-----Original Message----- From: Andrew English <aenglish at igc.org> To: mn labor <mnlabor at egroups.com> Date: Wednesday, June 07, 2000 9:17 PM Subject: Bill Fletcher: Tasks of a Revitalized Labor Movement (fwd)
>
>
>
>
>> The following is a speech that Bill Fletcher -- assistant to
President
>>John Sweeney of the AFL-CIO -- delivered at a gathering sponsored by the
>>Thomas Merton Center here in Pittsburgh back on October 21, 1999>
>>
>>
>>*****************
>>Tasks for a Revitalized Union Movement
>>by Bill Fletcher, Jr.
>>
>>Good evening and thank you very much for inviting me to speak with you
>>today.
>>
>> We live in a paradoxical situation. Consider for a moment. We have a
>>polarization of wealth in the USA, te likes of which we ahve not seen
since
>>the 1920s. We have the production of jobs which few people relish since
>>many of them are part-time or temporary, but are creating a rather tight
>>job market. We have seen 25 years of a declining or stagnating living
>>standard, which has only turned around recently with the tight job market.
>>We now have a stock market in flux and anyone's guess as to what will
>>happen.
>>
>> Yet despite both the good and bad economic times the trade union
>>movement -- irrespective of real excitement and promise -- has notyet
taken
>>off as a mass upsurge. Dont' get me wrong. We have, at least for now,
>>stopped the decline in members and there has been some growth in absolute
>>numbers. The trade union movement is getting far more press attention than
>>at any point in the last 20 years. And there is a growing favorability
>>rating for trade unions. But what we have not seen is the type of dramatic
>>growth which one witnessed in earlier periods, such as with the Knights of
>>Labor in the 1870s and 1880s; the CIO in the 1930s and early 1940s; the
>>public sector unions in the 1960s and early 1970s. We have witnessed
energy
>>and dynamism from countless organizers. We have witnessed important
>>victories such as the Steelworkers at Ravenswood; the Teamsters with UPS;
>>and the UAW in '98. We have seen important organizing victories, such as
>>SEIU's homecare organizing in Los Angeles which brought into the union
>>movement more than 70,000 workers. Yet this has not translated into what
>>can be described as a mass upsurge.
>>
>> I am not going to spout platitudes about how victory is inevitable,
or
>>how truth, justice and the "American way" are on our side, because the
>>reality is that while truth may be on our side, there is little justice in
>>the American way, and the reality is that victory is never inevitable.
>>
>> So, let's look at our situation and consider a few points. Mass
>>movements, and specifically mass upsurges, are never planned events. If
one
>>looks at one of the premier examples from our times, that is the Civil
>>Rights Movement, one can see how matters tend to unfold. First of all, too
>>many histories identify the start of the Civil Rights Movement with Rosa
>>Parks and the Montgomery Bus Boycott in 1955-56. Second, these histories
>>make it all appear -- and this may sound like a contradiction -- that this
>>was all spontaneous.
>>
>> The Civil Rights Movement, first of all, represented the accumulation
>>of struggles for African-American freedom which, I would argue, go back to
>>the end of the Garvey Movement and the struggle of African-Americans in
the
>>1930s. It invovled the struggles during the Depression concerning the New
>>Deal and its impact -- or lack thereof -- on African-Americans; the work
of
>>several CIO unions in opposing racial discrimination in the workforce;
>>struggles during World War II which ultimately led to the desegregation of
>>the military; the March on Washington Movement; the National Negro
>>Congress; the Congress of Racial Equality; the Supreme Court case of
Steele
>>vs. Louisville RR; the activities of the Communist Party and other
leftists
>>in the fight for equality; the growth and suppression of the National
Negro
>>Labor Council . . . I could go on and on, but I think that you see my
>>point. The Civil Rights Movement -- that is the events which we associate
>>with the period from roughly 1955 until 1973 -- did not come out of
>>nowhere. They were the result of various struggles and efforts taken by
>>countless organizations and individuals, often in relative isolation.
>>
>> My second point is that conscious action was critical, at each stage,
>>in advancing the movement, but one could _never_ predict the outcome of
>>that conscious action. Let me give you an example. Popular mythology says
>>that on a particular day in December 1955, one Rosa Parks got on a bus and
>>got tired. She refused to move when asked to and thus the movement took
>>off. This is entirely false. Rosa Parks was part of an organization called
>>the Montgomery Improvement Association, one of whose leaders was E. D.
>>Nixon, a trade union leader from the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters.
>>The MIA had been looking for a way to demonstrate against and overturn the
>>segregation of transportation facilities and Rosa Parks -- an activist who
>>had attended trainings at the Highlander Educational Center in
Tennessee --
>>happened to be someone who was willing to take the plunge. There ahd been
>>earlier examples of civil disobedience in the bus system of Montgomery,
but
>>those examples did not catch on for a variety of reasons. Rosa Parks's
>>action did. She was no victim, nor was she an accident. She was an
>>activist. And, neither she nor the MIA, nor the relatively unknown new,
>>young minister, Martin Luther King, had any idea how this incident would
>>unfold.
