Trade unions

I just turned in my formal application for membership into a trade union after a long initiation period, and I thought it would be a nice excuse to talk about unions and left communist perceptions.

I have been working my trade for many years in both union and non-union shops. And while I generally agree with the criticisms of trade unions, I have noticed a pronounced difference in the class consciousness of both groups of workers. It's one of the reasons I still tend to favor the idea of transcendence of trade unions rather than their outright rejection.

What are your experiences with trade unions? Where do you stand and why?

outright "rejection" of trade unions is like arguing for outright rejection of the welfare state. trade unions are not revolutionary, and are an organ of the capitalist state. however, it us true that unionized workers tend to have better wages, so there is nothing wrong in joining a union. what is wrong, is arguing that the union can act as a revolutionary organ.

outright "rejection" of trade unions is like arguing for outright rejection of the welfare state. trade unions are not revolutionary, and are an organ of the capitalist state. however, it us true that unionized workers tend to have better wages, so there is nothing wrong in joining a union. what is wrong, is arguing that the union can act as a revolutionary organ.

There are a couple of points here Marmot, first they can not only not act as a revolutionary organ, but they can't act to protect current living conditions. Second, I don't think that the connection between union membership and better wages is a direct relationship.

Finally, I agree that we don't say that it is 'wrong' to join. I think that unions can defend individual workers on individual issues. It is a bit like having house insurance.

Devrim

Working in a trade union is a good gig. Unions are not bad - anymore so than the rest of society which has been co-opted by the commodity form today. The unions were established in early staged of capitalism as a legitimate tool for workers to use on the class front. But after the development and decay of the social welfare state, the role of the unions has shifted from an offensive and authentic expression of working-class struggle, to being a game of conciliation with the ruling class to keep what's left of our concessions from the Fordist era.

The thing is that capitalism in the northwest hemisphere is not capable of sustaining the profit margins necessary to make a social safety-net profitable anymore. For the last thirty years, the income rates of the bourgeoisie have been falling - despite all their efforts against it. This trend has been developing for three decades (besides the speculative boom of the late-90's, which was obviously exaggerated) - and is only getting worse. A google search will reveal that most bourgeois have been forced to accept the fact the economy is in a deep recession - which usually means it's significantly worse. We could very well be seeing recession of American capital into crisis.

outright "rejection" of trade unions is like arguing for outright rejection of the welfare state.

Or of the capitalist state in general.

Second, I don't think that the connection between union membership and better wages is a direct relationship.

I do. When I worked in a non-union shop I made $14 per hour. Now I am a union shop I make $21/hr. Unions also guarantee medical benefits and a retirement pension, both of which often don't exist in non-union shops.

This year my union is going to re-negotiate our contracts and fight to get the membership better wages than what owners want to pay. In the past we have had to strike to get just that. How is this not fighting to protect member's living standards? (This process is also very open and most of the membership gets together to discuss and vote on this process. It's not as bureaucratic as some people think.)

Also, I think you are seeing some shake up in the union bureaucracy these days. In the US the AFL-CIO is breaking up and the CtW federation is on the rise. This means unions are having to compete against each other for their membership to some degree.

Or of the capitalist state in general.

yes but what i meant is that you cannot just remove a part without removing everything. the refusal of this society needs to be total. you cant just refuse pensions and universal healthcare without refusing capital completely.

it is true union benefits are diminishing but its still better to be unionized than to not have a union.

I do. When I worked in a non-union shop I made $14 per hour. Now I am a union shop I make $21/hr. Unions also guarantee medical benefits and a retirement pension, both of which often don't exist in non-union shops.

It doesn't show causation and result. Generally the most militant groups of workers tend to be unionised. It is entirely possible that both the unionisation, and the higher wages are a result of militancy.

Devrim

yes but what i meant is that you cannot just remove a part without removing everything. the refusal of this society needs to be total. you cant just refuse pensions and universal healthcare without refusing capital completely.

Very true. I don't see how this connects to this:

its still better to be unionized than to not have a union.

I don't think we can say that as a general rule. In some cases it is better. In some it doesn't make much of a difference. I don't think it is the point either. The main points are about the role trade-unions take today in sabotaging the struggles of the working class and mobilizing the working class on various bourgeois purposes, that trade unions are an ossified part of the bourgeois state and capitalism which cannot under no circumstance be won back by the working class from the inside and that building "red unions" outside the traditional unions is not possible as to be a real trade-union means capitulating the "red" aspect of the "union". So communist work in trade-unionism is not possible, and is bound to lead to careerism if pursued. This is not to say, of course, that communists should not talk to unionized workers or even speak at union meetings etc. if they have the chance but that any work within the trade union structure is not possible.

