Why Unions Suck - is the situation hopeless?

[Aro2220]

If the power to both fire and to state the firing reason (without having to prove it in 99.99999% of cases) is in the hands of the same person then that person can fire for any reason they want. Including reasons the law protects us against.

Manager: Amy is starting a union. Fire her.

HR: Hi Amy, the company is doing some restructuring and unfortunately your position is no longer required. We're going to have to let you go.

What the law REALLY means is that you can't APPEAR to fire someone for these reasons but you can still fire them if you can be sneaky.

Therefore we've developed an environment where the most power goes to those who can lie convincingly and be deviously sneaky. Therefore, honest people will go extinct and sneaky liars will proliferate and compete against each other. In time the largest corporations will become better liars and sneakier with their methods. If they fail to do so, another company that can do so better will get a huge fitness advantage and will eliminate them.

And so it goes...

[Amal]

Pretty simple! Unions are nothing but the stepping stones to build a workers state. If unions deviate from that target and become a part of the existing system, they are certainly supposed to suck at the end.

[ParaRevolutionary]

How are unions the root of this problem? Your argument is the equivalent of the Republican arguement that despite rampant inequality among the poor and working class and a concentration of wealth towards the top that it is somehow the poor and working class that is the cause of these problems.

[Rafiq]

How are unions the root of this problem? Your argument is the equivalent of the Republican arguement that despite rampant inequality among the poor and working class and a concentration of wealth towards the top that it is somehow the poor and working class that is the cause of these problems.

I think he's saying their ineffective and are not radical enough.

[[email protected]]

Aro220, in the states, NLRB protects against a lot of this. Are you American?

[Die Neue Zeit]

This side of revolution, meaningful reduction in the inequality of bargaining power between labour and capital can be achieved only through the wholesale absorption of all private-sector collective bargaining representation into free and universal legal services by independent government agencies acting in good faith, and subjecting their employees to full-time compensation being at or slightly lower than the median equivalent for professional and other skilled workers.

[x359594]

There are two models of unionism. In the US (with a few exceptions) business unionism is the prevailing model. Here the union leadership is separate from the rank and file and conducts union business under the assumption that the workers and the bosses share common ground, and that's what's good for the company is good for the worker. This model is entirely regressive and in my view accounts for declining union membership in the US (it currently stands at 13% of the work force.)

The other model is solidarity unionism. In this model union members set their own strategy and tactics and emphasizes direct action to win gains. The California Nurses Association is an example of a solidarity union; the IWW practices solidarity unionism.

[x359594]

If the power to both fire and to state the firing reason (without having to prove it in 99.99999% of cases) is in the hands of the same person then that person can fire for any reason they want. Including reasons the law protects us against....

Have you ever filed a ULP? Your scenario is nothing more than an example of poor organizing.

Defeatist worker: "There's nothing we can do about anything. The owners have all the power. We have no money, no power."

Revolutionary worker: ""But our work is the power that fuels the company. Without our work, the company can't run."

[Avocado]

Unions, which I think people often forget, are merely as good as their members.
When people moan at work about terms and conditions (and continue to do everything the boss tells them without question - often with a smile on their face, in submission) and then blame the Union - I will always say to them - "Ok, so what do we want to do about it?"
When faced with actually taking control - most people will shy away.
If that is representative of the workforce then "the Union' faces a losing battle, as these are the people who will be asked to take industrial action - and they won't.

The Union are the members. Strong members = strong Union. Weak members = Weak Union.

[x359594]

...The Union are the members. Strong members = strong Union. Weak members = Weak Union.

For instance? What union are you talking about?

[Avocado]

I am talking about all Unions. Whether that be a union of Workers or a Union between two people in marriage. Unions do not exist, other than in name, when they lack the will of the workers to take Industrial action when necessary.

[x359594]

I am talking about all Unions. Whether that be a union of Workers or a Union between two people in marriage...

Well, we're talking about workers' unions, not some abstraction. We're talking about a specific kind of labor organization conceived for the purpose of obtaining good wages, working conditions and benefits at a minimum.

[Avocado]

Well, we're talking about workers' unions, not some abstraction. We're talking about a specific kind of labor organization conceived for the purpose of obtaining good wages, working conditions and benefits at a minimum.

