Why do so many people hate unions

[the Leftâ„¢]

like fucking HATE unions. Even amongst my more liberal colleagues and relatives unions are one topic that there is mass consensus on. Whats the beef? Leave democracy at the workplace door? Unions are "greedy?" Im not even sure what to make of it. As leftists do we support all unions in principle, critique their bureaucratic structure etc? :S

[mrmikhail]

like fucking HATE unions. Even amongst my more liberal colleagues and relatives unions are one topic that there is mass consensus on. Whats the beef? Leave democracy at the workplace door? Unions are "greedy?" Im not even sure what to make of it. As leftists do we support all unions in principle, critique their bureaucratic structure etc? :S

A lot of people hate modern unions because many have became corrupt, un-democratic, not worker controlled, and more like corporations than any group working for the working man. Union presidents these days often make salaries comparable to corporate CEOs.........


so I must say, this is the problem most (on the left at least, right wingers have their own reasons) have with unions

[Franz Fanonipants]

this is basically labor aristocracy, right?

E: a result OF labor aristocracy i mean

[Cencus]

The right & their propaganda machine hate unions because they had a few successes in the past and if they got their act together they could be a threat to their profit margins and possibley even be a spearhead for the revolutionary left, hence the rights propaganda machine is turned against them at any given oppertunity.

The left isn't so keen on them these days because in the west at least they are overall a bit crap. Unions have become toothless bloated bureaucracies more there to serve their officers than the membership.

The general population is stuck in the middle of this arguement generally only taking the negative from both sides.

Having said the above the last couple of years the unions have actually began to wake up to their power again, who knows where it will end.

[阿部高和]

The Unions are the 99%. Enough said.

[socialistjustin]

In the UK the public is supporting the general strike on the 30th and in Ohio people voted heavily against Kasich's anti union measure so I am not sure there is a general hatred of unions. It only seems that way because the right have loud voices.

[AZLeftist]

I think there are 2 groups of people who don't like Workers Unions; those that can't unionize and those that don't want their employees to unionize. Unskilled workers like megachain box boys etc can't unionize because they can be easily replaced. CEOs and the like don't want their employees to unite for the obvious reasons. I also believe that many people have misinformed opinions on Unions in general or are just jealous they can't unionize. As a union carpenter, I don't know anyone who would rather be a rat.

[mrmikhail]

In the UK the public is supporting the general strike on the 30th and in Ohio people voted heavily against Kasich's anti union measure so I am not sure there is a general hatred of unions. It only seems that way because the right have loud voices.

Far left parties call for union reform, for the reasons I previously stated. But yes there is still support for unions themselves, but not so much for those leading the unions.

[Le Rouge]

A lot of people hate modern unions because many have became corrupt, un-democratic, not worker controlled, and more like corporations than any group working for the working man. Union presidents these days often make salaries comparable to corporate CEOs.........



This.

[the Leftâ„¢]

This.

I want to believe that the mass majority of persons have a left-wing criticism of union structure and functionality, but there is a strong anti-union current perpetuated by the anti-democratic right( not proletarian democratic but bourgeois liberal(in the enlightened connotation) as being antithetical to Republicanism(again in its actual meaning not american)

[Ocean Seal]

Where do you find these people that hate unions. Almost everyone I know is supportive albeit somewhat resigned and/or confused about the issue.

[Le Rouge]

I want to believe that the mass majority of persons have a left-wing criticism of union structure and functionality, but there is a strong anti-union current perpetuated by the anti-democratic right( not proletarian democratic but bourgeois liberal(in the enlightened connotation) as being antithetical to Republicanism(again in its actual meaning not american)

Sure, I don't deny it. but, there's a significant amount of corruption in unions...At least where I live.

[the Leftâ„¢]

Sure, I don't deny it. but, there's a significant amount of corruption in unions...At least where I live.


Well maybe you live in some bubble where people realize unions have some democratizing role or something(Vermont?xD) but where I live in New York, if i were to ask people generally what they think of unions, even working class people, even left-wingers, dont critize unions on their lack of democratic practice or their neo-capitalistic structure--they hate them on some almost discriminatory basis as "entitled" or neo-class type identity. Like Union workers in the eyes of non-union workers are spoiled entitled pieces of shit who dont work hard and expect the world to be handed to them

[jake williams]

The bourgeoisie and the working class hate unions for different reasons, but whatever the reasoning of either, the bourgeoisie is more than willing to exploit working class hatred of unions.

The bourgeoisie (including liberals) hate unions for obvious reasons of class interest.

The working class hates unions partly because most unions are corrupt and ineffective, and partly because of lies and distortions in the media, in schools etc.

When you get shafted by your boss and then you get shafted by your union too, and they're both working for apparently large, undemocratic corporations - the differential historical characters of labour unions and of private businesses are not going to be in the front of your mind.

I think most of this is pretty obvious.

[the Leftâ„¢]

The bourgeoisie and the working class hate unions for different reasons, but whatever the reasoning of either, the bourgeoisie is more than willing to exploit working class hatred of unions.

The bourgeoisie (including liberals) hate unions for obvious reasons of class interest.

The working class hates unions partly because most unions are corrupt and ineffective, and partly because of lies and distortions in the media, in schools etc.

When you get shafted by your boss and then you get shafted by your union too, and they're both working for apparently large, undemocratic corporations - the differential historical characters of labour unions and of private businesses are not going to be in the front of your mind.

I think most of this is pretty obvious.


Not to sound mean but i posted it in learning because it is not pretty obvious to me! lmao!

I dont have much experience with unions i guess it helps to clarify the similarity union bosses have to regular bosses

[citizen of industry]

The bit about fat-cat union bosses with CEO salaries is propaganda fiction. There are a small handful of union bureaucrats, the heads of the largest union federations, that make six-figure incomes. The average salary on wallstreet is over $300,000. The average salary of a banker is six-figures. Nothing here about millionaire CEOs. The right is contrasting that with the inflated salaries of a number of union bureaucrats you can count on two hands.

Unions are a threat to capital, and for that reason they are blasted incessantly by the propaganda machine, and many people believe it, at least those with no experience in unions. You often hear the complaint "unions need to stop using dues money for election campaigns." True enough, but ignored is the fact that election campaigns are bought with millions in campaign contributions from corporations, stolen from the working class.

Even corrupt bureaucratic unions, the number of which is also greatly exaggerated, by the left as well as the right, are far more democratic institutions than corporations, and have to fight multi-nationals with resources that pale in comparison. You rightly observe the anti-union sentiment - capitalism has done a smooth job with their propaganda - and you can see that in the deterioration of working conditions and the absence of a real economy.