However, of course communist workers have their own lives and in situations where they have to be members of unions in order to work (in closed shops) or in situations where being in the union clearly means earning more money, then obviously there is no problem in militants being in trade-unions. However, it is a case-by-case issue, and more importantly it is something which doesn't have anything to do with political work.

i never said unions are not an ossified part of capitalist organization, nor i said unions can be means for political work. i was simply arguing that generally, at least in the states, is better to be a union worker in terms of protection and money. i think devrim hit the nail on the head--it probably has to do with unions holding the most militant and conscious workers. furthermore, there is nothing wrong in doing political work inside the union, and by this i dont mean using the unions structure--by this i mean reaching to unionized workers, who generally tend to be more militant.

But lets say for sake of argument comrades-- in the West, production jobs are going overseas, while other areas are industrializing. Unions are declining in the west, while the industrializing areas union membership is climbing. In the West unions are keeling over, while in other parts of the world they should be stronger, and less compromising.

This rise in union membership should increase working-class actions, consciousness and possibly revolutionary consciousness, because they do not have to compromise.

i never said unions are not an ossified part of capitalist organization, nor i said unions can be means for political work.

No, I didn't mean to say that you said any of those.

i was simply arguing that generally, at least in the states, is better to be a union worker in terms of protection and money. i think devrim hit the nail on the head--it probably has to do with unions holding the most militant and conscious workers. furthermore, there is nothing wrong in doing political work inside the union, and by this i dont mean using the unions structure--by this i mean reaching to unionized workers, who generally tend to be more militant.

Of course there is nothing wrong in reaching unionized workers. But by the phrase "doing political work inside the union" I understand using the unions structure. Reaching unionized workers, you do in a demo, or in a meeting, or in the workplace, or in a pub after work etc.

i think devrim hit the nail on the head--it probably has to do with unions holding the most militant and conscious workers.

I would argue that this is true because unions inevitably tend to make workers more conscious and militant and not the other way around. My union has been around for almost 100 years and as people join through the years consciousness develops because the collective bargaining process highlights the distinction between employee and employer. Despite the fact that trade unions will doubtfully ever be revolutionary organs, this is why I still think unionization is important. I would argue that unionized workers are more likely to develop class consciousness and are consequently more likely to participate in other revolutionary organs outside of their unions.

What I should have asked; is why are unions in industrializing areas still compromising, and detering workers struggles, when their numbers are growing?

I would argue that this is true because unions inevitably tend to make workers more conscious and militant and not the other way around.

Union membership is not what makes workers class conscious. Struggle is. And workplace struggle happens in places with unions, and without unions.

Your argument seems even in its own terms to be on unstable ground though. Why do people join unions? Surely that shows some degree of class consciousness. That suggests that it is the other way round.

Of course the unions in the US are not clearly acting against the class struggle because the class struggle is not open itself. Interestingly enough though even some Trotskyists seem to have noticed the nature of the unions in the US:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/nov2007/uaw-n06.shtml

The biggest problem with this argument though is that it is based on the situation in a particular country, the USA, which has a very low level of class struggle. In my opinion it is always important to look at international tendencies.

Things look very different in places where the unions are confronted with large open struggles.

Devrim

Your argument seems even in its own terms to be on unstable ground though. Why do people join unions? Surely that shows some degree of class consciousness.

People join trade unions so that they are allowed to work. except right to work states, which are in the south, unions have negotiated terms that require employers to hire from unions exclusively. This is the case with my union and most other unions in Washington. There are non-union shops in Washington mind you, but they pay their employees significantly less.

So again, from my experience with unions, people join them because they have to for proper employment, not for ideological reasons.

The biggest problem with this argument though is that it is based on the situation in a particular country, the USA, which has a very low level of class struggle. In my opinion it is always important to look at international tendencies.

This is why I had originally asked for people's personal experiences with trade unions. This is just mine.

People join trade unions so that they are allowed to work. except right to work states, which are in the south, unions have negotiated terms that require employers to hire from unions exclusively. This is the case with my union and most other unions in Washington. There are non-union shops in Washington mind you, but they pay their employees significantly less.

So again, from my experience with unions, people join them because they have to for proper employment, not for ideological reasons.

