Public opinion polls of the variety that Gallup does are mostly a bunch of crock - not worth the paper on which they are printed. They are equivalent to measuring shapes of clouds in the sky. If you want to see a good work on polling working class opinions - check Alain Touraine's work on Polish "Solidarity" in which he uses "sociological intervention" - which is in effect an elaborate form of focus groups.
Wojtek
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Marv Gandall <marvgand at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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
>