Payroll Deduction reason for Union slump

[Bilan]

PAYROLL deduction of union fees was a major reason behind the slump in union membership, with unions losing touch with workers on the shop floor.

Paul Howes, the national secretary of Australian Workers Union, said payroll deduction was the biggest reason for his union's membership decline in the past decade.


"I don't think the reason why the union movement has declined is because of an ideological bent against trade unions," he said. "I think it's just that we have not structurally changed ourselves to deal with the modern workforce and to recruit in the way that we used to


"In my own union, I think it's a very simple reason, which was when we moved to payroll deduction. Before we had payroll deduction for union fees, we used to have annual tickets in the AWU where every year every member had to buy their ticket from their organiser after a convention in January.
"I think when we changed that and moved to payroll deductions, that lost the interface between the union official and union member on a regular basis, and it was easier to lose people that way."





Mr Howes said it was difficult for unions to "shake their addiction" to payroll deduction, but his union encouraged officials not to sign up new members to the scheme.


"The challenge for us is to change the way that we work to get us out there on the shop floor," he said.
As reported in The Weekend Australian on Saturday, unions will target student workers as young as 14 for recruitment.


The ACTU and Unions NSW are finalising plans to launch a pilot program in Sydney targeting school-student workers after research found most young people were unable to define a union.


Industrial law professor Ron McCallum said it was no shock that workers questioned the relevance of unions when the ACTU failed to take on the Rudd Government.


"I am surprised that the union movement has been so silent over the slow pace of labour market reform under the Rudd Government," Professor McCallum said. "There's almost a feeling amongst union leaders that they don't want to be disloyal to the Government.


"If the Rudd Government doesn't change the unfair dismissal limitations until 2010, the Work Choices unfair dismissal law will have operated longer under the Rudd Government than the Howard government.
"There has been no change yet to the collective bargaining laws to make it easier for collective bargaining ... reform has been at a snail's pace," hesaid.


"Basically what the Rudd Government is doing is leaning towards business because they figure the trade unions have no one else to vote for. You have to wonder why the trade union movement worked so hard to get the Rudd Government in and get so little in return. No wonder people are asking what's the point of (unions).


"Never before has a government had so many ex-union officials in its caucus and yet keeps them silent and co-opts them in. Unions will contain their members if they stand up for workers and ask why it is the Rudd Government has been in power for six months and nothing has happened."



source (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24123059-2702,00.html)

[chimx]

That's an interesting theory. My union doesn't have payroll deduction, and honestly it's kind of a pain in the ass to make time to go down to the union hall all the time. I don't know about how that interaction is causing a decline. You go in, write a check, take a receipt and leave.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

That's an interesting theory. My union doesn't have payroll deduction, and honestly it's kind of a pain in the ass to make time to go down to the union hall all the time. I don't know about how that interaction is causing a decline. You go in, write a check, take a receipt and leave.

Dues Checkoff is a weapon which union bosses can use against the workers. Even if you do it via automatic electronic debit, you still have control over your dues. This way workers can refuse dues when the union behaves poorly. Its another tool to beat out class collaboration.

[bolshevik butcher]

Speaking from a British perspective I think that things like these may have some affect but there are two major reasons that strike me as to why the number of workers in unions has falen, from two thirds at its height in the seventies to about one third now although unions have grown marginally numerically speaking in the last few years.

The first of these is the presence of the anti-trade union laws that were brought in under the Thatcher government. These laws hit unions in two braod areas. Firstly they make it much more difficult to establish a union member as being the status quote in a work place. The closed shop system was scrapped as was opt out. So there are no longer work places which are 100% unionised by agreement or where unless a worker states otherwise they join the union with their wokplace. Secondly the strength of unions has been severely weakened in terms of the action that they are legally allowed to take. All kinds of secondary action were banned, including secondary picketing and solidarity strike action. Picket lines are limited to six workers. The proccess of going on strike is also far more difficult requiring a secret ballot and having to inform the boss of the strike quite a considerable length of time in advance that allows for perperation on their part. Although it is possible that these will be increasingly challenged in the coming period. Until recnetly they have been if not supported then accepted by the main trade union bueruacracies and the Labour Party leadership. With the recent shift to the left on the part of the trade union leadership, under pressure from an increasingly militant rank and file, they recently called for the right to very limited secondary action at the Labour Party policy forum. More importantly the rank and file has shown it is willing to challenge these laws, last year there was unofficial action taken during the postal strikes and there wa a factor occupation in the west of Scotland, all be it a brief one in 2006. Recent drives towards further indusitral action have included workers stating they were willing to break the law. These laws can easily be overcome if the rnak and file continues to challenge them and could easily be broaken if the trade union and labour bueraucrats were forced to remove them.

