Closed shops, union shops, and agency shops

[Die Neue Zeit]

Between closed shops, union shops, and agency shops as union security agreements, which form is the best?

It's just that a couple of months ago a comrade suggested that I look at agency shops as an alternative to my polemic against closed shops (likening the mentality behind them to anti-scab sentiments redirected towards anti-immigrant sentiments).

[NoOneIsIllegal]

Why would you want an agency shop? I've heard of the other terms, but I don't think I've come across "agency shop" before (I did a quick read of it on wikipedia). Plus, how is it different from an Open Shop?

[RED DAVE]

Why would you want an agency shop? I've heard of the other terms, but I don't think I've come across "agency shop" before (I did a quick read of it on wikipedia). Plus, how is it different from an Open Shop?As I understand it, and it isn't common, an agency shop involves: (1) union representation and bargaining rights, but (2) no individual is compelled to join the union, even though they are bound by the union contract. (3) They must pay the equivalent of dues, but it can go to a charity.

Why anyone would support this is beyond me.

RED DAVE

[Die Neue Zeit]

Why would the "equivalent of dues" go to charity? It's more likely to be used to stash the strike funds and union bureaucracy funds, no?

I posted this thread because agency shops are like employee-paid parking or taxable benefits for employer-paid parking. Those who don't wish to participate in the labour disputes shouldn't do so, but benefits come at a cost.

Did you get my immigration stuff up above?

[RED DAVE]

Why would the "equivalent of dues" go to charity? It's more likely to be used to stash the strike funds and union bureaucracy funds, no?Under an agency shop, dues are collected, but individuals who are not members of the union can opt to have the dues money go to a charity of their choice. The dues of a union member goes to the union.


I posted this thread because agency shops are like employee-paid parking or taxable benefits for employer-paid parking. Those who don't wish to participate in the labour disputes shouldn't do so, but benefits come at a cost.This is not what an agency shop is. Non-union members in an agency shop get all the benefits of union membership, but they are not compelled to join a union. Closed shops are illegal in many states, but agency shops are permitted.

Allegedly, agency shops are to protect those who do not want to join a union "under compulsion." Actually, they're a union-busting technique.


Did you get my immigration stuff up above?I didn't understand it's relevance to the question of agency, open and closed shops.

RED DAVE

[syndicat]

A closed shop by definition means hiring only from members of the union. A union shop means that a person who is hired has to join the union...typically within some period of time such as 90 days. I was under the vague impression that closed shops were illegal.

Forced union membership with dues checkoff has been in practice a bureaucrat entrenchment device.

[graymouser]

Forced union membership with dues checkoff has been in practice a bureaucrat entrenchment device.
I would argue that it's not the only reason that the bureaucracy has entrenched itself in the unions, but it certainly has helped. Class peace and bureaucracy had a lot of complex factors in the postwar period and union shops were not the biggest of them. A lot of it is that the bureaucracy arises when workers want to stop having to fight and get on with everyday life. That was possible for an extended period after World War II, and the intense repression of radicals certainly helped.

But this doesn't mean that an agency shop is somehow better. It basically requires the union to go into a permanent war footing, which is unsustainable outside of a period of pitched class struggle. There are certain advantages to having a membership that is constantly building, but it runs out of steam after a certain amount of time if that isn't directed at something bigger - which we all know, is socialism.

[Devrim]

A closed shop by definition means hiring only from members of the union. A union shop means that a person who is hired has to join the union...typically within some period of time such as 90 days. I was under the vague impression that closed shops were illegal.

In the UK the terminology is somewhat different. Both of these arrangements were described as a closed shop*. If you needed to make a differentiation, the adjectives used were post and pre-entry. Both forms have been illegal since the 1980s, and although in the late 80s they still existed illegally, I would be surprised if there are any left today.

Devrim

*I don't think that you had 90 days though. Generally the management gave you the union membership forms and told you to sign up on your first day.

[syndicat]

I would argue that it's not the only reason that the bureaucracy has entrenched itself in the unions, but it certainly has helped. Class peace and bureaucracy had a lot of complex factors in the postwar period and union shops were not the biggest of them. A lot of it is that the bureaucracy arises when workers want to stop having to fight and get on with everyday life. That was possible for an extended period after World War II, and the intense repression of radicals certainly helped.



except that bureaucratic business unionism existed prior to World War 2. workers started hiring delegates to work full time for the union around the end of the 19th century, beginning of the 20th century in AFL unions. And that's also around the time the national unions were created and pushed aside the local labor councils as the main form of inter-local organization. National unions are intrinsically harder to control because the officials are off somewhere else, and have a separate existence from the situation of workers on the job.

there is also the fiefdom syndrome. elected BAs and the like were created in part because certain activists had accumulated certain knowledge of how to organize and run a union, and members didn't want to lose their knowledge. so these officials as they gained knowledge and experience from doing negotiations, learning contract language, dealing with lawyers, developing personal relationships with managers, were able to keep the members dependent on them, and for this they also had things like finding them jobs or hiring them on union staff. so the elected officials built up a circle of cronies who formed a political machine to keep them in power in the union. so this is the fiefdom syndrome. and creates a circle of dependent clients, but not an organization that can work effectively as a mass fighting force. so monopolization of knowledge is a kind of informal basis of bureaucratization but it has its formal, structural supports, and forced union membership and difficulty of discontented changing unions are part of this. so it is both legal supports and union structural supprts added to informal concentration of knowedge.

now of course if there is growing militancy and radicalsim among workers, this tends to support forms of unionism that are more democratic in practice because people want an organization they can control to have an effective way to engage in struggle. so to the extent thereis a decline in militacy and radicalism, this also will tend to support bureaucratic entrenchment.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Under an agency shop, dues are collected, but individuals who are not members of the union can opt to have the dues money go to a charity of their choice. The dues of a union member goes to the union.