Yes and so am I. The examples I gave are not abstractions as you call them, but real tangible Unions, but let us stick to the point. Trade Unions that look to improve the working conditions of its members have only power of the members within it. They can do nothing without the will of its people, the fight of its people and the stamina of its people. A Union executive would be crazy to issue a strike directive without knowing beforehand if the workforce will walk out - this in effect shows that it is the members who decide their own fate, not some General secretary or President of their Union. The will of the members is the be all and end all. Bosses exploit this with threats of sackings, legal action etc - with the Legal and Political system heavily stacked in favour of the employer, then these threats are seen by many members are real. It only takes a small percentage of workers, supplemented with contract temporary staff, to break a strike. If that is not clear evidence that the Union is only as strong as its members, then I don't know what else can shown it.

[x359594]

...The examples I gave are not abstractions as you call them, but real tangible Unions...

When you wrote "the Union of two people in marriage" in the same sentence as the union denoted by a labor organization I came to the not unreasonable conclusion that you abstracted the idea of union from two disparate entities.

In the US a union executive doesn't have the authority to issue a strike directive until after the rank and file have voted for a strike. If the union bosses don't want the rank and file to go on strike they just won't issue such a directive and the result will be a wild cat strike taken without support of the union, as in no strike funds will be available to the strikers.

So in the real world the union exists apart from its rank and file, who can be expelled en mass if the bureaucrats want; the union hierarchy still retains control of real property owned by the union, all bank accounts, logos, etc.

In the typical business union officials are appointed, not elected. Settlements are arrived at behind closed doors. Maverick locals are put into receivership by the internationals. Union bosses are entrenched for life, never facing the possibility of returning to the shop floor, if indeed they've ever been there in the first place.

The alternative to the above is the solidarity union, more of which later.

[Marcus Clayman]

Unions can, and do fight for job security all the time. It may be reformist, but then again, different unions have different cultures, are willing to persue different levels of tactics to get different kinds of objectives met. Unionizing is not a specific dogma, but a tactic, that can be informed by many dogmas. Consider, also, the idea of wildcats, who organize actions with some people in a union(and other supporters) without official support of the union leadership. Simply being fired, or having the potential to be fired, does not prevent unionized workers from responding to the firing however they see fit. It's just a cultural characteristic that determines whether or not the union and other suppoerters will step up to fight in such a case.

[x359594]

...Simply being fired, or having the potential to be fired, does not prevent unionized workers from responding to the firing however they see fit...

In the US a worker can file a ULP (unlawful labor practices complaint) with the National Labor Relations Board if she's fired without cause. Union members usually receive help from the local in such cases. It takes time for the NLRB to hear a complaint, but there are cases when the fired worker has been rehired with back pay.

The Starbucks Workers Union has won some decisions for individual workers in recent years, and the SWU is a solidarity union.

[Marcus Clayman]

As far as labor issues go though, layoffs have been responded to in a number of ways historically. THey have resulted in many organized and wildcat strikes, and other direct actions, such as occupations and expropriations of factories/hotels and other industries. Being fired is not an end to a union struggle, but can be just the begining. Threat of being fired is the least of union workers worries. Working for an exploitative company, and changing the social and economic relationships in the labor market as a whole. Loosing a job, while effects the individuals livelyhood, thinking systemically, every struggle is the sum of all the individual sacrifices that people make. and if there is solidarity in the labor force, if the union is founded on cooperation and an authentic desire to change labor market system, and not simply to get more benefits, longer chains, and bigger cages, so to speak, then there is nothing to loose by risking your job, because the extended network of those who stand in solidarity with you, should protect you by their willingness and commitment to fight for any injustice, in whatever way works.

[Avocado]

The alternative to the above is the solidarity union, more of which later.

The solidarity Union?

