliban in Afghanistan, withdrawing from Iraq, being a communist nazi baby eater**, and so on are all perfectly good reasons in the minds of the uneducated masses to hate Obama and not reelect him. Regardless, I have a pool going with some of my friends on how much of a difference in popular vote he will lose by. Want in?

* Yes, I know, he didn't start it
** I hope I don't have to explain the sarcasm in that comment.

And is this really the appropriate place to criticizes my signature Ckaihatsu?

I don't know if you want to include Obamacare, unless this post was simply about change, whether positive or negative. The only positive affects of the Healthcare bill that I'm aware of is the changing of age on having kids on your insurance (up to 26 years old), and not allowing insurance companies to drop you for a preexisting condition. Both are good, but the other factors of the bill, such as the forced buying of privatized, uncapped insurance makes me want to puke. Most people are clueless on the issue, but some Liberals out there are against that. I don't even want to talk about the disaster that is the Energy Bill of 2009... :thumbdown:

I don't think the Democrats will drop Obama in 2012. Sure, there are some Progressives/Liberals that are just short of being Social Democrats that are upset about some things (Afghanistan, side-symptoms of said bills, etc.) but nothing too major that they think could risk the election by dropping him.

If he wins (...i have my doubts), he'll win by no more of a 5% margin. If he loses, it may be as low as 4% (bad GOP candidate like Palin) or as high as 12%. ("smart" GOP candidate like Romney)

[Smoochy The Rhino]

I don't know if you want to include Obamacare, unless this post was simply about change, whether positive or negative.

Any change at all in the minds of most Americans is negative change. That's the basic problem. And Obama will almost definitely remain on the ticket, it's just a matter of him winning, which I don't think he has a chance of. Against Palin? Maybe 50% of him winning. Otherwise he's out.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I forgot to add one more element to the platform. This would make Demand #5 on solidarity strikes redundant.

Emphasize political strikes and general strikes.

Demand #2: "... for unionizing or even conducting political strikes and/or general strikes."

Demand #3: "... agent provocateurs or suppression of even political strikes and/or general strikes, etc."

Demand #4: "Freedom to go on even a political and/or general strike without approval..."

Last demand: "Freedom of even political strikes and/or general strikes regardless..."

[Victus Mortuum]

Updated:

Freedom of Assembly and Association and Unionization and Strike for Workers (public and private) and the Military:

1. Freedom to unionize by first majority card-check/vote and abolition of so-called “right-to-work” legislation
2. Free from anti-employment reprisals for unionizing or even conducting political and/or general strikes
3. Free from police and military interference as agent provocateurs or suppression of even political and/or general strikes, etc.
4. Freedom to go on even political and/or general strike without approval of central union leadership
5. Free to have participatory grassroots collective bargaining funded by the state*
6. Free to go on even political and/or general strike regardless of the presence or absence of formal unionization in each workplace

* ‘We shouldn’t have to pay to have a say’ is a potential slogan here to clarify as this is a demand many people may not have heard before

Anyone else have any particular comments/additions/ideas?

Is there anyone on board to push this in any organizations they are part of when we can get this finalized? Or other ideas to push this to all the major socialist and labor (and perhaps even student?) organizations?

Edit:

Also, anyone in an area of protesting where pamphlets with these demands could be passed out to direct the workers in the correct direction?

[RedTrackWorker]

Updated:

Freedom of Assembly and Association and Unionization and Strike for Workers (public and private) and the Military:

1. Freedom to unionize by first majority card-check/vote and abolition of so-called “right-to-work” legislation
2. Free from anti-employment reprisals for unionizing or even conducting political and/or general strikes
3. Free from police and military interference as agent provocateurs or suppression of even political and/or general strikes, etc.
4. Freedom to go on even political and/or general strike without approval of central union leadership
5. Free to have participatory grassroots collective bargaining funded by the state*
6. Free to go on even political and/or general strike regardless of the presence or absence of formal unionization in each workplace

* ‘We shouldn’t have to pay to have a say’ is a potential slogan here to clarify as this is a demand many people may not have heard before

Anyone else have any particular comments/additions/ideas?

Is there anyone on board to push this in any organizations they are part of when we can get this finalized? Or other ideas to push this to all the major socialist and labor (and perhaps even student?) organizations?

Edit:

Also, anyone in an area of protesting where pamphlets with these demands could be passed out to direct the workers in the correct direction?

Victus Mortuum, I'm not familiar with your posting. I've given up on Die Neue Zeit and his....whatever. I'm in an area to had this out to workers, but there's no way I'd ever do so. Why? Let's leave aside the contents of the list--how do you propose to get these demands/petitions enacted? I posit to you that the only way something like what you're talking about could be done would be with a massive general strike. How will a general strike come about in this country? Well, Wisconsin would be a good place to start, but it's not happening there despite the obvious necessity. Is it because it's "illegal"? No--that doesn't help but that piece of paper called the law isn't stopping anyone. Who is? In the first place, their union leaders and in the second place, the leftists who are leading the workers to accept those union leaders or confusing the struggle against them in various ways.
These demands won't "direct the workers in the correct direction" in Wisconsin, they'd be more litter for the volunteers to clean up. What's necessary is the self-organization of revolutionaries to build an international party that can intervene in struggles like in Wisconsin, and DNZ's theories (or whatever they are) stand solidly in the way of such a development.