In that case, I'm for scrapping any laws than handicap what unions can do with agency fees.


This is not what an agency shop is. Non-union members in an agency shop get all the benefits of union membership, but they are not compelled to join a union. Closed shops are illegal in many states, but agency shops are permitted.

Allegedly, agency shops are to protect those who do not want to join a union "under compulsion." Actually, they're a union-busting technique.

The non-union members can't vote in union votes, nor can they opt out of paying agency fees (again, scrap laws that allow this crap). I don't know if they are under no compulsion to go on strike or stay home while the union members strike, though (again, scrap laws that prohibit such compulsion and strengthen laws that mandate such compulsion).


I didn't understand it's relevance to the question of agency, open and closed shops.

<Anti-immigrant sentiment>Only native-born such-and-such or persons naturalized by this point can work here! Immigrants are "scab" labour!</Sentiment>

<Closed shop>Only union members can work here! Everyone else is scab labour!</Closed shop>


In the UK the terminology is somewhat different. Both of these arrangements were described as a closed shop*. If you needed to make a differentiation, the adjectives used were post and pre-entry. Both forms have been illegal since the 1980s, and although in the late 80s they still existed illegally, I would be surprised if there are any left today.


A closed shop by definition means hiring only from members of the union. A union shop means that a person who is hired has to join the union...typically within some period of time such as 90 days. I was under the vague impression that closed shops were illegal.

Forced union membership with dues checkoff has been in practice a bureaucrat entrenchment device.

The UK still has closed shops despite the formal ban, but note how closely tied this crap is to the anti-immigrant sentiment there in "defense" of the poor "white working class." :glare:


But this doesn't mean that an agency shop is somehow better. It basically requires the union to go into a permanent war footing, which is unsustainable outside of a period of pitched class struggle. There are certain advantages to having a membership that is constantly building, but it runs out of steam after a certain amount of time if that isn't directed at something bigger - which we all know, is socialism.

It serves red unionism well. It serves sociopolitical syndicalism well. It also serves well the idea that private-sector collective bargaining representation should be taken over entirely by independent government agencies acting in good faith (comrades have noted the intentional cynicism behind "in good faith"), with taxes replacing agency fees.

[Devrim]

The UK still has closed shops despite the formal ban, but note how closely tied this crap is to the anti-immigrant sentiment there in "defense" of the poor "white working class." :glare:

In which industries? What 'anti-immigrant sentiment'?

Devrim

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

A closed shop by definition means hiring only from members of the union. A union shop means that a person who is hired has to join the union...typically within some period of time such as 90 days. I was under the vague impression that closed shops were illegal.


Yep, Taft-Hartley outlawed the closed shop in the U.S.

Of course in some industries (like industrial crafts) they have gotten around that with hiring halls. Theoretically anyone can get a job through a hiring hall, but if you're not in the union or affiliated with it it's probably not gonna happen.

In construction the bosses can agree in advance of a project to hire only union workers, but it's not allowed in other industries.

[Marks of Capital]

In the US, some states allow agency shops, and some states only allow open shops. Confusingly, open-shop-only states are called "Right-to-work." (Challenge: Come up with a good satire of "right-to-work." The best I've heard so far is "right to work for nothing.")

My understand of the history of right-to-work in the US is that the Taft-Hartley Act (1947) originally called for each unionized workplace to vote on whether they would be agency shop or open shop. The idea was this would undermine unions as each individual, as a rational, profit-maximizer, would vote for open shop so that they could not join the union (and pay dues), but still receive the benefits.

However, after a few years of workers in unionized shops overwhelmingly (I've heard over 90%) voting for the agency shop, Taft-Hartley was amended (1951?) to have the agency shop/open shop issue decided on a state-by-state basis, rather than shop-by-shop. Since then, twenty-two out of fifty states have passed laws or constitutional amendments banning agency shops.

The outcome is, as has been mentioned, workers can now "free ride" and get the benefits of the union without paying for them. Perhaps a way to turn this around would be to allow an open shop, but only union members get the benefits of the contract. I think, under "fair representation" laws, unions must defend even non-members in shops covered by their contracts.

A bit more about agency shops: Everyone is automatically in the union, and you have to opt-out. Opting out reduces your dues to an agency fee, which can only be used to pay for representational activities and contract negotiations. However, if you have a religious objection to paying even an agency fee to a union, you can then donate the same amount to a charity.

