Employee Free Choice Act -- back in 2009

[chimx]

Democrats didn't hold enough sway in the Senate in 2007, but Democrats in the Senate are now saying they plan to push for the bill again in '09 when there is a new president. Until then, the Change To Win folk are pushing pretty hard in states for political backers to the bill.

EFCA will not only create higher penalties for employers who break labor laws, but most importantly, it will make forming labor unions significantly easier. Currently in the US, to receive union recognition, an employer has the right to call in the National Labor Relations Board to oversee an anonymous election for unionization after he or she finds out his employees are seeking a union.

EFCA will do away with these anonymous election and make unionization possible simply by union organizers obtaining a majority of signatures from the employees. (I believe this is a system similar to what Canada currently has)

It will definately be something to keep your eyes on in the upcoming year.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

By "the Change to Win folk" it should be pointed out that chimx refers to the union bureaucracy. This act, should it ever actually pass, is supposed to limit employee interference in unionization drives... but while it does away with drawn out elections, in which the bosses often break up organization attempts, it still puts acceptance of recognition in the hands of the NRLB, which is an appendage of the capitalist state. More importantly, it allows the bosses to force negotiations of its first contract with a union into federal mediation, followed of course by binding arbitration. The goal of that of course is to remove the ability of workers to vote on a contract (and especially to vote against it and strike).

The Dems are pushing this at this time to gather votes from workers, and pose as 'friends of labor.'

Of course that's not the case. We can't relinquish any options we have.. especially the vital right to strike.

[chimx]

One step at a time, in my opinion. It still does use the NRLB to mediate contract negotiations and legitimize unions, but it will also make unionization significantly easier for workers.

This won't simply assist union bureaucracy and the two major labor federations in the US either (for the record, I'm not a huge fan of what the AFL/CIO and the CtW guys do. The former throws money at democrats, while the latter throws money at both parties and calls that "change"). However, it will make unionization for smaller unions like the IWW more feasible just as much. Its hard for me to think of how this couldn't be construed as a step forward, despite the continued involvement of the NRLB.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Like I said: the boss can toss the first contract discussion to a federal mediator, then it goes into binding arbitration. That's to remove the ability of workers to strike for recognition. This isn't everything it's cracked up to be.

[chegitz guevara]

It's not great in absolute terms, but it is significantly better than what we have now.

[jake williams]

There isn't a lot more to say than there is about anything else similar - reforms are unpleasant and insufficient, but that doesn't mean that they can't be helpful, even critically so.

[Ultra-Violence]

altho not perfect hopefully itll make it easier for people working at wallmart to unionize etc...

[RedDawn]

Nothing has a good point.

I mean look at the Change to Win coalition with SEIU. Sure, SEIU is growing a lot, but they have almost no democratic rights in their union. One member of our org who is in SEIU got fired by a personal vendetta of the boss and the union did nothing. Another member of SA is in SEIU and she gets $10 an hour doing childcare. We have to fight the labor bureaucracy, not play their shitty little games.

This legislation only entrenches the labor bureaucracy and brings us one step closer to having Chinese-style unions, unions in name and nothing else.

[chegitz guevara]

We already have that.

[RedDawn]

No, don't be ultra-left. We have much more vibrant union democracy than in China.

[chegitz guevara]

In some unions, maybe. Vibrant isn't really the word I'd use in any event.

[RedDawn]

Vibrant in comparison to China, obviously

[chegitz guevara]

Ever been a Teamster? I was in the 80s. I had about as much right to speak out against my union leadership as Chinese comrades would have today. I went to a union workshop with a brother that was almost murdered by the IBT. If two cops hadn't accidentally happened across the scene of the execution, he wouldn't have been around to tell me that story. There are plenty of unions worse today than the Teamsters were then.

I think you also underestimate how much freedom Chinese workers have. They certainly have to operate carefully, but they do have some room to maneuver and make their voices heard and protest. There is, in fact, quite a bit of labor unrest in China.

[RedDawn]

Hmm... Good point.

We have quite a few members who are Teamsters, including ones who opposed the Hoffa leadership in the 80s. In fact, our members were so radical they butted heads with the TDU leadership (of course, they stayed in TDU regardless).

