> I certainly wouldn't choose any organized labor union at this point. I'm
> more likely to see some improvements at work through wildcat actions than
> I am waiting for the union bureacracy to sell me out through some
> agreement with my bosses. If you recall, labor had more power when it was
> autonomous and NOT organized into a few national unions. Or, just look at
> the cozy relationship between organized labor and the Democratic wing of
> the Corporate Party.
>
> I mean, isn't this pretty obvious?
>
> << Chuck0 >>
-----------------------
Well, yes and no. The heyday of union organizing in the US was unquestionably the 1930s when the CIO rose to prominence. The whole point of the CIO was "one big union." By the early 50s something like 35% of the workforce was unionized, and it's been downhill ever since. The period from the late 30s to the mid 60s was the peak of union power in this country. It came about precisely because labor was organized nationally, and a substantial share of the workforce was unionized. Nothing that the IWW accomplished during their brief moment in the sun compares. During the Sweeny era, there have been encouraging noises coming from the AFL-CIO, but the overall numbers have not been impressive. Labor has essentially been treading water. The best one can say of Sweeny is that he at least arrested labor's long-term decline, and even that is not clear. I suppose one could say that labor has been living off the gains of the 30s ever since. Someone here recently (Carrol?) made the point that legislation like the Wagner act was intended to forestall further gains by tossing labor a bone. A valid point, but it's still better than what prevailed before.
I recognize that the "business unionism" model has been a disaster in many ways (on my list of things to read is Paul Buhle's _Taking Care of Business_, a highly critical account of organized labor's history). There's certainly a place for wildcat actions, but I think that the gains won from them tend to be localized. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but ultimately the labor movement can only improve the overall condition of working people by changing and enacting laws (assuming the revo is not just around the corner). In order to do that, you need big organizations with money and the clout that comes from having large numbers of people enrolled. That's what makes the politicians sit up and take notice. I don't see anarchists with cell phones pulling that off, do you?
Jacob Conrad