In an open shop, you have to sign up, or opt-in to the union. This makes a significant difference. In agency-shop states, very few people choose to opt-out. In open-shop-states, many more people choose to not opt-in. (There are some exceptions, such as in Nevada, which is open-shop, but the unions there have built a strong culture of becoming a member. Nevada has higher union membership than a number of agency shop states.) The Bureau of Labor Statistics tracks this, and just as an example, in the state of Michigan, an agency-shop state, 17.3% of workers are protected by unions. 95% of them are members. In Arizona, an open-shop state, 8.1% are protect by a union, and 79% are members.

The effect of open-shop on the operation of a union is it makes them spend all their time and resources trying to get people to sign up, rather than organizing. Part of the anti-union legislation in Wisconsin involved not only open-shop, but that workers would have to sign-up every year. This would lead to the unions spending far more time and resources "chasing membership cards," rather than organizing. (Surely effective organizing has the effect of encouraging people to sign up, but it is an uphill battle to overcome the "free rider problem.")

Lastly, unions, as bureaucratic, return-maximizing organizations with limited resources, they tend to choose to invest in organizing campaigns in agency-shop states because they know if they win, they will collect a lot of dues. They are less inclined to organize in open-shop states, as winning union recognition will not necessarily create a good return on investment. (Suggested research question: Do open-shop states have a higher percentage of independent unions, not affiliated with a national union?)

[Die Neue Zeit]

In the US, some states allow agency shops, and some states only allow open shops. Confusingly, open-shop-only states are called "Right-to-work." (Challenge: Come up with a good satire of "right-to-work." The best I've heard so far is "right to work for nothing.")

[...]

The outcome is, as has been mentioned, workers can now "free ride" and get the benefits of the union without paying for them.

Is that a contradiction, or a satire in your post? There's not much "free riding" or much in the way of benefits because of the rat race to the bottom. :confused:


My understand of the history of right-to-work in the US is that the Taft-Hartley Act (1947) originally called for each unionized workplace to vote on whether they would be agency shop or open shop. The idea was this would undermine unions as each individual, as a rational, profit-maximizer, would vote for open shop so that they could not join the union (and pay dues), but still receive the benefits.

"Rational, profit-maximizer"? Obviously they never had behavioural economics back then, let alone behavioural political economy.


Perhaps a way to turn this around would be to allow an open shop, but only union members get the benefits of the contract. I think, under "fair representation" laws, unions must defend even non-members in shops covered by their contracts.

A bit more about agency shops: Everyone is automatically in the union, and you have to opt-out. Opting out reduces your dues to an agency fee, which can only be used to pay for representational activities and contract negotiations. However, if you have a religious objection to paying even an agency fee to a union, you can then donate the same amount to a charity.

So what would be the reverse of the opt-out situation? What I mean is, for example, some non-unionized worker is hired, but must pay agency fees until said worker decides to join the union. :confused:

[My impression of "right to work" is that non-unionized workers don't have to pay agency fees at all.]

As I posted above, what constitutes "representation activities and contract negotiations"? Where are the strike funds, for instance?

And WTF are such "religious objections," if you don't mind my asking? :confused:


In an open shop, you have to sign up, or opt-in to the union. This makes a significant difference. In agency-shop states, very few people choose to opt-out. In open-shop-states, many more people choose to not opt-in. (There are some exceptions, such as in Nevada, which is open-shop, but the unions there have built a strong culture of becoming a member. Nevada has higher union membership than a number of agency shop states.) The Bureau of Labor Statistics tracks this, and just as an example, in the state of Michigan, an agency-shop state, 17.3% of workers are protected by unions. 95% of them are members. In Arizona, an open-shop state, 8.1% are protect by a union, and 79% are members.

Again, I was under the impression that "right to work" crap allegedly "protects" non-unionized workers from even paying agency fees or whatever.


The effect of open-shop on the operation of a union is it makes them spend all their time and resources trying to get people to sign up, rather than organizing. Part of the anti-union legislation in Wisconsin involved not only open-shop, but that workers would have to sign-up every year. This would lead to the unions spending far more time and resources "chasing membership cards," rather than organizing. (Surely effective organizing has the effect of encouraging people to sign up, but it is an uphill battle to overcome the "free rider problem.")

Whatever the immediate solution is, it has to entail non-unionized workers chipping it from the outset like employee-paid parking - no exceptions.


(Suggested research question: Do open-shop states have a higher percentage of independent unions, not affiliated with a national union?)

Damn, this gives me even more food for thought as I foray into a critique on emphasizing mere labour disputes!

[syndicat]

Perhaps a way to turn this around would be to allow an open shop, but only union members get the benefits of the contract.

this leads to the idea of what is called the "member only" union. this would mean the union is only legally obligated to defend or "represent" its members.

in practice, it's hard to insulate the union's benefits from the non-members. if they obtain a raise the company is unlikely to not also pay the non-members the same rate, if they work the same job. but laws at present require a union to spend time and resources "representing" non-members. and that is what should be changed.

nonetheless, there is no point to forcing people to join a union if they will simply turn around and scab if the union strikes. it forces the more conservative people into the union, which will encourage the union in a more conservative direction.

[Die Neue Zeit]

this leads to the idea of what is called the "member only" union. this would mean the union is only legally obligated to defend or "represent" its members.

in practice, it's hard to insulate the union's benefits from the non-members. if they obtain a raise the company is unlikely to not also pay the non-members the same rate, if they work the same job. but laws at present require a union to spend time and resources "representing" non-members. and that is what should be changed.

