1) There are factual errors, such as stating that Fitch doesn't know craft from industrial unions. 2) Bob never said that industrial unions are in charge of employer hiring. 3) Nor does he say that a new labor movement will arise spontaneously. 4) The thrust of Bob's argument is correct - the labor movement has historically been shot through with corruption 5) If anti union forces cite Bob's work, it does not make it wrong 6) Corruption is an important part of the story. 7) Unions' monopoly status, combined with their fragmented structure, led inevitably to a structure of fiefdoms held together by patronage. 8) Citing Herman Benson of the AUD is a real slander - he agrees with Bob's arguments 9) Go fuck yourself 10) Peter Fay does not talk right. That's it. You either talk right or you don't.
1) There are factual errors, such as stating that Fitch doesn't know craft from industrial unions.
I did not say he "doesn't know craft from industrial unions". I said: "There apparently is also no awareness of the differences between craft and industrial unions", which means in the quotation from Fitch I cited there is no awareness of the differences. And there isn't - absolutely no distinction.
The full Fitch quotation starts with "The American Labor movement consists of 20,000 semi-autonomous local unions" and continues into the feudal fiefdoms where "ordinary members are like the serfs" and "union bosses control jobs". He is clearly not talking about craft unions, but all unions. That is, he conflates hiring practices across all 20,000 industrial and craft unions, thus presenting a grossly incorrect picture.
2) Bob never said that industrial unions are in charge of employer hiring.
I never said that he said industrial unions are in charge of employer hiring, but I said his article was:
"making the assumption that all unions control hiring through hiring halls as in the building trades". That is in fact precisely what the article did. Again, it conveniently lumped all 20,000 unions together in respect to hiring.
However, even the description of craft union hiring halls is grossly inaccurate. Even in craft unions, it is almost never true that the union actually does the hiring. This was outlawed by Taft-Hartley and LMRDA. Almost all contracts are PLAs which use the referral system where the employer hires from a list provided by the union, and even this list cannot exclude non-union members per the Landrum-Griffith act. The company hires and fires, not the union. Further, employers can (and often do) go outside the referral system for hiring and retaining. And again, a significant percentage of craft union contracts have no referral system or hiring hall. Further, only 13% of hiring in construction is through the unions - the rest is non-union.
If you want to see the real hiring practices craft unions live under (rather than the 'feudal vassals'), one need only read a building trades union contract. The company hires and fires, not the union. For example, this one: http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:Wjy1hd8zlhAJ:www.ornl.gov/adm/contracts/docs/CLAMay10_Rev101228.pdf+www.ornl.gov/adm/contracts/docs/CLAMay10_Rev101228.pdf&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjRdJKN5ajuG9VPWkewG9xCRheCL5cur_WunsB6bNDeeNFjZlaxcrBFqc9VALIjlL1x4wX7bCSWFoDZodEk5Y9TUrtr37kRxNeUKXh1goYrDBOmICBJwPd887xADM4DkjalDaHi&sig=AHIEtbRXFzf8riRTcGil_8dDvDJd-bxV3w
Section 1. The Employer retains full and exclusive authority for the management of its operations. The Employer shall direct their working forces at their prerogative, including, but not limited to hiring, promotion, transfer, lay-off or discharge for just cause. No rules, customs, or practices shall be permitted or observed which limit or restrict production or limit or restrict the working efforts of employees. [...] Section 3. The Employer shall have the unqualified right to select and hire directly the number of employees it considers necessary and desirable. Applicants for the various classification covered by the Agreement required by the Employer shall be referred to the Employer by the Unions. The Employer shall have the unqualified right to reject any applicant referred by the Unions with proper cause. The Employer shall have the right to determine the competency of all employees, the right to determine the number of employees required and shall have the sole responsibility for selecting the employees to be laid off. In selecting employees for layoff the employer will give primary consideration to affirmative action requirements and overall craft qualifications.
[...] The employer shall have the right to reject any applicant for employment at sites under the direction of the Department of Energy at Oak Ridge.
3) Nor does he say that a new labor movement will arise spontaneously.
Fitch actually did say precisely this below, but I will grant you that he may have meant to say something else. He may have meant to quote a person making this argument of spontaneity, though he did not use quotes. So he leaves himself open to multiple interpretations. However, I will change this in the article.