I didn't realise that this was true in parts of the US. This practice is illegal in many countries. I worked in a (post-entry) closed shop back in the 80s.

It was a system that was sometimes used against militant workers. The Grunwicks' strike being the most famous example.

Devrim

Even though union membership in my workplace(royal mail) seems to make people less afraid to voice their opinions, it seems to me that far too many of my fellow workers unquestionally most of the times goes along with what the unionleadership says.
Yes i think unionised workers tend to be slightly more militant at times but with a leadership so far up the Labour partys arse it doesnt look to get much further than the odd strike which most of the time leads to some sellout etc

Honestly I think that is a problem of labor's political apathy rather than a unions "unstoppable bureaucracy". If members gave a shit, they could show up for meetings and vote the leaders out and elect leaders of a more radical variant. Union bureaucracy just seems to be used too often as a scape goat for the left. Granted other unions are different, but at least in my union (which is a large international union), we all vote on matters in a more directly democratic way. If we don't like something, we show up to the meeting tell 'em to get fucked, and than vote appropriately with our coworkers.

I was in the UK during the last postman's strike there and talked to some people that I knew from when I was a postman there. For me one of the most amazing things was that some of the younger workers that I was introduced to talked about how the union these days was terrible, and said that it was much better in my day.

The union in those days was a s bad as it is today.

The enthusiasm expressed by Chimax for his union will probably be tempered when he has had more than a month's membership.

Devrim

chimx

In the sector where I work over the past 4 decades the unons (and there a fair number of them slicing up the work force) had spearhead the attack on our conditions. Faced with each wave of attacks: new working practices, wage structures, pension changes, lay-offs; the unions have all expressed their determination to defend the membership (in their different ways depending on the role of the union: be it for the more skilled or the more 'manual' workers) talked tough, even organised a strike or two, but in the end they 'recluctently' agree to a 'modified' version of the original plan. In some work places there are 4 or 5 different terms of contract depnding on how long you have worked there, and the conditions are a lot worse for the newer workers.
On an everyday level the stewards are generally pretty militant, not willing to let their members be walked all over, and as Devrim says on an individual basis the stewards can get some improvement, or rather limit the depth of the attack. But it is this militant appears in the work place that enables the unions to keep their hold over the work place.
Whilst the experiences of comrades are very important, these can not detract from the need to have an overall view of the unions. To those who sees some possibel good in the unions my experience is simply an expression of the weigth of the union machine and not the product of the nature of the unions. For Left Communist the central question is what is the nature and role of the unions. For the ICC we see the unions as being an integral part of the state, infact its bastion against the class.
To give an important example: the miners strike of 84-85. It was not the police, politicians or media that stopped the miners spreading the struggle to the whole the mining industry and beyond but the NUM. Initially it told miners to wait for the non-striking areas to vote, this left those hesitating areas isolated from the striking miners and pray to the full weight of this isolation the media etc. Once this areas showed they were not going to strike, the unions focused the whole struggle on getting these areas out. All talk of going to others workers was seen as being secondary to getting the none strike areas out. Time and time again in discussions with the miners, and even other workers, there was an agreement for all workers to struggle but only once all the miners were out. We were also told of incidences where the NUM and Steel and Power unions stopped workers in these sectors joining up. There were also the two dockers strikes during the miners strike, and it was the unions that did all they could to keep the struggles separate. Without the unions to undermine the struggles from within the state would have been faced with the real possibility of the miners strike igniting an unprecedented wave of struggles in Britain,. It was the NUM and its radical supporters that strengled the miners strike and helped the British ruling class deliver a powerful blow against the struggle in Britain and internationally.

