[lbo-talk] help

[Tim Francis-Wright]

Doug Henwood wrote:
> On Sep 26, 2007, at 12:40 PM, Eric wrote:
> 
>> Can someone remind me again why unions are so vital to leftist
>> politics? As far as I can tell, really existing unions are actually
>> retreating from politics, toward the national interest and away from
>> any sort of working-class mutual aid. I know this is not a new
>> development, but after the UAW deal, it seems like it might really be
>> useful to evaluate the left's undying faith in the anachronistic
>> political form called the union.
> 
> What else do you propose?
> 
> I don't see how we can have any kind of serious political awakening  
> from the left without unions being at the center of it. They still  
> have considerable resources and power, which they obviously don't use  
> except to promote Democrats. But their potential is enormous. And it  
> seems no accident that the decline of the left has gone along with  
> the decline of organized labor.
> 
> I'm still awaiting suggestions about what the UAW could have done  
> against a sick GM. There's the Labor Notes answer, "More militancy!  
> More rank and file power!," but it still doesn't address the fact  
> that GM's North American operations are a wreck. The U.S. auto  
> industry seems like it's run by a bunch of morons, who've failed for  
> the last 35 years to respond to Japanese competition. But that's the  
> world the UAW has to deal with. What should they do?

Well, "rank and file power" is not a wholly risible answer.  The Boston-
area SEIU has done a commendable job organizing janitors in Boston
and Providence.  The latest contract garned wage increases of 25% over
5 years, bettwer sick time (increasing from 2 days to 6 days over
the life of the contract), more full-time jobs, and better health
insurance.  This was the second significant improvement in contracts
since the local concentrated on organizing immigrant workers.

As for the UAW, what is particularly disappointing is that it has
never managed to expand its foothold in Japanese manufacturing
(the NUMMI plant) into anything larger.  It is not a lost cause--
efforts to organize Toyota's plants could indeed success--but it
looks like a difficult one to win.

As for GM, it seems to me that GM has always taken the gimmicky way
out of its structural problems.  For two decades now, it has resisted
building small cars to compete against Japanese models (instead
importing second-rate Korean models); has invested in European
automakers without really learning from them (think Saab); has
covered its sputtering manufacturing operations with cyclical
industries (yes, we have GM to blame for those ditech.com adverts);
and has gamed the CAFE rules with big cars that can run, but often
don't run, on ethanol instead of just building more efficient cars.
(There are no E85 pumps in New England, 2 station in New York, and
one each in California and Florida, so sayeth neare85.com.)

--tim francis-wright