>>
>> So, drawing from this, let me make these points. The creation of any
>>upsurge is the result of activities where those involved have no way of
>>predicting the outcome. The activities may help to lay the foundation for
a
>>massive upsurge, or they may result in heroic activity which does not
>>translate into anything (there are many historical examples of this, such
>>as with the IWW in some of their campaigns). But, second one cannot then
>>turn to fatalism and say "what will be, will be," since it is the
conscious
>>activity of the activists and the masses who follow them which helps to
>>advance the conditions leading to a social explosion.
>>
>> When we look at the trade union movement, though, we have to consider
>>some other issues when one thinks about its resurgence or transformation.
>>The rise of any movement is often tied to the existence of other
movements.
>>In other words, a social upsurge does not happen in isolation. The Civil
>>Rights Movement, for example, helped to inspire the anti-Vietnam War
>>movement, but the two movements interacted and helped to fuel other social
>>explosions. The rise of the CIO in the 1930s took place in the context of
>>the rise of fascism worldwide, and the international united front which
was
>>emerging to counter it. It took place in the context of a massive
>>Depression, as well as the transformation of the African-American
movement.
>>
>> Thus, when we think about the reawakening of the trade union
movement,
>>it is hardly impossible, or I should say, it is foolhardy to think of it
in
>>isolation from other social movements and other domestic and international
>>events. Part of what seems to happen, during periods of upsurge,is that
>>masses of people (never the majority, but huge numbers, capable of shaping
>>opinions and reality) recognize that existing conditions can no longer
>>continue and that something must be done. In that context they begin
>>looking for a variety of forms of expression for their outrage, and for
>>their hope.
>>
>> I should say something about this thing called "hope." Many people
>>looked skeptically, if not cynically, when Jesse Jackson coined the
slogan,
>>"Keep Hope Alive," but I think that a critical point was missed. Without
>>"hope" people are almost incapable of heroic action. That "hope" may be
>>based on a vision -- without a vision the people will perish -- or it
might
>>be based on faith, or it might be based on some sort of historical
>>analysis, but the hope lays the foundation for people to take remarkable
>>steps forward.
>>
>> So what is this all to say, besides the fact that I love to speak
>>about history? _We_, meaning the collective _we_ of trade unionists, need
>>to rethink trade unions and trade unionism. There are many labor leaders
>>who think about the re-emergence of trade unionism the way that one would
>>think about filling a balloon. You ahve the balloon and you simply pump
air
>>into it. In time the balloon grows, but it is always the same balloon.
>>
>> What history teaches us is that mass upsurges have the potential to
>>transform or render irrelevant institutions and bring into being or come
to
>>represent new social movements. Mass upsurges do not accomodate themselves
>>to that which exists. Existing institutions may be able to help to shape
>>(and be reshaped by) these movements, but they do not simply become the
>>receptacles for the movements.
>>
>> This point is critical when we think about where we are. It is very
>>likely that as long as there is the capitalist system, there will be
>>resistance and organization by the working class. There are countless
>>historical examples from the USA and elsewhere to support that conclusion.
>>What we cannot say, however, is whether the movement which we currently
>>think of as organized labor will survive in its current form. There ahve
>>been a variety of forms of labor organization throughout US history going
>>back to slave insurrections, municipal labor parties, the Knights of
Labor,
>>the IWW, the AFL, the CIO . . . There ahve been independent unions and
>>associations, all of which have reflected the varying degrees of working
>>class consciousness and organization. There is nothing, and I repeat
>>_nothing_ which guarantees that the current form of organization which we
>>have will continue much into the 21st century. If this depresses you it is
>>not intended to do so, nor should it. It is to say that we must look at
the
>>trade union movement as the catalyst for the development of a labor
>>movement in the USA. It means that the work which we currently do is
>>actually aimed at laying the foundation for the altering of class
relations
>>in the USA, principally through the changing class consciousness and
>>organization of the US working class. This is a mighty task and it
>>necessitates a profound commitment to labor education, organizing the
>>unorganized, and the transformation of our unions into truly fighting
>>organizations which embrace diversity and lock arms with other social
>>movements. The objective of this work is nothing short of the creation of
a
>>social bloc of forces capable of changing the politics and economics of
the
>>USA.
>>
>> So what does this mean for the everyday trade unionist? Let me
suggest
>>a few things:
>>
>>* We must rethink our organizations: We have so disconnected with our
>>memebrs that they tend not to see the union as a vehicle for much more
than
>>the fight for their benefits. I believe that we must ask ourselves this
>>question: Let's say that a space ship landed here in Pittsburgh and the
>>visitors came out and asked us how to prove that the unions truly
>>represented their members and were controlled by their members. How would
>>we do that? I am not trying to be cynical. I am posing the question we
need
>>to ask and to prove. How do we ensure that the organizations we call trade
>>unions are truly worker-controlled? How do we ensure that they fulfill the
>>needs of their members?
