>/ There were strikes before there were unions. / mg: You can't separate the two.
How come I can't but you can? A few paragraphs down you refer to illegal strikes and wildcat strikes. So then are you claiming that such extra-union activities only occur where there are unions and because there are unions? Hard to fathom.
mg: 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.
To say that benevolent associations, fraternal orders and brotherhoods were "unions by any other name" is begging the question. Why don't you just say that a strike is an organized collective action and that therefore a "union" (in all but name) exists wherever there is a strike.Well, if that's you definition of a union, then, gosh, you're absolutely correct.
------------------------------------- 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?
I didn't say non-union workers have engaged in slowdowns or strikes with greater frequency than those belonging to unions. I said what I said, which is a much, much milder claim -- if you'll kindly confine yourself to claims I actually made. Rather than cite chapter and verse, I'll just mention the general area I've researched and a couple of titles. I did quite a bit of research on late 19th century, early 20th century employer complaints about union "policies" to restrict output. Of course if you read Samuel Gompers from that era, you will get the impression that unions had no such policies. But even less partisan sources largely confirm the point that such restrictionism was more commonly a phenomenon of informal shop-floor culture rather than union policy per se. You might want to have a look at Richard Price's Masters, Unions and Men and Geoff Brown's Sabotage, which both deal with the conflict over restrictionism. I also have in mind a journal article from the mid 1930s whose author I can't recall (perhaps it was Don Lescohier, but I'm not positive) that was much more definitive in stating, on the basis of field observations that informal restrictive practices of shop floor culture were more prevelant in non-union shops. Of course, they are talking about long ago practices, which is not to say that such is applicable today. But it stands to reason that if restrictionism is a phenomenon of informal shop floor culture rather than of union policy then it could very well florish in non-unon environments.
------------------------------------
mg: 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....
mg: If and when this historic bargain is broken system-wide, you will be in a
>condition of revolution or fascism or both.
If and when? If and when? Are you saying it's still intact because a small proportion of the overall work force is still permitted to retain their legacy unions? If the historical bargain hasn't already been broken system-wide, I'd sure like to know what it would take to break it.
The Sandwichman