Yea, there is a lot of unrest, but in China everyone tries to stay anonymous. Try to give a movement a name or a leadership and it gets smacked down, hard.

[chegitz guevara]

Hoffa wasn't around in the 80s. Jackie Presser, a mob shill was.

[RedDawn]

Well the member I am talking about joined the Teamsters in the 70s, but became a member of Militant Labor in the 80s. But thank you for the correction!

[BIG BROTHER]

It's not great in absolute terms, but it is significantly better than what we have now.

I agree

[chimx]

Like I said: the boss can toss the first contract discussion to a federal mediator, then it goes into binding arbitration. That's to remove the ability of workers to strike for recognition. This isn't everything it's cracked up to be.

But the problem is that this isn't happening that often now anyway.

It is also only for the first 2 year contract period I believe, and when contracts are renegotiated in 2 years, they will be able to strike (or sooner depending on what the first contract ends up being).

Again, I think that there is a necessary step-by-step process. only like 8% of the private sector is unionized. Before we focus entirely on escalating class struggle within that 8%, we need to focus on unionizing the fast majority of the work force. This bill will make that significantly easier.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Ever been a Teamster? I was in the 80s.

I was in the 2000's.

I certainly had more room to move in the unions than folks in some of the unions tied to the capitalist state in some other places do.

...

A main obstacle in the teamsters has become getting around the Feds, who the reformist TDU handed the union over to when they sued it in the bourgeois courts in the name of 'democratization.'

Of course the struggle against the bureaucracy is a hard one (Yablonski and his family were massacred just minutes from where I am right now.. my uncle ran for local office in the UMWA here and received numerous -- and very real death threats, etc). No one said it would be easy. They are where there are for a reason. It takes a mass mobilization of the rank-and-file to do it successfully.


But the problem is that this isn't happening that often now anyway.

Because the bureaucrats are preventing it out of fear of mobilized workers getting out of their control.

With this measure it will go from 'not that often' to never (except in cases in which we can mobilize independent of the bureaucrats and against the bourgeois state). That represents a step back.


It is also only for the first 2 year contract period I believe, and when contracts are renegotiated in 2 years, they will be able to strike (or sooner depending on what the first contract ends up being).

Oh well in that case... we only have to take the hit for 2 years, then we'll be able to strike. Are you serious? We can never give up the right to strike if we want to move forward.


Again, I think that there is a necessary step-by-step process. only like 8% of the private sector is unionized. Before we focus entirely on escalating class struggle within that 8%, we need to focus on unionizing the fast majority of the work force.

Mass organization can only come with an upswing in class struggle. We can't organize while we're in retreat. How do you think the existing unions were built? The origins of many lie in bitter struggles while unions were illegal.

By claiming they're going to "make it easier to unionize" the Democrats seek to gain the support of a bigger chunk of organized labor than they already have.


This bill will make that significantly easier.

So vote Democrat, fellow workers! Things will then be easier! :rolleyes:

The whole thrust of this and the original post reeks of a thinly veiled call to support the Democrats.

[chimx]

Mass organization can only come with an upswing in class struggle. We can't organize while we're in retreat.

Class struggle still exists when workers organize for better working conditions against the interests of the employer -- even if that means that the workers don't have to strike for their improved conditions.

Ignoring the political realities of the United States right now is the best way to ensure class struggle doesn't develop. Workers don't give a fuck about overthrowing capitalism. They give a fuck about getting a good paycheck and being able to feed their families. We need to organize now, and then push for more radical positions when we are strong enough to do so. And if that means having to support a labor bill introduced by Democrats right now, than so be it.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

And this is where your garbage politics run into the trash compactor. The Democrats will never introduce anything to benefit workers. They act in the interests of the capitalists, not the working class. Any gains we make will be (and always have been) a result of our own struggles.

If the EFCA did represent a gain (which it doesn't), it's implementation would be a result of our struggle for it. It wouldn't be a result of the Democrats or Republicans "introducing it when they get a majority." Arguing for the latter is building illusions in the capitalist politicians and their electoral circus -- two things we need to win fellow workers away from.