The second main reason is one that I would have thought applies to all imperialist countries. This is the shift away from organised heavy industry and introduction of generally casualised forms of work in place. Some of this was political in nature, for instance Thatcher waged an all out war against the miners in an effort to smash them as the most militant wing of the working class. However it is also part of a general trend of the transfer of industry from the impeiralist countries to the ex-colonial countries. The service sectors jobs and low paid jobs in finance capital that have generally replaced them are of course made up of working class people as well who generally recieve worse conidtions and pay due to their lack of an organisation. However the trade union bueraucracies have generally shown themselves to be quite content to rest on their lawrels in heavily indusitralised areas such as public services and the car industry. There have been exceptions such as the unionisation of clearners on the London underground that have shown the ptoential for unionisation in these areas. There is also the example of the McDonald's workers in Glasgow and plenty of exmaples from abroad such as the supersize my paycheck campaign in New Zeland. Generally these have been the effort of motivated rank and file activists willing to fight with a political motiv to ahcieve organisation. In my view the history of the birth of the modern British labour movmenet, new unionism, will have to be repreated to achieve widespread organisation in these areas. It will take the efforts of the motivated rank and file organisers to do so.

I would like to ask Joe Hill's Ghost what he thinks that not paying dues will achieve. To me it seems that it will mearly end in the leadership accusing the socialists in a union of bring scabs and moving for their expulsion. Surely it would be better to attempt to discuss with the rank and file and take the fight into the union itself by posing an alternative.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

I would like to ask Joe Hill's Ghost what he thinks that not paying dues will achieve. To me it seems that it will mearly end in the leadership accusing the socialists in a union of bring scabs and moving for their expulsion. Surely it would be better to attempt to discuss with the rank and file and take the fight into the union itself by posing an alternative.



huh? The idea is that a mass of workers refuse dues, such as an entire factory, local or region. Dues checkoff puts the union bosses in with the real bosses, becuase the capitalists deduct dues directly from your paycheck and give it to the piecards. Clearly the piecards must play nice with the cappies if they wish to keep the dues stream going. When dues are paid by the workers themselves, the union is kept on its toes to some degree.

[bolshevik butcher]

Dues are what keeps the union financed as a whole! Money is nescesary for strike funds, campaigns, to pay the poorly paid full time staff as opposed to the ones at the top. The workers organisation needs money to run and frankly I think by depriving a union of fund you would be seen as an agent provoceateur by most of the rank and file.

Of course it is vital that socialists inside a union agitate against the bueraucrats and challenge them. The demand should be raised that all officials are fully recallable and should not recieve more than the salary of a skilled worker in order to remove the gravy train. However by depriving a union of funds you are starving a working class organisation and I do not think this will be responded to well by a rank and file that correctly realises that it has built the union and struggle through it. Fighting for change within a union is qutie different from destroying it.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Dues are what keeps the union financed as a whole! Money is nescesary for strike funds, campaigns, to pay the poorly paid full time staff as opposed to the ones at the top. The workers organisation needs money to run and frankly I think by depriving a union of fund you would be seen as an agent provoceateur by most of the rank and file.

Of course it is vital that socialists inside a union agitate against the bueraucrats and challenge them. The demand should be raised that all officials are fully recallable and should not recieve more than the salary of a skilled worker in order to remove the gravy train. However by depriving a union of funds you are starving a working class organisation and I do not think this will be responded to well by a rank and file that correctly realises that it has built the union and struggle through it. Fighting for change within a union is qutie different from destroying it.

We shouldn't have paid officials or staff. That's part of the bloody point. They live off of the wages of workers, while workers take all the risk.

You seem to not understand that when a union gets dues from a capitalist employer, those union bosses have a material reason, not to rock the boat. They will never go outside the bounds of legality, becuase the employer has em by the balls already.

When the union must get dues directly from the worker, the union has a material reason to side with the worker. Since without his or her dues, the union boss cannot eat. No one should think that organized withholding of dues is "bad." If a rank and file movement is withholding dues, most likely other rank and filers will either express support or support their right to to take action. If the union ain't treating them right, this is one of the best ways to fix it quick.