Changed to what, in your immediate view? :confused:

[blake 3:17]

n construction the bosses can agree in advance of a project to hire only union workers, but it's not allowed in other industries.

That makes sense for a few reasons. The skilled trades unions monitor/regulate themselves, union members are generally more skilled and more safety conscious, and may help keep the peace for a longer period of time.


As I posted above, what constitutes "representation activities and contract negotiations"? Where are the strike funds, for instance? I would imagine that only members would be eligible for strike pay.


And WTF are such "religious objections," if you don't mind my asking? From my experience here in Ontario, where the labour laws are very different from most of what we're discussing (more on that briefly) -- members of some faiths are exempt from participation in strike activity.

There's all sort of weirdness from the Rand Formula: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rand_formula

????
in practice, it's hard to insulate the union's benefits from the non-members. if they obtain a raise the company is unlikely to not also pay the non-members the same rate, if they work the same job. but laws at present require a union to spend time and resources "representing" non-members. and that is what should be changed. ??? You serious?

[Marks of Capital]

There's not much "free riding" or much in the way of benefits because of the rat race to the bottom.In the long term, workers suffer from this arrangement, true, but each individual can choose the existing union benefits without paying dues. Our ancestors in the '47-'51 era recognized the longer term effects when overwhelmingly voting against open shop.
Consider also the way industrial unions work compared with craft unions. In a craft union, each member has a skill and the union bands like skilled individuals together for mutual improvement. In an industrial union, (usually) unskilled people get hired at a factory, and then form a union (or join the existing union.) If they leave the unionized factory job, in most cases they are no longer union members. Industrial unionism had recently, at the time of Taft-Hartley, overtaken craft unionism as the dominant form of unionism in the US.


Obviously they never had behavioural economics back then, let alone behavioural political economy.Perhaps they didn't use those words back then, but I think that is the theory underlying why the anti-union legislature thought open shop would hurt unions. As far back as Adam Smith, economists talked about people as profit-maximizing agents, though, so I might not be far off.


So what would be the reverse of the opt-out situation?What I meant was this:
Agency shop: Workers must opt-out of union. All workers receive union benefits.
Open shop: Workers must opt-in to union. All workers receive union benefits.
Suggested new arrangement: Workers must opt-in to union. Only members receive union benefits.


My impression of "right to work" is that non-unionized workers don't have to pay agency fees at all.Correct about right-to-work/open-shop: Workers that aren't in the union don't pay dues or agency fees.


As I posted above, what constitutes "representation activities and contract negotiations"?I don't know all the details about what is consider representational activities, but I'd imagine it would be a bit of legal gray area. I also know that some unions set their agency fees as equal to member dues. May get a better answer to this later. Critically, though, organizing new shops is not a representational activity. Nor is political activity. (Although, I think there are additional restrictions on what political activity unions can do with even regular dues. Most unions have an optional political fund members pay into.)


WTF are such "religious objections," if you don't mind my asking?Some religious groups, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses, have a prohibition on joining clubs like unions. So they are exempt from paying even agency fees. However, they must donate the amount to charity, to discourage people from faking religious conviction to keep the amount of the dues in their own pocket.


Again, I was under the impression that "right to work" crap allegedly "protects" non-unionized workers from even paying agency fees or whatever.Again you are right. In the above example, 5% of Michigan workers covered by a union contract pay agency fees instead of dues. But in Arizona, 21% of workers covered by a union contract pay no dues or fees at all. That example was to demonstrate the difference between opt-in and opt-out. (I guess there are two parts to right-to-work: Opt-in and no agency fees.)


Whatever the immediate solution is, it has to entail non-unionized workers chipping it from the outset like employee-paid parking - no exceptions.This is the situation in agency shop states.


in practice, it's hard to insulate the union's benefits from the non-members.The company could voluntarily offer non-members equal pay and benefits, but they wouldn't have access to the union grievance procedure, progressive discipline, just-cause termination, or member-only benefits such as union-backed pension and health care funds. (Not to mention union softball leagues...)


I would imagine that only members would be eligible for strike pay. Here's a court case about that:
[Tried to post a link, but I don't have enough mojo. Case is called "Kolinske v Lubbers." Die Neue Zeit might be interested in reading through that, as well.]

[syndicat]

quite serious. "representation" laws are a form of state regulation and impose various state requirements on unions that justify a bureaucracy. a union should be a bond of struggle & solidarity among the members. if the conservative minority don't want to belong, fine...don't force them...but at the same time, don't be forced to allow them to manipulate the union by the threat of complaints about nonrepresentation.

at the same time, there needs to be an easy way for workers to leave an unsatisfactory union and create or join another. this means there needs to be legal association rights even when a union of some sort has a contract with the employer. but the NLRA says if these are not respected in the contract you've just given up your "concerned activity" rights (NLRA Section 7 rights) through contract. this is not a human right under current law but can be bargained away. it's the same with the right to strike. you're free to bargain that away...and 90 percent of union contracts do.

[Devrim]

Jacob, can you answer my question in post 11 please?

Devrim

[Marks of Capital]

I had some more thoughts, some related, since my last post.