[Le Socialiste]

like fucking HATE unions. Even amongst my more liberal colleagues and relatives unions are one topic that there is mass consensus on. Whats the beef? Leave democracy at the workplace door? Unions are "greedy?" Im not even sure what to make of it. As leftists do we support all unions in principle, critique their bureaucratic structure etc? :S

The problem lies in how most major unions have become little more than microcosms of the capitalist system, emerging less as potential organs of worker-led activity and more as channels of "acceptable" dissent. Another point of contention lies in the direction and focus of the union. The vast majority of unionized labor find that their leadership is in bed with the very interests they claim to oppose. Too often the union leadership emphasizes the need for compromise and collaboration with the financial-political elite, placing the unions in a state of constant defensiveness.

The point of the labor union isn't to merely exist, fighting when its right to organize is questioned - it must seek to actively organize labor's unorganized members and agitate for their mobilization against the interests of the state and capitalism. It must work to grow connections with other sectors of the economy, to join the working-class together in common struggle. Organizing, agitating, making connections, and taking offensive action is the role of the union.

Today's union must be built around a rejection of reformism and collaboration with the existing power structure. It must reject the "spirit of compromise" and take decisive action to achieve its goals. It must seek to revitalize the working-class with active outreach and organization, implementing an organizational structure that emphasizes the importance of a democratically-led union through the collective leadership of its members. Otherwise, it will remain in a state of defensive action, fighting for the mere right to exist.

[mrmikhail]

The bit about fat-cat union bosses with CEO salaries is propaganda fiction. There are a small handful of union bureaucrats, the heads of the largest union federations, that make six-figure incomes. The average salary on wallstreet is over $300,000. The average salary of a banker is six-figures. Nothing here about millionaire CEOs. The right is contrasting that with the inflated salaries of a number of union bureaucrats you can count on two hands.

Unions are a threat to capital, and for that reason they are blasted incessantly by the propaganda machine, and many people believe it, at least those with no experience in unions. You often hear the complaint "unions need to stop using dues money for election campaigns." True enough, but ignored is the fact that election campaigns are bought with millions in campaign contributions from corporations, stolen from the working class.

Even corrupt bureaucratic unions, the number of which is also greatly exaggerated, by the left as well as the right, are far more democratic institutions than corporations, and have to fight multi-nationals with resources that pale in comparison. You rightly observe the anti-union sentiment - capitalism has done a smooth job with their propaganda - and you can see that in the deterioration of working conditions and the absence of a real economy.

And Union bosses making 300,000+ year is acceptable? Here (http://www.tdu.org/2009salaryreport) is a teamster's financial report from 2009 on the issue, their members don't seem to think so. While this is only the teamsters, I believe they are one of the largest american unions and others report similar financial statements. Personally I feel a Union boss shouldn't make much more than the worker's whom they are representing.

Unions being involved in non-labour parties such as they do in the US is abhorrent at best, the democrats do not pass pro-worker bills, and the unions also donate to the republicans, now the question is why support parties passing anti-union legislation? I also don't think anyone is making the argument that the corporations are not buying the elections, I believe most have came to that conclusion years ago....and it doesn't change the fact that unions are helping fund the parties working for the corporations themselves.

But the unions being corrupt and bureaucratic isn't so exaggerated, just read the report I sent on the teamsters, they are union members tired of this system. While there are some good unions out there, most have failed in their missions of helping the workers.

[citizen of industry]

And Union bosses making 300,000+ year is acceptable? Here (http://www.tdu.org/2009salaryreport) is a teamster's financial report from 2009 on the issue, their members don't seem to think so. While this is only the teamsters, I believe they are one of the largest american unions and others report similar financial statements. Personally I feel a Union boss shouldn't make much more than the worker's whom they are representing.

Unions being involved in non-labour parties such as they do in the US is abhorrent at best, the democrats do not pass pro-worker bills, and the unions also donate to the republicans, now the question is why support parties passing anti-union legislation? I also don't think anyone is making the argument that the corporations are not buying the elections, I believe most have came to that conclusion years ago....and it doesn't change the fact that unions are helping fund the parties working for the corporations themselves.

But the unions being corrupt and bureaucratic isn't so exaggerated, just read the report I sent on the teamsters, they are union members tired of this system. While there are some good unions out there, most have failed in their missions of helping the workers.

I didn't say it was acceptable, nor did I justify union contributions to capitalist parties. But I am claiming accounts of corruption are exaggerated for (effective) propaganda purposes.

I'm familiar with Teamsters - they are one of the large union federations I alluded to with executives making six-figure incomes. In the US, there are over 25,000 registered unions and over 14 million union workers (about a million of them are Teamsters). The majority of these unions, over 15,000, are small unions with less than 200 members whose executives receive a tiny stipend to support their activities or nothing at all.

Imperialist propaganda would have everyone believe all unions take dues and squander them in electoral campaigns and executive salaries. But in the majority of cases, that simply isn't true.

[citizen of industry]

While there are some good unions out there, most have failed in their missions of helping the workers.

This I agree with, but not because of a few "fat-cat" union executive salaries. Rather because they depend on the NLRB instead of direct workplace action, largely ignore political struggle and focus only on narrow economic issues, and pursue nationalistic policies instead of actively joining in and promoting internationalism. But I hope this trend is reversing now that imperialist governments are no longer able to throw unions any crumbs.

[mrmikhail]

I didn't say it was acceptable, nor did I justify union contributions to capitalist parties. But I am claiming accounts of corruption are exaggerated for (effective) propaganda purposes.

I'm familiar with Teamsters - they are one of the large union federations I alluded to with executives making six-figure incomes. In the US, there are over 25,000 registered unions and over 14 million union workers (about a million of them are Teamsters). The majority of these unions, over 15,000, are small unions with less than 200 members whose executives receive a tiny stipend to support their activities or nothing at all.

Imperialist propaganda would have everyone believe all unions take dues and squander them in electoral campaigns and executive salaries. But in the majority of cases, that simply isn't true.

The problem is, however, that most US unions are organised into either, the Teamsters organised, CWF or the AFL-CIO, both are known for spending excesses and such on political campaigns, while the smaller unions that make up these organisations might not donate much or anything to political campaigns, they all pay national dues to these federations which do.