>>
>>* Labor education takes ona new meaning: For nearly 50 years, our unions
>>have acted as if labor education, if it has any importance, is about
>>skills, e.g., how to be a good steward. We have so narrowed the parameters
>>of labor education, at least until fairly recently, so that it is about
>>technique. In many cases, it has been eliminated entirely because it is
>>thought to be unnecessary. Labor education must take on a new meaning and
>>that meaning needs to be about class and social justice. People learn many
>>things from their own experiences, but those experiences always need to be
>>interpreted. I rememebr in the '60s, some people said that people became
>>raidcalized if they were beaten by a cop at a demonstration. Well, some
>>folks did become radicalized, but other drew very different conclusions:
>>for example, stay the hell away from demonstrations. Labor education needs
>>to be about interpreting the experience of the working class, throught
>>their own eyes. It needs to be about class and what that represents, and
it
>>needs to be about struggle. But that struggle, as I noted earlier, is not
a
>>struggle which takes place in isolation, and that is where the matter of
>>social justice emerges. The working class struggle must be a struggle to
>>change the larger conditions of injustice. When that struggle remains a
>>struggle at a particular workplace it is important, but does not resonate
>>in the wider halls of society. But that struggle, also, ends up having a
>>limited effect _even_ on its participants if it is disconnected from the
>>larger struggle for social justice.
>>
>>* Organizing the Unorganized: i am sure that most of you have heard
speech
>>after speech about organizing. I would say here that the first step to
>>organizing the unorganized is organizing the unionized. We have an immense
>>arsenal in our own members. Linked with my earlier point of uniting with
>>their hoeps and ambitions, we must utilize their skills and energy. Our
own
>>members are the key to convincing the unorganized that they have a future
>>in the trade union movement and that they can play a role in rebuilding a
>>labor movement.
>>
>>* Transform the local union; transform the union movement: All of what I
>>am talking about here concerns the transformation of the union movement.
>>This is more than about shifting resources into organizing, thought
>>shifting resources is so critical. it is about shifting the focus of the
>>union so that it is about building working class power: power in terms of
>>bargaining power; power in terms of electoral power; power to truly
improve
>>the lives of working class people. This does not mean that we give up on
>>representation of our current members. Rather, it means representing our
>>members in a different way. In fact, it means that the members need to
>>control their institutions and organize themselves so that they are truly
>>their own liberators. I know, skeptics out there among you may believe
that
>>this is somehow taking work away from union staff. Far from it. There is
>>simply too much work for any number of staff, but more to the point, the
>>union is the organization of the workers; the staff work for the
>>organization. The staff are there to promote leadership development and to
>>assist the workers in the running of the organization, but not to run the
>>organization.
>>
>>* Linking with other progressive social movements: Part of the point I
>>raised earlier is that the emergence of a truly mass mvoement is rarely
>>something which takes place in isolation from other social struggles. The
>>mobilization of our memebrs needs to be seen in the context of their
>>responding not only to workplace issues, but to broader social concerns.
>>Their activism and mobilization needs to be supported and encouraged by
>>their friends and neighbors who also believe in the need for social change
>>and social justice. We need living wage campaigns, for example, which
upset
>>the entire notion of politics and economics in states and cities. We need
>>environmental justice campaigns which mobilize masses of people to fight
>>for their own survival. We need welfare rights movements, which insist
that
>>there _is_ a role for government and that role includes providing a social
>>safety net for the millions of victims of capitalism. We need a parents
>>movement which joins with teachers to transform the schools from holding
>>pens into institutions for learning. We need a tenants movement which
>>demands a limitation on rents so that homelessness is ended and everyone
>>has a right to a place to live, free from the forces of nature.
>>
>> Let me bring this to a close with a final thought. We have in front
of
>>us the task of organizing at least 20 million workers if we want to
achieve
>>at _least_ the same percentage of the workforce unions represented in
1955.
>>Twenty million workers! In order to do this we will be unable to operate
on
>>the same basis on which we are currently operating. Usually in union
>>audiences we discuss that this means that the unions need to shift
>>resources and concentrate on organizing. This is all true, but I would
>>argue that this is insufficient.
>>
>> In order to organize 20 million workers we must change the climate in
>>this country. That is more than advancing the right to organize. It is
>>about social turmoil. It is about masses of people saying in chorus that
>>they are mad as hell and will not take it anymore. It is about masses of
>>people believing that there is a future which they can achieve, a bright
>>future for themselves and their families. To create this climate we need
>>more than audacious organizers, though we desperately need them. We need
>>more than more money into organizing, though we desperately need that as
>>well.
>>
>> We need action, movement and creative thought on so many different
>>levels. In this sense, when one talks about an injury to one is an injury
>>to all, it si not rhetoric. Indeed, I would argue that it truly represents
>>the key to the future of trade unions and will determine whether we can
>>actually rebuild a labor movement in the USA. I am confident that with the
>>rising of new leadership and the audacity which it takes to stand up to
>>corporate America, we can indeed make the slogan "an injury to one is an
>>injury to all" a reality which comes to be gripped by masses of workers
and
>>asserted in their own voice.
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>
>