UK Unite union merging with US United Steel Workers union

[chimx]

As I'm sure many of you know, there are talks right now going on to merge Unite in the UK with the USW in the US, which would make a pretty massive transatlantic labor union with 3 million some workers. Not only that, but I believe they are also trying to coax other countries into a labor alliance.

What are people's thoughts on this? I would be particularly interested in a left communist critique of such a move since it is obviously working with in a trade unionist model, but working to internationalize workers and working class struggles: "While big business is global and labour is national, we are going to be at a disadvantage" - Unite Union

[chegitz guevara]

I wonder if that's legal.

[chimx]

The union would have to follow national labor laws.

[Cult of Reason]

In my uneducated opinion, it would make more sense to unite among EU countries, due to proximity and (presumably) (ever) closer labour laws, than to have a union across such a distance. Am I wrong?

[YKTMX]

This endless amalgamation is only going to create even more cumbersome, detached and non-responsive bureaucracies. "Unite" itself is the product of the merger between Amicus and the TGWU in Britain. Both the General Secretaries, Derek Simpson and Tony Woodley, are arch Labour supporters and not combative at all. They should be concentrating on getting more people in their own Trade Unions.

This is all part of the race to the bottom strategy favoured by the union leadership on both sides of the Atlantic.

[chimx]

race to the bottom strategy

What do you mean by that?

[YKTMX]

What do you mean by that?

What I mean is that these tactics are purely defensive. They think that by creating internationalized trade unions they can "defend" themselves better. They have no ideas about breathing new life into the trade union movement, they don't really think people can be won to trade unionism (they probably think the "working class" is finished). Their strategy therefore is to "bolster" their existing organizations, amalgamate all the members and then, somehow although it's never explained, we'll be stronger. Meanwhile, the trade union movement as a whole loses members.

[Zurdito]

In my uneducated opinion, it would make more sense to unite among EU countries, due to proximity and (presumably) (ever) closer labour laws, than to have a union across such a distance. Am I wrong?

you are not wrong. as YKTMX is saying, basically what this is about is the right-wing of the trade union bureaucracy (UNITE leader Tony Woodley is one of the government's staunchest allies against even left-wing bureaucrats like Mark Serwotka) trying to create "super-unions" much like you have in the US, which operate along a business model and compete across sectors with other unions to offer the "best deal" to their members ina completely depoliticised sense, i.e. workers are supposed to become "consumers of trade unionism"

of course this talk about "internatioanlism" is completely hypocritical, the UNITE bureaucrats are looking towards the US because that's the model they want here. They certainly aren't looking to "unite" with militant French and Italian workers as they threaten to derail the implementation of a succesful neo-liberal EU economic model.

[YKTMX]

which operate along a business model and compete across sectors with other unions to offer the "best deal" to their members ina completely depoliticised sense, i.e. workers are supposed to become "consumers of trade unionism"

It's even worse than this. They basically want to turn trade unions is to second human resources departments.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The union would have to follow national labor laws.

Each section is going to remain independent on some things, but will supposedly work together on organizing campaigns and bargaining with bosses that employ workers in both countries.

[chimx]

Do you think this will really amount to anything though? I generally agree with the negative sentiments raised by other members.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ As I said before (Workers' Movements), there are unintended benefits (breaking down of working-class nationalism).

[thejambo1]

it seems a move destined to create some sort of monster union that will be bogged down in red tape and beaurocracy. i think indeed as others have said its a further death knell on the big unions that have become toothless and totally unaware of the ordinary members aims and problems.

[InTheMatterOfBoots]

you are not wrong. as YKTMX is saying, basically what this is about is the right-wing of the trade union bureaucracy (UNITE leader Tony Woodley is one of the government's staunchest allies against even left-wing bureaucrats like Mark Serwotka) trying to create "super-unions" much like you have in the US, which operate along a business model and compete across sectors with other unions to offer the "best deal" to their members ina completely depoliticised sense, i.e. workers are supposed to become "consumers of trade unionism"

of course this talk about "internatioanlism" is completely hypocritical, the UNITE bureaucrats are looking towards the US because that's the model they want here. They certainly aren't looking to "unite" with militant French and Italian workers as they threaten to derail the implementation of a succesful neo-liberal EU economic model.

I totally agree. This push for bigger and bigger unions has nothing to do with genuine proletarian internationalism. It is about shifts in the global economy that have led to a rethink and an attempted bolstering of the old corporatist trade union-state negotiating model. Trade unions (particularly in the Uk) are almost entirely marginalised from the political process. This attempt to unite an increasing number of workers under one negotiating mechanism is just an attempt to strengthen their political standing in the eyes of the capitalist class. The more workers they control, the greater their significance to the state.

I don't even agree that this has positive implications in terms of breaking down nation-state boundaries. These amalgamations do not bring workers together only the trade union bureaucracies and the suits at the very top. Proletarian internationalism (when it was at its most threatening) was a rank and file movement powered by cycles of solidarity actions and militancy on the shop floor.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Why the prevalent ultra-left attitude towards what is clearly a good thing for both workers' rights and workers' solidarity?



The Labour Movement: One Big Union

“Under certain circumstances this sort of competition, like that of the capitalists, may lead to a new emphasis on national lines, a new hatred of foreign workers on the part of the native born. But the conflict of nationalities, which is perpetual among the capitalists, can be only temporary among the proletarians. For sooner or later the workers will discover that the immigration of cheap labor-power from the more backward to the more advanced countries, is as inevitable a result of the capitalist system […]” (Karl Kautsky)

The past two or three years have seen tremendous developments in regards to the mobility of labour. Granted, it was only years earlier that mobility of labour came about with the “globalization” phenomenon, resulting in increased emigration and immigration between countries, as well as mergers amongst national unions in reaction to declines in union membership, but now it has entered into a stage of maturity, in the form of union globalization. Indeed, said Kautsky:

German workers have every reason to co-operate with the Slavs and Italians in order that these may secure higher wages and a shorter working-day; the English workers have the same interest in relation to the Germans, and the Americans in relation to Europeans in general.