This being the case, the smaller unions in the groups get viewed as a whole instead of individual parts allowing such propaganda to be so effective in preventing unionisation from happening, and, causing many union members to become disillusioned and start hating their unions over it, thus leading to the terrible less than 10.9% unionisation rate in the US (rates the US hasn't had since the 30s)

[citizen of industry]

The problem is, however, that most US unions are organised into either, the Teamsters organised, CWF or the AFL-CIO, both are known for spending excesses and such on political campaigns, while the smaller unions that make up these organisations might not donate much or anything to political campaigns, they all pay national dues to these federations which do.

This being the case, the smaller unions in the groups get viewed as a whole instead of individual parts allowing such propaganda to be so effective in preventing unionisation from happening, and, causing many union members to become disillusioned and start hating their unions over it, thus leading to the terrible less than 10.9% unionisation rate in the US (rates the US hasn't had since the 30s)

It occurred to me that unions in Japan don't carry the same stigma about donating to political parties, even though the large federations do. Zenryoko donates to the SDP, Zenroren the JCP, and the reactionary monstrosity Rengo, to the DPJ. I'm sure the top executives of these federations receive large salaries as well, but there is little trace of negative public opinion on those issues that I have seen. Perhaps because of the parliamentary system instead of the two-party system in the States?

There is the same low unionization rates, but I attribute that more to pathetic agreements with corporations that sell out workers, so called "company unions," reliance on the labor commissions and lack of militancy, lack of political focus, etc. that result in lack of effectiveness, rather than negative public perception due to corruption and political contributions.

[mrmikhail]

It occurred to me that unions in Japan don't carry the same stigma about donating to political parties, even though the large federations do. Zenryoko donates to the SDP, Zenroren the JCP, and the reactionary monstrosity Rengo, to the DPJ. I'm sure the top executives of these federations receive large salaries as well, but there is little trace of negative public opinion on those issues that I have seen. Perhaps because of the parliamentary system instead of the two-party system in the States?


I would have to say you'd be correct on this, since the US only has two parties of note, which are nothing but agents pushing corporate agendas funding either party is quite a bad thing to do, but there is a campaign for a party of mass labour in america of which the IMT participates....of course without reforming the unionisation system itself in america to make unionising more reasonable than they currently are...and less corporate bias it will not really have all that much effect, I fear, if it can be created.

[scourge007]

I think people hate unions because they probably think the unions are still run by the mafia.

[NewLeft]

The so called progressive union representing the workers at the supermarket denounced the occupy movement. My mother is part of a union and she hates it furiously because of its ineffectiveness..

[Scrooge]

Chomsky mentions a concerted corporate propaganda campaign to undermine unions. This is illustrated in films like On the Waterfront. Which depicts unions and their bosses as corrupt organizations and leaves it up to the heroic individual (played by Brando) to resist them.

Is anti-unionism so bad in other parts of the world as it is in the U.S.?

[dodger]

Scrooge this piece written for those attending TUC congress might be of interest.

TUC 2011: Dump all diversions!

WORKERS, SEPT 2011 ISSUE

The TUC returns to London, no longer trekking round seaside towns – Blackpool, Bournemouth, Brighton – or the new conference centres – Liverpool, Manchester – but back to Britain’s capital city. The symbolism of the TUC speaking up for Britain’s workers from Britain’s capital will sadly be lost or submerged in some phoney EU internationalism mixed with a diversion about the ‘far right’ threatening to murder us all in our beds at night. The Cameron-Clegg-Miliband threat and circus will be fudged, a far too challenging issue.

Reduced in number of affiliated members as mergers of unions continue, and with the total membership of those unions affiliated dropping below 6 million, the TUC is still permeated with the idea of ‘big is beautiful’. Reduced is the size of union delegations (long overdue) so as to squeeze into the TUC conference centre, but for the wrong reason: the continuing decline of organised labour.

The TUC now has the smallest number of affiliated members since the early 1940s. Set against a backcloth of civil disturbance across Britain, the questions arising about organised versus non-organised labour – hope and aspiration of a working class as against desperation of the unemployed and supposedly unemployable – should start to focus trade union minds.

Survival

The question before trade unionists at the TUC is the one which has seemed unsolvable since Thatcher in 1979: How can the working class through its organisations, primarily the trade union movement, grow and survive in the face of the most vicious, reactionary, vindictive and brutal capitalist class in our history?

It’s a capitalist class trying on the imported US political labels “neo-liberalism” and the even more extreme “neo-conservatism” to justify the excesses always associated with capitalism and the accumulation or re-accumulation of wealth that is happening in Britain today. A capitalist class which has unceasingly overseen the destruction of Britain’s core industrial identity for over 30 years, irrespective of which parliamentary party has been in government. A capitalist class which continues to dismantle all social progress that the working class has achieved – education, local government, housing, planning, health, social care.

The answer for our class is two-fold: reassert that sense of identity, class identity, which primarily comes from the workplace; and challenge the very root of capitalism as an economic system.

We cannot reassert class identity unless we identify ourselves as workers, in the workplace – however that is defined in the 21st century. We cannot challenge the root of capitalism if we eternally delude ourselves by affiliation to the Labour Party and its worship of capitalism.

Issue politics, internet pressure groups, community organising and do-gooding will not do the job either. When one of the last surveys of the Labour government under Brown asked the question of how people would define their class, 86 per cent saw themselves as working class – irrespective of income, residence or job. How do we motivate the overwhelming majority of workers, nearly 30 million of them now in Britain, to promote their aspirations consciously as a class?

TUC economic analysis compares the early 19th-century growth of capitalism with events that are happening in Britain in the early 21st century. Yes the parallels are there, with instability, short-termism, unemployment, disorganisation, long hours, reduced wages, market-driven chaos and anarchy. But there the parallel ends. This is not reborn capitalism full of dynamic growth: this is capitalism in absolute decline.

In Britain the acquisition of wealth has much criminality involved in it – drug trafficking, people trafficking, sex trade, and financial usury – generating profits faster and easier than manufacturing. Britain has a higher density of these capitalist activities than any other country in Europe. All roads for drug cartels, prostitution, and child slavery now seem to lead to Britain.

Unemployment

The figures in May 2011 for unemployment showed 2.46 million unemployed plus 2.35 million “economically inactive” people of working age (largely hidden unemployment), together making 4.81 million people. These figures have risen over the summer.

The largest factor in the dip below 6 million from 6.5 million trade unionists affiliated to the TUC is unemployment – systematic closure and dispensing with workers. Estimates of youth unemployment affecting 16- to 25-year-olds now range upwards of 20 per cent. This is no accident: debt-burdened students, unemployed school leavers and the mass influx of workers from abroad willing to work for a pittance represent the destruction of the seed corn of Britain’s future.