In construction the bosses can agree in advance of a project to hire only union workers, but it's not allowed in other industries.Relating to my comment on the rise of industrial unionism, at the expense of craft unionism: The construction trades are basically the only craft unions left in the US with any relevance. Even the IBEW, a construction trade and craft union, represents some factory workers these days.

(I might possibly include the "creative unions" of theater, television, film, and music in the list of craft unions that still have any power. It is still difficult to be a working musician in this country without being a member of AFM, for instance.
Digression: A number of daytime "soap operas" are scheduled for cancellation, which will hurt these unions significantly, as they are being replaced with so-called "reality" television, which has found ways of avoiding hiring union crafts. You don't need IATSE stagehands if you don't have sets. You don't need WGA writers if you don't have scripts. You don't need SAG performers if you don't have actors, etc. "America's Next Top Model", a "reality show," famously fired their writing staff for having the audacity to claim they were writers, and voting to join the WGA.
Walt Disney (the person) hated the Hollywood unions, and turned his own animators into the HUAC as communist agitators. Other bums include Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez who claim running a unionized production ruins the fast, loose, flexible, cooperative atmosphere they had when they were amateur film makers. (This argument should be familiar to anyone who has tried to form a union. Boss: "But we're a family!")
For real excitement, though, read about the conflict between IATSE and the CSU in the 1940s. "The CSU was everything that IATSE was not: militant, leftist, and honest.")

Note the similarities between the construction and entertainment industries: both employ skilled trades, and both function on a job-by-job basis. By that I mean you put together a crew to build your building/make your movie, and then assemble a new crew for the next building/movie.

Point: The fact that construction trades, one of the few sectors of strong craft unionism, are sometimes exempt from right-to-work suggests to me that the goal of right-to-work was to undermine the then-ascendant industrial unionism, which was proving to unite the working class more effectively than craft unionism.


Michigan, an agency-shop state, 17.3% of workers are protected by unions. 95% of them are members.Just to clarify, that is 95% of the 17.3% are union members. Not even in Michigan are 95% of all workers union members.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I answered in Post 10. :)


<Anti-immigrant sentiment>Only native-born such-and-such or persons naturalized by this point can work here! Immigrants are "scab" labour!</Sentiment>

<Closed shop>Only union members can work here! Everyone else is scab labour!</Closed shop>

[Devrim]

I answered in Post 10. :)

That was rather prescient of you to answer a question I asked in post 11 in post 10, or rather would have been if you had managed to answer it.

Let's just look at the question again:



The UK still has closed shops despite the formal ban, but note how closely tied this crap is to the anti-immigrant sentiment there in "defense" of the poor "white working class." In which industries? What 'anti-immigrant sentiment'?

To which your answer was:


<Anti-immigrant sentiment>Only native-born such-and-such or persons naturalized by this point can work here! Immigrants are "scab" labour!</Sentiment>

<Closed shop>Only union members can work here! Everyone else is scab labour!</Closed shop>

It certainly doesn't answer the question of which industries in the UK still have a closed shop, nor does the fact that a company doesn't employ illegal labour mean that there is 'anti-immigrant' sentiment amongst the workforce.

Devrim

[RedSunRising]

It certainly doesn't answer the question of which industries in the UK still have a closed shop, nor does the fact that a company doesn't employ illegal labour mean that there is 'anti-immigrant' sentiment amongst the workforce.

Devrim

This doesnt really answer your question but it does reveal something about a lot of trade unionism in Imperialist countries. Of course the CWI/SPEW supported it.

http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wh/207/Protectionism.html

"Since January a series of reactionary and virulently chauvinist strikes and protests have taken place on building sites at Britain’s power stations and oil refineries. Building workers at Lindsey oil refinery in Lincolnshire went on strike against the fact that foreign contractors hired workers in their home country to work in Britain. This sparked widespread protests at other sites centred on the demand “British jobs for British workers”, a protectionist slogan long identified with the fascists and recently used by Gordon Brown. These protests were in contrast to the occupations at Visteon plants in Belfast and London in April where workers fought for better redundancy packages when the factory closures were announced.
The Lindsey strike was not intended to secure more jobs, but to redivide jobs in favour of British workers. In such situations we demand the highest rate of pay and benefits no matter who does the work, and equal pay for equal work. The settlement at Lindsey pledged that 102 jobs previously expected to go to Italian workers would be offered to British workers. Similar protests at Staythorpe power station in Nottinghamshire and at the Isle of Grain in Kent against Spanish and Polish workers have featured placards saying “British jobs for British workers” as well as “Stop excluding British workers” and “Fairness for British workers”. Derek Simpson, co-leader of the Unite union, supported these protests and was photographed beside the Union Jack, the racist emblem of the Empire in colonial times, symbol of the subjugation of Catholics in Northern Ireland today and of the bloody occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.
These reactionary protests, which have been enthusiastically supported by the BNP, can only fan the flames of racism and help drive immigrant workers off the building sites. The campaign has sent a chilling message to all immigrants and minorities: during the Lindsey strike, racist strikers told the Italian workers to “go back to your own country” and there has been an outcry in the London Evening Standard against foreign workers working on the Olympics construction sites in London. What’s needed is to mobilise the multiethnic working class in a fight against the Labour government. This requires a political fight to replace the Labourite union misleaders with a class-struggle leadership. Such a leadership in the trade unions would oppose the racist “war on terror” and fight for full citizenship rights for all immigrants."


