The use of capitalist unions

[Organic Revolution]

Is there any use for capitalist unions in America? Should we all just attempt to get workers to sign up to the IWW? Are capitalist unions crushing the workers will to organize?

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Organic [email protected] 06, 2007 04:21 pm
Is there any use for capitalist unions in America? Should we all just attempt to get workers to sign up to the IWW? Are capitalist unions crushing the workers will to organize?
I think Duel-carding is what we should argue for. Obviously the capitalist unions are lead by wealthy union bosses with the continuation of capitalism at heart (it ensures they have a union to get rich off) But, they can be useful for trivial things like grievances, which the IWW just couldn't deal with.

From a pragmatic point of view, it is also far more useful to be a part of capitalist unions. Workers are more likely to join them, and we can use them as a platform for our politics.

We should also be in 'red' unions like the IWW, and encourage other workers to be a part of it (as well as their current union) because they act as an example of what a Union should be, and can also go beyond the constraints of the bureaucracy of mainstream unions.

[Axel1917]

The workers will always go toward traditional organizations at first, no matter how reactionary these traditional unions (in this case) may be, so we have to reach out to them to win them over. If we can't transform these unions, then there is simply no way in hell we can take down capitalism, period.

I personally think that the IWW is "ancient history" and it is an organization that does not really have a future. The masses aren't just going to suddenly jump ship and join some leftist union. We need to work in the traditional ones (I am a member of the SEIU, the largest union in the US, if what I hear is correct) to win workers over and to transform these unions.

The situation is becoming increasingly turbulent, and it is only a matter of time before the rank and file of the traditional unions starts to fight back. Things are already starting to swing toward the left, and things will only continue to swing that way when an economic recession, cuts, etc. come forth in the future. The capitalists will have no choice but to do this to preserve profits, and the mood of the masses will change. It will almost look like the bourgeoisie are intentionally looking for a fight at that period in time.

I admit I am slightly intoxicated at the time of this post (I have had to correct a deal of typos I would not have typically made), but I think I have gotten some basic ideas out in a decent manner. ;)

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 08:32 pm
I personally think that the IWW is "ancient history" and it is an organization that does not really have a future.
I disagree. The TUC, CWU, and Unison, are all capitalist unions that are also pretty fucking old. The reality is that workers don't give a fuck how old a group is as long as it's doing something now.

Now, the IWW has it's problems. But interestingly it has seen a resurgence in the UK at least, with a few of train drivers joining and supporting it, after the woblies defended a driver, who was supposed to be getting fired for swearing. They are defending a mother who wont be given proper maternity leave at starbucks, and have managed to create inroads into the Polish migrant communities in the UK, getting several members up and down the country. All these things pretty interesting.



The masses aren't just going to suddenly jump ship and join some leftist union.

Well, they will if it's in their best interest. But the IWW isn't strong enough to fill the role of an existing capitalist union. That's why duel carding is a good idea.


Things are already starting to swing toward the left, and things will only continue to swing that way when an economic recession, cuts, etc. come forth in the future.

If you've been in a Trotskyist organisation for more than 20 years, that sound bite gets pretty fucking old, mate.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

What is a "capitalist union"? A union that controls the means of production and exploits the people who work them for its own gain?

[YSR]

Originally posted by Axel
I personally think that the IWW is "ancient history" and it is an organization that does not really have a future.

Since, of course, we're one of the fastest growing leftist groups in the country and one of the few unions that's still organizing new shops. Look around our fair cities, Axel: What other unions besides the IWW are doing anything new? SEIU? Okay, fine. So one. One super undemocratic union which brings in outside activists to do direct action instead of the workers themselves (Justice for Janitors campaign). Business unionism is ancient history, solidarity unionism is the future!

Dual-carding is an excellent suggestion. Reforming the traditional unions while building radical alternatives is a solid suggestion. But for most workers, the fact is that we don't work in organized industries. Unless you are working in a shop organized by a business union (not "capitalist union," as CdL points out correctly) then you should fight like hell to keep them out and organize radically. One big union!

[classwarveteran]

Originally posted by William [email protected] 06, 2007 11:41 am
But, they can be useful for trivial things like grievances, which the IWW just couldn't deal with.


I would hardly call pursuing grievances trivial, though I have also seen a multi-step process absolutely paralyze workers from doing what needed to be done to solve their problems. I have seen no evidence that other unions "handle grievances" any better than the IWW (assuming local groups of workers reach-out for assistance from the larger union).