One aspect of the capitalist destruction of Ireland’s now flayed “tiger economy” is the estimated 1 million people who will leave Ireland to seek work elsewhere. Britain now sees wave after wave of mass migration sponsored by the EU and welcomed by capitalist politicians of every stripe, all of which will ensure a further decline in the quality of work – unskilled, low wage, long hours, no job security, no or limited employment rights, minimalist terms and conditions, no training and no future for young workers. An estimated 25 per cent of British workers are now defined in this manner. Unemployment – war on workers – can lead to deteriorating health, debt and hopelessness.

Real wages are in decline relative to the 1970s, or more aptly in reverse gear. The wealth gap increases, profits rise, bank bonuses run at unprecedented rates. The fall in real incomes is now the sharpest for over 40 years with the largest drop in consumer spending for more than 30 years. Wages are frozen if not cut. Collective bargaining is being abandoned as union density drops in workplaces.

Unite the union has seen staggering membership losses in the last 12 months – over 250,000 – paralleled only by losses in the 1980s and 1990s in mining, steel, textiles, docks, and fishing. Regional and plant bargaining to the detriment of national agreements, localism, individual pay and performance-related pay are all on the march, leading to destruction of terms and conditions. This is the employer agenda that has to be challenged. Workers are going to have to stand together and fight to survive.

Fragmentation of workplaces by outsourcing, home working, hot desking, architecture that isolates workers, new technology and the exploitation driven by email and electronic management – all of these challenge traditional ways of organising. It means that tradition has to change and getting organised by whatever method around work and the workplace must become the norm. Wages, terms and conditions, safety, skill and stability of employment have to be the renewed battlefields to produce the resurgent trade union movement. Struggle generates collectivity, identity and consciousness. Consciousness then in turn generates more struggle.

Undermining consciousness

The undermining of workplace organisation during the past 30 years, deeply damaging what trade unions can or seem to deliver, has undermined consciousness. These defeats can be reversed if workers decide to take responsibility for themselves, for their workplace, for their union. Not some gigantic edifice of a union machine covering every occupation and every industry but organically grown workplace identities turning division into unity and fragmentation back into strength.

The TUC will debate at length calls for trade union freedom based on a strategy to persuade a future Labour government to abandon British and EU anti-trade union legislation – the new Combination Acts. The Labour government of 1997 to 2010 strengthened this anti-union legislation, the most draconian in Europe; none was ever removed from the statute book.

Workers have resisted anti-worker legislation dating back to its first introduction under the Tudors and throughout every century since. The Master and Servant Acts of the 18th and 19th centuries epitomised how the ruling class saw us and our place. A declining membership base will do nothing more than reassure the employer class that we are defeated and our place is now in the history books.

A different message

A vibrant new unionism transforming the workplace will send a different message. There have been numerous trade union survival strategies and fads since the decline in the 1980s. We have mergers and big is beautiful – one unionism. We’ve had the Australian organising model. We’ve had the US organising model. We’ve had the EU organising model. We now have the mantra that community organising is the key as opposed to workplace. We have managerial trade unionism – if the unions were better managed people will join. We have business trade unionism just to keep certain people employed and we have every fad for whatever the flavour of the moment is.

None of them works. Why would anyone want instruction from the US trade union movement with its 5 to 8 per cent density and elements of gangsterism, or the EU model of corporate integration with the state? Or “community” organising – another US import from a different legal and employer tradition, totally alien to Britain’s trade union movement.

There is only one solution: power in the workplace. The workplace is the bedrock, with workers organising themselves just as we always have done: a class for itself taking responsibility and being responsible. Dump all diversions!

[Thrasymachus]

I know I am bringing back a VERY, VERY, old thread, but, speaking as someone who works at a union, what I have observed is:

1) The more workers are paid, generally the haughtier they tend to become, because they look at their job situation in comparison to other jobs out there and feel comparatively superior. The more they make the more superior and haughty they will feel in general, and the less they will feel a need to be a decent human being, since they are rewarded with so much money, and it takes money to live, not being good.

2) When it is hard to fire people and they know it a certain percentage will take advantage. At the railroad where I work in public transit, we have a term for this, "a load", because lazy workers literally will not do their work, knowing certain of their co-workers will pick up their weight, by working on those same train cars another day.

I am 100% sure unions are totally in line with the thinking and logic of capitalism. If you can extract more benefits and pay under capitalism, there is no reason ever to resist the actual system of capitalism, because you will feel like you are successful and getting "over" comparatively.

[tallguy]

Why do so many people hate unions?

Capitalist propaganda for the most part and, sadly, due to a fair proportion of unions, when push comes to shove, being too ready to accommodate to capitalist demands.

[Left-Wing Nutjob]

I think it goes beyond capitalist propaganda though. I mean, the number of unionized workers has declined dramatically in the United States in the past few decades. A lot of unionized jobs were lost under the neoliberal projects of deindustrialization and restructuring of the capitalist economy. Plus, business/management and their political allies had been-and continue to, as the recent assaults on public sector unions demonstrates-looking for as many ways as possible to undermine and destroy unions throughout the 20th century.

It didn't help, of course, that a lot of unions were politically tied to the Democratic Party...which never misses an opportunity to use the support of organized labor to its own bourgeois political advantage, while doing nothing to stop (or worse, as we have seen, being just as complicit in) the destruction of working-class living standards.

[synthesis]

I know I am bringing back a VERY, VERY, old thread, but, speaking as someone who works at a union, what I have observed is:

1) The more workers are paid, generally the haughtier they tend to become, because they look at their job situation in comparison to other jobs out there and feel comparatively superior. The more they make the more superior and haughty they will feel in general, and the less they will feel a need to be a decent human being, since they are rewarded with so much money, and it takes money to live, not being good.

2) When it is hard to fire people and they know it a certain percentage will take advantage. At the railroad where I work in public transit, we have a term for this, "a load", because lazy workers literally will not do their work, knowing certain of their co-workers will pick up their weight, by working on those same train cars another day.

I am 100% sure unions are totally in line with the thinking and logic of capitalism. If you can extract more benefits and pay under capitalism, there is no reason ever to resist the actual system of capitalism, because you will feel like you are successful and getting "over" comparatively.

You work at a union doing what? Because here it seems like you're attacking unions for doing what they're supposed to do, rather than for not doing what they're supposed to do, which is the communist criticism.

Paying workers well makes them bad people? Job security makes workers lazy? Are you sure you're on the right forum?

[blake 3:17]

I want to believe that the mass majority of persons have a left-wing criticism of union structure and functionality, but there is a strong anti-union current perpetuated by the anti-democratic right( not proletarian democratic but bourgeois liberal(in the enlightened connotation) as being antithetical to Republicanism(again in its actual meaning not american)

No most people don't have a left critique of unions. Most working people are anti-union because they don't believe in collective action and are hostile to bullshit bureaucracy.