Economic struggle on its own is never revolutionary but sometimes it can even be reactionary.

[syndicat]

The construction trades are basically the only craft unions left in the US with any relevance.

CNA and other unions of RNs are certainly a significant force.

meanwhile, residential construction is virtually non-union. how "significant" is the carpenters union if it can't maintain itself in residential construction? It's gone the corporate mega-centralization route of SEIU.

CIO contracts in the '30s did not have union security clauses in most cases. Union security clauses and no strike clauses were imposed during World War 2, as part of the state effort to tame the militancy of the '30s-'40s period.

[bricolage]

http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wh/207/Protectionism.html
Except things are never that simple.

Solidarity walkouts rippled across the country at 13 refineries and power stations from Longannet in Fife to Milford Haven in South Wales to Langage Power Station near Plymouth, involving in total upwards of 4,000 workers.5 (http://libcom.org/library/red-shoots-resistance-recession-struggles-uk#footnote5_u6a662k) Reports that Polish workers had joined them at Langage,6 (http://libcom.org/library/red-shoots-resistance-recession-struggles-uk#footnote6_28u9xr4) and the emergence of banners amongst pickets written in Italian and others bearing the slogan ‘workers of the world, unite!’ began to shed doubt on the official narrative of a simple racist strike for national protectionism. The actual demands of the LOR strike committee, overwhelmingly endorsed by a mass meeting were in many ways typical trade unionist ones. They were as follows:7 (http://libcom.org/library/red-shoots-resistance-recession-struggles-uk#footnote7_fjw6r2h)
No victimisation of workers taking solidarity action; All workers in UK to be covered by NAECI Agreement; Union controlled registering of unemployed and locally skilled union members, with nominating rights as work becomes available; Government and employer investment in proper training/apprenticeships for new generation of construction workers - fight for a future for young people; All immigrant labour to be unionised; Trade union assistance for immigrant workers - including interpreters - and access to trade union advice - to promote active integrated trade union members; Build links with construction trade unions on the continent.
The result was that 102 new jobs were created on top of the existing ones, with no foreign workers losing their jobs, on which a member of the strike committee commented that, “I'm glad the lads are back at work, earning money again, and the Italian lads are still here.”8 (http://libcom.org/library/red-shoots-resistance-recession-struggles-uk#footnote8_zj9ck5z) According to the Socialist Party the strike was "a stunning victory" in which all the workers' demands were met. They also reported that "the 647 dismissals have been withdrawn, the 51 redundancies rescinded and all employees have been guaranteed a minimum of four week's work i.e. as much work as is probably available."9 (http://libcom.org/library/red-shoots-resistance-recession-struggles-uk#footnote9_iay57zz) The last point does put this ‘stunning victory’ into perspective, but the LOR dispute did demonstrate that workers can take unofficial action and break the laws on secondary picketing with impunity, and win. http://libcom.org/library/red-shoots-resistance-recession-struggles-uk


Was it a nationalist strike?
Yes, to some extent…
The workers really did hold up placards saying “British Jobs for British workers”, and they weren’t
all supplied by the union! There really were British flags on the picket lines. Workers did express nationalist views – “the foreigners are taking our jobs” – both to the media and on the Bearfacts website (www.bearfacts.co.uk (http://www.bearfacts.co.uk/) ). The Bearfacts website acted as something of a centre of coordination and the first “British Jobs for British Workers” posters were downloaded from the web site.

No, not really…
On numerous occasions workers and union officials expressed the view that they were defending
existing agreements and fighting discrimination against local labour and that they had nothing against
foreign workers (who were in the same position as them, just wanted to feed their families etc.). Even Derek Simpson - joint leader of the Unite union – said that the campaign of strikes "is not about race or immigration, it's about class". At no point were demands put forward for the foreign workers to be sacked or repatriated.
The slogan “British Jobs for British Workers” was a reference to a speech made by Gordon brown at the Labour Party conference in 2007, so it was to some extent ironic… It was also contested as the strike progressed – for example, Bearfacts changed its poster to “Fair Access for Local labour”.

The demands of the strike committee were completely trade unionist but in no way nationalist. Here they are, as stated on 2 February:
No victimisation of workers taking solidarity action.
All workers in United Kingdom to be covered by NAECI Agreement. Union controlled registering of
unemployed and locally skilled union members, with nominating rights as work becomes available.
Government and employer investment in proper training / apprenticeships for new generation of
construction workers - fight for a future for young people.
All Immigrant labour to be unionised.
Trade Union assistance for immigrant workers - including interpreters - and access to Trade Union
advice -to promote active integrated Trade Union Members.
Build links with construction trade unions on the continent.

Were the far-right seriously involved in the strike movement? No! Some members of the British Nationalist Party (BNP) did turn up at the Lindsey picket and were told to “fuck off” by trade unionists. They left. The BNP has its own union Solidarity (whose banner is based on the Solidarność one but with a British flag) but this has only a few hundred members throughout Great Britain.
It’s important to understand that the right-wing press in Britain (The Sun, The Daily Mail etc.), who
normally never have a good word to say for strikers, were markedly “sympathetic” and did everything they could to emphasise the nationalist side of the strikes, as did the British media in general.
On Friday 6 Feb the BBC even apologised for having misrepresented a comment by a worker. What he actually said was “"These Portuguese and Eyeties – we can't work alongside of them: we're segregated from them.” The BBC had removed the last sentence!http://libcom.org/history/2009-strike-lindsey-refinery-struggle-entangled-nationalism

[Die Neue Zeit]

It certainly doesn't answer the question of which industries in the UK still have a closed shop, nor does the fact that a company doesn't employ illegal labour mean that there is 'anti-immigrant' sentiment amongst the workforce.