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I'm sorry, but arguing to "fight like hell to keep out" so-called 'business unions' is entirely reactionary.

Workers organized with 'business unions' are still organized.

As Engels pointed out: "I think the K[nights] of L[abour] a most important factor in the movement which ought not to be pooh-poohed from without but to be revolutionised from within, and I consider that many of the Germans there have made a grievous mistake when they tried, in face of a mighty and glorious movement not of their creation, to make of their imported and not always understood theory a kind of alleinseligmachendes dogma and to keep aloof from any movement which did not accept that dogma. Our theory is not a dogma but the exposition of a process of evolution, and that process involves successive phases. To expect that the Americans will start with the full consciousness of the theory worked out in older industrial countries is to expect the impossible. What the Germans ought to do is to act up to their own theory --if they understand it, as we did in 1845 and 1848--to go in for any real general working-class movement, accept its faktische starting points as such and work it gradually up to the theoretical level by pointing out how every mistake made, every reverse suffered, was a necessary consequence of mistaken theoretical views in the original programme; they ought, in the words of The Communist Manifesto, to represent the movement of the future in the movement of the present. But above all give the movement time to consolidate, do not make the inevitable confusion of the first start worse confounded by forcing down people's throats things which at present they cannot properly understand, but which they soon will learn."

[classwarveteran]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 07, 2007 12:30 pm
What is a "capitalist union"? A union that controls the means of production and exploits the people who work them for its own gain?
You are asking a pretty ideologically loaded question, fellow worker. I assume by "capitalist unions" that he means one of two things:

1) a union which does not have its stated goal the abolition of the wage system; and/or

2) a union which through its behavior and/or structure seeks to mediate the class conflict, act as a labor broker, which cuts backdoor deals with the bosses, and perhaps even existing capitalist and imperialist regimes.

I always encourage those who refer to "business unions" or "capitalist unions" to examine the structure and stated goals of these bodies and then compare them to other unions to try to see what they feel is lacking.

Anyone can use language like "freedom and democracy," or "socialism and liberation," but it is important to look at what institutional safeguards exist to make these things a reality.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

1) a union which does not have its stated goal the abolition of the wage system

Fundamentally, a union is an organization of workers united around their immediate economic interests. We shouldn't place conditions on the program (or lack thereof) of a union when deciding whether or not we should "fight like hell" against them.


2) a union which through its behavior and/or structure seeks to mediate the class conflict, act as a labor broker, which cuts backdoor deals with the bosses, and perhaps even existing capitalist and imperialist regimes.

When does "a union" take a position like this? The bureaucracies at the top of many unions takes these sort of directions and steer the unions in that direction, which is why we must struggle to oust them. Abstaining from the unions all together, or "fighting like hell against them," is entirely wrong.

[classwarveteran]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 07, 2007 05:07 pm
Abstaining from the unions all together, or "fighting like hell against them," is entirely wrong.
I did not propose such a thing, though I would hope workers would struggle against the union behavior I described. Unfortunately, a lot of union reform movements merely seek to replace one leadership group with another, and the corruption and simply bad practices are so entrenched and pervasive I think their energy could be better spent elsewhere, such as forming an IWW branch. I think the Jeffboat struggle is a good example.

[BreadBros]

I think by "capitalist unions" what people are referring to is "business unionism", the concept that workers can achieve gains while still remaining in a sort of social partnership with the bosses that doesn't go into class conflict. Such is the creedo of the AFL. These unions are inherently non-revolutionary BUT on the shop-floor they also serve a vital purpose: giving rank-and-file workers a base around which to organize and collectively fight.

One of the primary problems with business unions though is their conservative organizing strategy: the AFL historically only organized skilled craft workers and today its focus is relatively wider but still ultimately narrow. Its incredibly difficult from a craft union perspective to organize the masses of "unskilled" workers: which is very pertinent today when an increasing number of workers work in small-scale "unskilled" service environments as opposed to industrial centers. The IWW has traditionally organized these unskilled laborers and continues to try and organize individuals in workplaces that the mainstream unions ignore: places like Starbucks, workplaces staffed by immigrants or marginalized workers, etc. and it does so on the only basis it can, a class-wide revolutionary perspective. At the current time it would be counter-productive to "attack" the AFL rank-and-file but I do encourage individuals to join the IWW at the very least for solidarity (which is about as much as you can contribute if you are, say, a student like me) but preferably to organize workplaces.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Originally posted by classwarveteran+October 07, 2007 10:12 pm--> (classwarveteran @ October 07, 2007 10:12 pm)
Compañ[email protected] 07, 2007 05:07 pm
Abstaining from the unions all together, or "fighting like hell against them," is entirely wrong.
I did not propose such a thing, though I would hope workers would struggle against the union behavior I described. Unfortunately, a lot of union reform movements merely seek to replace one leadership group with another, and the corruption and simply bad practices are so entrenched and pervasive I think their energy could be better spent elsewhere, such as forming an IWW branch. I think the Jeffboat struggle is a good example. [/b]
I agree comrade (well maybe not on leaving their unions to form IWW branches).