The right wing plays up unions as part of the bureaucratic bullshit.

[Ahab Strange]

Unions to me demonstrate what happens when worker militancy becomes uncoupled from any revolutionary intentions. They no longer are part of wider movement on a trajectory towards the overthrow of capitalism.

Here in post Thatcher UK, there is unconscious public opinion among many that unions are an anachronism. I don't feel I am betraying any Leftist principles when I think that Unions have become bloated and self-serving. They have a top down hierarchical structure and can are hardly an example of workplace democracy.

Unions have won valuable concessions from capital in the past, but now, many of the class-unconscious people that we would want to win over are irritated by the actions of unions, (strikes, pensions funded by the taxpayer etc.) furthering their misconceptions about what it means to be a Socialist or Anti-capitalist.

One the two jobs I have is extremely unionized. Ironically, the slurs aimed at it are the same that are often leveled at the left in general : "trotskyite", "communist", "Socialist". Words that have become so loaded as to mean completely different things to the general public than to us.

[tallguy]

Unions to me demonstrate what happens when worker militancy becomes uncoupled from any revolutionary intentions. They no longer are part of wider movement on a trajectory towards the overthrow of capitalism.

Here in post Thatcher UK, there is unconscious public opinion among many that unions are an anachronism. I don't feel I am betraying any Leftist principles when I think that Unions have become bloated and self-serving. They have a top down hierarchical structure and can are hardly an example of workplace democracy.

Unions have won valuable concessions from capital in the past, but now, many of the class-unconscious people that we would want to win over are irritated by the actions of unions, (strikes, pensions funded by the taxpayer etc.) furthering their misconceptions about what it means to be a Socialist or Anti-capitalist.

One the two jobs I have is extremely unionized. Ironically, the slurs aimed at it are the same that are often leveled at the left in general : "trotskyite", "communist", "Socialist". Words that have become so loaded as to mean completely different things to the general public than to us.Bollocks

Workers think that unions are an anachronism due to endless and, sadly, largely successful propaganda from the boss class. In turn, this success has led many unions to become timid and to try and accommodate the bosses. But, this has been counter-productive and has led workers to think that unions are not only anachronistic, they are also pretty fucking useless.

It's time for the unions to grow a spine again. That's all. This, though, requires people to step up to the plate in terms of agitating for the above and seeking positions of leadership in the unions. People like you and me.

[Thirsty Crow]

As leftists do we support all unions in principle, critique their bureaucratic structure etc? Only if we misunderstand the role and function of unions in capitalist society.

In short, it is not that the bureaucratic form is the problem, far from it. The root problem is much deeper so to speak.

I'll rely on the article The Bounds of Proletarian Emancipation here. I think it does a magnificent job of outlining the communist criticism of the union.

To start with the usual leftist view:


A critique of the bureaucratisation of unions and of their structural separation from the working class is not categorically wrong, but it is a simplification that is often morally charged...
In left-wing milieus such a critique amounts to no more than moral indignation about unions supposedly being corrupt and decoupled from the interests of workers.

However, and contrary to the received leftist wisdom of focusing on "revolutionary leadership in unions", the issue is rather different. It concerns the function of unions which cannot be reduced to the politics and moral fortitude of its official apparatus.

In this sense, the union is an enterprise selling a service; the union officials' relationship to the means of production is a peculiar one - their livelihood and position is intimately tied to their relationship to variable capital, i.e. the labor force. This relationship is one of representation, which is based on the union apparatus acting as mediators in conflicts (the famed social dialogue, or social partnership is a three way talk: the state-the employer-the union) and as negotiators of the sale of labor power.

It should be clear that the union apparatus is completely dependent on capital for maintaining their job and social position which enables them to enjoy a certain standard of living. But it should also be very clear that preserving this function of representation also puts the union in a position of complete dependence on capital.

This relates to the issue of the cycles of accumulation ("prosperity" - crisis).
In times of the latter, it's obvious that if a union is to keep going on and selling their service it needs to accept the newly developed situation and constraints on what is reasonably possible in case of demands (both in relation to wage demands proper, working time and workplace related issues; but also in relation to broader issues of social reproduction, like policies aiming at the unemployed etc.).


But union struggles were not and are not a form in which the working class struggles as a whole. Three things catch the eye when one regards unions from this point of view.

Firstly, with their organisation they intensify the fragmentation of the working class between companies and individual sectors.

Secondly, unions grew into their role as a “social partner” within the framework of the nation and depend on this framework. They can be integrated in a supranational framework – like the EU – but as a social partner they cannot step beyond this framework in which they function and are accepted. So “international unions” in reality only have the function of a moral admonisher pointing out violations of applicable law and things like that. But that normally happens in a context of international competition. Thus, the division of the class into nations is also mirrored by unions.

Thirdly, and finally, it is apparent that unions – because they have to remain within the framework of capitalism – are forced to bring their strategy in line with the possibilities permitted by the economic cycle...

...unions, as enterprises, need compromises: they need compromises between the interests of workers and the interests of capitalists, and they need struggles to take place under controlled conditions. Furthermore, the police function of unions asserts itself. This is already visible in their regulative behaviour and stifling of labour struggles. But unions show their repressive side fully, in direct opposition to the interests of the working class, any time the working class starts to fight against capitalism and against its existence as variable capital.


But, on the other hand, it is undoubtedly true that the union isn't a clever ploy of the ruling class; they do have to actually do something for workers if they want to keep selling them the service.

In this sense, the union is also a defensive form of organization of the working class; probably the minimum defensive form which doesn't do the work at any time at all.


The history of unions' origins is the history of proletarians fighting against the impositions of capital. Unions fulfilled an important function in struggles for workers' collective interests within capitalism. In and with the unions, workers struggled in strikes for higher wages, more free time, more participation. So the collective interests of workers in different sectors and enterprises became apparent and in struggles workers demonstrated their power and their abilities.

It's true that in one way, union organizing does represent a "school of class struggle"; but it does way more than that, as they also play a completely opposite role, that of integrating wage labor into the capitalist social order.


As previously mentioned, unions historically formed as negotiators to enforce workers' demands for higher wages or shorter working hours. But a negotiator loses his right to exist when he abolishes the basis of his demands. The basis of wages and working hours is capitalism. Representing workers within the system and not against the system is part of the inner logic of unions.