"One hope held out by some labor Leftists is that [change] will happen spontaneously. Labor leftists can continue to do what they’ve always done. But workers will spontaneously revolt, occupy the factories, and demand justice. It happened in Chicago, at the Republic Windows and Doors’ warehouse, didn’t it? Sometimes Rosa Luxemburg’s name is attached to this kind of wishful thinking. But Rosa Luxemburg didn’t think workers could fight effectively without developing new movements to replace old, depleted forms of labor organization. Or without political parties to take the initiative in building labor movements. "
4) The thrust of Bob's argument is correct - the labor movement has historically been shot through with corruption
This is not his argument. He argues far more than this. The criticism I quoted (not my words) on "corruption" is below and is valid:
"He claims he can show that corruption is the defining force in the American labor movement, shaping labor history, constraining the behavior of national labor unions, and leading to the declining membership in the U.S. labor movement. But he never delivers."
5) If anti union forces cite Bob's work, it does not make it wrong
I did not say this. His arguments are wrong by his own logic, not by him gaining support from anti-union forces. But I am not the only one to see the anti-union logic in his writing - Benson does as well, as noted below.
6) Corruption is an important part of the story. I agree corruption is important.
7) Unions' monopoly status, combined with their fragmented structure, led inevitably to a structure of fiefdoms held together by patronage.
This is probably the crux of the argument. And it is false in manifold ways.
Monopoly is repeatedly mentioned as the origin of the problems in "Card Check: Labor's Charlie Brown Moment? (part 2)" http://newpol.org/node/185. The supposed monopoly applies to both: unions deriving benefit from "focus on workers" in monopolized industries; and unions obtaining a monopoly of labor power by way of hiring halls. The former is not monopoly by labor unions, but monopoly by industry. The latter is explained thus:
" 'Exclusive bargaining' compels employers to deal only with the sovereign union. Evidently, if workers can't join any other union; and employers can't hire workers from any other source but the union, the union functions as a monopoly agent for all those who would sell their labor power."
First, workers can join other unions; second employers can hire from other sources. And again, I refer to earlier descriptions of how hiring halls (i.e. referral lists) actually work in contract to this imaginary description. For this explanation of labor's faults, the precondition must be that all unions are craft unions with "closed shop" hiring - and there are no industrial unions. Further, in this imaginary monopoly world, there are no non-union construction companies hiring non-union workers, and no exemptions from the Davis-Bacon act.
Now let's look at the real world, not the dream world:
There are 124 million in the labor market but only 14.7 million belong to unions (13.1%). But there are 1.6 million non-union members represented by union shops (9.8% of those in union shops).( http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm). Is this a monopoly?
Construction: 6.1 million people work in construction but only 801,000 are union members (13.1% of workers). Is this a monopoly control of labor power? And another 37,000 are non-union members represented by unions (4.4% of those in union shops). Unionism in construction is down from 14.5% to 13.1% in only one year. Again, is it a monopoly?
The idea of monopoly was taken from the repeated references that Engels made to about the labor movement in Britain. For example that cited by Fitch:
"No doubt you suppose that the engineers, joiners, bricklayers, etc. will admit any worker into their trade without more ado! Not at all…Whoever wants admission must first have been attached an apprentice …This was intended to keep the number of workers limited…"
And ironically, if as Fitch advocated, unions did precisely what Engels recommended and brought all into their trade, then there would be, not the end of monopoly of labor power, but a total monopoly of labor power! Yet we have been told that monopoly is what has caused all the problems in the labor movement.
8) citing Herman Benson of the AUD is a real slander - he agrees with Bob's arguments
Far from being slander, a citation is just that: it is quoting someone else. Below are Benson's words, and if he didn't mean it, he should not have written it. Therefore the complaint should be to him, not me: “Fitch’s book is more likely to be ignored as irrelevant.”
Further, Benson says Fitch's logic:
"So far... is precisely the basic philosophical argument of extreme right wing apologists who insist that unionism itself is a parasitic growth upon society. Fitch expands the scope of that argument leftward." and "Just at a time when union activists on the left --- and right and center --- must emphasize union democracy as a means of strengthening union power, Fitch, in the name of solidarity, derogates 'union democracy' and the efforts of those who campaign for it." http://newpol.org/node/312
Again, this can be taken up with Benson.
9) Go fuck yourself Ad hominem arguments are futile.
10) Peter Fay does not talk right. That's it. You either talk right or you don't. This reasoning leaves me speechless.
-- Peter Fay http://theclearview.wordpress.com