Carrol
-----Original Message----- From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org] On Behalf Of Marv Gandall Sent: Friday, January 14, 2011 3:14 PM To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] [LBO] Surowecki on unions
On 2011-01-14, at 1:13 PM, Carrol Cox wrote:
> Liberal arguments seem always to operate from two unspoken premises:
>
> 1. That one must start in the present
>
> 2. That public opinion (opinion of the _whole_ public) is ever relevant
It's not irrelevant. Public opinion is largely working class opinion, and it is invoked to legitimate state repression of unions or curtailment of hard-won union rights. If the public expressed its solidarity rather than hostility to the trade union movement, I doubt you'd dismiss mass sentiment as cavalierly as you do. That having been said, your points below are essentially correct: what counts more than public opinion in respect of organizing and strike action is the opinion of the workers directly affected, and workers who understand the need for a union in their own workplace not infrequently reject them as unnecessary and harmful for everyone else. And, yes, majorities are patiently constructed and don't come ready made.
Card check is important. It's based on the Canadian system. It would obviate the current need in the US for an election whenever a majority of employees sign union cards. In my experience, it makes organizing easier. Employers invariably try to intimidate their workers in the runup to an election by firing the key organizers, compelling employees to attend anti-union meetings during work hours, and threatening to close the operation if the union is certified. The union does not have the same access to a captive audience.
>
> Both from the perspective of radical or mass politics are profoundly
false.
> The se second fallacy is particularly important in considering union
> organizing: All that counts is the opinion of the workers in the
enterprise
> in which the organizing drive is taking place! On the next point I
wouldn't
> be surprised that some supporting poll data supports it: The _same_ person
> who, as a member of the general public, may have the opinion that unions
are
> too strong will very possibly, even probably, hold the opposite opinion
in
> respect to his/her own place of employment. And an additional factor there
> is that the opinion is not the merely passive, floating, isolated opinion,
> out of any context, in poll questions are answered. In a union drive
> opinions are formed in a context of ongoing conversations and in respect
to
> immediate conditions in _that_ enterprise. Remember during the 2008
> presidential election liberals all over the joint were assuring us that
> Obama would support a measure (I forget its title) to allow union
> recognition on the basis of 50% +1 card signing.
>
> That measure would presumably make union organizing much easier; at least
> employers thought so considering the opposition to it. That could only be
> the case if abstract opinions as expressed in secret elections were
> different from concrete opinions in discussion with several co-workers
> outside management control. The latter point is also important. In the
1930s
> I believe Kresge stores in Detroit attempted to forbid its employees from
> seeing each other outside of work (I'm remembering from conversation years
> ago).
>
> Carrol
> -----------
> Marv Gandall: 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". They continue: "Public concern
> about union power and tactics continued throughout the war years. For
> example, across a range of polls from 1941 to 1945, more than 70% of
> respondents supported banning strikes in war industries. In April 1944,
68%
> supported drafting strikers, with just 22% opposed and 10% undecided.
These
> data suggest "that the 'no strike' pledge made by union leaders following
> Pearl Harbor, while criticized by some observers for taming shop-floor
> activism (Glaberman, 1980; Lichtenstein, 1987), may well have been a
> necessary concession to a hostile public and Congress".
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk