I am a former UAW employee of the legal dept at Solidarity House and a UAW member (Writer's Union). I have often defended the UAW against criticisms lodged here and elsewhere. But there are a lot of problems with the union, and it is fairly business-unionist. The point that Leo throws away--that the UAW is not organizing seriously in parts--is not trivial. Moreover, there is a lot of nonunionized assemby in the US: Honda and Toyota come to mind. It is therefore false that all the major autonakers in the US are union. There is work to be done in core industry. I am glad the union is organizing grad students and clericals, but if the UAW doesn't get in gear and organize the rest of auto, it will be in even worse trouble than it is.
--jks
>
>Sorry, guys, but the premise smuggled into the argument doesn't work. It
>has been a while since the UAW was just, or even primarily, an union of
>autoworkers. The joke in the labor movement, after the UAW took in the
>writers' union, was that it stood for the "Union of All Workers." Graduate
>assistants and clericals are the growth sector for the UAW.
>
>There is really not much of an unorganized auto industry in the US, leaving
>out small time parts manufacturers. All of the major auto manufacturers are
>union. Decline in the numbers of autoworkers relates to outsourcing of
>production outside of the US, and to capital intensive,
>technology/productivity measures inside US auto manufacturing. The problem
>the UAW faces are a lot more complicated than "organizing the unorganized"
>in the auto industry, and require a lot more to solve them than organizing
>zeal. Ask the much diminished West Coast longshore union, about as
>militant, leftwing and class-identified union as the US has had for the
>last 50 years, what one does in the face of such 'technological change.'
>
>Hey, I know class collaborationist union leaders livinbg high on the hog
>makes for a good story line, but it doesn't provide an analysis for how to
>revive American unionism.
>
> > Hmm. Total U.S. auto employment rose by 2.3% from 1998 to 1999, > and >
>fell by just 0.6% from 1999 to 2000. But the UAW ranks were down by > 9.9%
>and 11.9% respectively. Blaming the latest decline on > "slackened > sales"
>is hardly a good explanation. > > They should tie Yokich's base pay to
>membership growth; that'd be a > spur to organizing. > > Doug
>***************
>
> > I know of one big company that could still use a union :-) They should >
>tie all pay scales of all officers to membership growth and if > membership
>shrinks during their > time in office, they can't run for reelection.
>
>Ian
>
>Leo Casey United Federation of Teachers 260 Park Avenue South New York, New
>York 10010-7272 (212-598-6869)
>
>Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never has, and it never will.
>If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor
>freedom, and yet deprecate agitation are men who want crops without plowing
>the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the
>ocean without the awful roar of its waters. -- Frederick Douglass --
>
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com