In the sector I work in, the last 4 decades have seen the unions leading the attacks on working conditions, through new pay structures, increasing skill mixes, pension changes, lay-offs. Each time a new plan is proposed the unions put up a display of careing for the membership some even call strikes or demonstrates, but in the end always agree to a 'moderated' verions of the plan. The implaced of this process can been seen in the different terms and conditioins that apply to workers depedenig on how long they have been in the job. Those with more years supposedly have more 'protections and benefits',whilst those who have come in other under other pay schemes etc have less and less such protection and benefits. In some work places there can be 4 or 5 different terms and conditions in operation depending upon how long someone has worked there.
On an everyday level the stewards are usually pretty militant and concerned to defend their members, but then they would useless at getting workers in to the union prision if they weren't. They are often pretty critical of the union structure, but in the end say that the union is the only defence workers have. But in the end as the union rep they are responsible for ensuring that the latest attack/plan is implemented given that the union has agreed to it. They are the ones who will persuede the workers to stick to the deal agreed by the union, not management. They may say they do not agree with the deal but that is what has been agreed.
This day to day reinforcing of the hold of the unions over the class, especially the most important concentrations of the class in society, is a vital part of the role of the unions in maintaining discipline on the shop floor. Once they are not able to do this, they have to be able to absorb workers anger in the union structure, above all to nip any tendencies towards going beyond divisions in the workplace and towards going to other workers, in the bud.
One of the most important historical examples of this was the 84-85 miners strike. The defeat of this struggle had a huge impact on the working class not only in Britain but internationally. The long drawn out grinding defeat of this historical important part of the proletariat was achieved for the ruling class not by Thatcher, the Tories, Labour or the media but the unions. When the strike initially broke out as a wildcat, miners in South Wales, Scotland and Yorkshire went to other areas to spread the strike. It was the NUM that persuede them to leave certain areas in order to allow a vote on joining the strike, thus isolating these areas from the influence of the striking miners, form the possibility of discussing the strike, whether to join or not with workers from other areas. This breathing space took the initial wind out of the movement and allowed the hesitant areas to be isolated and worked on. Once they voted against the strike, the NUM focused the strike on gettng them out, i.e., on keeping the strike confined to miners. This was a time of great discontant in the class and the class were watching the miners struggle. Any move by miners to go to other workers would have probably acted as a match to the powder keg of the boiliing discontent. Thus it was absolutely essential to keep the miners from doing this, and this the NUM did very well. Miners were focused on closing down all the mines etc, Time and time again in discussion with striking miners they would agree that the class needed to struggle together but they needed to close all the pits before asking other workers to join them. It was not only the NUM that isolated the miners, the dock workers union managed to keep the two dock strikes isolated from the miners. We also leant of two episodes where the Steel, Power and miners unions did all in their power to stop local initiative by these workers to struggle or even meet together. It was the unions with the NUM in the vanguard that enabled the British state to deliever its blow against the class.
For a more detailed anaylsis of the strike and the role of the unions read After 20 years: Lessons of the miners' strike are still relevant [URL="http://en.internationalism.org/wr/273_1984.htm
It is important that comrades give their individual experiences but we have to place these in an overall political framework concerning the nature of the unions. For the ICC the unions are an integral part of the state, in fact they are the bastion of the state against the class. They are integral to keeping alive the idea that workers can gain something from capitalism, not matter how difficult this is. Above all they are the prison that maintains discipline on the shopfloor for the majority of the time and when strikes break out they are the instrument that the state uses to contol them: it is the unions that stands in the way of the spreading of the struggles beyond the confines of the workplace, sector, industry etc.
As for communist working in the unions, if this means being stewards etc that can only mean being part of the process of maintaining the capitalist states hold over the class. If you conceive of the unions as being part of the state, communist cannot be part of them in any way (unless you have to join a join to get work). This does not mean that communist should not take advantage of meetings called to discuss strikes etc in order to put forwards the need to spread the struggle, because clearly many workers will attend such meetings, but often it is very difficult to get into them without a union card however, but we can sell and discuss outside before and after the meeting. But these meetings are themselves the means the unions use to try and control the struggles. If we can get into a meeting clearly we do not start by saying the unions are part of the state etc but rather put forwards the need to spread the struggle (and this is usually enough to get you silenced or thrown out) because this is the central concern. Though at times it is necessary to say the unions are seeking to strangle the struggle and to denounce the role of the unions if the workers are being crushed by them. What we say in such meetings is dependent upon dynamic of the struggle.

Sorry for the two posts, but I managed to mess up the editing and ended up with two (which say more or less the same thing). For some reason when I try to edit now it will not load! So I have left both, I apologise

I'm really interested in discussing the union question. I've recently read about 50 pages of left-communist and council-communist and "ultra-left" critique of the unions, and also recently wrote something about my own attempt to grapple with the union question and try to more fully understand the integration of the unions into the state-capitalist machine.

Here's what I wrote:
http://en.internationalism.org/inter/i52/letter

Also, there's an interesting thread on libcom right now about critiques of unions:
http://libcom.org/forums/theory/comm...tions-13102009

Understanding state-capitalism has really helped me understand the left-communist understanding of unions.

-soyon stout