[Victus Mortuum]

Victus Mortuum, I'm not familiar with your posting. I've given up on Die Neue Zeit and his....whatever.

My posting? I'm just a socialist, bro. I'm not anything special. DNZ is writing a meta-programmatic work. Yes, his stuff is a little abstract, but some of the stuff he talks about is directly relevant to what about parties have and haven't been successful and why.


I'm in an area to had this out to workers, but there's no way I'd ever do so. Why? Let's leave aside the contents of the list--how do you propose to get these demands/petitions enacted?

Whatever means available - non-"party parliamentary", of course


I posit to you that the only way something like what you're talking about could be done would be with a massive general strike.

Now you're getting the idea. That's more like a working class conscious demand.


How will a general strike come about in this country? Well, Wisconsin would be a good place to start, but it's not happening there despite the obvious necessity.

There's lots of talk in Wisconsin about a general strike, actually


Is it because it's "illegal"? No--that doesn't help but that piece of paper called the law isn't stopping anyone. Who is? In the first place, their union leaders and in the second place, the leftists who are leading the workers to accept those union leaders or confusing the struggle against them in various ways.

The union leaders and "leftists" aren't stopping them. The state is inhibiting the workers from effectively organizing, and the workers are not yet collectively demanding that the state stop doing this.


These demands won't "direct the workers in the correct direction" in Wisconsin, they'd be more litter for the volunteers to clean up.

Sure they would. If these demands were popularized workers would develop more confidence in raising the idea of unionization and strike and then eventually more radical ideas.


What's necessary is the self-organization of revolutionaries to build an international party that can intervene in struggles like in Wisconsin, and DNZ's theories (or whatever they are) stand solidly in the way of such a development.

So here the truth comes out. You want to organize a "revolutionary" coup by some minority "party" that takes control of the state and economy. Good luck with that. I'm more interested in aiding the working class to self-educate and re-learn how to take direct action and to aid them in bringing about their most revolutionary organ - permanent grassroots worker's councils.

[RedTrackWorker]

In reply to Victus Mortuum,
My problem with DNZ's work is not "abstraction" but that it's wrong. Abstraction and theory are essential.

VM: "The union leaders and "leftists" aren't stopping them. The state is inhibiting the workers from effectively organizing, and the workers are not yet collectively demanding that the state stop doing this."
The teachers had a sick-out and their union leader ordered them back to work. My union went on strike in 2005, against the law, and it was our union leader that sent us back to work, not the cops. The union leaders are not calling for strikes now and the state stopping them.

VM: "You want to organize a "revolutionary" coup by some minority "party" that takes control of the state and economy. "
If by that you mean, this:

Every minute brings news of fresh conquests of the Revolution---the arrest of ministers, the seizure of the State Bank, telegraph station, telephone station, the staff headquarters. One by one the centers of power are passing into the hands of the people. The spectral authority of the old government is crumbling before the hammer strokes of the insurgents.

A commissar, breathless and mud-spattered from riding, climbs the platform to announce: "The garrison of Tsarskoye Selo for the Soviets. It stands guard at the gates of Petrograd." From another: "The Cyclists' Battalion for the Soviets. Not a single man found willing to shed the blood of his brothers." Then Krylenko, staggering up, telegram in hand: "Greetings to the Soviet from the Twelfth Army! The Soldiers' Committee is taking over the command of the Northern Front."

And finally at the end of this tumultuous night, out of this strife of tongues and clash of wills, the simple declaration: "The Provisional Government is deposed. Based upon the will of the great majority of workers, soldiers and peasants, the Congress of Soviets assumes the power. The Soviet authority will at once propose an immediate democratic peace to all nations, an immediate truce on all fronts. It will assure the free transfer of lands . . . etc."

Pandemonium! Men weeping in one another's arms. Couriers jumping up and racing away. Telegraph and telephone buzzing and humming. Autos starting off to the battle-front; aeroplanes speeding away across rivers and plains. Wireless flashing across the seas. All messengers of the great news!

The will of the revolutionary masses has triumphed. The Soviets are the government.

This historic session ends at six o'clock in the morning. The delegates, reeling from the toxin of fatigue, hollow-eyed from sleeplessness, but exultant, stumble down the stone stairs and thru the gates of Smolny. Outside it is still dark and chill, but a red dawn is breaking in the east.

If that's what you mean by a "coup" by a "party," then yes, that's exactly what I want--and more and better.

