Jim's understanding of my positionis correct. My view of the union bureaucracy largely conforms to what ErnestMandel, following Rosa Luxemburg, wrote about it a couple of decades ago, andwas confirmed by my own contact with the phenomenon in both private and publicsector unions. Mandel noted that the development of unions and workers' partieswas "inconceivable without an apparatus of full-timers andfunctionaries", typically composed of militants risen from the ranks and middleclass intellectuals. But he also noted that this leads to a centralization ofknowledge, and therefore of power, which inevitably distances the apparatusfrom the base - unless it is held accountable by an active and militantmembership. In the absence of suchaccountability, the officials confer generous incomes and other privileges onthemselves, curry favour with their employers who go out of their way toflatter them, and, most important, make the preservation of the union on whichtheir careersand lifestyles depend an end in itself rather than attempting to deepen andextend workers' struggles which could place the institution at risk. Ratherthan encouraging militant mass action by their members, they rely instead onelectoral campaigns and political lobbying and on the highly-regulated collectivebargaining system to win partial concessions. In Mandel's view, the potential forunchecked bureaucratization increases when the balance of forces weighs heavilyin favour of the bourgeoisie, class conflict is at a low ebb, and the vastmajority of workers are passive. It is in that sense that the conservativism ofthe labour leadership is a reflection of the lack of class consciousness of thebase rather than its cause, though obviously there is a dialecticalrelationship between the passivity of the membership and the reluctance of thelabour leadership to mobilize it. Mandel, and Luxemburg before him along withother Marxists, viewed such periods as temporary lulls in the class struggle,but it seems to me that the lull has lasted so long as to define an entireepoch.
I thinkMarv’s take is basically right. I would just add a few nuances. Althoughbureaucracies tend spontaneously to conservatism, union bureaucrats are alsoactively courted and flattered by the bosses, and sometimes by the government.This is because the latter rely on union officials to keep the peace. This doesn’tmean that the rank and file are seething with rebellion. But even quiescenttimes can witness sporadic outbreaks of militancy. The wildcat strikes in autoat Lordstown, Ohio and in the US Postal Service in the 70s, and the miners'wildcat in the 80s, took place in the post-war period. Only when the workers arethoroughly demoralized and in retreat (as at present) do the powers thatbe no longer require the services of the bureaucrats, and decline to butterthem up and throw them the occasional sop. When this happens, union officials sometimesrespond by mobilizing the base, but always with a certain reluctance, for fearthings may get out of hand. This is what happened, for instance, in France in1995, when the Juppe government tried to cut the unions out of the managementof workers’ pension funds. Juppe was over-confident, as it turned out. I wouldalso add that, while objective circumstances play the decisive role, the ideasof union officials do count for something. Officials with a class-struggleviewpoint, elected on a class- struggle platform, are more likely to putup a fight for their members than leaders with a class-collaborationist, business-unionideology, even if many of the former eventually succumb to the pressures oftheir environment. And even when the rank and file are angry and in a militantmood, they can seldom prevail over the bureaucrats. To do this, an organized leftwingopposition is necessary in the unions, one which sticks to its programregardless of shifting moods, and attempts to replace the existing leadership. Inother words, trying to build a rank-and-file opposition is never futile, evenwhen the class as a whole is inert. JimCreegan