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

OK, i have a very clear position, originally leninist opinion on unions, and in our time, a much more radical opinion on unions:
Essentially, i think unions have been reactionary for the large labor movement of the early, middle 20th century. Were it not for unions trying to catch a little more wage from the workers production, and attracting huge numbers in the mid-20th century, the living standard of workers in the west would not have risen. Now, this might be a highly objectively positive development for the average liberal viewer, but it is horrible from a moral revolutionary perspective:
Had unions not buffered workers anger and sharpened a reformist consciousness to the majority of working people; as workers would see the increasing inequality, they would do the natural thing, overthrow the class that oppresses, exploits them.
Unions... really, unions piss me off. There is a bigger picture other than national increase of wages, and workers must be freed from the chains of their oppressors and apologetics for this system, reformists.

[x359594]

...Had unions not buffered workers anger and sharpened a reformist consciousness to the majority of working people; as workers would see the increasing inequality, they would do the natural thing, overthrow the class that oppresses, exploits them.
Unions... really, unions piss me off...

I don't think you can prove this tired old hypothesis, but if you can produce new evidence for it let's hear it.

When you say "unions piss me off," you sound just like the boss even if your reasons are different. So does that mean you would form a united front with the bosses to wreck a union? Do your lofty moral principals justify making common cause with the class enemy to crush the unions that so piss you off? Should the working class be degraded in order to motivate it revolution?

Meantime, here's the Free Riders Card:

I am opposed to all unions. Therefore, I am opposed to all benefits that unions have won through the years: Paid vacations, holidays, sick leave, seniority rights, wage increases, pension and insurance plans, safety laws, workmen's compensation laws, Social Security, time and a half for hours in excess of eight in one day or 40 in one work week, unemployment benefits, and job security.
I refuse to accept any benefits that will be won by union negotiators with this Union shop, and I hereby authorize and direct the company to withhold the amount of the union-won benefits from my paycheck each week and to donate it to charity.



_____________________
Signature Date

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

Unions have done a lot in regards to better compensation for those who labor, working conditions, treatment, etc,. The unions are not at fault. A lot of individuals insinuate if the unions get their way the business will falter, because it is unprofitable. In most instances they're talking about monetary compensation. This could be avoided if the officers in the business gave up some of their pay to stimulate the pay of the laborer. They fail to realize without the laborer the company goes no where. But in the US we live in a society where officers in a company feel entitled and are greedy. To that I say : 'Fuck you, your worthless title, and watch this company fall as me and my counterparts strike.'

[x359594]

In answer to Avacado, solidarity unionism is a term coined to describe a rank and file organization of workers who fight directly to win demands without resorting to government certification or union bureaucracy. A solidarity union is a group of workers uniting with each other and other workers in the community and (with the internet) around the world, to apply direct pressure around issues of concern at work. Solidarity unionism is for keeping organization at the shop floor level, for direct democracy, and for workplace actions planned and carried out by workers (and their supporters) themselves.

These workers practice solidarity unionism when they bypass bureaucratic union structures and take matters into their own hands. This might mean a one-time action like a wildcat strike, or it might take the form of a more permanent organization such as the 1969-71 League of Revolutionary Black Workers in Detroit.

In other words, the solidarity union is a union based on the direct strength of workers on the job, without regard to government or employer "recognition." It also refers to a strategy that eschews traditional contracts as its end goal. Instead it seeks to win gains and build power through direct action tactics, rejecting concessionary bargaining and the prevalent "no-strike" and "management rights" clauses most traditional trade unions are all too willing to accept.

[[email protected]]

Have you ever filed a ULP? Your scenario is nothing more than an example of poor organizing.

Defeatist worker: "There's nothing we can do about anything. The owners have all the power. We have no money, no power."

Revolutionary worker: ""But our work is the power that fuels the company. Without our work, the company can't run."

I have to agree with this. I was in a good union and I was protected as an anon whistleblower on some very, very shady stuff involving fudged statistics which likely resulted in some fatalities. It eventually reached a senator's desk. I knew everyone there had my back and I had theirs. Solidarity.

Similar thing years later, another union. My supervisor managed to violate the Constitution and break a half-dozen laws in plain sight, all of which I had documentary evidence of. My supervisor was a criminal. This wasn't just a structural problem being brushed under the carpet.

I filed. The union "rep" was management's admin (which in and of itself wasn't even allowed). Management began retaliating by giving me the most negative performance appraisals possible.