[chimx]

The Democrats will never introduce anything to benefit workers. They act in the interests of the capitalists, not the working class.

This is vulgar Marxism at its finest. The bourgeois state can't just be written off as the political arm of the capitalist class. This is by very definition the vulgarity of Marxist simplification by amateur Marxists! Rather, the interpretation most favored by Marxists today (outside of internet warriors perhaps) is that the state's historic role is to defend the common and long term interests of the dominant class, and more importantly to promote the conditions in which the mode of production --on which that capitalist hegemony is based-- can be reproduced in the future. In doing this the state often finds itself in conflict with the urgent short-term interests of sections within the ruling class.

The capitalist superstructure also understands that political power is not dependent exclusively on the control of instruments of coercion, but also on a degree of legitimacy in the minds of the ruled. Capitalist politicians create laws which are immediately beneficial to workers because it has an effect in the long run of potentially dampening class struggle.

This is why most real Marxists acknowledge that the state and other institutions within the superstructure display a certain degree of autonomy from the dominant class.

If you are still unsure how this relates to the topic at hand, the Democratic party has a significantly higher constituency of working class Americans than the Republican party. Furthermore, union members are significantly more likely to vote Democrat than non-union members.

It should be the goal of any real Marxist to acknowledge the antagonisms within the dominant class and exploit it to its advantages, while also further agitating for class struggle.

http://people-press.org/commentary/images/114-1.gif
http://people-press.org/commentary/images/114-2.gif

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I don't think CDL has much appreciation for the dynamics behind minimum demands (the more narrow interpretation, not demands like nationalization), reformist demands (can be achieved by a bourgeois system under enormous pressure, but most aren't because of bourgeois resistance), and revolutionary demands (workers' rule - proletocracy).

http://www.revleft.com/vb/reformism-t72015/index.html


There was one time in 1912 the tsarist Duma (which the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks had a handful each of deputies in) passed two insurance laws for workers regarding industrial accidents and injuries. The purpose the Tsarists and Kadets who supported this law had was to defuse the rising revolutionary fervor of the masses by granting them some concessions. The actual laws passed were a small step forward, but still quite unsatisfactory: no workers in home industry, enterprises with less than twenty people, agricultural workers, construction workers, workers in the Siberian and Central Asian provinces, invalids, the old and unemployed were disqualified. Only about 20% of industrial workers qualified for the law!

Now it may seem at this juncture that the Bolsheviks would have been right to spit on the piecemeal concessions by the feudal state. But in fact, they supported the law's passage, and once it was enacted, made sure to explain the exact terms of the legislation to the workers so they could extract the most benefit from it by putting daily articles in Pravda on the subject and calling meetings on it at which all workers could attend. They also took a lead role in gathering contributions for the workers' part of the insurance fund, and their deputies in the Duma agitated for a higher degree of worker control over the fund. The party itself agitated for extension of the law and even founded a journal called The Problems of Insurance, which Lenin himself frequently wrote for. Using these methods, the insurance issue, which the government had intended to use as a way to stabilize itself, was turned into a means for mobilizing the class-conscious proletariat against it! The Bolsheviks organized strikes and demonstrations on the issue, and during the imperialist war the insurance funds had 2 million worker members, among whom the influence of the Bolsheviks was immense.

I think that the Bolsheviks' approach to the insurance issue sets a model for how revolutionaries should deal with reforms. As Lenin said:


... any movement of the proletariat, however small, however modest he may be at the start, however slight its occasion, inevitably threatens to outgrow its immediate aims and to develop into a force irreconcilable to the entire old order and destructive of it. The movement of the proletariat, by reason of the essential peculiarities of the position of this class under capitalism, has a marked tendency to develop into a desperate, all-out struggle, a struggle for complete victory over all the dark forces of exploitation and oppression.

Revolutionaries must remember how important reforms are, especially in the current period of reaction. Of course, we must recognize, and tell the workers, as the Bolsheviks did, that reforms must not be pursued for their own sake as they are no fundamental change for the lot of workers. This fundamental change can only come through revolution, and the workers must understand and appreciate this.