Devrim

Have you been paying any attention at all to the British discussions on the "white working class"? "British jobs for British workers" (as pointed out above)? Anything? :confused:

I'm sure there are loopholes to the ban on closed shops, not to mention relative non-enforcement of Thatcher's anti-union laws during the Blair era.

[RedSunRising]

Except things are never that simple.
http://libcom.org/library/red-shoots-resistance-recession-struggles-uk

http://libcom.org/history/2009-strike-lindsey-refinery-struggle-entangled-nationalism

Expect crude economism has always tried to brush these things under the carpet. Admitting that nature of these strikes would cause serious problems for libcom's view of the world.

[Tim Finnegan]

Expect crude economism has always tried to brush these things under the carpet. Admitting that nature of these strikes would cause serious problems for libcom's view of the world.
I have to say, that is a truly feeble response. "X would prefer Y, therefore it must be Z"? Gies a break... :rolleyes:

Now, could there be some weight to the suggestion that LibCom may prefer certain narratives? Of course. But, equally, could one not say the same of the mainstream media sources that rushed to push a certain ideologically convenient line of their own, whether in the sudden sympathy of the tabloids or the haughty contempt of the BBC and the liberal broadsheets? So it really comes down to what can actually be objectively verified, and of what we have easily available to us, particularly the demand for the inclusion of foreign nationals within the unions, it speaks strongly to at the very least a lack of generalised anti-immigrant sentiment. You're going to have to pull out more than than "pshaw!" to convingly argue otherwise.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ That may be, comrade, but what's your opinion on my comparison re. closed shops?

[Tim Finnegan]

^^^ That may be, comrade, but what's your opinion on my comparison re. closed shops?
I think that it pays insufficient attention to the ideological framework of each sort of sentiment. Anti-immigrant sentiment is fundamentally rooted in a perception of entitlement based on ethnicity, race, religion or nationality, while a push for or defence of closed shops is based on the protection of the economic interests of the workers as workers, that is, as members of a class (even if only within the immediate context of a localised employer-employee relationship). The former is not something that leftists should have any interest in, while the latter is, at least in itself, whether or not we agree with any given expression of the sentiment or any given means of pursuing it as a goal.

[bricolage]

Expect crude economism has always tried to brush these things under the carpet. Admitting that nature of these strikes would cause serious problems for libcom's view of the world.
Even though neither of those articles were written by libcom?

You need a better argument than that or else I'll just say 'except crude anti-worker sentiment has always tried to brush these things under the carpet. Admitting that nature of these strikes would cause serious problems for the International Communist League's view of the world' and I'll be right too.

Oh and by the way the article you posted is completely factually inaccurate;

The settlement at Lindsey pledged that 102 jobs previously expected to go to Italian workers would be offered to British workers.

The deal, negotiated by the GMB union, opens 102 new jobs to British workers in addition to the posts awarded to an Italian company. No foreign workers will lose their jobs at Total's oil refinery, the firm said.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7871657.stm

[Devrim]

Have you been paying any attention at all to the British discussions on the "white working class"? "British jobs for British workers" (as pointed out above)? Anything? :confused:

I'm sure there are loopholes to the ban on closed shops, not to mention relative non-enforcement of Thatcher's anti-union laws during the Blair era.

It is getting very tedious now. Lets just go back and look at your statement again:


The UK still has closed shops despite the formal ban

Now let's look at my question:


In which industries?

Do you think that it would be possible for you to answer it?

This statement is not an answer:


I'm sure there are loopholes to the ban on closed shops,

In fact what you have done is gone from a statement of fact to a statement of opinion.

Your other point is completely irrelevant to the matter at hand:


Have you been paying any attention at all to the British discussions on the "white working class"? "British jobs for British workers" (as pointed out above)? Anything?

Now there has been a discussion on this, and there are things that can be said about it. However what you said was:


The UK still has closed shops despite the formal ban, but note how closely tied this crap is to the anti-immigrant sentiment there in "defense" of the poor "white working class."

However, there certainly wasn't a closed shop at Lindsey so whatever anti-immigrant sentiment there was there is in no way 'tied to closed shops'.

You made a statement saying that "the UK still has closed shops". Please back it up with some evidence, or just admit that you have no idea what you are talking about at all, as per usual.