My co-workers had no class-consciousness and "didn't want to get involved" because the whole union was corrupt. I contacted newspapers, again to no avail. I wound up walking from that job on principle. Several of those people who wouldn't help me have since been fired anyway.

I think the reason unions are dying is because principles are dying and less and less people in an uncertain economy are willing to stand up for themselves. People need to understand that unions are in their best interest and that you can't be fired for organizing a union. Additionally, a lot of retail and low wage white collar workers have been misled into believing that unions are only for people in "manual labor", unaware of the SEIU and others.

IT people also have bizarre libertarian ideologies. They need to unionize the most.

[Grenzer]

I don't think you can prove this tired old hypothesis, but if you can produce new evidence for it let's hear it.

When you say "unions piss me off," you sound just like the boss even if your reasons are different. So does that mean you would form a united front with the bosses to wreck a union? Do your lofty moral principals justify making common cause with the class enemy to crush the unions that so piss you off? Should the working class be degraded in order to motivate it revolution?

For some reason I don't like this strawman. It's eerily similar to the one used by Stalinists: You criticize Stalin, and capitalists criticize Stalin; ergo you are supporting the capitalists even if your reasons are different.

I agree that his statement wasn't entirely appropriate, but you should give him the benefit of the doubt as English isn't even his first language.

I don't think the critique of unions as being ineffective in a revolutionary sense is a "tired old hypothesis", on the contrary, it seems to be more of a well tested theory. Time and time again, raw syndicalism has proven itself to be incapable of seizing power. I don't mean to sound overly harsh at all, but really I can't see syndicalism succeeding unless it's riding on the coattails' of some other group's successful strategy.



Meantime, here's the Free Riders Card:

I am opposed to all unions. Therefore, I am opposed to all benefits that unions have won through the years: Paid vacations, holidays, sick leave, seniority rights, wage increases, pension and insurance plans, safety laws, workmen's compensation laws, Social Security, time and a half for hours in excess of eight in one day or 40 in one work week, unemployment benefits, and job security.
I refuse to accept any benefits that will be won by union negotiators with this Union shop, and I hereby authorize and direct the company to withhold the amount of the union-won benefits from my paycheck each week and to donate it to charity.



_____________________
Signature Date


This seems a bit excessive and another straw man. I am opposed to reformism, but does that mean I am against the historical emancipation of slaves? No.

This is an overly reductive conclusion from WCOP's statement. Marxists would analyze the value of reforms from a material perspective, which in practice means concluding that the struggles of unions during the 19th and early 20th century did have lasting value and impact. However, now the traditional unions have become mostly an extension of the bourgeois state; and the revolutionary unions are ineffectual and can only represent sectional interests, at best. What WCOP is criticizing is the potential of unions as a progressive force given the present conditions.

It's theoretically possible that the concept of "One Big Union" could represent the working class as a whole, but in practice it's not going to happen: why? Because in essence the concept of One Big Union is not really that different from the idea of a mass political party; except that unlike the mass party, the One Big Union refuses to assert itself in a political sense.

I like the idea of anarcho-syndicalism, I just don't see how it could achieve its goals. Unions don't piss me off(that would be childish), and I see syndicalists as good comrades; but I interpret their strategy as being about as effectual as a blind drunk man clumsily swinging a fist at the big tough that is the Bourgeoisie. I'm hoping they prove me wrong, but history seems to have cast its favor against them.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

To make my opinion maybe more clear: Unions don't piss me off like the fact that every five seconds a child dies of starvation pisses me off. Unions piss me off in the way that they have good people in them who sadly believe that this system can be humanised. Well it can't: Look at Greece. It has had big unions with good workers' benefits. Look what Greece is like today? Over 25% percent unemployment, slashed wages, healthcare cuts, pension cuts... all that energy, all that struggle for what? A blimp of ok wages. It's all gone now. People are starving on the street and children have to be fed at school.

There were two kind of people who gave arguments against slavery when it was last abolished in the west, in america. The one group said "Look at the poor slaves' condition! We must immediately give him his rights as a slave! More food, better housing, less punishment!". Then there was a second group who responded "Are you absurd? Can you not see the indignity of one human being at the mercy of another?" and gave all energy and life to fight to break the chains of slavery.

