I didn't assert any such thing. I said that "[e]xisting unions _alone_ will never be able to raise the level of class struggle from below" (emphasis added, <http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20050509/009880.html>). That's a description of reality, whether one judges it by the trend in work stoppages ("Table 1. Work Stoppages Involving 1,000 or More Workers, 1947-2004," <http://www.bls.gov/news.release/wkstp.t01.htm>, 8 Apr. 2005) or union density ("In 2004, 12.5 percent of wage and salary workers were union members, down from 12.9 percent in 2003" ["Union Members in 2004," <http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm>, January 27, 2005] -- keep in mind that the statistics counts the police, who are among the most highly organized, as union members, so it slightly overstates union density). Evidence is clear: organized labor cannot reverse its decline on its own. If it could, it would have done it already.
Marvin wrote:
>I side with the more energetic forces represented by the NUP
You may "side with" the New Unity Partnership in your opinion, but what can you do to actually support the NUP in concrete terms? Nothing -- as the NUP has engaged in only a struggle internal to the AFL-CIO. If, for instance, the NUP splits from the AFL-CIO, undertakes an organizing drive akin to the CIO's in the 1930s, and enlists activists currently outside of organized labor as well as activists of the rank-and-file movement for its cause, it will be a different story, but unless and until it does so, there is practically nothing you can do to help the NUP in its contest for power with the old guard.
Nathan wrote:
>There is no "work to rule" for non-union workers. That's a tactic
>of unionized workers constrained by no-strike clauses. As for
>sitdown strikes, where do you have examples of workers outside the
>union movement successfully using such tactics?
>
>The CIO workers who used them in the 1930s did not have collective
>bargaining agreements but they were certainly organized-- the UAW
>and other unions had been working to organize them for a number of
>years. Of course there were spontaneous aspects of those events,
>but "spontaneous" actions usually happen on the base of years of
>hard organizing.
It goes without saying that behind "spontaneous" actions are years of hard organizing, but the rest of your remarks on work-to-rule and sit-down strikes show your ambivalence about what a union movement consists of. Mostly, many people are trained to think that unions mean only unions legally recognized as such by employers with whom they sign contracts. The way you put it, tools of industrial struggles are either only available to workers who are already union members or workers who are seeking to have companies sign contracts with unions. What is a union, though? It's a group of workers who organize themselves to achieve the same goals, be they higher wages, more benefits, better working conditions, enforcement of safety rules, or reinstatement of fellow workers who are fired. All workers should learn and use tools of industrial struggles to achieve such goals, whether or not they are already in legally recognized bargaining units, whether or not they want to constitute themselves as such.
John Thornton wrote:
>Instead of trying to join the service workers union we should have
>formed our own autonomous organization instead?
Autonomous organizations of workers (organized at work, in communities, according to social and cultural interests, and so on) are necessary whether or not workers want to affiliate with any of the existing unions. Without autonomous organizations of workers, existing unions can do little for workers, even if workers happen to be union members already.
John Thornton wrote:
>Waht specifically do you have in mind? It seems to me union workers
>should, in a manner of speaking, lead the way. Non-union workers are
>too easily dismissed from their jobs when attempting to do these
>things. The workers who have greater institutional protections from
>such abuse could do more in this area in spite of their smaller
>numbers in my opinion.
On one hand, union workers have higher wages, more benefits, better working conditions, and more job security -- after all, that's what unions are for. On the other hand, union workers who engage in industrial conflicts have to worry about losing what they have -- most importantly, their unions: if they engage in industrial struggles in a way that goes beyond what's allowed in labor laws and contracts with employers, their union will get punished by fines, injunctions, or worse. That being the case, union leaders themselves have a stake in policing workers' conduct so as not to undermine unions' finance. Therefore, existing unions cannot but be cautious, so much so that caution will probably put themselves out of business in the long run.
It would be good if more workers got hired by existing union shops, so that workers could directly learn from more experienced rank-and-file union members about how to use tools of industrial struggles, but many union shops are not hiring, and existing unions have failed to organize more new members than they lose old one to layoffs, retirements, plant closures, and so on:
Across the Board: "Among age groups, union membership rates were highest among workers 45 to 54 years old (17.0 percent) and were lowest among those ages 16 to 24 (4.7 percent)" ("Union Members in 2004," <http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm>, January 27, 2005); and "In the last 15 years, union members aged 25-34 declined from 30 percent of membership to 20 percent. At the same time, union members age 45 to 54 increased from 20 percent to 30 percent" (Karen Gilgoff, "Workforce Exodus: A Ticking Time Bomb," <http://www.afscme.org/publications/public_employee/2001/peso0115.htm>, September/October 2001).
Construction: "Only 21% of union members who perform construction production work are younger than 30 years old, but 32% of the non-union workers are. Nearly half (47%) of the employed union members in production occupations are between 35 and 49 years old, while only 39% of the non-union members are (chart 15a)" ("Age of Construction Workers, by Union Status, Hispanic Status,Type of Employment, and Occupation," _The Construction Chart Book_, Third Edition, <http://www.cdc.gov/elcosh/docs/d0100/d000038/sect15.html>, September 2002) .
Government: "AFSCME will experience its own exodus. The average age of our members, according to the most recent membership surveys, is 48. So AFSCME green is gradually growing gray" (Karen Gilgoff, "Workforce Exodus: A Ticking Time Bomb," <http://www.afscme.org/publications/public_employee/2001/peso0115.htm>, September/October 2001).
Auto Manufacturing: "the UAW work force at GM has an average age of 48 with 23 years of service" (Frank Swoboda, "Lifetime Jobs a Key in Auto Union Talks," Washington Post, <http://squawk.ca/lbo-talk/9909/0661.html>,11 Sept 1999, p. E1 ).
Steel: "On average, per every five retirees from an integrated steel company, there is only one current employee making contributions to the company's health benefit fund. That ratio is even higher for companies like Bethlehem Steel, one per seven retirees" ("The Steel Industry Legacy Relief Act of 2002: a Hearing before the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, 107th Congress, 2nd Session, on H.R. 4646," <http://energycommerce.house.gov/107/Hearings/09102002hearing707/print.htm>, 10 Sept. 2002, Serial No. 107-136).
And the list of graying unions can go on and on.
Either young workers learn tools of industrial struggles on their own rather than in union shops, or they won't learn them at all. -- Yoshie
* Critical Montages: <http://montages.blogspot.com/> * Monthly Review: <http://monthlyreview.org/> * Greens for Nader: <http://greensfornader.net/> * Bring Them Home Now! <http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/> * Calendars of Events in Columbus: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html>, <http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php>, & <http://www.cpanews.org/> * Student International Forum: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/> * Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osudivest.org/> * Al-Awda-Ohio: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio> * Solidarity: <http://www.solidarity-us.org/>