Millitant-Unionization

[Entrails Konfetti]

What exactly is Millitant-Unionization ?

Being that I've lived Florida for most of my life,I don't really know too much about Union. So I feel compelled to ask some questions.
How do they operate?
What are some of their tactics ?
How are they restricted by todays Governments ?
How does one join a union ?
How have some gone corrupt ?

[Entrails Konfetti]

Wow what stupid questions I asked.

All I really want to know is how they are set up...ranking wize,and what tactics they use to negotitate. I know general strikes,boycotts and hunger strikes.But,what are some things that arent that common practiced.

And what are the restriction on the into today governments.

In Amerika esspecially,how did Reagan fuck up the unions ?

[Enragé]

the problem with unions, not only in the US but in all of the western world, is that they have become part of the system. They often oppress the worker as much as any boss.

[Entrails Konfetti]

But,because of the corruption in the Unions was it due to any exterior forces ? Big bosses negotiating with Union Heads, restrictions passed by Governments ?

[enigma2517]

Most modern unions are still very capitalist by nature. Yeah, sure, they gain some power by collectively negotiating but it only results in a smaller loss for them. It is hardly ever something that could be considered a genuine gain.

The union leader is just like any other capitalist, negotiating with his peers to try and set the best deal. Its all bargaining and haggling.

Things may be slightly different from what you're talking about. There are few (actually I haven't heard of any recent) militant unions in the US. All of them display the type of nature I described above. However, there are more radical unions out there. In fact, anarcho-syndicalism is a revolutionary theory that revolves around the militant union concept, its the first tier of worker organization. Stuff like the IWW has more radical/revolutionary tendencies as well.

In a short response to your last question there, yes and no. The CIA itself doesn't have to penetrate unions to subvert them, nor does any other bureaucratic institution. Capitalism does the trick itself. That union leader has a job just like everybody else, which is gauged based on his immediate profit (which in this case is represented by the "rights" he wins for the workers he represents). In order to acheive something, that leader has to tone down his original aspirations so they are reasonable to bring to the negotiating table of his masters. If all out workers right were ever demanded this man would be laughed out of the office and eventually his job.

Unions make the workers think they can see truely positive change within the system (dulling their class consciousness) and just generally sell them short. When all is done they shrug and say,"Oh well, thats the best we could have hoped for...right?"

Wrong. Time to take a stand.

[marxist_socialist_aussie]

I think that is too dismissive of a unions aims. Certainly they have become part of the capitalistic system, but they must to be able to do any good at all. It is all too easy to dismiss the union bosses as just more gready guys at the top of the food chain, but many of these people, especially here in Australia, have worked there way up in the unions. Plus, just look at recent events here in Australia. if it wasn't for the unions, there would be very little public opposition to John Howard's Industrial Relations Reforms, bar the parliamentary opposition of the Labor Party. Unions certainly have their problems and are forced to compromise, but that is the very nature of the society in which they are forced to exist.