Am i against workers having those benefits from their labor? Of course not! I want all humans to realise that having one human controlled by another will always lead to the moral destruction of the slave and latter complete losses of the little gains made as the material conditions press onward. Talking to the oppressors is in my opinion an utter absurdity and inevitably Sisyphus.

[Die Neue Zeit]

It's theoretically possible that the concept of "One Big Union" could represent the working class as a whole, but in practice it's not going to happen: why? Because in essence the concept of One Big Union is not really that different from the idea of a mass political party; except that unlike the mass party, the One Big Union refuses to assert itself in a political sense.

I like the idea of anarcho-syndicalism, I just don't see how it could achieve its goals. Unions don't piss me off(that would be childish), and I see syndicalists as good comrades; but I interpret their strategy as being about as effectual as a blind drunk man clumsily swinging a fist at the big tough that is the Bourgeoisie. I'm hoping they prove me wrong, but history seems to have cast its favor against them.

Did you read my commentary on Sociopolitical Syndicalism, or comrade Miles' commentary on Revolutionary Industrial Unionism? Both models commit to politics. ;)

[Grenzer]

Did you read my commentary on Sociopolitical Syndicalism, or comrade Miles' commentary on Revolutionary Industrial Unionism? Both models commit to politics. ;)

I don't think I've seen any of your writings on Syndicalism, or Miles' for that matter.

I like the idea of anarcho-syndicalism, but as I have said I see its refusal to be political as crippling. I have heard of a group called the WIIU but I don't know anything about them, but from my understanding they aren't a typical outfit like the IWW.

[x359594]

For some reason I don't like this strawman. It's eerily similar to the one used by Stalinists: You criticize Stalin, and capitalists criticize Stalin; ergo you are supporting the capitalists even if your reasons are different...

You're quite right, and I tender my apologies to WCOP. However, I have 40 years on anti-union baiting behind me, always from the bosses and their lackeys.


...This seems a bit excessive and another straw man. I am opposed to reformism, but does that mean I am against the historical emancipation of slaves? No.

The Free Riders Card is generic pro-union propaganda that we use when someone says "Why should I be forced to pay union dues, what has the union ever done for me?" This is our answer.

Since Ronald Reagan broke up PATCO in 1981 the bosses have waged a war on unions in particular and working people in general. The business union I belong to (not the IWW) has negotiated ever weaker contracts for the last 30 years, but it's the only defense I have. For example, my wife has a life threatening medical condition and without the medical benefits the union won for us she'd be dead. So it's a little hard for me to take an uncompromising position against union membership, even business union membership.


...the traditional unions have become mostly an extension of the bourgeois state...

True enough.

[x359594]

...Unions piss me off in the way that they have good people in them who sadly believe that this system can be humanised. Well it can't: Look at Greece. It has had big unions with good workers' benefits. Look what Greece is like today? Over 25% percent unemployment, slashed wages, healthcare cuts, pension cuts... all that energy, all that struggle for what? A blimp of ok wages. It's all gone now. People are starving on the street and children have to be fed at school...

The capitalist mode of production cannot be humanized is right, and the situation is Greece is the result of capitalism in action not decisions made by the unions. Their response has been inadequate as far as I can see. But I'm not there and I don't know all the details.

[Marcus Clayman]

I have for some time, even before understanding "radical unionism," based on issues I heard of cliquey factions, beaurocracy and HR/management/government relationships corrupting unions and their leaders... ive thought that the only problem with unions is their implied lack of options, when it comes to picking which union you are in, or which will be recognized as legitimate by management/government/other unions. If people were more free to organize, as in solidarity unions, in more decentralized and autonomous ways, then many of the problems with unions would be avoided. In the states at least union members are free according to some act(not sure which one, lol) that they don't have to participate in a union that they feel is not responding to their needs as a worker... it would be nice(albeit reformist) to demand that workers also have the freedom to organize, and be recognized as legitimate unions, in more self defined, spontaneous, maybe even single-time use unions, who organize around a specific cause, and then effectively dissolve, and then a different union with different membership organizes for future cause... etc etc... would be good to fight for recognition of such unions, so to reduce dependency on what is effectively the monopolization of unions, and all the corruption and beaurocracy that this implies