> Well, yes and no. The heyday of union organizing in the US was
> unquestionably the 1930s when the CIO rose to prominence.
You speak of *union* organizing. I'm talking about *worker* power, which, if I remember correctly, made the establishment of the CIO possible.
> 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.
Gee, I wonder why? Could it be that the AFL-CIO and other unions were a successful tool used by capitalism to channel worker anger and energy into bureaucratic organizations?
> 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.
I'm not going to defend the IWW, nor would I hold it up as an alternative model.
>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.
Encouraging noises and the arrest of some decline do not put bread on the table of the average worker. Let's face it, American labor is comfortable with its arrangement with capital. This is because it understands that its standard of living depends on U.S. workers exploiting the workers in the Global South. American labor, and its supporters on the American Left, are wimps when it comes to taking on capitalism. They won't take any risks. Look at labor struggles around the world and ask yourself why we aren't seeing stuff like that here.
> 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?
I need to do some more reading on this stuff, so thanks for the book recommendation.
I would argue that localized wildcat actions could have a cumulative effect if they were networked and organized on different lines than the classical unionist strategy.
Let me just suggest that everybody examine how workers in South America and Southeast Asia have been organizing their protests. The answer will surprise you!
Don't underestimate the power of anarchists with cell phones! ;-)
<< Chuck0 >>
Personal homepage -> http://flag.blackened.net/chuck0/home/index.html Infoshop.org -> http://www.infoshop.org/ Alternative Press Review -> http://www.altpr.org/ Practical Anarchy Online -> http://www.practicalanarchy.org/ Anarchy: AJODA -> http://www.anarchymag.org/ MutualAid.org -> http://www.mutualaid.org/ Factsheet 5 -> http://www.factsheet5.org/ AIM: AgentHelloKitty
Web publishing and services for your nonprofit: Bread and Roses Web Publishing http://www.breadandrosesweb.org/
"...ironically, perhaps, the best organised dissenters in the world today are anarchists, who are busily undermining capitalism while the rest of the left is still trying to form committees."
-- Jeremy Hardy, The Guardian (UK)