[bolshevik butcher]

Full time staff who are fully recallable and on a workers wage may be nescessary for administrative purposes to help run a union but I do generally agree that they should be minimised, and certianly not make political or important organisational descisions.

On the question of withdrawing funds, I think that to advocate wekaening a workers organisation like you describe would generally be a criminal act. Obviously each circumstance is different but surely it would be better to fight for a new structure within the union as part of the general struggle against the bueraucracy. To starve a union, an essential organ of class struggle of funds has the potnetial to destroy strikes and hand victories to the ruling class.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Full time staff who are fully recallable and on a workers wage may be nescessary for administrative purposes to help run a union but I do generally agree that they should be minimised, and certianly not make political or important organisational descisions.

On the question of withdrawing funds, I think that to advocate wekaening a workers organisation like you describe would generally be a criminal act. Obviously each circumstance is different but surely it would be better to fight for a new structure within the union as part of the general struggle against the bueraucracy. To starve a union, an essential organ of class struggle of funds has the potnetial to destroy strikes and hand victories to the ruling class.

Withholding funds is not criminal at all. If workers have grievances that the union is ignoring, they must take action to merit attention. Moreover the workers can and would hold their dues in common, and provide them once the issue is fixed. They also could contribute directly to striking workers, or directly to strike funds. There's no shame starving out the bureacrats.

[bolshevik butcher]

Surely it would be far better to take this fight into the union rather than weaken the organisation? Or is your aim infact to destroy the existing union? I don't think that your tactics will attract mass support from workers who are tied to the union as the organisaiton that they have built up and struggled through. Rather they will see it as adventurism. Attacking and ousting the bueruacrats is entirely correct and should be fought for within the union and through movolising the mass of workers within it as part of their struggle against the bosses.

[chimx]

We shouldn't have paid officials or staff. That's part of the bloody point. They live off of the wages of workers, while workers take all the risk.

I disagree. We need fulltime members whose sole job is to organize and do the massive amount of gruntwork. There is a lot of regulations one has to deal with, legal shit to deal with, etc. These staff positions need to exist, but should be voted on by the union membership, should be temporary until another election, and should be recallable if necessary.

As for withholding dues, if there is the proper recall institutions in place, I don't really see how it would be necessary. If your union lacks the ability to recall officials, than I can understand the need.

---

Getting back to the main article, I think it's pretty clear that the decline in union membership, at least in the US, is due to the exportation of industry and the economy switching to a service sector dominated economy where high turnover rates exist.

On top of that, especially in the construction industry, technological advancements have reduced the need for skilled labor. Masonry, for example, is a dying trade since most shaped "stones" these days are really just stucco with styrofoam underneath. In roofing, the past 2 decades you have seen a switch from hot tar roofing systems to rubber roofing systems which generally requires less skill to put on to a certain degree. That is why most non-union shops will employee primarily kids under 25 and almost exclusively do these types of rubber and vinyl systems. There is less of a need for skilled labor, so it is easy to hire unskilled labor and quickly train them with these new systems. And of course, since the turn-over rate is so high with this unskilled labor, it makes organization campaigns difficult.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

I disagree. We need fulltime members whose sole job is to organize and do the massive amount of gruntwork. There is a lot of regulations one has to deal with, legal shit to deal with, etc. These staff positions need to exist, but should be voted on by the union membership, should be temporary until another election, and should be recallable if necessary.

As for withholding dues, if there is the proper recall institutions in place, I don't really see how it would be necessary. If your union lacks the ability to recall officials, than I can understand the need.



This has never been the case with large syndicalist unions. The CNT had a handful of staff throughout the whole union, and the cnt was bloody big! Much the same for the IWW, though they had some wierd arrangements with delegates iirc. But few staff.

The problem of staff is a problem of class struggle. Staff are taken out of the day to day environment of working and stuck in a union bureaucracy. Because of the contradictions of legal regulations and workers organizations, the union is always under pressure from the state to play nice, and avoid effective tactics at all costs. Staff, who are entrenched in the union, and rely on it for their livelihood and sense of purpose, have a material and emotional interest to protect the union, even if it means the slow death of militancy and the worker's struggle as a whole. Voting in or out particular staff doesn't help or change this situation, becuase its just like voting in politician. you can always "throw the bastards out," but the institutional structure is such that the next set is the same as the old. Eventually staff will use their institutional power to break worker's control of the union and piecard futile unionism will reign the day.

[chimx]

That's why it is important, in my opinion, for staff to come from the union membership. For example, with my union, we are holding elections for staff positions this month. Every candidate is a long-standing worker from the union and will only be elected for one 5 year term until elections happen again. They understand what we need because they are one of us.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

That's why it is important, in my opinion, for staff to come from the union membership. For example, with my union, we are holding elections for staff positions this month. Every candidate is a long-standing worker from the union and will only be elected for one 5 year term until elections happen again. They understand what we need because they are one of us.

That's what always happens. Jimmy Hoffa was a schmo with a union card, then he was a rich schmo with a union card. 5 years is a long time to forget those long days working...and they tend to forget. Are they term limited at least? And what about traditionally appointed positions like organizer, OD director, clerical staff etc? Are these all elected as well?

The main issue remains though, they have a material interest to avoid boat rocking. Even if they're on a short term, contractual legalism makes them accountable for any militant job action that workers take.

[chimx]

Are they term limited at least?

I'm not sure if there is a cap on the amount of times you can run


And what about traditionally appointed positions like organizer, OD director, clerical staff etc?

Almost all of the positions are elected other than the office assistant/secretary person and the head of the apprenticeship program.


5 years is a long time to forget those long days working...and they tend to forget.

Actually you can ask anybody in the union and they'll tell you straight up that the union organizers work much longer hours with no O/T than any member.


contractual legalism makes them accountable for any militant job action that workers take.

Workers are legally obligated to follow their contracts just as much as their union reps they elect. It's the job of the membership to fight for better contracts.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

I'm not sure if there is a cap on the amount of times you can run

Well that's a bit of a problem ain't it?




Almost all of the positions are elected other than the office assistant/secretary person and the head of the apprenticeship program.

This is good.




Actually you can ask anybody in the union and they'll tell you straight up that the union organizers work much longer hours with no O/T than any member.

Organizers always work long hours, I was mostly referring to the top official positions. Though even as an organizer its relatively cushy compared to working as a roofer. I've never roofed, but I've done gutting before, and that was pretty exhausting work. Fun crowbar action though.

Anyway, I've also been employed part time as a youth organizer. Certainly different from labor, in that I didn't have any legal restriants on me, but the work environment is similar. As an organizer the work takes long hours, but it is intellectually challenging, autonomous, and not as physically taxing. I would take it any day over gutting.

And regardless, working as a full time paid organizer in a union puts you in a certain material position. You accrue experience and influence at the expense of the rest of the workers. You become indispensable to any struggle, and thus hold undo power. It builds an unsustainable dynamic of service unionism where the union is alien from the workers, and becomes the work of a small staff rather than the workers themselves.




Workers are legally obligated to follow their contracts just as much as their union reps they elect. It's the job of the membership to fight for better contracts.

Not really. Workers are in some cases responsible for following contracts, but not really. When the TWA went on strike in NY, the workers weren't thrown in jail, the officers were. When workers wildcat (as they always should) its the bureaucracy that gets threatened most. They can lose their jobs, if not their freedom. It becomes a material imperative to stop militant action.

[chimx]

Not really. Workers are in some cases responsible for following contracts, but not really. When the TWA went on strike in NY, the workers weren't thrown in jail, the officers were. When workers wildcat (as they always should) its the bureaucracy that gets threatened most. They can lose their jobs, if not their freedom. It becomes a material imperative to stop militant action.

When workers break their contract first, that throws the union into a whole legal mess that ends up with workers loosing the gains they fought for in their contracts. It makes mediation significantly more difficult too.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

When workers break their contract first, that throws the union into a whole legal mess that ends up with workers loosing the gains they fought for in their contracts. It makes mediation significantly more difficult too.

And contracts tie workers into a legal framework for grievances, wages, and job action. Contractualism has been the death knell of the labor movement. The only contract worth signing is a contract that says "You will pay us x, you will recognize our grievance procedures, we will take whatever job action we please whenever we want."

[chimx]

Maybe in an ideal world, but unions are not nearly strong enough these days to take that kind of stand. Union labor is in the vast minority and if you push too far too fast you run a real risk of seeing your union folding.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Maybe in an ideal world, but unions are not nearly strong enough these days to take that kind of stand. Union labor is in the vast minority and if you push too far too fast you run a real risk of seeing your union folding.


Yes but why are unions weak? Because of contracts and legal restrictions. Direct action gets the goods, it's a historical fact at this point. American unions started their slow decline precisely when contractualism really kicked in.