And how did union density go from 35% to 8%?
John Lacny wrote:
Oh Jesus. Fucking. Christ...why would anyone waste time trying to explain things to Lance Murdoch? --------------------------------- Well, he's not the only one asking the question -- even if it's buried in a diatribe -- and it's an important one which can't be answered by saying labour is increasingly conscious of the need to throw more money into organizing. There seem to be deeper issues involved, relating to the evolution of capitalist economies, which we should consider.
Unions are a product of industrialization. They have much less success in more highly-developed service economies. There have been repeated failures to organize the fast-growing finance, retail, and high-tech sectors, and not for a want of determination or resources.
It has very little to do with the state or courts being biased against the unions, or the perfidy of union leaders. The 19th and early 20th century labour movement faced much more fierce repression. Leaders reflect their base, rather than the other way round.
The industrial unions flourished when workers were highly concentrated and super-exploited in large factories and mining towns in an era of primitive accumulation. Both labour and capital mobility were restricted by the size of markets and the existing technology and transportation/communications infrastructure. There were no easily accessible pools of cheap but skilled labour outside the capitalist heartlands of Europe and North America.
That's not the case today. Service economies employ large numbers of part-timers and temps, and other transient workers who are not chained to miserable workplaces, the breeding ground of solidarity. Technological advances in communications and transportation, as well as political changes in Eastern Europe, China, and elsewhere, have allowed Western capitalists to outsource production all over the world. There is, in general, more working class confidence in capitalism -- the product of various forms of social insurance, greater social mobility, more material comforts, widespread home ownership, and the smoothing out of business cycles.
All of these factors have undermined the ability of unions to recruit workers, to sustain union shops, to protect jobs, and to negotiate better conditions. Most labour struggles today are defensive ones, not the kind which inspire the unorganized to join them, especially when job insecurity resulting from globalization is so pervasive.
I doubt Haywood, Debs, or John L. Lewis would have significantly greater success organizing the unorganized in today's conditions. But I may be wrong. The SEIU's Andy Stern clearly believes the AFL-CIO and a new labour central can replicate his union's success elsewhere. It will be interesting to see what happens.
MG