> There were strikes before there were unions.
mg: You can't separate the two. They are integral to each other, and unions of workers preceded the strikes they fought, not the other way round.
The first strikes were mostly "recognition" strikes - illegal walkouts designed to coerce the employer to recognize a newly-formed employees' organization and to bargain with it over arbitrary discipline, subsistence wages, long hours, and brutal working conditions. These were most often savagely suppressed by employer goons and, when necessary, by the armed forces of the state. These early benevolent associations and fraternal orders and brotherhoods were all unions by any other name, and the battles they fought constitute the heroic period of labour history in most capitalist countries.
The first labour federations were formed both for mutual strike support (funding, boycotts, hot cargoing, etc.) and, in the political arena, to press for legislation which would recognize the legal right of workers to a) form unions, and b) bargain collectively with employers. The first labour parties were formed to elect "sympathetic" politicians from the capitalist parties, and subsequently, began to run their own candidates for political office to pursue these aims as well as other reforms to improve the condition of the working class as a whole.
To summarize: Early class struggles in the workplace, region, and country
were necessarily preceded by the formation of workers' organizations at
these levels, and could not have proceeded without them in any sustained and
permanent way.
-------------------------------------
tw: > Some historians have argued
> that restriction of output tactics have been more prevalent in
> non-unionized workplaces than in unionized ones.
mg: Really? That's news to me. Which historians? Where have non-union
workers engaged in slowdowns or strikes with greater frequency than those
belonging to unions? Do you have any data to back up this claim?
------------------------------------
tw: >John R. Commons claimed
> that unions came on the scene to mitigate strikes, not to instigate them.
mg: Unions are contradictory organizations - like all reform institutions and reform measures under capitalism. The contradiction is that they are both a product of popular struggle, and, to the degree the system is able to incorporate their demands, help to accomodate the masses to capitalism.
Whether unions go on strike or not is strictly a tactical matter. They "instigate" them where they feel they have sufficient power to coerce employers into meeting their demands; they discourage them when they think they will result in defeat. Most individuals, organizations, and states, pursue their interests with the same considerations in mind.
Unions mostly, but not always, discourage illegal strikes because their historical "bargain" with the capitalist state was to curb unpredictable and often violent wildcat strikes in exchange for recognition of their right to exist, to bargain collectively, and to have their working conditions defined in legally-binding collective agreements. The present system of collective bargaining wasn't imposed on workers by state and union bureaucrats; it is overwhelmingly supported by union members and activists, who are constantly seeking to improve rather than eliminate it.
If and when this historic bargain is broken system-wide, you will be in a condition of revolution or fascism or both.
MG
-----------------------------