[Die Neue Zeit]

My posting? I'm just a socialist, bro. I'm not anything special. DNZ is writing a meta-programmatic work. Yes, his stuff is a little abstract, but some of the stuff he talks about is directly relevant to what about parties have and haven't been successful and why.

[...]

The union leaders and "leftists" aren't stopping them. The state is inhibiting the workers from effectively organizing, and the workers are not yet collectively demanding that the state stop doing this.

[...]

Sure they would. If these demands were popularized workers would develop more confidence in raising the idea of unionization and strike and then eventually more radical ideas.

[...]

So here the truth comes out. You want to organize a "revolutionary" coup by some minority "party" that takes control of the state and economy. Good luck with that. I'm more interested in aiding the working class to self-educate and re-learn how to take direct action and to aid them in bringing about their most revolutionary organ - permanent grassroots worker's councils.

His "self-help" route starts out with "sliding scales of wages and hours" in the context of sectional struggles. From there he wants "workers control" (however flimsy it is (http://www.revleft.com/vb/stakeholder-co-management-t145117/index.html)) and strategic nationalizations. "Democratic rights" are addressed later, to be merely defended.

The councils (whether they're part of an official party-movement and sociopolitical syndicate or not) come about at the end... only to be sidelined or suppressed coup-style by the "party" once the latter seizes power.

[RED DAVE]

Freedom of Assembly and Association and Unionization and Strike for Workers (public and private) and the Military

Free from Anti-Employment Reprisals for Unionizing or Striking

Free from Police Interference as Agent Provocateurs or in any way trying to suppress any strikes or enforcing lockouts etc.

Freedom to unionize by first majority card-check/vote

Free to strike regardless of the presence or absence of formal unionization in each workplace

Freedom for local workplaces to strike without approval of central union leadership

Freedom to strike in solidarity with other workplaces struggles

Freedom to turn workplace into a union shop by first and single majority vote and national abolition of all so-called "Right-to-Work" legislationA - Abstractly, these demands are fine, but it remains to be seen if they're the proper ones to be raised in this struggle. That can only be determined by an analysis of the situation combined with working directly within the situation.

What concerns me about a set of demands like these is that they do not flow from a close analysis of the situation, nor do they come from "inside."

B - The following questions suggest themselves.

(1) What organization would you build to raise these demands; or

(2) In what existing organization would you raise them?

(3) Where do you get the personnel for (1) or (2) who have any labor experience whatsoever?

RED DAVE

[Victus Mortuum]

A - Abstractly, these demands are fine, but it remains to be seen if they're the proper ones to be raised in this struggle. That can only be determined by an analysis of the situation combined with working directly within the situation.

The only way to see would be to (for example) distribute flyers explaining the demands and the arguments for them at a rally and see if the people catch on and move that direction - if not, they are the wrong demands.


What concerns me about a set of demands like these is that they do not flow from a close analysis of the situation, nor do they come from "inside."

I don't see how this is a problem. I guess I see this resolved with my above methodology, haha.


Regardless, I think another demand that would rightfully be added to the end of this series/collection that flows with the transformative aspect of the demands would be something along the lines of 'Freedom to override management and employer decisions about wages, benefits, hours, (other stuff?) by a majority worker vote'

[Victus Mortuum]

Ah, and the above naturally leads to another immediate demand that could be considered the next logical transformative demand in the progression:

Freedom for workers to appropriate their workplace into a worker's collective by majority vote

(Edit:

again to clarify, this demand draws from DNZ's programmatic work; credit where credit's due ;) )

[Victus Mortuum]

Freedom of Assembly and Association and Unionization and Strike for Workers (public and private) and the Military:

1. Freedom to unionize by first majority card-check/vote and abolition of so-called “right-to-work” legislation
2. Free from anti-employment reprisals for unionizing or even conducting political and/or general strikes
3. Free from police and military interference as agent provocateurs or suppression of even political and/or general strikes, etc.
4. Freedom to go on even political and/or general strike without approval of central union leadership
5. Free to have participatory grassroots collective bargaining funded by the state*
6. Free to go on even political and/or general strike regardless of the presence or absence of formal unionization in each workplace
7. Freedom to override management and corporate decisions about wages, benefits, hours, etc. by a majority worker vote
8. Freedom for workers to appropriate their workplace into a worker's collective by majority vote

* ‘We shouldn’t have to pay to have a say’ is a potential slogan here to clarify as this is a demand many people may not have heard before


Suggested wording adjustments or changes in actual demands perhaps? This seems to me a relatively organic and logical progression of demands that a movement (or, if you prefer, a party-movement ;) ) could organize around. I'm particularly interested in a) making the header of the demands more succinct and b) making the wording of the demands more military inclusive (as one of the long-term aims of the demands would be the transformation of the military into a people's militia).

Thoughts?

[Victus Mortuum]

Would it be more accurately related to this particular struggle to remove the calls for those things in the military? Or is there a better way to incorporate the military demands more naturally into this demand-set?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Post #26 looks just fine. Spread the word ASAP. :)