[lbo-talk] Boycotting the unorganized? (multiple replies)

Yoshie Furuhashi furuhashi.1 at osu.edu
Fri Jan 21 10:39:15 PST 2005



>--- John Lacny <jlacny at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>Yoshie Furuhashi brings up:
>>>the CTV in Venezuela and the AFL-CIO's support for them
>>and
>>> the doctors' strike in Saskatchewan in 1961
>>
>>These are immediate examples that sprang to my mind as well, but I
>>think you're missing my point. These were actions that served the
>>interests of the capitalists. In the case of the CTV "strike"
>>against the state oil company, it was really more of a lockout by
>>the top managers in a bid to overthrow a democratically-elected
>>poor people's government, and furthermore it was defied by most of
>>the lower-rung workers. The point I am trying to make is that the
>>key criterion for judging picketlines is always CLASS, not whether
>>you think someone's tactics are off.
>
>John, you've been excoriating anybody who suggested that crossing a
>picket line was ever ever justified, with real life examples (not
>just "counterfactuals"), at least one of them current. Are you now
>leaving the determination of somebody's class to decide for
>ourselves?
>
>Andy F.

Let's focus on what all of us -- including John L. and Chuck0 -- agree on first:

(1) The rule of thumb is 99.99% of picket lines that we are likely to encounter should command our instinctive solidarity to honor them. We are within our moral rights to browbeat those who have yet to understand this crucial rule of working-class survival.

(2) There are, however, exceptions: picket lines to defend perceived sectoral privileges at the expense of poorer workers. Where do we draw the line? That's sometimes unclear to many people. In such a confusion situation, we have to investigate facts of the case and think about the big picture.

(3) Hard cases make bad laws, so exceptions are not to be used to discount the virtue of the rule of thumb heavily.

Then, we can have an intelligent discussion without acrimony.

Now that racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-immigrant xenophobia are much less prevalent within organized labor than before, we are not likely to encounter a situation where, say, white workers go on strike when they see their boss hiring Black workers. Protectionism is alive and kicking, though. I've mentioned an example of <http://www.shopunionmade.org/>, which combines "Buy Union" and "Buy American" appeals. Steelworkers and the like may demand tariffs. I don't think that workers should instinctively feel obligated to support "Buy American" campaigns and higher tariffs on foreign steel, textile, etc. Then, we have to take into account the fact that the USA is an empire and that, whenever possible, Washington has and will attempt to use unions in foreign nations -- with support of the AFL-CIO -- to bring down foreign governments that it dislikes, to given an appearance of working-class support for puppet governments that it installs, etc. Therefore, exceptions to the rule of thumb are more numerous than what some believe, and we have to develop both the habit of instinctive solidarity with other workers' actions (even when we question the wisdom of their judgments) and critical minds to distinguish sectoral interests from class interests, knowing that the distinction isn't always clear and that there have and will be debates on many cases.

Coming back to Tom's point, it often happens that unions' own actions break solidarity with unorganized workers who are the majority of the working class today. Each time a union settles for a two-tier contract (e.g., "Two-Tier and Lump Sum Contracts Reappear," <http://www.laborresearch.org/story2.php/372>), it breaks solidarity and spells its own doom. That's obvious to everyone.

What may not be so obvious is the question of work time: "the struggle for shorter work time, frankly, comes from internal conflicts of interest in the labour movement. Organizations themselves benefit more from higher wages and the associated dues than they do from shorter work time. Many members of unions have always seen the overtime premium as a way to make more income rather than as a way of discouraging employers from using overtime rather than hiring new workers" (Tom Walker, "The Eight-Hour Day," <http://worklessparty.org/wlitblog/archives/000646.html>).

The question of work time is related to that of health care, as one of the reasons why bosses would rather use overtime of existing employees than turn to new hires is health care and other benefits dependent on employment. Nowhere in the text of "Is Wal-Mart Setting the (Low) Standard for Employer Health Coverage?" at <http://www.aflcio.org/corporateamerica/ns10212003.cfm> can we find an idea that forcing Wal-Mart (as well as other large employers) to pay for employee health care is a step toward lowering employers' resistance to publicly-funded single-payer universal health care. The AFL-CIO's rhetoric is the opposite: "'As Wal-Mart continues to leech off communities, forcing taxpayers and workers to pick up health care costs, it does tremendous damage as it drives other companies to do the same,' says AFL-CIO President John J. Sweeney" ("Is Wal-Mart Setting the (Low) Standard for Employer Health Coverage?" <http://www.aflcio.org/corporateamerica/ns10212003.cfm>)! -- Yoshie

* Critical Montages: <http://montages.blogspot.com/> * "Proud of Britain": <http://www.proudofbritain.net/ > and <http://www.proud-of-britain.org.uk/>



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list