Simply put, CDL is, like his PoWR organization, a neo-Bordigist.

[chimx]

I think a lot of people are afraid to support short term gains out of fear of coming off "liberal" or even reformist. short term gains are important provided we keep fixed on our long term goals.

Excellent quotation by the way. I agree with RP and I think it would be nice to see more historical discussion on Social Democrats involvement in the post-1905 Russian government. I must confess though, I don't get the Bordiga comment.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Bordigism, like the left-communist ICC, has dumped the minimum program altogether (sectarianism of a different kind than my anti-Trot rants). :(

[I can appreciate the need for one worldwide socialist party, a contribution from Bordiga, but his successors' ultra-leftism sucks.]

Nice av, BTW. ;)

[chimx]

Thanks. I love this painting of Napoleon:

http://www.napolun.com/mirror/web2.airmail.net/napoleon/Napoleon_Great.jpg

Considering CDL's appreciation for national liberation movements and his upholding of the USSR, I can't really see him being all that comfy with the ICC or Bordiga

[chegitz guevara]

I was in the 2000's.

I certainly had more room to move in the unions than folks in some of the unions tied to the capitalist state in some other places do.

Twenty years is a generation of difference. When I was in, the union was solidly under the thumb of the mob.


A main obstacle in the teamsters has become getting around the Feds, who the reformist TDU handed the union over to when they sued it in the bourgeois courts in the name of 'democratization.'

Actually, the TDU had nothing to do with the lawsuit. They certainly benefited from it, but the RICO suit was brought by the government. TDU carried out an organizational campaign, not a legal one.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

They basically dragged the union into the courts and handed it over willingly to the feds. They called this democratization and loved it as Ron Carey took over. Later the feds used their control to remove Carey after he lead the national UPS strike, but of course they still didn't learn their lesson.

The other comments really ignore the crux of my argument. I never said I was against immediate gains, on the contrary, I argue for defending the ground we get at all costs. Hence my defense for the bureaucratic socialist states, benefits, etc. What I am saying is:

1. When we make gains, it's a result of our struggles. No party of the bourgeoisie will introduce gains for no reason. Sometimes they divert struggles with compromises and misdirection to protect the long term interests of the capitalists, understanding that all gains for workers under capitalism can be rolled back (e.g. the New Deal).

2. The EFCA is not a gain. It's a diversion.

Chimx confuses vulgar Marxism with revolutionary communist consistency. Being so far from either, it's not surprising.

Jacob is just confused.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ What is your organization's position on the minimum-maximum, the "transitional demands," and the new scheme I have above (minimum-reformist-revolutionary)? :glare:

[chimx]

I don't see what misunderstanding the nature of the Marxist superstructure has to do with revolutionary consistency.

[chimx]

It is important to get the Employee Free Choice Act passed in Congress because the working people of this country have been pushed down in the past several decades. Unions have helped create the middle class historically. The way the economy is going right now, union density has gone down and the middle class is getting pushed down.



Yet, I find that many people want to join the union. But when they try to organize, the employers use captive audience meetings and illegal scare tactics, which they get away with under the current NLRB [National Labor Relations Board], which does not serve our interests. We have a particular experience recently that illustrates the sore need for the Employee Free Choice Act.



We organized an employer in 2002 through a NLRB secret ballot election and then the employer dragged their feet throughout the bargaining process with bad faith and surface bargaining. We filed an unfair labor practice with the labor board in 2003 and won the charges, but the company appealed them in the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled in the union’s favor in 2007. In all, five years passed between winning the election and the court’s ruling that the company had to negotiate in good faith with us.



In the meantime, due to turnover and frustration, we lost the support of the workers and the union no longer had the majority of employees supporting us. The company again stalled the negotiations and we never got a contract and had no choice but to walk away after five years of frustration and fighting.

Legally employers have a significant amount of ways of delaying and undermining workers seeking collective bargained contracts. This struck me as an excellent of example of problems we currently face with unionization in the US.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ At the same time, revolutionary Marxists should not organize into parliamentary groups, even to press ahead with these minimum demands. There are other ways of exerting pressure on the parliamentary system, like NGOs. :)