unions

[joanna bujes]

At 10:09 PM 08/07/2002 -0400, you wrote:
>I triggered a brief thread on some list sometime in the last year or two
>which contained some interesting observations on this general topic. My
>suggestion was that there is at least some historical evidence that
>labor unions are for the most part potentially revolutionary in their
>process of _formation_. The struggle for union recognition, or for the
>very legality of unions, is strongly radicalizing. Even the hardest
>fought "ordinary" strikes, on the other hand, let alone the day to day
>practice (grievance procedures etc.) is seldom radicalizing. This would
>not support anarchist repudiation of unions as such, or even repudiation
>of existing unions. It would suggest that unions are a bad place, or at
>least not a primary place, to look for the development of class
>politics.

I kind of agree with what you say Carrol, but isn't part of the problem 
with unions in the U.S. that they served to split the working class into 
the haves and have nots? My father was in the Teamsters since he came to 
the U.S. (63) and his benefits, pension, pay, etc. were a wonder to behold: 
he supported a family of four on a billing clerk's salary; I still have my 
Teamsters scholarship plaque, signed by Jimmy Hoffa!!! HOWEVER, there 
seemed to be little effort to universalize union membership; most of the 
effort, once a union was organized, it seemed more focus into local 
struggles than into expanding its reach.

Joanna