Devrim

[bricolage]

Interestingly enough if you read the Aufheben piece some more a striking worker from Lindsey actually addresses RedSunRising pretty well;


I can't deny there was no nationalist element to the dispute at all. What you have to realise is that the engineering construction industry is not a homogenous mass, it is however the one remaining section of the construction industry which is still heavily unionised. Most of the lads I know and work with saw it as a working class issue not a nationalist issue, in fact one of the strike committee is half Italian, hardly the image portrayed in the national media, but then what do you expect?
On LOR we kept an eye out on the pickets for any wankers from the far right trying to jump onboard for their own purposes (…) What I found very disappointing was the reaction of the left, to the first grassroots action in years, with the notable exception of the Socialist Party who gave us a lot of support (thanks peeps). It seems that the left can manage to support various questionable regimes around the world, but actually having to dirty their hands with class struggle in their own country seems a bit too much for them. The working class isn't perfect but then it never will be, but the left and anarchists are never going to achieve much sitting in their ivory towers tutting at the plebs.16 (http://libcom.org/library/red-shoots-resistance-recession-struggles-uk#footnote16_o5g5g7k)

[Die Neue Zeit]

However, there certainly wasn't a closed shop at Lindsey so whatever anti-immigrant sentiment there was there is in no way 'tied to closed shops'.

You made a statement saying that "the UK still has closed shops". Please back it up with some evidence

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7823343.stm


The Equality and Human Rights Commission said there was a particular problem in being offered the chance to work on specialist squads.

It said robbery, anti-terrorist and firearms units were seen as a "closed shop" available if your "face fits".

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/opinion/article.html?in_article_id=520693&in_page_id=19&in_author_id=1906


This view may be more convincing were there to be any sign that economists have audited in depth the effects on labour market flexibility of the stealthy advance of all those laws and rules requiring more and more jobs - some of them fairly basic - to be filled by someone with the right certificate or the correct training.

It is only a hunch, but all this regulation could, in effect, be introducing a new kind of closed shop. If true, then the chances of a renewed wage price spiral could be much higher than usually assumed.

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDUQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2F174.129.183.223%2Fjpe%2Findex.php %3Faction%3Dajax%26rs%3DGDMgetFile%26rsargs%255B%2 55D%3D999569.pdf&ei=wgflTcSeFa_WiAKJw4HzCQ&usg=AFQjCNHfUixgcni_OXzgpjkQ6N1nyrK95g


The legislation also addressed the pre-entry closed shop. It
became unlawful to refuse a person access to employment on
grounds of non-membership of a union, or unwillingness to join, or
to make payments in lieu of membership. Symmetrically, the
employer could not refuse a worker employment on grounds of his
or her membership of a union or unwillingness to disaffiliate from a
union. The closed shop nevertheless remained lawful.
Finally, all secondary action was now deemed unlawful. Thus
any sympathetic action and indirect action covering other than the
employer in dispute could no longer attract immunity.

[Devrim]

I believe that there is an English idiom about 'clutching at straws', which is what Jacob appears to be doing here as he sinks deeper into his own absurdity.

If we look at the examples he provides here, the first one concerning the police is clearly not a closed shop. Anybody with even a rudimentary knowledge of trades unions in the UK would know that there is not a police trade union, and that a police trade union is illegal.

Of course if he had even bothered to read through the text of the articles that he linked to he would have seen that it wasn't implying there was really a closed shop there at all:


It said robbery, anti-terrorist and firearms units were seen as a "closed shop" available if your "face fits".

The reason that the writer uses the term closed shop in inverted commas is precisely because it is not a closed shop at all.

The second example doesn't state that there are closed shops in the UK either:


It is only a hunch, but all this regulation could, in effect, be introducing a new kind of closed shop. If true, then the chances of a renewed wage price spiral could be much higher than usually assumed.

It states that 'it could, in effect, be introducing a new kind of closed shop'. Now if we ignore for a moment the fact that this is merely bourgeoise scare mongering, the term 'introducing' implies that there are not 'still closed shops' in the UK. Also note that the author uses the term could, implying that this is possible, and certainly not that they exist.

Regarding the third reference which says that " The closed shop nevertheless remained lawful", this is referring to The 1990 Employment Act. However the legislation that made the closed shop illegal was the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, which states:


137 Refusal of employment on grounds related to union membership.

(1)It is unlawful to refuse a person employment—

(a)because he is, or is not, a member of a trade union, or

(b)because he is unwilling to accept a requirement—

(i)to take steps to become or cease to be, or to remain or not to become, a member of a trade union, or

(ii)to make payments or suffer deductions in the event of his not being a member of a trade union

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1992/52/section/137

It is very clear here that Jacob has just done a quick internet search and has no knowledge of what he is talking about at all, and is just making up 'facts' to fit in with his bizarre ideas.

Devrim

[Die Neue Zeit]

Now if we ignore for a moment the fact that this is merely bourgeoise scare mongering, the term 'introducing' implies that there are not 'still closed shops' in the UK. Also note that the author uses the term could, implying that this is possible

Notwithstanding Tim's more to-the-point critique, the rest of my central point still stands re. comparing closed shop campaigns to anti-immigrant politics.

[Devrim]

Notwithstanding Tim's more to-the-point critique, the rest of my central point still stands re. comparing closed shop campaigns to anti-immigrant politics.

The point that we were discussing is whether their are closed shops in the UK. As, contrary to your assertion, there aren't, your point 'comparing closed shop campaigns to anti-immigrant politics doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Devrim

[bricolage]

Your comparison of closed shops to anti-immigrant sentiment is just based on you randomly making up phrases that sound similar;

'The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of race struggles.'
LOOK HOW SIMILAR COMMUNISM IS TO RACISM!!!!