>(1) I think the differences between US and other union movements can be
>exaggerated. By their very nature, they all have to deliver bread and
>butter, and have seen politics as a means of doing this. There was more
>political militancy in periods of sharp class polarization, but this was
>also true of the US pre WWI. I don't see much difference today between US
>labour's support of the DP versus European support for its Labour and
>Socialist parties, although there is no question that the US's role as the
>preeminent imperialist power has produced a reactionary chauvinism which has
>tied American workers more closely to the system and its values - but all
>levels, not only that of the leadership.
European unions may be weakening today - the situation in Germany's looking pretty bad - but what a difference in the old days! Could you ever imagine a European union leader denouncing national health insurance as "emasculating," as Gompers did? US unions have historically been far more concerned with narrow bread & butter issues than their European counterparts.
>(2) I don't understand your rejection of the closed shop where workers are
>required to join the union as a condition of employment, or even the more
>widespread check-off system, where workers are not required to belong to the
>union in order to hold down a job but are required to pay dues to it through
>the employer's payroll office in exchange for receiving the benefits of a
>collective agreement. I understand thisis also Fitch's position.
I don't know what I think of Fitch's position on this. But he argues that Euro unions got much further without a closed shop and a monpology. He prefers the continental model of multiple unions - socialist, communist, Catholic - that have to compete for workers. The US model of a monopoly union with a very detailed contract is rather unusual, or so he says.
A few years ago, France had something like 10% union density but something like 80% of workers were covered by a union-negotiated contract. How'd that work?
Doug