A lot of the reform movements are lead by opportunists looking to get into leadership positions. With this you see a lot of appealing to the capitalist courts to intervene (ala TDU) and other despicable actions.. That's why any real movement has to mobilize workers to actually forge democracy inside of their unions, and create internal organization that keeps control in their hands (i.e. right to recall, all agents must be workers and receive the average pay of the workers in the union, regular elections, elected strike committees, etc.). The fight for worker controlled safety committees, for example, could lead to this if carried out correctly.

[YSR]

Originally posted by CdL+--> (CdL)'m sorry, but arguing to "fight like hell to keep out" so-called 'business unions' is entirely reactionary. [/b]

First off, is it possible that if someone disagrees with someone else, they could say that they are "wrong" or "stupid" or "mistaken?" With the tremendous difference of opinion on this forum, it's ridiculous to go around calling everything that one doesn't agree with "reactionary". I'm sorry, this just gets my goat.

Second, you'll see that I qualified my statement. If you're at a shop that's AFL-CIO or CtW, then I think you should work both within that union to democratize it as well as with the IWW (or a similar democratic union). But, to repeat myself, if you're in an unorganized shop (as the vast majority of us are) you should not encourage business unions and should try to out-organize them ("fight like hell").

This is not an ideological thing, this is a practical thing. The fact of the matter is that if you look at class structure in America, business unions have helped almost exclusively the most privileged of workers at the expense of others. Furthermore, their organizing model just doesn't work. Grappling with the government instead of shop floor action is idiotic. The diversity of tactics embraced by the Wobs is more efficient, more effective, and more useful. As the old saying goes, direct action gets the goods.

I hope that clarified what I said. I do not mean that I am against all other unions, but I do think that class collaborationist unions should be avoided and out-organized in unorganized shops.


CdL
Workers organized with 'business unions' are still organized.

That's debatable. A lot of workers in business unions see the union as a third party. We call it "service unionism," this idea that the union is some outside entity which will do things for the workers. Service unionism is exactly why we are losing the class war. It discourages class consciousness and disempowers rank-and-filers.

Endorsing business unions and attempting to bore from within is exactly the same as endorsing social democratic parties like the Democrats and attempting to bore from within. That is to say, a failed strategy.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

First off, is it possible that if someone disagrees with someone else, they could say that they are "wrong" or "stupid" or "mistaken?" With the tremendous difference of opinion on this forum, it's ridiculous to go around calling everything that one doesn't agree with "reactionary". I'm sorry, this just gets my goat.

Sometimes things are reactionary. I don't label everything I disagree with reactionary, but things that set workers back, that go against their interests, that interfere with progress, are reactionary. "Fighting like hell" to "keep out" so-called "business unions", when the bureaucrats at their tops are forced into organizing is reactionary.

[MarxSchmarx]

I think as a generality the model of "business" unionism discussed here is dying out. Even among the reactionary AFL-CIO, many rank and file and bureaucrats now realize the future lies in an IWW-type union. It's going to take a loooooong time to dislodge some curmudgeons, but it will happen. And I think large unions throughout the industrialized world have a healthy skepticism towards class collaborationists.

How does this dual carding thing work? Do I just pay dues to the IWW while I am also in another Union? What does the IWW do for me in the mean time?


you should fight like hell to keep them out and organize radically.

CompañeroDeLibertad has a point about this post. I'm sure the bosses would be happy to have you help them keep out the "business" union. The other problem is strategic. If the unionization drive fails, and you played a role in the failure, you'd have a hard time organizing for the IWW there.

Also, the other "capitalist union" that's not talked about here is the company union. These monstrosities are a joke, and although I won't echo the call to "fight like hell to keep them out", they are institutions we can do without.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Company housing, company script;
Company union, company shit!