On 2011-01-14, at 11:17 AM, Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> On Jan 14, 2011, at 11:11 AM, Marv Gandall wrote:
>
>> Schickler and Caughey also observe correctly that the closed shop was (and remains) "a major concern for unions since the open shop would undermine their ability to gain and maintain a substantial membership base across industries. But here too poll results indicated that even during the New Deal "a healthy majority of the public opposed both the closed and union shop and instead favored the open shop".
>
> Bob Fitch (cue the haters!) says that the closed shop is part of the reason for U.S. unions' weak state. By being granted a monopoly, they don't have to do a damn thing for the members. In countries like France, where several unions compete, often on political grounds, the unions are livelier and more popular.
I attibute the greater trade union militancy in France to its legacy of militant class consciousness rather than to the structure of its industrial relations system.
I don't hate Fitch, but how can I say this politely? I doubt you'll find any informed trade unionists in the US who would agree that the "right to work" states - where the unions emphatically do not enjoy a "monopoly" (a term to describe unions mainly used by employers and their agents) - are fruitful grounds for union organizing and greater union militancy. Not only is organizing near impossible, but even those unions which gain a foothold in an open shop, inevitably lose ground to "free riders" who don't have to belong to or pay dues to the union and are soon decertified.
Even the IWW, which flourished in a period when the economy was expanding, labour in demand, and the level of consciousness of many workers was such that they were prepared to engage in long, bloody, illegal strikes, would be a far different animal in today's conditions where many sectors have labour surpluses and trade union consciousness has virtually disappeared. In these circumstances, not only would there be no appreciable change in union combativity except to the downside, but the pitiful level of union density would also be even less than it is now.
Fitch really needs to explore this issue in relation to concrete material conditions, and is much too focused on what cowed union leaders say and do. The vaunted French and European unions, BTW, are also fighting defensive rearguard actions, however heroically, and they no longer exercise the power they once did - open shop or not.