Due to this fact, unions become managers of workers as variable capital – labour as a commodity. They are an organisational manifestation of the constant struggle surrounding the distribution of socially produced wealth, a struggle for a decrease in the rate of exploitation. In this function they are co-organisers of the accumulation of capital – they play their part in keeping the capitalist game going. By securing reproduction, that is the continued existence of the working class, unions, much like the state, represent the interests of capital as a whole, which can only exist as long as there is a working class to be exploited. Concretely, this means that they resist the interests of individual capitals, of individual companies trying to keep the costs of variable capital as low as possible, and the working time as long as possible. For the actual worker this reproduction of the variable part of capital is the same as his or her own reproduction.

So this is not mere wretchedness or betrayal by unions, but it expresses the inner contradictions of this institution: on the one hand, the manager of labour as variable capital, on the other representing the material interests of workers within capitalism. In practice, unions always have to resolve this conflict by keeping labour in the state of variable capital, following the logic of the accumulation of capital, and not against this logic. As organisations within capitalism, unions depend on the form of variable capital.

http://kosmoprolet.org/node/97

So to answer the question posed by OP, no - I don't support unions in principle; what I do support unequivocally, in principle and in practical actions, is unionized workers fighting against capitalists. This cannot be reduced to a simplistic idea of supporting the unions in principle (or any other way).

[tallguy]

You are merely talking there about how many unions have become corrupted, bureaucratic and excessively accommodative of the capitalists. Well, no shit, who'd have thought. However, you then seem to go on to assert that this is what unions' inherent function is, namely to accommodate capitalism. There's nothing inherent about it at all. You do remember why mass unions first formed in the early days of the industrial revolution, right? It wasn't to accommodate the boss class. It was to stop them fucking over workers even more than they had hitherto and, where ever possible, to roll back the gains of the bosses.

A good man once said that if one man pisses in the wind, nothing happens. If thousands piss at the same time, we get to drown the bastards. That's what union's inherent function is.

[Ahab Strange]

You do remember why mass unions first formed in the early days of the industrial revolution, right? It wasn't to accommodate the boss class. It was to stop them fucking over workers even more than they had hitherto and, where ever possible, to roll back the gains of the bosses.

A good man once said that if one man pisses in the wind, nothing happens. If thousands piss at the same time, we get to drown the bastards. That's what union's inherent function is.

No one is arguing against this. That doesn't mean that the unions should be immune from analysis as to whether they are still effective, or if they could be improved. The concept of the union shouldn't be unswervingly supported as an article of faith.


It's time for the unions to grow a spine again. That's all. This, though, requires people to step up to the plate in terms of agitating for the above and seeking positions of leadership in the unions. People like you and me. Quite right, but unions today on the whole exists to protect the interests of their members, in their industry. We are not in Anarchist Catalonia where the unions were part of something much larger than themselves, something that had a clear vision.

For example, when I question even the most committed union members in my job about their wider worldview, there is virtually never any mention of establishing a more socialist society or overthrowing capitalism. Quite the opposite in fact, many very militant unionists still consider it just being a case of "standing up to government/big business". Commendable of course, but the idea the unions could be a tool to help establish a new socialist order doesn't even factor into their consciousness. THIS is the problem, and the same could be said also of co-operatives and social enterprises.

[tallguy]

No one is arguing against this. That doesn't mean that the unions should be immune from analysis as to whether they are still effective, or if they could be improved. The concept of the union shouldn't be unswervingly supported as an article of faith.

Quite right, but unions today on the whole exists to protect the interests of their members, in their industry. We are not in Anarchist Catalonia where the unions were part of something much larger than themselves, something that had a clear vision.

For example, when I question even the most committed union members in my job about their wider worldview, there is virtually never any mention of establishing a more socialist society or overthrowing capitalism. Quite the opposite in fact, many very militant unionists still consider it just being a case of "standing up to government/big business". Commendable of course, but the idea the unions could be a tool to help establish a new socialist order doesn't even factor into their consciousness. THIS is the problem, and the same could be said also of co-operatives and social enterprises.so, I take it from the above you intend to stand for a position in the union in order to do something about it, yes? I should add, I'm not in any position of authority in my union and I am ashamed if it and intend to do something about it. But, what I am not doing is attempting to construct an argument that makes them out to be inherently useless tools of the capitalist class. They are as good as their members. That's me and you. Or, aren't you even a member of a union?

[Thirsty Crow]

You are merely talking there about how many unions have become corrupted, bureaucratic and excessively accommodative of the capitalists.
No, I'm not.

As you say, I claim this is an inherent function of the union form.

There's nothing inherent about it at all.Well, I might as well take your word for it now, right?


You do remember why mass unions first formed in the early days of the industrial revolution, right?How about this stunning revelation: the days of the industrial revolution are long gone.


No one is arguing against this.
Yes, I am.

[Thrasymachus]

Paying workers well makes them bad people? Job security makes workers lazy? Are you sure you're on the right forum?

Apparently you clearly don't work at an actual union unlike me. I work for the Transportation Communications International Union(TCU). Hence you can give off the impression of some starry eyed kid reading vintage 19th Century works on the wonders of unions.

Yes, under capitalism workers compare their pay, benefits and lot in life to other workers. So from what I have observed from co-workers, they feel haughty and prideful and act like they are "winning in life" so to speak unlike other people not in unions who they feel like are comparative losers in the game of monetary accumulation and social jockeying. The more you pay someone, in general the worse a person they will be, after they reach the bare minimum needed to survive. Yes, in actual unions, like the one I work at, people actually often make comments about co-workers like, "He wouldn't last in the real world behaving like he does." I have had to pick up alot of slack at times for the "loads" on the railroad who want other workers to carry their weight.

Unions do nothing to break with the logic of capitalism.

[AmilcarCabral]

the left: hi, ok this is my personal theory on why most americans hate workers unions and many other unionizing things that are needed for change. I think that the real reason of why most americans hate joining unions, political parties and groups is because americans are individualist-narcissists (love their own selves and rely on their own selves), and family-narcissists (only love and have relationships, communication with members of their own families and hate with passions everybody who is not a member of their own family)

This way of seeing the world by most americans is one of the most powerful impediments for socialism and for a political change. Americans think that they don't need any government at all, any public works, and that they can fix the roads and public areas by their own selves.