Before union globalization, there was already the transnational coordination amongst national unions, involving the Communications Workers of America, the Service Employees International Union (covering the United States and Canada), and the United Steelworkers, among other national unions in Europe and even South America. This transnational coordination was made possible due to consolidations amongst employers, thus resulting in more common employers, from Alcoa to Bridgestone to Georgia-Pacific.

In April 2007, the United Steelworkers entered into merger negotiations with what was then the United Kingdom’s second-largest trade union, Amicus. Shortly afterwards, Amicus merged with the Transport and General Workers’ Union to form UNITE. This new union then agreed to merge with the United Steelworkers and thus form the world’s first multinational trade union (not to be confused with mere multinational trade union federations such as the International Trade Union Confederation).

"While big business is global and labour is national, we are going to be at a disadvantage," said UNITE spokesman Andrew Murray. Said fellow UNITE trade unionist Derek Simpson, “We have a view that we need a global trade union in order to be able to deal effectively and on a par with the many global companies that we now have members working for.” The benefits of this union globalization are obvious: outsourcing to cheaper locations abroad may be more difficult (notwithstanding increases in oil forcing outsourcing to head closer to home and not further abroad), criticisms of labour protectionism by the corporate champions of “globalization” can be muted, and some market analysts have already warned about the prospects of global strikes. Overall, global working-class solidarity is increased. Said Kautsky:

Such a bridging of the chasm between the nations, such an international amalgamation of great sections of the people of different lands, the history of the world has never seen before.



REFERENCES:

Unions for a Global Economy by Harold Meyerson [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...042502409.html]

UK and US unions to “join forces” by BBC News [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7419256.stm]

Forming a transatlantic labor union by Marketplace [http://marketplace.publicradio.org/d...uniting_unions]

Globalization being undone by high oil costs: CIBC by The Canadian Press [http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2008/05/27/cibc.html]

[Svante]

I totally agree. This push for bigger and bigger unions has nothing to do with genuine proletarian internationalism. It is about shifts in the global economy that have led to a rethink and an attempted bolstering of the old corporatist trade union-state negotiating model. Trade unions (particularly in the Uk) are almost entirely marginalised from the political process. This attempt to unite an increasing number of workers under one negotiating mechanism is just an attempt to strengthen their political standing in the eyes of the capitalist class. The more workers they control, the greater their significance to the state.

I don't even agree that this has positive implications in terms of breaking down nation-state boundaries. These amalgamations do not bring workers together only the trade union bureaucracies and the suits at the very top. Proletarian internationalism (when it was at its most threatening) was a rank and file movement powered by cycles of solidarity actions and militancy on the shop floor.

je consens,globalisation i s not so good for labour. then you say union they join togethre t o respond t o globalisation b y business. when union get big this should b e good for labour. then are you say unions need better leaders?

[InTheMatterOfBoots]

Why the prevalent ultra-left attitude towards what is clearly a good thing for both workers' rights and workers' solidarity?

Because it actually has nothing to do with workers' rights or solidarity. It is about the trade union apparatus attempting to re-assert it's political position in a globalised economy.

Before union globalization, there was already the transnational coordination amongst national unions, involving the Communications Workers of America, the Service Employees International Union (covering the United States and Canada), and the United Steelworkers, among other national unions in Europe and even South America. This transnational coordination was made possible due to consolidations amongst employers, thus resulting in more common employers, from Alcoa to Bridgestone to Georgia-Pacific.

"union globalization"? what about proletarian internationalism? Your corporate terminology is meaningless. So trade union leaderships have replicated the expansion of corporate power across the globe. Big whoop!? Give me one instance in which this has practically proved to bridge national divides between workers in struggle? Such partnerships are utterly meaningless except in the hands of the union negotiator.

"While big business is global and labour is national, we are going to be at a disadvantage," said UNITE spokesman Andrew Murray. Said fellow UNITE trade unionist Derek Simpson, “We have a view that we need a global trade union in order to be able to deal effectively and on a par with the many global companies that we now have members working for.”

Demonstrating exactly the point i was making.

some market analysts have already warned about the prospects of global strikes. Overall, global working-class solidarity is increased.

This does not follow from either the events described or your analysis of them.

[YKTMX]

Why the prevalent ultra-left attitude towards what is clearly a good thing for both workers' rights and workers' solidarity?

These men are not wobblies. I'll say it again: they are ARCH New Labourites and career trade union bureaucrats who are concerned with protecting their own power and influence, not being combative trade unionists.

Why would we expect men who can't buck up the courage to oppose our neo-liberal government to do so anywhere else?

As I said, Simpson and Woodley think endless amalgamation is a substitute for militancy, not a precondition for it.

[Die Neue Zeit]

While I am very surprised and disappointed at the horrendously ultra-left sentiments expressed in this thread, I certainly hope that my position will become clearer when I'm finished with the next section of my WIP: Beyond the Labour Movement (the implication here is indeed that trade union organization, while key to restarting the class-consciousness process, needs to be transcended afterwards ASAP).

http://www.revleft.com/vb/workers-mo...942/index.html

[InTheMatterOfBoots]

While I am very surprised and disappointed at the horrendously ultra-left sentiments expressed in this thread

Simply repeating opposing positions as "ultra left" does not make your argument any more valid or relevant. Neither is there an issue of clarity. For all the lengthy rhetoric your analysis is fundamentally removed from any experience or histroical understanding of workers struggles and the real world.