It is safe to assume that most US workers (even low-wage workers) are right-wing workers, you don't have to be a psychologist to see with your own eyes the amount of arrogance in the behaviour of most US workers

But don't worry, in the near future, in the inflationary-meltdown that will happen around 2016 to 2020 and as a result of that when gasoline prices rise to 10 dollars a gallon, chicken prices would rise to 8 dollars per lb. apartments at 3000 dollars a month, americans will become hardcore marxists communists


.



like fucking HATE unions. Even amongst my more liberal colleagues and relatives unions are one topic that there is mass consensus on. Whats the beef? Leave democracy at the workplace door? Unions are "greedy?" Im not even sure what to make of it. As leftists do we support all unions in principle, critique their bureaucratic structure etc? :S

[AmilcarCabral]

Hi, sorry to differ from you, but there are right-wingers exploiters within the 99% population of USA. Anybody who votes for a capitalist party is a capitalist. Any poor person who supports his oppressor becomes more evil than his oppressor. From my own point of view, the USA has 40% of oppresssors and 60% of oppressed



The Unions are the 99%. Enough said.

[Decolonize The Left]

Apparently you clearly don't work at an actual union unlike me. I work for the Transportation Communications International Union(TCU). Hence you can give off the impression of some starry eyed kid reading vintage 19th Century works on the wonders of unions.

Yes, under capitalism workers compare their pay, benefits and lot in life to other workers. So from what I have observed from co-workers, they feel haughty and prideful and act like they are "winning in life" so to speak unlike other people not in unions who they feel like are comparative losers in the game of monetary accumulation and social jockeying. The more you pay someone, in general the worse a person they will be, after they reach the bare minimum needed to survive. Yes, in actual unions, like the one I work at, people actually often make comments about co-workers like, "He wouldn't last in the real world behaving like he does." I have had to pick up alot of slack at times for the "loads" on the railroad who want other workers to carry their weight.

The bolded part, the general thrust of your post, is simply ridiculous. An analogy would be that any comfort beyond having a roof/one set of clothes/drinking water/meat will turn people into worse people. Not only is this remarkably reductionist, it's patently false as it's levying your judgement of what people are against a standard of living. In short, you're saying that you think people get worse with more money. I suggest you speak to some homeless folks about how much better off they are with so little things and money while you suffer so immensely with your burden of cash.


Unions do nothing to break with the logic of capitalism.

Doesn't this depend on the union? The IWW is a revolutionary union which explicitly states that it intends to break the logic of capitalism.

[Decolonize The Left]

Hi, sorry to differ from you, but there are right-wingers exploiters within the 99% population of USA. Anybody who votes for a capitalist party is a capitalist. Any poor person who supports his oppressor becomes more evil than his oppressor. From my own point of view, the USA has 40% of oppresssors and 60% of oppressed

Bolded part doesn't make sense. Jewish prisoners in 1942 who supported the Nazis out of fear of death are now worse than Nazis?

[Loony Le Fist]

Hi, sorry to differ from you, but there are right-wingers exploiters within the 99% population of USA. Anybody who votes for a capitalist party is a capitalist. Any poor person who supports his oppressor becomes more evil than his oppressor. From my own point of view, the USA has 40% of oppresssors and 60% of oppressed

I would say it's more a form of Stockholm's Syndrome. Some individuals, after being held captive long enough, begin to sympathize with their captors. The problem can become far worse when combined with a lack of understanding with how the system works. I've met many individuals who had no idea why taxes are paid, or where the money to pay for EBT or social assistance comes from.

[AmilcarCabral]

loony: You are right, its not a piece of cake to think about organizing all poor oppressed americans into one single army and think about overthrowing the US government thru a war of that leftist army against the US armed forces, which is super-powerful compared with oppressed civilians who do not have the access to military equipment that the US armed forces have.

So what happens in America is that americans when they get older in age, like around 30s, 40s, 50s, etc. they realize that overthrowing US capitalist government is almost impossible, so they stop being radical and they give up, because that David against Goliath anti-capitalist war is just too hard, people give up, forget about politics altogether, forget about complaining. And create their own reality in their brains, in which they negate totally how evil capitalism is, how evil both parties are. And invent a fake-world in their brains, a fake-world in the brains of most americans in which the US government is a revolutionary workers government, and the wars that US government wages are liberation revolutionary wars. And from their own perception they view Obama and Mitt Romney as populist reformists in favor of poor people. I think that happens in the brains of a lof americans


.

.



I would say it's more a form of Stockholm's Syndrome. Some individuals, after being held captive long enough, begin to sympathize with their captors. The problem can become far worse when combined with a lack of understanding with how the system works. I've met many individuals who had no idea why taxes are paid, or where the money to pay for EBT or social assistance comes from.

[Thrasymachus]

... In short, you're saying that you think people get worse with more money. I suggest you speak to some homeless folks about how much better off they are with so little things and money while you suffer so immensely with your burden of cash.

You sir are beyond ridiculous, since you just quoted this reply by me, to only write that:


The more you pay someone, in general the worse a person they will be, after they reach the bare minimum needed to survive.

When I already accounted for such scenarios.



Doesn't this depend on the union? The IWW is a revolutionary union which explicitly states that it intends to break the logic of capitalism.
The Wobblies are a non-factor today, and yes they used to be a quite a militant union and claim to be radicals wishing to destroy capital and the state. But I don't think any workerist types in the past or now had/have the potential to be revolutionary. If you fight for better working conditions today or did so in the past -- you fight for better integration under capitalism -- period. Abolishing the social condition that is working, now that is revolutionary. Working in a coal mine is essentially working in a coal mine, whether socialists or communists masturbate over the trivialities of who controls the means of production or how it is distributed. Bottom line -- no one wants to go to into the coal mines.

It is funny how so many people here who don't work in a union, seem the most fit to glamorize them. If you guys worked for one, you wouldn't be able to do the same.

[Thirsty Crow]

Doesn't this depend on the union? The IWW is a revolutionary union which explicitly states that it intends to break the logic of capitalism.
Well, you put it really fine. The IWW state that it intends to break ith the logic of capital - but it's a completely different matter whether the union as a form has any potential to function in such a way.

The thing with Wobblies that distinguishes them from militant base unions is adherence to an ideology; but in day to day practice, such a thing is irrelevant especially if the IWW gained strong enough of a position within the class. That would also entail the union being completely dragged onto the terrain of the social partnership as it would need to represent more workers - and that predominantly occurs via negotiation and bargaining. The union apparatus would in this way come to occupy the same position that is now occupied by regular unions vis-a-vis the capitalist(s) and the state. Either that, or it would need to renounce its (ideal) position on mass organizing.

[synthesis]

So what would you change, Thrasymachus? Would you make it easier to fire workers, so they won't be "lazy", and "a burden"? Would you pay workers less so that they'll be "better people"? Or would you simply argue against further wage increases and more job security in the future?

[Loony Le Fist]

...
So what happens in America is that americans when they get older in age, like around 30s, 40s, 50s, etc. they realize that overthrowing US capitalist government is almost impossible, so they stop being radical and they give up, because that David against Goliath anti-capitalist war is just too hard, people give up, forget about politics altogether, forget about complaining...


Well, I think another problem is that people are afraid of the unknown. Overthrowing a powerful and well armed enemy by frontal assault is essentially suicide. We must cut off our enemies resources first. And I believe that is what makes it so difficult. People have never fought an enemy this way; we are used to fighting via conventional means.

The capitalist machine is fueled by money, and we must cut off the supply. We must be willing to withdraw from the machine, and form our own support for ourselves. It requires a combination of forming separate systems of sustenance, governance, and self-defense. Sit-down strikes, worker slow-downs, urban farms, etc. are all necessary means to grind the capitalist machine to a halt and produce the initial disconnect. It is not a retreat, but rather a conscious choice not to participate in the system that enslaves us. The wealthy elites will not be there for us when the economy collapses. After all, look how they fleeced working people worldwide to maintain their lifestyle all in the last collapse. Consider what the result of the next collapse will mean for us. It is time we give them a taste of their own medicine.

[Decolonize The Left]

You sir are beyond ridiculous, since you just quoted this reply by me, to only write that:

When I already accounted for such scenarios.

Please re-read your post to which I am responding. You quoted yourself claiming it was me.



The Wobblies are a non-factor today, and yes they used to be a quite a militant union and claim to be radicals wishing to destroy capital and the state. But I don't think any workerist types in the past or now had/have the potential to be revolutionary. If you fight for better working conditions today or did so in the past -- you fight for better integration under capitalism -- period.

Capitalism does not have a monopoly on working conditions - labor and the conditions thereof are inherent in all economies.


Abolishing the social condition that is working, now that is revolutionary. Working in a coal mine is essentially working in a coal mine, whether socialists or communists masturbate over the trivialities of who controls the means of production or how it is distributed. Bottom line -- no one wants to go to into the coal mines.

There will always be work. People have mouths to be fed, bodies to be clothed, roofs to be erected, the point of leftists is not that work will disappear (how naive and pathetic) but that work will cease to be known as work as it will be returned to us by ourselves.

[Decolonize The Left]

Well, you put it really fine. The IWW state that it intends to break ith the logic of capital - but it's a completely different matter whether the union as a form has any potential to function in such a way.

The thing with Wobblies that distinguishes them from militant base unions is adherence to an ideology; but in day to day practice, such a thing is irrelevant especially if the IWW gained strong enough of a position within the class. That would also entail the union being completely dragged onto the terrain of the social partnership as it would need to represent more workers - and that predominantly occurs via negotiation and bargaining. The union apparatus would in this way come to occupy the same position that is now occupied by regular unions vis-a-vis the capitalist(s) and the state. Either that, or it would need to renounce its (ideal) position on mass organizing.

No union, IWW or otherwise, will be the vehicle for working class revolution. What unions are (at least, some of them, less and less these days) is a vehicle for working class mobilization and class consciousness. I see the IWW as the best vehicle for mobilizing class consciousness as it is explicitly anti-capitalist and yet explicitly non-politically oriented. It is, in essence, the perfect vehicle for mobilizing class consciousness as it is not burdened by political questions and rests solely on the material economic class relations.

Too often leftists jump to the end: revolution, and work their way back. The notion of dismissing an organization purely because they - in one's mind - cannot bring about an end state is strategically abysmal. It limits one's options from the get-go and puts one exactly where one's enemy wants them to be: without avenues for growth.

So whether or not the IWW can do X, Y, or Z, if some future conditions come into existence is relatively irrelevant. The point is: is it explicitly anti-capitalist and does it raise class consciousness? The answers are yes. Now I'm not asking you to sign up, to each their own / multitude of tactics / etc..., but I am asking for someone as intelligent as yourself to acknowledge that supporting an organization which operates on those base principles on the grounds of those principles is a sound position for us - as comrades - to hold.

[Thrasymachus]

@Manoir de mes reves:
Do you even work at a union? I assure you, no co-worker at the Teamsters Union which I used to be a part of, or the TCU had anything resembling "class consciousness".

Second, NOOOO!!!!, improving working conditions, pay and benefits under capitalism is improving the lives of people under capitalism and actually better integrating them. My co-workers buy into the social order big time, if they heard some ideological workerist Marxist type like you try to convince them they were victimized by a capitalist class, they would lash out at you, not thank you. Unions do nothing to break with the logic of capital and have no potential to do so.

[Thrasymachus]

I meant to post about this months ago, but am finally getting around to it.

I work in commuter rail and my job is a union one. Recently I got promoted and had to go to job training at another location and used the train to commute, since I get free rides as part of my union contract. One day every or almost every train was being delayed out of the yard used to work at. I learned from a friend that because of the fallout of the December 1, 2013 MTA crash/derailment and the increasing scrutiny by the Federal Railroad Administration on passenger rail, that my co-workers were doing inspections more by the book instead of cutting corners as per usual, since they were scared of being fined and put out of service by FRA auditors. This resulted in trains not being cleared in time and likely thousands or perhaps tens of thousands of passengers being late. Who are we supposed to sympathize with even in simplistic workerist terms? The few scared railroad workers or the thousands of working commuters or people having to waste tens of thousands of hours waiting on train platforms? Even working inside the rail industry, or perhaps because of it, I even find myself not having much sympathy with my co-workers. If they weren't so ok with cutting corners in the first place and doing improper inspections for years, potentially jeopardizing lives on the gamble that things were ok without checking, they wouldn't have had to worry about the increased scrutiny, because they would have been doing things right.

Another example, though I am only out of training for about a month or so, I am assigned to "protect the station," incase any train breaks down or has problems while there. The tradition in the railroad is that the junior workers do the most work and the most undesirable tasks. However, as someone who is so new, what I am gonna do in the face of a serious problem other than call over the radio for a more senior and more experienced co-worker? Again who should we side with the workers in the railroad who just want to do as little as possible, and feel entitled to it if they have alot of years under their belt or the thousands of working commuters, who will probably be later than they should be all so the railroad workers with the most tenure can have the easiest go of it?

[Црвена]

Unions today are weak, liberal and laughable. They need to be returned to their revolutionary nature and become organisations that actually protect and help workers rather than just being something fashionable to be part of, especially if they're going to be the mechanism for our revolution as I want them to be as an anarcho-syndicalist. That's easier said than done when Thatcher killed them. :crying: